R. v. Marciano

R. v. Marciano Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-01-13 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 15 Docket numbers COA-24-CR-0535 Judges Rouleau, Paul S.; van Rensburg, Katherine; Coroza, Steve A. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Marciano, 2025 ONCA 15 DATE: 20250113 DOCKET: COA-24-CR-0535 Rouleau, van Rensburg and Coroza JJ.A. BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Daniela Marciano Appellant Daniela Marciano, acting in person Myles Anevich, appearing as duty counsel Nicholas Hay, for the respondent Heard and released orally: January 6, 2025 On appeal from the conviction entered on March 22, 2024 and the sentence imposed on April 12, 2024 by Justice Nancy A. Dawson of the Ontario Court of Justice. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant was convicted of fraudulent personation in connection with a letter addressed to a car dealership purporting to come from a lawyer, as well as various offences related to a forged document that purported to be a certificate of stay of probation issued by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. [2] The appellant argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that she was involved in preparing and sending the documents. In particular, she points to the fact that no documents were found in her home connecting her to the fraudulent and forged documents, nor could anyone testify as to where these documents came from. [3] We reject this ground of appeal. As the trial judge explained, this was a circumstantial case; she had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the guilt of the appellant was the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence. The trial judge carefully reviewed the evidence and explained why she found beyond a reasonable doubt that the constellation of facts was consistent only with the appellant having committed the offences. [4] We note that the appellant did not testify at trial, nor was there any suggestion that the documents were in fact authentic. [5] The appellant also argues that the matter ought to have been heard in Superior Court. This argument is based on the suggestion that a lawyer who testified at the trial was a “second prosecutor”. We see no merit in this argument and, in any event, the lawyer who testified was not acting as prosecutor. [6] The appellant has served her sentence and advises that she has abandoned her sentence appeal. As a result, the conviction appeal is dismissed and the sentence appeal is dismissed as abandoned. “Paul Rouleau J.A.” “K. van Rensburg J.A.” “S. Coroza J.A.”