State v. Alford

2011 Ohio 6259

Ohio Ct. App.

2011

Check Treatment

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DARRYL ALFORD, Defendant-Appellant

No. 95946

Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

December 7, 2011

2011-Ohio-6259

JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J.; COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Case No. CR-469026. Application for Reopening. Motion No. 448480. JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

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 . 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, , reopening disallowed (Jan. 28, 1999), Motion No. 300187; , reopening disallowed (May 13, 2004), Motion No. 357536; , 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