[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