From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re M.R.

STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
Jun 5, 2017
2017 Ohio 4133 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)

Opinion

CASE NO. 14 JE 0035

06-05-2017

IN RE: M.R.

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


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 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.


Summaries of

In re M.R.

STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
Jun 5, 2017
2017 Ohio 4133 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
Case details for

In re M.R.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: M.R.

Court:STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT

Date published: Jun 5, 2017

Citations

2017 Ohio 4133 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)