State v. Woody
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Woody, 2010-Ohio-3307.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92929 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MIKE WOODY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED Application for Reopening Motion No. 433325 Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-478107 RELEASE DATE: July 13, 2010 2 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Robert A. Dixon The Brownhoist Building 4403 St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44103 Thomas J. Escovar Steuer, Escovar, Berk & Brown Co. 55 Public Square, Suite 1475 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Mary McGrath Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.: {¶ 1} Mike Woody has filed a timely application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Woody is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment, as journalized in State v. Woody, Cuyahoga App. No. 92929, 2010-Ohio-72, which affirmed the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea of guilty as entered to the offenses of involuntary manslaughter and felonious assault in State v. 3 Woody, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-478107. We decline to reopen Woody s appeal. {¶ 2} The appeal, which forms the basis of Woody s application for reopening, concerned a post-conviction motion. Specifically, Woody s appeal involved an appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate the plea of guilty as entered to the offenses of involuntary manslaughter and felonious assault. An application for reopening, as 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 appellate 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, it cannot now be employed to challenge the appeal that dealt with the denial of Woody s motion to vacate guilty plea. {¶ 3} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied. 4 FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE CHRISTINE T. McMONAGLE, P.J., and MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
