Opinion ID: 1900957
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Motions to Reconsider

Text: On May 3, 1982, Anaya's motion for authorization was granted to the extent of $500, far less than she had requested. The May 3 ruling was made orally, after an evidentiary hearing. On May 7, defendant filed a motion to reconsider the ruling. The motion requested the court to reconsider that portion of its order finding as a matter of fact that it would be unreasonable to spend [the] sums indicated in Dr. McEwen's affidavit. On May 10, the Superior Court justice filed a written order echoing his bench ruling of May 3. On July 26 and August 13, 1982, defendant filed amended motion[s] to reconsider, again requesting the Superior Court to take a new look at the factual findings contained in its order denying Anaya anything over $500 to complete her jury pool analysis. Both were dismissed by a written order filed on August 13, stating that the Superior Court was unable to take further action in the case under M.R.Crim.P. 37(d), [10] since defendant's notice of appeal to the Law Court had already been filed. [11] Defendant now argues that the Superior Court erred in failing to rule upon the first motion and in dismissing the second and third. Her claim is without merit. Generally, a party is entitled to a ruling on a motion. Jones v. Suhre, 345 A.2d 515, 517 (Me.1975). However, Jones is of no help to Anaya, since she got rulings on all of her reconsideration motions. The May 7 motion was effectively denied by the Superior Court's written order limiting Anaya to $500 in public funds to complete her jury pool challenge, filed May 10 and reaffirming the bench ruling of May 3. As for the motions filed on July 26 and August 13, they were properly dismissed by the Superior Court under Rule 37(d), as both were filed after July 7, the day on which we must treat her notice of appeal as having been filed.