[Cite as Friedman v. McClelland, 2012-Ohio-1538.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

No. 97036

ALEXANDER FRIEDMAN 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT 

vs. 

DAN MCCLELLAND, 

GEAUGA COUNTY SHERIFF 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED 

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CV-744515 

BEFORE: Stewart, P.J., Sweeney, J., and Cooney, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 5, 2012 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Charles B. Lazzaro 

1565 Woodrow Avenue 

Mayfield Heights, OH 44124 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

David P. Joyce 

Geauga County Prosecutor 

BY: Bridey Matheney 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

231 Main Street, Suite 3A 

Chardon, OH 44024 
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J.: 

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Alexander Friedman appeals from the trial court’s 

dismissal of his administrative appeal from the denial of his application for a license to 

carry a concealed handgun. He complains that defendant-appellee Geauga County Sheriff 

Dan McClelland’s interpretation of Ohio’s concealed carry statute creates an unnecessary 

conflict between, and is contrary to, state and federal law, and thereby prejudices his right 

to obtain a license. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

{¶2} Friedman applied for a license to carry a concealed handgun in Geauga 

County on October 19, 2010. Sheriff McClelland denied his application on December 14, 

2010, and stated that Friedman had been “[d]isqualified by background check * * * results 

of criminal records check: domestic violence 2005, 2007.” The denial notice also 

contained language informing Friedman that “[y]ou may appeal this decision to the 

Geauga County Common Please [sic] Court, or the Common Please [sic] Court of your 

county, pursuant to ORC section 119.12 * * *.” 

{¶3} Friedman, a resident of Beachwood, timely filed a notice of appeal in the 

General Division of Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to R.C. 119.12. 

McClelland filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that federal and state law 

prohibited issuance of the license to Friedman. After hearing oral arguments on the 

motion, the trial court granted McClelland’s motion to dismiss. 
{¶4} Ohio courts of common pleas have jurisdiction “and such powers of review 

of proceedings of administrative officers and agencies as may be provided by law.” Ohio 

Constitution, Article IV, Section 4(B); see, e.g., Adams Robinson Ent. v. Envirologix 

Corp., 111 Ohio App.3d 426, 430, 676 N.E.2d 560 (2d Dist.1996) (“subject matter 

jurisdiction of Ohio’s courts is governed by the Ohio Constitution and state statutes”). 

“Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to hear and decide cases upon their 

merits * * * [and] is a condition precedent to the court’s ability to hear the case.” Turner 

v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 180 Ohio App.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-6608, 904 N.E.2d 566, 

¶ 9 (10th Dist.). A court having general subject matter jurisdiction possesses the initial 

authority to determine its own jurisdiction over the subject matter absent a patent and 

unambiguous lack of jurisdiction. State ex rel. Enyart v. O’Neill, 71 Ohio St.3d 655, 656, 

646 N.E.2d 1110 (1995). 

{¶5} Friedman initiated his appeal of the administrative order denying his 

application for a concealed carry license in Cuyahoga County pursuant to the provisions of 

R.C. 119.12, which states in pertinent part, that: 

[a]ny party adversely affected by any order of an agency issued pursuant to 

an adjudication denying the applicant * * * the issuance of * * * a license * * 

* may appeal from the order of the agency to the court of common pleas of 

the county in which the place of business of the licensee is located or the 

county in which the licensee is a resident * * *. 
{¶6} Compliance with the provisions of R.C. 119.12 concerning the filing of the 

notice of appeal, the time and place of filing, and the content of the notice as specified in 

the statute are all conditions precedent to jurisdiction. Williams v. Drabik, 115 Ohio 

App.3d 295, 296, 685 N.E.2d 293 (10th Dist.1996), citing Zier v. Bur. of Unemp. Comp., 

151 Ohio St. 123, 127, 84 N.E.2d 746 (1949). However,“[i]f the venue provisions of 

R.C. 119.12 conflict with another statute, the court will examine both statutes carefully to 

determine which controls.” Painter & Pollis, Baldwin’s Ohio Appellate Practice, Section 

9.24, at 270 (2011-2012 Ed.) 

{¶7} The General Assembly enacted Am.Sub.H.B. No. 12 in January 2004. The 

bill created a licensing procedure for handgun owners in Ohio and became effective in 

April 2004. R.C. 2923.125 governs applications to carry a concealed handgun and 

“specifically sets out the eligibility requirements and procedures one must follow to 

receive a permit * * *.” State v. Pawelski, 178 Ohio App.3d 426, 2008-Ohio-5180, 898 

N.E.2d 85, ¶ 25 (2d Dist.). 

{¶8} Well-established principles of statutory construction require that specific 

statutory provisions prevail over conflicting general statutes. R.C. 1.51 states that: 

If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, they shall be 

construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both. If the conflict between 

the provisions is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an 

exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later 

adoption and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail. 
{¶9} In the instant case, Friedman, after being denied the issuance of a license to 

carry a concealed handgun, received erroneous information in the denial notice from 

McClelland informing him that he had a choice of forums in which to pursue his appeal; 

namely, Cuyahoga County or Geauga County. R.C. 2923.125 designates a 

statutorily-specified county for appeal, and unequivocally instructs an appellant who is 

denied a license to carry a concealed handgun to “appeal the denial pursuant to section 

119.12 of the Revised Code in the county served by the sheriff who denied the 

application.” R.C. 2923.125(D)(2)(b). 

{¶10} It is clear that the intent of the legislature was to require persons appealing 

the denial of a license to carry a concealed handgun to file an appeal in the county where 

the application was denied. Geauga County is the proper forum for Friedman to pursue 

his appeal. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it dismissed this case, even if the 

dismissal was for other reasons. 

{¶11} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

 

MELODY J. STEWART, PRESIDING JUDGE 
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., and 

COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR