State v. Piasecki
2013 Ohio 1191
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Piasecki was indicted in three Cuyahoga County cases in 2010 for robbery-related offenses.
- He pled guilty in a bundled package deal in October 2010 with specified restitution across victims.
- Judgments (nov 2010) imposed prison terms, postrelease control, and restitution in all three cases, with aggregate 12 years.
- In June 2011 he filed a postconviction petition arguing ineffective assistance and discovery deficiencies; trial court denied.
- In August 2011 he sought a final appealable order on findings; denied. In August 2012 he filed another motion to vacate, set aside, and correct sentence alleging Crim.R. 32(B) advising issues, sentencing considerations, and allied offenses concerns; trial court denied.
- Piasecki appeals, raising seven assigned errors, all ultimately rejected on the record and by res judicata and jurisdiction principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition for postconviction relief was timely and proper. | Piasecki contends untimely, successive petition | State argues SB 4 limitations apply; petition untimely | Petition untimely and jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether Piasecki was properly advised of his right to appeal under Crim.R. 32(B). | Right to appeal not properly explained | No reversible error given record and procedural posture | No merit found; issues barred by res judicata and lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether sentencing complied with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors. | Trial court failed to consider statutory factors | Court evaluated factors; no error shown | No reversible error; arguments rejected |
| Whether convictions for allied offenses of similar import occurred. | All eight convictions should be merged | Victims were distinct; not allied offenses | Not allied offenses; none merited merger |
| Whether the court should have held an evidentiary hearing on the petition. | Hearing required for factual disputes | No hearing needed where lack of jurisdiction shows no entitlement | No evidentiary hearing required; court lacked jurisdiction to entertain petition |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio Supreme Court (1997)) (defines grounds and timeliness for postconviction petitions and related procedures)
- State v. Perry, 226 N.E.2d 104 (Ohio Supreme Court (1967)) (establishes essential standards for postconviction relief and constitutional challenges)