Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011

State v. Alford

Ohio Court of Appeals · Decided December 7, 2011 · Sweeney

2011 Ohio 6259

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Alford (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State v. Tolle (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State v. Saunders (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State v. Rodriguez (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Alford, 2011-Ohio-6259.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

No. 95946 STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs.

DARRYL ALFORD

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT:

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

Case No. CR-469026 Application for Reopening Motion No. 448480

RELEASE DATE: December 7, 2011 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 Eighth Floor, Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 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

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.