State v. Henderson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Henderson, 2020-Ohio-4793.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MAHONING COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERICULO LAROSS HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 18 MA 0090 Motion for Reconsideration BEFORE: Gene Donofrio, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges. JUDGMENT: Denied Atty. Paul Gains, Prosecutor and Atty. Ralph Rivera, Assistant Prosecutor, Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office, 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for Plaintiff-Appellee, and Ericulo Laross Henderson, (PRO SE), A672536, Southeastern Correctional Institution, 5900 B.I.S. Road, Lancaster, Ohio 43130, for Defendant-Appellant. Dated: –2– September 23, 2020 PER CURIAM. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Ericulo Henderson, has filed two motions for reconsideration asking this court to reconsider our decision and judgment entry in which we affirmed the judgment of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court. See State v. Henderson, 7th Dist. No. 18 MA 0090, 2020-Ohio-3164. {¶2} 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. {¶3} A motion for reconsideration must be filed within ten days of the judgment. App.R. 26(A)(1)(a). Our judgment in this case was filed on May 29, 2020. Therefore, appellant had to file his motion for reconsideration by June 8, 2020. Appellant filed his first motion on July 2, 2020. He filed his second, almost identical motion, on August 6, 2020. Thus, his motions are untimely. {¶4} App.R. 14(B) provides that enlargement of time to file an application for reconsideration shall not be granted except on a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Thus, an appellate court only has the authority to grant leave to file a delayed motion for reconsideration if there is a showing of extraordinary circumstances. In this case, appellant has not indicated any extraordinary circumstances that prevented him from filing a timely motion for reconsideration. {¶5} For the reasons stated, the applications for reconsideration are denied. Case No. 18 MA 0090 –3– JUDGE GENE DONOFRIO JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB NOTICE TO COUNSEL This document constitutes a final judgment entry. Case No. 18 MA 0090
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
