State v. BrancoState v. Branco
For Plaintiff-Appellee
JOHN D. FERRERO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY RONALD MARK CALDWELL ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510 Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
For Defendant-Appellant
RAFAEL VERNON BRANCO PRO SE RICHLAND CORRECTIONAL INST. Post Office Box 8107 1001 Olivesburg Road Mansfield, Ohio 44901-8107
{¶1} Appellant Rafael Vernon Branco appeals the denial of his motion to vacate/correct his 1991 conviction and sentence for aggravated murder in the Court of Common Pleas, Stark County. The Appellee is the State of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows
{¶2} In 1991, appellant was convicted and sentenced, following a jury verdict of guilty, on one count of aggravated murder, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of kidnapping, in violation of
{¶3} Appellant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment, with parole eligibility after twenty years, for the aggravated murder conviction, as well as consecutive indeterminate prison terms of ten to twenty-five years for the aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery convictions, to be imposed consecutively to the aforesaid life imprisonment term.
{¶4} Appellant filed a direct appeal to this Court; we affirmed his convictions and sentences. See State v. Branco (June 8, 1992), Stark App.No. CA-8618, 1992 WL 147437. Appellant thereafter unsuccessfully sought a delayed appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. See State v. Branco (1994), 71 Ohio St. 3d 1413. In the meantime, appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the trial court denied in 1993.
{¶5} On December 4, 2009, appellant filed a pro se motion to “correct void judgment” or reconsider his aggravated murder conviction and sentence, alleging that the jury form was defective under
{¶6} On April 28, 2010, appellant filed a notice of appeal. He herein raises the following three Assignments of Error:
{¶7} “I. DEFENDANT/APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 14, WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DENIED HIM THE RELIEF HE SOUGHT FROM A VOID JUDGMENT THAT DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTE 2945.75.
{¶8} “II. THE STATE COMMITTED PLAIN AND PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE MANDATE OF STATE V. PELFREY IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT‘S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR PROCEEDINGS AND HIS RIGHTS TO BE SENTENCED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL STATUTES.
{¶9} “III. IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THERE ARE INFERIOR DEGREES OF AGGRAVATED MURDER, MURDER, AND VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, THEN THE JUDGMENT OF APPELLANT IS VOID AND HE MUST BE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING ACCORDING TO STATE V. PELFREY.”
I., II., III.
{¶10} In all three of his assigned errors, appellant essentially contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate his aggravated murder conviction, on the basis that said conviction constitutes a void judgment. We disagree.
{¶11} Appellant premises his arguments on
{¶12} “When the presence of one or more additional elements makes an offense one of more serious degree[,] * * * [a] guilty verdict shall state either the degree of the offense of which the offender is found guilty, or that such additional element or elements are present. Otherwise, a guilty verdict constitutes a finding of guilty of the least degree of the offense charged.”
{¶13} Specifically, appellant argues that the alleged non-compliance by the trial court with
{¶14} Recently, in State v. Brown, Richland App.No. 09 CA 137, 2010-Ohio-2757, we rejected similar arguments presented by a defendant who had been convicted of aggravated murder in 2005. We first refused to apply Pelfrey to Mr. Brown‘s appeal of a postconviction motion for resentencing, noting that the procedural stance of Pelfrey was a direct appeal from a conviction (albeit subsequent to an application to reopen appeal under App.R. 26(B)). Brown at ¶ 17. We secondly recognized (making the assumption arguendo that the “void judgment” rationale is applicable to some
{¶15} Applying our foregoing rationale in Brown to the case sub judice, we find appellant‘s arguments to be without merit. The trial court did not err in denying appellant‘s motion to vacate/reconsider.
{¶16} Appellant‘s First, Second, and Third Assignments of Error are therefore overruled.
{¶17} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin,P. J., and
Farmer, J., concur.
JUDGES
JWW/d 0805
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to appellant.
JUDGES