State v. Wells , 2016 Ohio 3019 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Wells, 2016-Ohio-3019.]
    STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    SEVENTH DISTRICT
    STATE OF OHIO                                        )
    )
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE                           )
    )            CASE NO. 15 JE 0007
    VS.                                                  )
    )                 OPINION
    JOHN WELLS                                           )                  AND
    )             JUDGMENT ENTRY
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT                          )
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                            Motion for Reconsideration
    JUDGMENT:                                            Denied
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellee                               Attorney Jane Hanlin
    Jefferson County Prosecutor
    P.O. Box 1506
    100 North Fourth Street, 10th Floor
    Steubenville, Ohio 43952
    For Defendant-Appellant                              John Wells, Pro-se
    #344-727
    P.O. Box 57
    Marion, Ohio 43302
    JUDGES:
    Hon. Mary DeGenaro
    Hon. Gene Donofrio
    Hon. Carol Ann Robb
    Dated: May 9, 2016
    [Cite as State v. Wells, 2016-Ohio-3019.]
    PER CURIAM.
    {¶1}     On March 16, 2016, Appellant John Wells filed a motion for
    reconsideration in the appeal of State v. Wells, 7th Dist. 15 JE 0007, 2016-Ohio-892.
    {¶2}     "The test generally applied upon the filing of a motion for
    reconsideration in the court of appeals is whether the motion calls to the attention of
    the court an obvious error in its decision, or raises an issue for consideration that was
    either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should
    have been." Columbus v. Hodge, 
    37 Ohio App. 3d 68
    , 
    523 N.E.2d 515
    (1987),
    paragraph one of the syllabus.
    {¶3}     The purpose of reconsideration is not to reargue one's appeal based on
    dissatisfaction with the logic used and conclusions reached by an appellate court.
    Victory White Metal Co. v. N.P. Motel Syst. Inc., 7th Dist. No. 04MA245, 2005–Ohio–
    3828, ¶ 2. "An application for reconsideration may not be filed simply on the basis
    that a party disagrees with the prior appellate court decision." Hampton v. Ahmed,
    7th Dist. No. 02BE66, 2005–Ohio–1766, ¶ 16 (internal citation omitted)
    {¶4}     App.R. 26(A)(1) mandates that applications for reconsideration shall be
    made in writing no later than ten days after the clerk has both mailed to the parties
    the judgment or order in question or made a note on the docket of the mailing. "A
    motion for reconsideration can be entertained even though it was filed beyond the
    ten-day limitation provided for by the rule if the motion raises an issue of sufficient
    importance to warrant entertaining it beyond the ten-day limit." State v. Dew, 7th Dist.
    No. 08MA62, 2014-Ohio-4042, ¶7.
    {¶5}     This Court issued its judgment entry and opinion in Wells’ appeal on
    March 4, 2016. He filed his motion on March 16, 2016, two days late. He did not
    acknowledge this tardy filing nor provide an explanation of good cause. More
    importantly, there does not appear to be, nor does he allege, an issue of sufficient
    importance to warrant entertaining his motion beyond the ten day limit.
    {¶6}     Because Wells has failed to meet the requisite time frame for
    reconsideration, the merits of his motion cannot be addressed and the motion is
    hereby denied.
    -2-
    {¶7}   Wells also filed what he termed an "Objection to the Unconstitutional
    Dismissal of Assignments of Error and Motion for a Full Written Opinion" a day after
    he filed his motion for reconsideration. Wells cites no appellate rule to support the
    filing of this document or this court's consideration of it. As such, it is also denied.
    DeGenaro, J., concurs
    Donofrio, P. J., concurs
    Robb, J., concurs
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15 JE 0007

Citation Numbers: 2016 Ohio 3019

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 5/9/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/17/2016