Court Opinion

ID: 9368084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 18:08:16.472016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.351370
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Philpotts, 2023-Ohio-213.]

                                COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                               EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                       :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,                 :
                                                              No. 107374
                 v.                                  :

DELVONTE PHILPOTTS,                                  :

                 Defendant-Appellant.                :

                                 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: VACATED AND REMANDED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 26, 2023

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                              Case No. CR-17-619945-A

                                               Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Kevin R. Filiatraut, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

                 Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender,
                 Robert B. McCaleb, Assistant Public Defender, for
                 appellant.

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:

                  This appeal presents a highly unique procedural circumstance. During

the pendency of the appeal, the United States Supreme Court changed the burden
of proof and standard of review when evaluating the constitutionality of a statute

regulating firearms. Because of the change in the law, we vacate the trial court’s

decision and remand this case for the trial court to apply the new standards as set

forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S.___, 142 S.Ct. 2111,

213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022).

              By way of background, appellant Delvonte Philpotts had filed a motion

to dismiss his indictment for having weapons while under disability in violation of

R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), claiming the statute’s automatic criminalization of possession

of firearms by one who is under indictment violates the Second Amendment to the

United States Constitution. The trial court held a hearing on the constitutionality of

R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and upheld the statute as constitutional. Philpotts appealed the

trial court’s order.

               On July 18, 2019, this court issued an opinion in State v. Philpotts,

2019-Ohio-2911, 132 N.E.3d 743 (8th Dist.), in which we affirmed the trial court’s

decision finding R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) constitutional. On November 12, 2019, the

Supreme Court of Ohio accepted discretionary review of the case. During the

pendency of the appeal, on June 23, 2022, the United States Supreme Court decided

Bruen. On December 9, 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio vacated this court’s

decision and remanded the cause to this court “for reconsideration in light of”

Bruen.

               Prior to Bruen, a defendant challenging the constitutionality of a

firearms statute bore the burden of proof.           Further, in determining the
constitutionality of such statutes, courts employed balancing tests. See Bruen, 142

S.Ct. 2111, at 2129-30. This case was briefed and analyzed in the trial court based on

the standards of law in effect before Bruen. However, Bruen shifts the burden of

proof and alters the court’s standard of review for determining the constitutionality

of firearm-regulating statutes such as R.C. 2923.13. The state now bears the burden

of proof and is required to “justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is

consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 2130.

Further, Bruen changed the court’s standard of review by eliminating the

application of any “means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny” in its

review. Id. at 2129.

             Upon reconsideration, we are cognizant that the parties developed a

record based upon their respective burdens of proof and the trial court considered

the record and arguments and employed a different standard of review than what is

now required pursuant to Bruen. Therefore, we vacate the judgment of the trial

court and remand this case to the trial court so that the parties may develop the

relevant record and the trial court can apply the correct burden of proof and

standard of review as set forth in Bruen.

              Judgment vacated, and cause remanded to the trial court for

rehearing.

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

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.

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

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR