Court Opinion

ID: 9908330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 15:09:05.369548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:05.958319
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Anderson, 2023-Ohio-4447.]

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

                                          STATE OF OHIO,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                                  v.

                                      BRIAN L. ANDERSON,

                                       Defendant-Appellant.

                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                        Case No. 22 MO 0001

                                   Application for Reconsideration

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

                                               JUDGMENT:
                                                 Denied.

 Atty. James Peters, Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office, for Plaintiff-Appellee and

 Brian Anderson, pro se.

                                       Dated: December 6, 2023
                                                                                      –2–

 PER CURIAM.

       {¶1}    After a jury trial in the Monroe County Common Pleas Court, Defendant-
Appellant Brian L. Anderson was convicted of aggravated drug possession (25.89 grams
of methamphetamine), having a weapon while under disability, and unlawful possession
of dangerous ordnance (a sawed-off shotgun). This court affirmed his convictions on
appeal. State v. Anderson, 7th Dist. Monroe No. 22 MO 0001, 2023-Ohio-945 (overruling
multiple suppression issues and challenges to the sufficiency and the weight of the
evidence). We thereafter denied Appellant’s App.R. 26(A) application for reconsideration.
State v. Anderson, 2023-Ohio-1695.
       {¶2}    On September 14, 2023, this court denied Appellant’s App.R. 26(B)
application for reopening, wherein he claimed appellate counsel was ineffective for failing
to brief seven additional assignments of error. State v. Anderson, 2023-Ohio-3335. On
Monday, September 25, 2023, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of our denial
of his application for reopening.
       {¶3}    We explained the standard for reconsideration in denying Appellant’s
application to reconsider the decision in the direct appeal. Anderson, 2023-Ohio-1695 at
¶ 3.   “In order to prevail on an application for reconsideration, an appellant must
demonstrate an obvious error in our decision or that an issue was raised that was either
not dealt with or was not fully considered.” State v. Carosiello, 7th Dist. Columbiana No.
15 CO 0017, 2018-Ohio-860, ¶ 12. It is not a chance to present a new argument to the
appellate court. See State v. Wellington, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 14 MA 0115, 2015-Ohio-
2095, ¶ 9. Thus, any argument in the application must be one set forth in the document
leading to the decision sought to be reconsidered. Regardless, “Mere disagreement with
this Court's logic and conclusions does not support an application for reconsideration.”
Carosiello, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 15 CO 0017 at ¶ 12. See also Victory White Metal
Co. v. Motel Syst., Inc., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 04 MA 245, 2005-Ohio-3828, ¶ 2 (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); Hampton v. Ahmed, 7th
Dist. Belmont No. 02 BE 66, 2005-Ohio-1766, ¶ 16 (“An application for reconsideration
may not be filed simply on the basis that a party disagrees with the prior appellate court
decision.”).

Case No. 22 MO 0001
                                                                                     –3–

      {¶4}   Appellant’s application for reconsideration begins by suggesting the court
“can’t understand normal thinking.” The memorandum in support reiterates arguments
about the driver of the stopped vehicle, which he reviewed in his reopening application
(where he referred to evidence outside the record, disclosed the driver initiated a rape
charge against him, and complained she was not charged for any offense even though
she was the driver with a drug pipe sticking out of her shirt). Appellant also accuses his
trial counsel of lying about receiving discovery. He adds an argument that the test of the
drugs in his pocket was tainted because the forensic scientist testified the field office
location listed on her report was a typographical error. His reconsideration application
concludes by asking how the res judicata doctrine works “if no one would hear what I had
to say?”
      {¶5}   Appellant’s application for reconsideration does not allege a failure to
consider an argument raised in his application for reopening and fails to demonstrate any
error in our denial of that application. Consequently, 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. 22 MO 0001