Court Opinion

ID: 9882601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:17:15.935484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:51.869846
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re Application for Relief from Weapons Disability v. Downing, 2023-Ohio-3034.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                     LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN RE: APPLICATION FOR RELIEF                              JUDGES:
FROM WEAPONS DISABILITY                                    Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
                                                           Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
        Respondent-Appellee                                Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

-vs-                                                       Case No. 23 CA 00005

JAMES DOWNING
                                                           OPINION
        Petitioner-Appellant

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                               Civil Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                       Pleas, Case No. 22 CV 00970

JUDGMENT:                                              Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                                August 29, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Respondent-Appellee                                For Petitioner-Appellant

JENNY WELLS                                            MARK J. MILLER
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY                                   LAW OFFICE OF MARK J. MILLER, LLC
KENNETH W. OSWALT                                      500 City Park Avenue
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR                                   Suite C
20 South Second Street, 4th Floor                      Columbus, Ohio 43215
Newark, Ohio 43055
Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 00005                                                     2

Wise, P. J.

       {¶1}   Appellant James Downing appeals from the trial court’s decision denying

his Application for Relief from Weapons Disability. Appellee is the State of Ohio. The

relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

                             STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}   On August 29, 2022, Appellant filed his Application for Relief from Weapons

Disability, pursuant to R.C. §2923.14.

       {¶3}   On October 12, 2022, Appellee filed a written objection, noting Appellant’s

prior criminal record, that Appellant’s convictions for Rape and Gross Sexual Imposition

are both serious offenses, and that they believe it is in the public interest for defendant

not to be relieved from a weapons disability.

       {¶4}   On November 21, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on Appellant’s

Application for Relief from Weapons Disability. At the hearing Appellant testified he is

married and owns his own business. In 2005, Appellant was convicted of Rape and Gross

Sexual Imposition. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, but the sentence was later

reduced to four years. He was released from prison in 2009, and completed his sexual

oriented offender registration in 2019.

       {¶5}   Appellee did not present evidence at the hearing, only leaving the decision

in the court’s discretion.

                                  ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

       {¶6}   Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He herein raises the following

Assignment of Error:
Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 00005                                                    3

      {¶7}   “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN

DENYING APPELLANT’S APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM WEAPONS DISABILITY

UNDER R.C. 2923.14.”

      {¶8}   In Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court

abused its discretion by denying his Application for Relief from Weapons Disability. We

disagree.

      {¶9}   “The denial of an application for relief from disability is reviewed under an

abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Miller, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2020 CA 00132, 2021-

Ohio-1149, ¶12. The abuse of discretion standard is more than an error of judgment; it

implies the court ruled arbitrarily, unreasonably, or unconscionably. Blakemore v.

Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

      {¶10} R.C. §2923.14 states, in pertinent part:

             (A)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (A)(2) of this section,

     any person who is prohibited from acquiring, having, carrying, or using

     firearms may apply to the court of common pleas in the county in which the

     person resides for relief from such prohibition.

             ***

             (D) Upon hearing, the court may grant the applicant relief pursuant

     to this section, if all of the following apply:

             (1) One of the following applies:

             (a) If the disability is based upon an indictment, a conviction, or an

     adjudication, the applicant has been fully discharged from imprisonment,
Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 00005                                                       4

      community control, post-release control, and parole, or, if the applicant is

      under indictment, has been released on bail or recognizance.

               (b) If the disability is based upon a factor other than an indictment, a

      conviction, or an adjudication, that factor no longer is applicable to the

      applicant.

               (2) The applicant has led a law-abiding life since discharge or

      release, and appears likely to continue to do so.

               (3) The applicant is not otherwise prohibited by law from acquiring,

      having, or using firearms.

       {¶11} The Eighth District explains “R.C. 2923.13 creates an assumption that gun

possession by [certain persons] poses a potential risk to public safety.” State v. Philpotts,

8th Dist. No. 107374, 2019-Ohio-2911, 132 N.E.3d 743, ¶29. “R.C. 2923.14 allows such

a person to rebut the presumption and show he or she is a ‘law abiding citizen.’ ” Id.

“Under R.C. 2923.14(D), the court is required to hold a hearing and may grant relief if the

person * * * can show he or she ‘has led a law-abiding life since discharge or release, and

appears likely to continue to do so.’ ” Id., quoting R.C. §2923.14(D)(1)-(2). “Whereas the

statute embodies a generalized risk assessment by the General Assembly, the hearing

available under R.C. 2923.14 allows the court to make an individualized assessment as

to an individual’s potential risk.” Id.

       {¶12} Appellant argues that because he believes he satisfied the requirements of

R.C. §2923.14 and that the trial court did not give specific reasons why the application

was denied, the trial court acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or unconscionably. However,

the plain language of R.C. §2923.14(D) provides that even if Appellant meets the criteria
Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 00005                                                           5

to the trial court’s satisfaction, it is still within the court’s discretion whether to grant or

deny the application. State v. Lerch, 4th Dist. Washington No. 15CA39, 2016-Ohio-2791,

¶24.

       {¶13} “[A] trial court is free to consider the nature and extent of the applicant’s

prior criminal activity in determining that the person is not a fit subject for relief[.]” Id. at

¶26.

       {¶14} In the case sub judice, the record established that Appellant committed

serious offenses, Appellee objected to Appellant’s application based on the seriousness

of those offenses, and that Appellee believes it is not in the public interest for Appellant

to be relieved from a weapons disability. Appellee opted not to present evidence at the

hearing, deferring to the court’s discretion. Appellant’s only evidence presented at the

hearing was his own testimony that he has led a law-abiding life and would continue to

do so. He presented no other evidence or testimony.

       {¶15} The trial court denied the application finding that Appellee’s objections to

Appellant’s Application for Relief from Disability to be valid and denied the application.

       {¶16} Appellant’s argument is premised that because the trial court considered

Appellee’s written objections to the application and Appellee did not present evidence at

the hearing, the trial court arbitrarily, unreasonably, or unconscionably denied Appellant’s

Application for Relief from Disability.

       {¶17} Here, the entry discloses the trial court’s reason for the trial court’s denial

of Appellant’s application, the seriousness of his prior convictions, and that it is in the

public interest for Appellant not to be relieved from a weapons disability. Even though the
Licking County, Case No. 23 CA 00005                                                    6

trial court did not need to specify a reason, they found Appellee’s filed objections to be

valid.

         {¶18} Therefore, based upon the foregoing reasons, we hold that Appellant has

failed to satisfy his burden to establish that the trial court acted in an arbitrary,

unreasonable or unconscionable manner by denying his Application for Relief from

Disability.

         {¶19} Accordingly, Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.

         {¶20} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of

Licking County, Ohio, is hereby, affirmed.

By: Wise, P. J.

Delaney, J., and

Baldwin, J., concur.

JWW/br 0823