Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning
Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecutor, and Atty. Ralph M.
Rivera, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for
Jones, Pro Se, # A511-342, Grafton Correctional Institution,
BEFORE: David A. D'Apolito, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
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.
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. We disagree.
In Jones, 2019-Ohio-2377, this court stated the
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, ¶ 9. The trial
court's initial failure to incorporate postrelease
control notification into Appellant's judgment entry of