State v. Spring
2017 Ohio 8012
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jeffrey M. Spring, Sr. was convicted of tampering with evidence and murder with a firearm specification and sentenced to 18 years to life; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Spring filed an untimely application to reopen his appeal; the court previously denied that application.
- On July 10, 2017 Spring, pro se, filed a timely application for reconsideration of the court’s denial of his application to reopen.
- Spring argued (1) good cause for the untimeliness and (2) he lacked portions of the record because appellate counsel failed to provide them.
- The court found Spring made no additional effort to obtain missing transcripts or portions of the record from the clerk or elsewhere.
- The court concluded the reconsideration application did not demonstrate an obvious error or present issues not considered previously and denied reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration should be granted for an untimely application to reopen | Court (State) argued prior denial was correct and no basis for reconsideration | Spring argued he had good cause for untimeliness and lacked portions of the record due to counsel’s failure to provide them | Denied — no obvious error shown; reconsideration not a second chance to reargue or cure procedural defects |
| Whether failure to possess portions of the record excused procedural defaults | Court maintained applicant must pursue available means to obtain record | Spring claimed appellate counsel’s failure prevented him from providing record excerpts | Denied — Spring did not attempt to obtain transcripts from clerk or otherwise; unsupported claim insufficient |
| Whether reconsideration may reargue merits of prior decision | Court asserted reconsideration is not for reargument based on dissatisfaction | Spring effectively attempted to relitigate issues already considered | Denied — reconsideration is not for rehashing or disagreeing with prior reasoning |
| Standard for granting reconsideration | Court cited the test requiring identification of obvious error or unconsidered issue | Spring failed to identify any obvious error or unconsidered issue | Denied — application did not meet the Columbus v. Hodge standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987) (test for reconsideration: must show obvious error or issue not considered)