State v. Vetrano

2025 Ohio 36

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 8, 2025
• Docket: 31084
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Vetrano, 2025-Ohio-36.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 31084

Appellee

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE DOMENICK VETRANO, JR. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellant CASE No. CR-2023-03-0965

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: January 8, 2025

CARR, Judge.

{¶1} Appellant, Domenick Vetrano, Jr., appeals the judgment of the Summit County

Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} During a birthday party for his daughter at the Cuyahoga Falls Natatorium, Vetrano

was involved in an altercation with C.M., who is the mother of his children. When C.M.’s father

attempted to diffuse the situation, Vetrano assaulted him. Vetrano subsequently assaulted a

lifeguard who attempted to separate the individuals involved in the altercation.

{¶3} In relation to the incident, the Summit County Grand Jury indicted Vetrano on one

count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A)/(D)(4), a felony of the third degree,

and one count of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A)/(C)(1), a misdemeanor of the first degree.

After initially pleading not guilty to the charges at arraignment, Vetrano subsequently pleaded

guilty to the indictment. After ordering a presentence investigation report, the trial court imposed 2

a 24-month prison sentence for domestic violence and a 180-day prison sentence for assault. The

trial court ordered that the sentences in this case were to be served concurrently with each other,

but consecutively to Vetrano’s prison sentence for a separate domestic violence case in Trumbull

County, Case No. 2023CR7674.

II.

{¶4} Appellate counsel for Vetrano has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), indicating that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and determined that

there are no viable issues to be raised in this appeal. Appellate counsel has also requested to

withdraw as counsel of record in this matter. A review of the record indicates that Vetrano was

served with a copy of the Anders brief. On June 24, 2024, this Court issued a magistrate’s order

affording Vetrano an opportunity to raise any points he feels necessary after his review of the

Anders brief. Vetrano did not file a response.

{¶5} Although Appellate counsel noted three potential assignments of error in the Anders

brief, he ultimately concluded that those issues were not viable. First, in regard to whether

Vetrano’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, appellate counsel noted in the Anders brief

that the trial court “went over [Vetrano’s] rights explicitly.” Second, with respect to the

performance of trial counsel at the plea hearing, appellate counsel noted that trial counsel informed

Vetrano of the consequences of pleading guilty and ensured that he would have the opportunity to

make arguments for a reduced sentence at the time of sentencing. A review of the transcript

confirms that the trial court engaged in a thorough colloquy regarding Vetrano’s rights at the plea

hearing and that trial counsel engaged in zealous representation of Vetrano, both at the plea hearing

and at sentencing. Finally, appellate counsel highlighted that the trial court ordered that the prison

sentence in this case was to be served consecutively to the prison sentence imposed in a separate 3

criminal case in Trumbull County. Notably, however, appellate counsel explained that the

sentence imposed by the trial court was not contrary to law and, further, that the trial court made

the requisite findings in support of its decision to run the sentences consecutively.

{¶6} Upon this Court’s independent examination of the record, we agree that there are

no appealable, non-frivolous issues in this case. See State v. Randles, 2008-Ohio-662, ¶ 6 (9th

Dist.); State v. Barth, 2024-Ohio-3226, ¶ 7 (9th Dist.). Therefore, appellate counsel’s request to

withdraw is granted.

III.

{¶7} Having reviewed the entire record and having found that no appealable issues exist,

this Court concludes that Vetrano’s appeal is meritless and wholly frivolous under Anders. The

motion to withdraw filed by Vetrano’s appellate counsel is granted. The judgment of the Summit

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to 4

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to Appellant.

DONNA J. CARR FOR THE COURT

STEVENSON, P. J. FLAGG LANZINGER, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

WESLEY C. BUCHANAN, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.