State v. HendersonState v. Henderson
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Motion for Reconsideration
Atty. Paul Gains, Prosecutor and Atty. Ralph Rivera, Assistant Prosecutor, Mahoning County Prosecutor‘s Office, 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for Plaintiff-Appellee, and
Ericulo Laross Henderson (PRO SE), A672536, 5900 B.I.S. Road, Lancaster, Ohio 43130, for Defendant-Appellant.
Dated:
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Ericulo Henderson, has filed an application for reconsideration of our judgment denying his prior application for reconsideration as untimely.
{¶2} Our judgment in this case was filed on May 29, 2020. Appellant filed his first application on July 2, 2020. He filed his second, almost identical application, on August 6, 2020. Thus, the applications were technically untimely. See
{¶3} However, on March 27, 2020, the Governor of Ohio signed into law Am.Sub.H.B. No. 197, which immediately tolled all statutes of limitation, time limitations, and deadlines in the Ohio Revised Code and the Ohio Administrative Code until the expiration of Executive Order 2020-01D or July 30, 2020, whichever was sooner. In re Tolling of Time Requirements Imposed by Rules Promulgated by Supreme Court & Use of Technology, 158 Ohio St.3d 1447, 2020-Ohio-1166. The Ohio Supreme Court determined that this tolling order applied to all filing deadlines within the applicable period. Id. Thus, we should not have denied appellant‘s application for reconsideration as being untimely.
{¶4} For that reason, we now address the merits of appellant‘s application for reconsideration.
{¶5}
{¶6} In his application for reconsideration, appellant argues that the trial court erred in merging his convictions on counts one and two and failing to merge his conviction on count three. He argues this court misinterpreted his argument. He contends the trial court erred in merging his conviction for felonious assault with his conviction for child endangering. He contends the trial court should have sentenced him separately on each of the two child endangerment convictions.
{¶7} After we affirmed his conviction, State v. Henderson, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 15 MA 0137, 2018-Ohio-2816, reconsideration denied, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 15 MA 0137, 2018-Ohio-3424, and appeal not allowed State v. Laross-Henderson, 153 Ohio St.3d 1497, 2018-Ohio-4092, 108 N.E.3d 1105, appellant filed a “Motion to Correct Void Judgment Pursuant to
{¶8} On appeal, appellant argued that in his judgment entry of sentence, the trial court should have, and failed to, sentence him on each individual charge. He claimed this was in violation of
{¶9} In his application for reconsideration, appellant simply disagrees with the conclusions reached by this court. He also raises additional arguments as to merger, which are barred by the doctrine of res judicata as they should have been raised in his direct appeal. State v. Amos, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 19 BE 0003, 2019-Ohio-3651.
{¶10} In sum, after consideration of appellant‘s application for reconsideration, the application is denied. Costs to be taxed against Appellant.
JUDGE GENE DONOFRIO
JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE
JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
This document constitutes a final judgment entry.