State v. Alford ( 2011 )

[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