Court Opinion

ID: 9396103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 15:07:48.754349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.113367
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Whitacre, 2023-Ohio-1691.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  MONROE COUNTY

                                          STATE OF OHIO,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                                  v.

                                       CARL E. WHITACRE,

                                        Defendant-Appellant.

                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                         Case No. 21 MO 0008

                                    Application for Reconsideration

                                        BEFORE:
                 Carol Ann Robb, David A. D’Apolito, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

                                               JUDGMENT:
                                                 Denied.

 Atty. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, Atty. Andrea K. Boyd, Assistant Attorney
 General, Ohio Attorney General’s Office, 30 East Broad Street, 23rd Floor, Columbus,
 Ohio 43215 for Plaintiff-Appellee and

 Carl Whitacre, pro se, Noble Correctional Institution, 15708 McConnelsville Road,
 Caldwell, Ohio 43724 Defendant-Appellant.

                                          Dated: May 18, 2023
                                                                                       –2–

 PER CURIAM.

       {¶1}   Carl E. Whitacre applies for reconsideration of our decision affirming his
convictions for possession of methamphetamine; illegal conveyance of prohibited items
onto the grounds of a detention facility; menacing by stalking; and violating a protective
order. State v. Whitacre, 7th Dist. Monroe No. 21 MO 0008, 2023-Ohio-1029. Whitacre's
application is denied.
       {¶2}   App.R. 26(A)(1) permits an appellant to file an application for
reconsideration after an appeal. Our review is dictated by caselaw since the rule does
not provide guidelines to be used by a court assessing the merits of a reconsideration.
       {¶3}   An application for reconsideration “is not designed for use in instances
where a party simply disagrees with the logic or conclusions of the court.” State v. Burke,
10th Dist. No. 04AP-1234, 2006-Ohio-1026, ¶ 2, citing State v. Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d
334, 336, 678 N.E.2d 956 (11th Dist.1996). Moreover, an application for reconsideration
does not permit the applicant to raise new arguments or issues for review that were not
raised on appeal. State v. Wellington, 7th Dist. No. 14 MA 115, 2015-Ohio-2095, ¶ 9.
       {¶4}   The test generally applied to reconsiderations is whether the applicant
identifies “an obvious error in [the] decision or raises an issue for our consideration that
was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by us when it should have
been.” Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Education, 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 17AP-767, 2019-Ohio-1540, ¶ 3, aff'd sub nom. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow
v. State Bd. of Education, 166 Ohio St.3d 96, 2021-Ohio-3445, 182 N.E.3d 1170; State
v. Carosiello, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 15 CO 0017, 2018-Ohio-860, ¶ 12.
       {¶5}   Here, Whitacre does neither. Whitacre’s motion to reconsider raises four
conclusory arguments. Whitacre contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to
suppress and erred by holding his speedy trial time was not violated. Whitacre also
contends he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel and that his convictions
are against the weight of the evidence. These were the precise issues raised on appeal,
which we addressed in detail in our opinion.

Case No. 21 MO 0008
                                                                                        –3–

       {¶6}   The substance of Whitacre’s application reargues the issues already raised
and addressed, and he appears to disagree with our logic and reasoning. After a review
of the facts and applicable law, we agreed with the trial court’s decision overruling his
motion to suppress. State v. Whitacre, supra, at ¶ 16-35. We likewise found the trial
court did not err in overruling Whitacre’s motion to dismiss based on speedy trial grounds
in light of his time waiver. Id. at ¶ 36-52. Whitacre’s effective assistance of trial counsel
argument was also fully addressed on the merits.       Id. at ¶ 53-72. Last, we fully vetted
his fourth assigned error concerning the manifest weight of the evidence and found no
error. Id. at ¶ 73-95.
       {¶7}   Because Whitacre does not identify an obvious error in our decision or raise
an issue that we either did not consider or that we did not fully consider, his application
for reconsideration is denied.

 JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB

 JUDGE DAVID A. D’APOLITO

 JUDGE MARK A. HANNI

                                 NOTICE TO COUNSEL

 This document constitutes a final judgment entry.

Case No. 21 MO 0008