From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex rel. Andrews v. Chardon Police Dep't

Supreme Court of Ohio.
Nov 7, 2013
1 N.E.3d 333 (Ohio 2013)

Opinion

No. 2013–0816.

2013-11-7

The STATE ex rel. ANDREWS, Appellant, v. CHARDON POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Appellees.

John Mark Andrews, pro se. James R. Flaiz, Geauga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Bridey Matheney, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney; and James M. Gillette, Chardon Law Director and Police Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.



John Mark Andrews, pro se. James R. Flaiz, Geauga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Bridey Matheney, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney; and James M. Gillette, Chardon Law Director and Police Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.

{¶ 1} We affirm the Eleventh District Court of Appeals' decision denying Andrews's request for reconsideration of a judgment rendered in a public-records mandamus case.

{¶ 2} Insofar as Andrews challenges the Eleventh District Court of Appeals' February 4, 2013 judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandamus, he failed to file a timely appeal from that judgment. S.Ct.Prac.R. 6.01(A)(1). The motion for reconsideration that Andrews filed in the court of appeals did not extend his time to appeal that court's judgment. State ex rel. Manuel v. Stenson, 126 Ohio St.3d 52, 2010-Ohio-2673, 930 N.E.2d 310, ¶ 1. Andrews cannot use an appeal from a denial of his motion for reconsideration as a substitute for a timely appeal from the judgment. Id.

{¶ 3} Insofar as Andrews appeals the court of appeals' denial of his motion for reconsideration, that court lacked jurisdiction to consider a motion for reconsideration and thus correctly denied the motion. A request for reconsideration of a judgment rendered by an appellate court in an original action is a nullity because App.R. 26(A) is inapplicable. Phillips v. Irwin, 96 Ohio St.3d 350, 2002-Ohio-4758, 774 N.E.2d 1218, ¶ 5. Because the Eleventh District lacked jurisdiction over his motion (and thus correctly denied it), we affirm. We also dismiss appellees' motion to dismiss as moot.

{¶ 4} Based on the foregoing, we affirm.

Judgment affirmed. O'CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O'NEILL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State ex rel. Andrews v. Chardon Police Dep't

Supreme Court of Ohio.
Nov 7, 2013
1 N.E.3d 333 (Ohio 2013)
Case details for

State ex rel. Andrews v. Chardon Police Dep't

Case Details

Full title:The STATE ex rel. ANDREWS, Appellant, v. CHARDON POLICE DEPARTMENT et al.…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio.

Date published: Nov 7, 2013

Citations

1 N.E.3d 333 (Ohio 2013)
137 Ohio St. 3d 468

Citing Cases

State ex rel. Ziegler v. Ohio Dep't of Pub. Safety

An application for reconsideration or for en banc consideration under the appellate rules cannot be made in…

State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh

But it appears to be a common error for parties in original actions before the courts of appeals to invoke…