State v. Murdock, Unpublished Decision (8-13-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Murdock, Unpublished Decision (8-13-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided August 13, 1999·No. No. 99-P-0008.·Unpublished

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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.

State v. Murdock, Unpublished Decision (8-13-1999), (Ohio Ct.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

Pincite

State v. Murdock, Unpublished Decision (8-13-1999) (State v. Murdock, Unpublished Decision (8-13-1999)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related