Case Name: The State ex rel. Andrews, Appellant, v. Chardon Police Department et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2013-11-07
Citations: 137 Ohio St. 3d 468
Docket Number: No. 2013-0816
Parties: The State ex rel. Andrews, Appellant, v. Chardon Police Department et al., Appellees.
Judges: O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 137
Pages: 468–469

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Andrews, Appellant, v. Chardon Police Department et al., Appellees.
[Cite as State ex rel. Andrews v. Chardon Police Dept., 137 Ohio St.3d 468, 2013-Ohio-4772.]
(No. 2013-0816
Submitted August 20, 2013
Decided November 7, 2013.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} We affirm the Eleventh District Court of Appeals' decision denying John Mark 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, 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.
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.
{¶ 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.