Court Opinion

ID: 9930898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 20:10:24.722577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:12.160883
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Simmons, 2024-Ohio-436.]

             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:
           William A. Klatt, Retired Judge of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
                                    Sitting by Assignment,
                         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 (No Response Filed) and

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

                                       Dated: February 6, 2024
                                                                                         –2–

PER CURIAM.
       {¶1}   On December 4, 2023, Appellant, Michael L. Simmons, aka Mekiyel Mekka
Sincere, filed his first 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 argued 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 first application, Appellant asserted 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. Upon consideration, it was
apparent that Appellant did not demonstrate any obvious errors or raise any issues that

Case No. 22 JE 0022
                                                                                    –3–

were not adequately addressed in our previous opinion. This court was not persuaded
that we erred as a matter of law.
       {¶3}   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 made no such demonstration. On December 21, 2023, this court denied
Appellant’s first pro se application for reconsideration.
       {¶4}   Presently before us, on January 5, 2024, Appellant filed his second pro se
application for reconsideration pursuant to App.R. 26(A).

       We have previous [sic] recognized that App.R. 26(A) does not provide for
       second or successive reconsiderations of our final judgment in an appeal.
       State v. Wellington, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 14 MA 115, 2015-Ohio-2754, ¶
       6; State v. Dew, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 08 MA 62, 2014-Ohio-4042, ¶ 6;
       State v. Davis, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 10 MA160 (Jan. 12, 2012 J.E.).

Miller v. Mellott, 7th Dist. Monroe No. 18 MO 0004, 2020-Ohio-237, ¶ 3.
       Accordingly, Appellant’s second pro se application for reconsideration is hereby
denied.

JUDGE WILLIAM A. KLATT,
RETIRED, SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB

JUDGE MARK A. HANNI

                                  NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.

Case No. 22 JE 0022