Case Title: State ex rel. Andrews v. Chardon Police Dept.

Citation: 2013-Ohio-4772

Docket Number: 2013-0816

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-11-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Andrews v. Chardon Police Dept., Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4772.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-4772 
THE STATE EX REL. ANDREWS, APPELLANT, v. CHARDON POLICE  
DEPARTMENT ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Andrews v. Chardon Police Dept.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4772.] 
Mandamus—Failure to timely appeal judgment denying writ—Judgment denying 
writ affirmed. 
(No. 2013-0816—Submitted August 20, 2013—Decided November 7, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Geauga County, No. 2012-G-3074, 
2013-Ohio-338. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the Eleventh District Court of Appeals’ decision 
denying Andrews’s request for reconsideration of a judgment rendered in a 
public-records mandamus case. 
{¶ 2} Insofar as Andrews challenges the Eleventh District Court of 
Appeals’ February 4, 2013 judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandamus, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
he failed to file a timely appeal from that judgment.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 6.01(A)(1).  The 
motion for reconsideration that Andrews filed in the court of appeals did not 
extend his time to appeal that court’s judgment.  State ex rel. Manuel v. Stenson, 
126 Ohio St.3d 52, 2010-Ohio-2673, 930 N.E.2d 310, ¶ 1.  Andrews cannot use 
an appeal from a denial of his motion for reconsideration as a substitute for a 
timely appeal from the judgment.  Id. 
{¶ 3} Insofar as Andrews appeals the court of appeals’ denial of his 
motion for reconsideration, that court lacked jurisdiction to consider a motion for 
reconsideration and thus correctly denied the motion.  A request for 
reconsideration of a judgment rendered by an appellate court in an original action 
is a nullity because App.R. 26(A) is inapplicable.  Phillips v. Irwin, 96 Ohio St.3d 
350, 2002-Ohio-4758, 774 N.E.2d 1218, ¶ 5.  Because the Eleventh District 
lacked jurisdiction over his motion (and thus correctly denied it), we affirm. We 
also dismiss appellees’ motion to dismiss as moot. 
{¶ 4} Based on the foregoing, we affirm. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
John Mark Andrews, pro se. 
 
James R. Flaiz, Geauga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Bridey 
Matheney, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney; and James M. Gillette, Chardon Law 
Director and Police Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 
________________________