In re M.R.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re M.R., 2017-Ohio-4133.] STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT IN RE: M.R. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 14 JE 0035 OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion for Reconsideration JUDGMENT: Motion denied. APPEARANCES: For State of Ohio-Appellee For Minor Child-Appellant Attorney Michael Dewine Ohio Attorney General Attorney Stephen E. Maher Special Assistant Prosecutor 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3400 Attorney Brook M. Burns 250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400 Columbus, Ohio 43215 JUDGES: Hon. Mary DeGenaro Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Carol Ann Robb Dated: June 5, 2017 [Cite as In re M.R., 2017-Ohio-4133.] PER CURIAM. {¶1} Minor child-Appellant, M.R, et al., filed an application for reconsideration of In re M.R., 7th Dist. No. 14 JE 0035, 2016-Ohio-8545. {¶2} "The test generally applied upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration in the court of appeals is whether the motion calls to the attention of the court an obvious error in its decision, or raises an issue for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been." Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68, 523 N.E.2d 515 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶3} 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. Victory White Metal Co. v. N.P. Motel Syst. Inc., 7th Dist. No. 04 MA 0245, 2005–Ohio–3828, ¶ 2. "An application for reconsideration may not be filed simply on the basis that a party disagrees with the prior appellate court decision." Hampton v. Ahmed, 7th Dist. No. 02 BE 0066, 2005– Ohio–1766, ¶ 16 (internal citation omitted). {¶4} In support of reconsideration, M.R. alleges the exact same argument he made in the direct appeal, namely, that his classification was void because the juvenile court did not comply with the timing requirements of R.C. 2152.83(A). M.R. does not call to the attention of this Court an obvious error, but merely a disagreement with the decision reached by the Court. {¶5} M.R.'s arguments regarding his interpretation of R.C. 2152.83 were fully considered by this Court prior to ruling on the matter. The motion for reconsideration does not call to the attention of this Court an obvious error. Accordingly, M.R.'s motion for reconsideration is denied. DeGenaro, J., concurs. Donofrio, J., concurs. Robb, P. J., concurs.
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.
