DocketNumber： 14 JE 0035
Judges： DeGenaro
Filed Date： 6/5/2017
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 4/17/2021
[Cite as In re M.R., 2017-Ohio-4133.]
STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
SEVENTH DISTRICT
)
)
IN RE: M.R. )
) CASE NO. 14 JE 0035
)
) OPINION
) AND
) JUDGMENT ENTRY
)
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion for Reconsideration
JUDGMENT: Motion denied.
APPEARANCES:
For State of Ohio-Appellee Attorney Michael Dewine
Ohio Attorney General
Attorney Stephen E. Maher
Special Assistant Prosecutor
150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3400
For Minor Child-Appellant Attorney Brook M. Burns
250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
Columbus, Ohio 43215
JUDGES:
Hon. Mary DeGenaro
Hon. Gene Donofrio
Hon. Carol Ann Robb
Dated: June 5, 2017
[Cite as In re M.R., 2017-Ohio-4133.]
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Minor child-Appellant, M.R, et al., filed an application for reconsideration of In
re M.R., 7th Dist. No. 14 JE 0035, 2016-Ohio-8545.
{¶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. 04 MA 0245, 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. 02 BE 0066, 2005–
Ohio–1766, ¶ 16 (internal citation omitted).
{¶4} In support of reconsideration, M.R. alleges the exact same argument he made
in the direct appeal, namely, that his classification was void because the juvenile court did
not comply with the timing requirements of R.C. 2152.83(A). M.R. does not call to the
attention of this Court an obvious error, but merely a disagreement with the decision reached
by the Court.
{¶5} M.R.'s arguments regarding his interpretation of R.C. 2152.83 were fully
considered by this Court prior to ruling on the matter. The motion for reconsideration does
not call to the attention of this Court an obvious error. Accordingly, M.R.'s motion for
reconsideration is denied.
DeGenaro, J., concurs.
Donofrio, J., concurs.
Robb, P. J., concurs.