The Akron Legal News

Appeal denied for man who killed his infant daughter

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 9, 2014

A trail court properly denied a man’s petition for postconviction relief after he shook his infant daughter to death, according to a recent opinion from the 12th District Court of Appeals.

In an opinion released earlier this week, the three-judge appellate panel affirmed the Butler County Court of Common Pleas ruling denying Vincent Blanda’s petition for postconviction relief.

The facts of the case state that Blanda was charged with domestic violence, child endangering and felony murder in May 2008.

The charges stemmed from an incident involving Blanda and his five-month-old daughter, Brooklyn.

Blanda admitted to authorities that he shook Brooklyn until she stopped crying, vomited and went limp. The girl died the day after the incident.

A coroner determined that Brooklyn suffered an intracranial hemorrhage due to cranial cerebral trauma and the death was ruled a homicide.

The matter proceeded to a three-day jury trial in the court of common pleas.

During its deliberations, the jury asked the trial court several questions, two of which involved clarification of the “essential elements” of felony murder and whether “foreseeability” was an essential element.

The trial court responded that foreseeability was no an essential element and directed the jury to re-read the relevant jury instructions.

Blanda was not present when the jury’s questions were addressed but his trial counsel played in active role in the discussion.

The jury found Blanda guilty of all charges and the trial court sentenced him to 23 years to life in prison.

On appeal, the 12th District judges agreed with Blanda that some of his convictions should have merged and remanded the case for resentencing.

The trial court then merged Blanda’s domestic violence and child endangering convictions with his felony murder count and sentenced him to 15 years to life in prison for the murder of his daughter.

Blanda then proceeded to file a series of petitions for postconviction relief.

He filed the most recent petition in December 2011, arguing that the jury submitted a substantive written question and the court gave an answer over the defense’s objection.

“All of this took place outside the presence and knowledge of defendant-petitioner. Moreover, the question, the discussion of that question and the answer provided were not made part of the record,” the petition stated.

The trial court granted a hearing on the petition, found both the jury’s question and the court’s answer in the record, and denied Blanda’s request.

He appealed that decision to the 12th District, asserting that the trial court erred when it found his arguments were barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

“Here, Blanda argues the trial court erred by finding his claims contained within his various petitions for postconviction relief are barred by res judicata as the trial court’s responses to the jury’s questions were not made part of the record,” Judge Stephen Powell wrote for the court.

Upon review, the judges initially noted that there is nothing in the relevant statute that requires a trial court’s responses to jury questions to be read in open court.

“Even more telling, however, is the fact that the trial court specifically found its responses to the jury’s questions were part of the record, on file with the papers of the case, and included within the exhibit packet submitted to this court on direct appeal,” Judge Powell stated.

The judges ruled that Blanda’s failure to locate those files did not mean they were not part of the record, as demonstrated by the trial court’s ability to find them.

Finding that the responses did not constitute evidence outside the record that was not available on direct appeal, the judges found that the trial court properly denied the petition based on the doctrine of res judicata.

“Regardless, even if we were to find error in the trial court’s decision applying res judicata here, which we do not, Blanda’s claims still lack merit,” Judge Powell stated.

Specifically, the judges noted that Blanda argued that his rights were violated when the trial court discussed the jury questions outside of his presence.

They found that the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in State v. Campbell that a defendant does not have a right to be present when the court sends a note to the jury room.

“Following the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell, it is now well-established that a defendant’s absence during this otherwise noncritical stage of the proceedings is not grounds for reversal,” Judge Powell continued.

Presiding Judge Robert Hendrickson and Judge Michael Powell concurred in affirming the lower court’s decision.

The case is cited State v. Blanda, 2014-Ohio-2234.

[Back]