Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning
Application for Reconsideration Pursuant to App.R. 26(A)(1)
Plaintiff-Appellee: Atty. Paul J. Gains Mahoning County
Prosecutor Atty. Ralph M. Rivera Assistant Prosecuting
Defendant-Appellant: Clinton Perdue, Pro se
JUDGES: Hon. Cheryl L. Waite, Hon. Gene Donofrio, Hon. Mary
Appellant Clinton Perdue requests reconsideration of our
Opinion in State v. Perdue, 7th Dist. No. 16 MA
0156, 2017-Ohio-7586, pursuant to App.R. 26(A). Appellant
argues that his sentence is not authorized by statute, and is
void. He also argues that he was improperly charged with
aggravated felony murder because his victim was not killed.
As Appellant's motion is based on mere disagreement with
our Opinion, and this does not provide appropriate grounds to
support an application for reconsideration, the motion is
On September 22, 1988, Appellant was one of several men who
robbed an apartment. During the course of the robbery, three
people were shot. Two of the victims subsequently died as a
result of their injuries. On October 11, 1988, Appellant was
indicted on two counts of aggravated murder, two counts of
aggravated robbery, and one count of attempted aggravated
murder. Appellant was also indicted on five attendant firearm
specifications. Following a jury trial, Appellant was
convicted on all counts. The trial court sentenced Appellant
to life imprisonment for each of the aggravated murder
counts, ten to twenty-five years on each of the robbery
counts, and seven to twenty years for the attempted
aggravated murder count. The trial court additionally
sentenced him to three years per firearm specification.
Appellant filed a series of motions in the trial court and
various appeals. Relevant to this motion, on August 9, 2016
Appellant filed a document he titled "MOTION TO CORRECT
AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE." He argued that his sentences on
the aggravated murder counts were not authorized by statute.
He also argued that his sentence for attempted aggravated
murder was improper, as attempted aggravated murder is not a
qualifying offense forming the basis for a felony murder
charge. We affirmed the trial court's denial of his
motion in State v. Perdue, 7th Dist. 16 MA 0156,
2017-Ohio-7586. It is from this Opinion that Appellant seeks
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
(10th Dist.1987), paragraph one of the syllabus.
App.R. 26(A)(1)(a) states, in relevant part:
"[application for reconsideration of any cause or motion
submitted on appeal shall be made in writing 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 as required by App. R. 30(A)."
Appellant's judgment was mailed to him and a note was
placed on the docket on September 8, 2017. Thus, a timely
application would have been filed no later than September 18,
2017. However, Appellant did not file his motion until
September 19, 2017, one day after the deadline for a timely
Pursuant to App.R. 14(B), an "enlargement of time to
file an application for reconsideration or for en banc
consideration pursuant to App.R. 26(A) shall not be granted
except on a showing of extraordinary circumstances."
Appellant does not provide a reason for his untimeliness.
Regardless, Appellant merely repeats the same arguments he
made in his appellate brief and fails to raise an issue that
was either not considered at all or was not fully considered
by this Court. "Reconsideration motions are rarely
considered when the movant simply disagrees with the logic
used and conclusions reached by an appellate court."
State v. Himes, 7th Dist. No. 08 MA 146,
2010-Ohio-332, ¶ 4, citing Victory White Metal Co.
v. Motel Syst, 7th Dist. No. 04 MA 245, 2005-Ohio-3828;
Hampton v. Ahmed, 7th Dist. No. 02 BE 66,