State v. Reese

2025 Ohio 1914

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Reese, 2025-Ohio-1914.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LAMAR REESE,

Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 24 MA 0092

Application for Reconsideration

BEFORE: Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Katelyn Dickey, Judges.

JUDGMENT: Dismissed.

Atty. Lynn Maro, Mahoning County Prosecutor, and Atty. Kristie M. Weibling, Assistant Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lamar Reese, Pro se, Defendant-Appellant

Dated: May 21, 2025 –2–

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} On April 30, 2025, Appellant Lamar Reese filed a pro se motion for

reconsideration under App.R. 26(A). Our opinion in this matter was filed on April 15,

2025. A copy was sent to Appellant and was noted on the docket of the clerk of courts

on April 16, 2025. App.R. 26(A)(1)(a) requires a motion for reconsideration to be filed "no

later than ten days after the clerk has both mailed to the parties the judgment or order in

question and made a note on the docket of the mailing . . ." Appellant's motion is untimely

and is hereby dismissed.

{¶2} Even if we could accept the motion for reconsideration, it would be

overruled. "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 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus. However, "[a]n

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 (11th Dist. 1997).

{¶3} This appeal involved the dismissal of Appellant’s second petition for

postconviction relief. The petition was filed nine years after the expiration of the time

provided in R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a). Appellant claimed that the petition should have been

accepted because he was unavoidably prevented from discovering medical records

needed to support the petition. Ultimately Appellant sought to show that he should not

have been given a lie detector test prior to trial because he was mentally ill. We rejected

Case No. 24 MA 0092 –3–

this argument on jurisdictional as well as res judicata grounds. We noted that Appellant

was not unavoidably prevented from obtaining the medical records used to support his

position because he was represented by counsel prior to filing his first petition for

postconviction relief, and because Appellant himself acknowledged that counsel could

have obtained the records. We rejected the petition on res judicata grounds because

Appellant had already raised the polygraph matter in his first petition for postconviction

relief and then abandoned the argument on appeal. Appellant simply disagrees with our

reasoning for affirming the trial court judgment. This is not a basis for granting

reconsideration.

{¶4} Appellant's motion for reconsideration is hereby dismissed as it is untimely

filed. Appellant has also failed to point out any obvious error in our opinion, or bring to

our attention any issue that we failed to consider or did not fully consider fully.

JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB

JUDGE KATELYN DICKEY

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.

Case No. 24 MA 0092