Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning

August 14, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, Respondent-Appellee,
v.
AARON JONES, Petitioner- Appellant.

         Application for Reconsideration

         JUDGMENT: Application Denied.

          Atty. Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecutor, and Atty. Ralph M. Rivera, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee and

          Aaron Jones, Pro Se, # A511-342, Grafton Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellant.

          BEFORE: David A. D'Apolito, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.

          OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

          PER CURIAM.

         {¶1} Petitioner-appellant, Aaron Jones, filed a pro se application requesting that this court reconsider our decision in State v. Jones, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 18 MA 0078, 2019-Ohio-2377, in which we affirmed the July 3, 2018 nunc pro tunc judgment of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, pursuant to our remand in State v. Jones, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 16 MA 0192, 2017-Ohio-9376, correcting Appellant's 20-year sentence for aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary following a jury trial to include the statutorily mandated five-year period of postrelease control and notifying him of the consequences should he violate postrelease control. Appellant contends that this court's decision was in error and that we should, therefore, reconsider the opinion pursuant to App.R. 26(A).

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.

D.G. v. M.G.G., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0165, 2019-Ohio-1190, ¶ 2.

         {¶2} In his application, Appellant mainly asserts that the trial court's initial failure to incorporate the postrelease control notifications into his judgment entry of conviction renders his conviction void.[1] We disagree.

         {¶3} In Jones, 2019-Ohio-2377, this court stated the following:

Here, Appellant attacked the validity of the postrelease control notification in his sentencing entry. As mentioned by this court in Jones VI, although the State claimed that the trial court properly notified Appellant of postrelease control during the hearing, Appellant failed to order a sentencing transcript for inclusion in the appellate record. Thus, in the absence of a transcript, we must presume regularity of those proceedings. Jones, 2017-Ohio-9376, ¶ 19, citing State v. Dumas, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 06 MA 36, 2008-Ohio-872, ¶ 14, citing State v. Johnson, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 02CA008193, 2003-Ohio-6814, ¶ 9; see also [State v.] Wells, [7th Dist. Jefferson No. 16 JE 0033, ] 2017-Ohio-7763, at ¶ 15.
Presuming Appellant was properly notified regarding postrelease control at the sentencing hearing, the record reveals the trial court failed to notify him of the consequences of violating postrelease control in the sentencing entry. As stated, this court remanded the matter for the sole purpose of entering a nunc pro tunc entry to correct this error. Jones, 2017-Ohio-9376. Pursuant to our remand, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry on July 3, 2018, correcting Appellant's sentence to include the statutorily mandated five-year period of postrelease control and notifying him of the consequences should he violate postrelease control.
Since Appellant remains in state custody, the trial court properly corrected postrelease control pursuant to R.C. 2929.191 by way of a nunc pro tunc judgment entry. See [State v.] Qualls, [131 Ohio St.3d 499');">131 Ohio St.3d 499, 2012-Ohio-1111, 967 N.E.2d 718');">967 N.E.2d 718, ] at ¶ 24; State v. Dardinger, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160467, 2017-Ohio-1525, ¶ 14; State v. Jones, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26228, 2015-Ohio-1749, ¶ 6; State v. Sands, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2016-L-124, 2017-Ohio-5857, ΒΆ 9. The trial court's initial failure to incorporate postrelease control notification into Appellant's judgment entry of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.