Court Opinion

ID: 9913069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 20:06:36.238799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:57.771000
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Simmons, 2023-Ohio-4713.]

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

                                         STATE OF OHIO,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                                 v.

           MICHAEL L. SIMMONS AKA MEKIYEL MEKKA SINCERE,

                                       Defendant-Appellant.

                       OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                         Case No. 22 JE 0022

                                   Application for Reconsideration

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

                                              JUDGMENT:
                                                Denied.

Atty. Jane M. Hanlin, Jefferson County Prosecutor, and Atty. George M. Sarap,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee and

Michael L. Simmons aka Mekiyel Mekka Sincere, Defendant-Appellant.

                                     Dated: December 21, 2023
                                                                                        –2–

PER CURIAM.

       {¶1}   Appellant, Michael L. Simmons, aka Mekiyel Mekka Sincere, filed a pro se
application requesting that this court reconsider our decision in State v. Simmons, 7th
Dist. Jefferson No. 22 JE 0022, 2023-Ohio-4246, in which we affirmed his convictions for
felonious assault with specifications and having weapons while under disability following
a trial by jury, but vacated his sentence and remanded the matter to the Jefferson County
Court of Common Pleas for resentencing consistent with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (consecutive
sentences) and R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) (Reagan Tokes). Appellant contends that this
court’s decision affirming his convictions was in error and that we should, therefore,
reconsider the opinion pursuant to App.R. 26(A).

       App.R. 26, which provides for the filing of an application for reconsideration
       in this court, includes no guidelines to be used in the determination of
       whether a decision is to be reconsidered and changed. Matthews v.
       Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140, 143, 450 N.E.2d 278 (10th Dist.1981). The
       test generally applied is whether the motion for reconsideration calls to the
       attention of the court an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue for
       our consideration that was either not at all or was not fully considered by us
       when it should have been. Id. An application for reconsideration is not
       designed for use in instances where a party simply disagrees with the
       conclusions reached and the logic used by an appellate court. State v.
       Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d 334, 336, 678 N.E.2d 956 (11th Dist.1996).
       Rather, App.R. 26 provides a mechanism by which a party may prevent
       miscarriages of justice that could arise when an appellate court makes an
       obvious error or renders an unsupportable decision under the law. Id.

D.G. v. M.G.G., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0165, 2019-Ohio-1190, ¶ 2.

       {¶2}   In his application, Appellant asserts this court made an obvious error and
misstated the record regarding a gun being used in his altercation with Dominique
Richardson, the victim. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the record establishes this court
neither made an obvious error nor misstated the record.

Case No. 22 JE 0022
                                                                                        –3–

      {¶3}   In Simmons, we stated the following:

      Captain Buchmelter briefly interviewed Richardson in the detectives’ office
      following the incident; the interview was recorded. (10/6/2022 Trial by Jury
      Tr., p. 70, 72). Richardson did not know Appellant before this incident. (Id.
      at p. 95). Richardson explained how the altercation occurred: Richardson
      got out of his car; saw another car pull up; a man got out of the vehicle, who
      he believed to be Appellant; the man walked over to Richardson; and
      attacked him with a gun. (Id. at p. 97-98). Richardson said the gun was not
      his and he believed it went off during the altercation but he was not hit by
      any gunfire. (Id. at p. 98). Richardson retrieved the gun and cartridge and
      later gave them to the police. (Id. at p. 98-99).

      Detective Bissett viewed surveillance video footage of the security cameras
      from the apartment building. (Id. at p. 130); (Exhibits 47-49). The men
      identified in the altercation were Richardson and Appellant. (Id. at p. 137);
      (Exhibits 47-49). Appellant started the fight. (Exhibits 47-49). The video
      clearly shows Appellant drawing a handgun from his pants during the
      assault. (Id.); see also (10/11/2022 Sentencing Hearing Tr., p. 233);
      (10/13/2022 Sentencing Entry, p. 2-3). The gun discharged during the
      struggle but fortunately, Richardson was able to disarm Appellant. (Exhibits
      47-49). Detective Bissett also viewed the firearm and testified it was
      operable. (10/6/2022 Trial by Jury Tr., p. 131). The results of the test-fire
      were submitted into evidence. (Id. at p. 132); (Exhibits 53-54). The serial
      number on that gun matches the serial number of the gun that was retrieved
      in this crime. (10/6/2022 Trial by Jury Tr., p. 133). After obtaining a search
      warrant, Detective Bissett got a swab from Appellant and sent it to BCI. (Id.)

      BCI forensic scientist Altizer [testified] and wrote a report. (Id. at p. 115);
      (Exhibit 44). Sample 1.5, a swab of the front slight area of the firearm,
      revealed that Appellant was the major contributor (one in over a trillion
      people). (10/6/2022 Trial by Jury Tr., p. 118-119). Regarding Appellant’s

Case No. 22 JE 0022
                                                                                      –4–

      DNA standard, Sample 3.1, the swab of the front slight area of the firearm
      revealed Appellant as the major contributor (one in over a trillion people).
      (Id.)

      Also, the record reveals Appellant’s criminal history involves a prior prison
      term, with probation revocations, including convictions for: corrupting
      another with drugs; trafficking in drugs; tampering with evidence;
      possession of drugs; having weapons while under disability; and carrying a
      concealed weapon. (10/11/2022 Sentencing Hearing Tr., p. 233-236);
      (10/13/2022 Sentencing Entry, p. 2).

      * * * [T]here is sufficient evidence upon which the jury could reasonably
      conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of felonious assault
      and having weapons while under disability were proven. Thus, the trial court
      did not err in overruling Appellant's Crim.R. 29 motion.

      Also, the jury chose to believe the State’s witnesses. * * * Based on the
      evidence presented, as previously stated, the jury did not clearly lose its
      way in finding Appellant guilty of felonious assault and having weapons
      while under disability. * * *

(Citations omitted); Simmons, supra, at ¶ 33-38; see also ¶ 8-10.

      {¶4}    Upon consideration of the App.R. 26(A) application filed in the present
matter, it is apparent that Appellant has not demonstrated any obvious errors or raised
any issues that were not adequately addressed in our previous opinion. This court is not
persuaded that we erred as a matter of law.
      {¶5}    An application for reconsideration is not designed to be used in situations
wherein a party simply disagrees with the logic employed or the conclusions reached by
an appellate court. Owens, supra, at 336. App.R. 26(A) is meant to provide a mechanism
by which a party may prevent a miscarriage of justice that could arise when an appellate
court makes an obvious error or renders a decision that is not supported by the law. Id.
Appellant has made no such demonstration.

Case No. 22 JE 0022
                                                                                     –5–

      {¶6}   For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s pro se application for reconsideration
is hereby denied.

JUDGE DAVID A. D’APOLITO

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB

JUDGE MARK A. HANNI

                                NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.

Case No. 22 JE 0022