From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Alford

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
Dec 7, 2011
2011 Ohio 6259 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)

Opinion

No. 95946

12-07-2011

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. DARRYL ALFORD DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

FOR APPELLANT Darryl Alford, Pro Se No. 493-759 Lake Erie Correctional Institution P.O. Box 8000 Conneaut, Ohio 44030 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE William D. Mason, Esq. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Kristen L. Sobieski, Esq. Daniel T. Van, Esq. Assistant County Prosecutors


JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION


JUDGMENT:

APPLICATION DENIED


Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

Case No. CR-469026

Application for Reopening

Motion No. 448480

FOR APPELLANT

Darryl Alford, Pro Se

No. 493-759

Lake Erie Correctional Institution

P.O. Box 8000

Conneaut, Ohio 44030

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason, Esq.

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: Kristen L. Sobieski, Esq.

Daniel T. Van, Esq.

Assistant County Prosecutors
JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J.:

1} Darryl Alford has filed a timely application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Alford is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment, journalized in State v. Alford, Cuyahoga App. No. 95946, 2011-Ohio-4811, which affirmed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea entered to the offenses of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and felonious assault in State v. Alford, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-469026. We decline to reopen Alford's appeal.

2} The appeal, which formed the basis of Alford's application for reopening, concerned a postconviction motion. Specifically, Alford's appeal involved an appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate the guilty plea as entered to the offenses of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and felonious assault. An application for reopening, brought pursuant to App.R. 26(B), can only be employed to reopen an appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v. Loomer, 76 Ohio St.3d 398, 1996-Ohio-59, 667 N.E.2d 1209. See, also, State v. Halliwell (Dec. 30, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70369, reopening disallowed (Jan. 28, 1999), Motion No. 300187; State v. White (Jan. 7, 2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 78190, reopening disallowed (May 13, 2004), Motion No. 357536; State v. Shurney (Mar. 10, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 64670, reopening disallowed (May 15, 1995), Motion No. 260758. Since App.R. 26(B) applies only to the direct appeal of a criminal conviction and sentence, it cannot now be employed to reopen the appeal that dealt with Alford's denial of a motion to vacate his guilty plea.

3} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.

JAMES J. SWEENEY, PRESIDING JUDGE

COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., and

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR

KEY WORDS


Summaries of

State v. Alford

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
Dec 7, 2011
2011 Ohio 6259 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
Case details for

State v. Alford

Case Details

Full title:State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl Alford, Defendant-Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County

Date published: Dec 7, 2011

Citations

2011 Ohio 6259 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)