Home/Ohio Court of Appeals/State v. Murdock, Unpublished Decision (8-13-1999)

State v. Murdock, Unpublished Decision (8-13-1999)

CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedAugust 13, 1999
DocketNo. 99-P-0008.
StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Murdock, Unpublished Decision (8-13-1999) (State v. Murdock, Unpublished Decision (8-13-1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Murdock, Unpublished Decision (8-13-1999), (Ohio Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal dismissed. See Memorandum Opinion and Judgment Entry. [FORD] (CHRISTLEY) (NADER)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE:
When an appellant's averments in his App.R. 5(A) motion for delayed appeal fail to provide any specific reasons why he delayed for over two years any attempt to initiate a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence, the motion will be denied, and the appeal will be dismissed.

A successive appeal may not be taken from the same judgment entry that has already been appealed and then voluntarily dismissed. See State v. Haynes (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 244.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Haynes
675 N.E.2d 1332 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Murdock, Unpublished Decision (8-13-1999), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murdock-unpublished-decision-8-13-1999-ohioctapp-1999.