State v. Alford

2011 Ohio 6259

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 2 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, 3 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 4 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