State v. Chudzinski
2018 Ohio 39
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Victim: 76-year-old woman who previously hired appellant Corby Chudzinski to paint her house and had occasional contact with him.
- In February 2016 the victim discovered a black satchel with high-value jewelry (including a Rolex) missing after she left her back door unsecured; she estimated value conservatively at $130,000.
- Appellant’s stepfather testified he gave appellant a ride on Feb. 12; appellant returned carrying a small dark bag that he threw in the truck. Appellant gave inconsistent statements to police about what he carried back (sweatshirt, fanny pack, "dope bag").
- A jury convicted appellant of burglary (R.C. 2911.12(A)(3)) and theft from an elderly person (R.C. 2913.02(B)(3)); court sentenced him to concurrent terms totaling six years and ordered restitution of $141,442.55.
- Appellant moved for a new trial asserting ineffective assistance of counsel (counsel allegedly promised he "would win this case") and various trial irregularities; the trial court held a hearing, denied the motion, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for promising a guaranteed win, denying plea consideration | Appellant: counsel repeatedly assured him she "would win," so he rejected plea; counsel’s guarantee deprived him of effective assistance | State: counsel denies any guarantee; trial court as factfinder found appellant did not prove counsel’s performance was deficient | Denied — trial court’s credibility determination was reasonable; no abuse of discretion under Strickland |
| Whether trial court erred in denying Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial based on alleged irregularities (juror substitution, late discovery, security footage, continuance) | Appellant: alternates used after deliberations began, recordings/footage turned over late, counsel needed continuance — prejudiced defense | State: no contemporaneous objections to juror substitution; recordings contained no material information and were reviewed before trial; no explanation of footage relevance; counsel did not request continuance | Denied — trial court complied with Crim.R. 24(G); no showing of prejudice or abuse of discretion |
| Whether victim’s lay testimony was insufficient to establish value of jewelry (required expert) | Appellant: value enhancement to second-degree theft required expert valuation; victim’s lay testimony insufficient | State: Ohio precedent allows victim lay testimony to establish value when reasonable | Denied — victim’s testimony sufficient to support jury finding that value was >$37,500 and < $150,000 |
Key Cases Cited
- Schiebel v. Ohio, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (motion for new trial under Crim.R. 33 reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion defined as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)