Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Hudson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

August 31, 2017

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
MARTEZ HUDSON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

         Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-14-586423-C

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT David L. Doughten David L. Doughten Co. L.P.A.

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Mahmoud S. Awadallah Assistant County Prosecutor.

          BEFORE: McCormack, J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and Boyle, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          TIM McCORMACK, J.

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant Martez Hudson appeals from his conviction following a guilty plea. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         Procedural and Substantive History

         {¶2} In May 2014, Hudson and two codefendants were indicted on multiple charges, including murder, grand theft, tampering with evidence, and aggravated riot, stemming from a gang-related shooting at a March 2014 party. At his arraignment on July 8, 2014, Hudson pleaded not guilty to all counts.

         {¶3} On September 14, 2015, Hudson withdrew his not guilty plea and pleaded guilty to Count 2, murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), and Count 7, tampering with evidence, in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1). The murder count included one- and three-year firearm specifications and a criminal gang activity specification. In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed to dismiss the remaining charges.

         {¶4} On December 22, 2015, the trial court sentenced Hudson to life with parole eligibility after 15 years on the murder in Count 2, to be served consecutively to a three-year term for the corresponding firearm specification. The trial court then sentenced Hudson to a concurrent three-year term for the tampering with evidence charge in Count 7. The trial court deleted the criminal gang activity specification at the state's request.

         Guilty Plea

         {¶5} In his first and only assignment of error, Hudson maintains that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the court failed to advise him of his right to present a defense.

         {¶6} The underlying purpose of Crim.R. 11(C) is to convey certain information to a defendant so that he or she can make a voluntary and intelligent decision regarding whether to plead guilty. State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 479-480, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981). "The standard for reviewing whether the trial court accepted a plea in compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) is a de novo standard of review." State v. Cardwell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92796, 2009-Ohio-6827, ¶ 26, citing State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 364 N.E.2d 1163 (1977).

         {¶7} In order to ensure that a defendant enters a plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, a trial court must engage in an oral dialogue with the defendant in accordance with Crim.R. 11(C). State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.