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. Campbell

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

December 6, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ISAIAH CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

          Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-16-604551-B Application for Reconsideration Motion No. 531890

          Paul Mancino, Jr., for appellant.

          Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Carl Mazzone, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          LARRY A JONES, SR., J.

         {¶ 1} Applicant, Isaiah Campbell, filed a delayed application for reconsideration of the decision issued on April 26, 2018, in State v. Campbell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105622, 2018-Ohio-1639. In an abundance of caution, this court will analyze the filing as a delayed application for reconsideration under App.R. 26(A) and an application to reopen the appeal under App.R. 26(B). Under both standards, Campbell is not entitled to relief. Therefore, the application is denied.

         {¶ 2} Campbell was convicted of two counts of rape, two counts of kidnapping, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and grand theft; with attendant firearm specifications and a sexually violent predator specification. Campbell at ¶ 12. He received a sentence of 36-years-to-life. This sentence was ordered to be served consecutive to a 14-year prison sentence that was previously imposed in an unrelated case. Id.

         {¶ 3} Campbell appealed, but did not argue that his sentence constituted a de facto life sentence. This court overruled Campbell's six assignments of error and affirmed his convictions and sentences. Id. at ¶ 49.

         {¶ 4} His codefendent, Dashawn Strowder, was convicted of similar crimes and received a sentence of 50-years-to-life. State v. Strowder, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105569, 2018-Ohio-1292, ¶ 14. This sentence was ordered to be served consecutive to a nine-year prison sentence imposed in an unrelated case. Id. In Strowder's appeal, he argued that the sentence was tantamount to a life sentence imposed on a non-homicide juvenile offender, which was unlawful under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), and the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in State v. Moore, 149 Ohio St.3d 557, 2016-Ohio-8288, 76 N.E.3d 1127. On April 5, 2018, this court reversed Strowder's sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing with instructions for the trial court to consider when Strowder would become eligible for parole in light of Graham and Moore, and whether the length of sentence would allow him a meaningful opportunity for parole. Id. at ¶ 44.[1]

         {¶5} Despite the fact that the decision remanding Strowder's case for resentencing was issued prior to the appellate decision in Campbell's case, [2] Campbell did not immediately file an application for reconsideration raising this sentencing issue, or file an application to reopen his appeal based on appellate counsel's failure to raise this issue. Over 16 months later, on September 13, 2019, Campbell filed a delayed motion for reconsideration raising the claim for the first time.

         {¶ 6} An application for reconsideration is governed by App.R. 26(A)(1)(a), which provides that an "[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)."

         {¶ 7} The rule does not readily provide a standard that appellate courts should employ to determine the merits of an application for reconsideration, but this court has previously stated,

when reviewing an application for reconsideration, [the court] must determine 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 not fully considered by the court. Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98115, 2012-Ohio-6008; State v. Dunbar, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87317, 2007-Ohio-3261. In addition, an application for reconsideration is not intended to simply allow a party to challenge an opinion because of a disagreement with the conclusion reached and the logic employed by the appellate court. Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co. v. Greene, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-10-006, 2011-Ohio-2959; In re Richardson, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 01-CA-78, 2002-Ohio-6709. Finally, an application for reconsideration must point to an obvious error in the appellate decision or raise for consideration issues that were not considered at all or not fully considered. Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68, 523 N.E.2d 515 (10th Dist.1987); Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140, 450 N.E.2d 278 (10th Dist.1981).

State v. Ramos, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103596, 2017-Ohio-7712, ¶ 10.

         {¶ 8} App.R. 26(B)(1) provides a ten-day deadline for filing an application for reconsideration, but pursuant to App.R. 14(B), that deadline may be extended on a showing of "extraordinary circumstances." Extraordinary circumstances may be ...


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.