State v. Piesciuk
2013 Ohio 3879
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Joseph Piesciuk, president of Original Home Improvement Center (OHIC), was indicted in 2003 on 34 counts for taking money from homeowners, failing to perform contracted work, not refunding customers, and failing to pay subcontractors.
- A jury convicted Piesciuk of multiple counts (theft by deception, money laundering, and RICO/pattern of corrupt activity) and he was sentenced to 21 years and restitution; convictions and sentence were largely affirmed on direct appeal, with some restitution adjustments; resentencing occurred after Foster.
- Piesciuk filed a pro se postconviction petition in March 2005 alleging numerous constitutional and ineffective-assistance claims; the trial court denied it without an evidentiary hearing and later (after a mandamus order) issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in January 2013.
- On appeal from the denial of postconviction relief, Piesciuk advanced ten assignments of error primarily asserting trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, obtain, or present various documents and witnesses, and that an evidentiary hearing was required.
- The trial court and the appellate court reviewed the petition under the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance and R.C. 2953.21 postconviction relief rules, finding most claims barred by res judicata, speculative, unsupported by affidavits/documents, or within counsel’s strategic discretion.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of postconviction relief and refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing, concluding no substantive grounds or competent extrinsic evidence warranted relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Piesciuk) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/payments and other exculpatory business transactions | Counsel’s performance was presumptively reasonable; defendant must show deficiency and prejudice | Counsel failed to discover payments and records that would have shown proper capitalization and intentions, which would have negated intent to defraud | Overruled — claim not raised earlier or barred by res judicata; speculative and unsupported by records/affidavits |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge or investigate a disputed OHIC advertisement (trial Ex. 52) | State relied on admissible record evidence; issues should have been raised on direct appeal | The ad was altered/placed by previous owner; counsel failed to investigate despite notice | Overruled — claim barred by res judicata; could have been raised on direct appeal |
| Whether counsel erred by not producing business/third‑party records or witness affidavits (Middletown PD, law firm, accountants, homeowners) | Absence of attached records/affidavits prevents showing prejudice; strategic choices are presumed reasonable | Those documents/witnesses would have rebutted state’s theory and proven lack of intent, entitling relief | Overruled — lack of documentation/affidavits makes assertions speculative; res judicata where appropriate; no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel should have moved for change of venue due to pretrial publicity | No evidence in petition showing prejudice from publicity; issue could have been raised on direct appeal | Pretrial publicity prevented an impartial jury; counsel’s failure was ineffective | Overruled — res judicata and no evidentiary support of prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio sentencing law guiding resentencing framework)
- In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 313 (companion guidance on post‑Foster resentencing)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (res judicata bar to raising claims previously litigable)
- State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (res judicata principles in postconviction context)
- State v. Williams, 99 Ohio St.3d 493 (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (framework on evaluating ineffective assistance claims)