State v. Philpotts
2019 Ohio 2911
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Delvonte Philpotts was indicted for rape, kidnapping, and assault; released on bond with GPS monitoring and later posted social-media photos showing him with a handgun and his ankle monitor visible.
- Police searched his home, found a Taurus 9mm matching the photos, and Philpotts admitted possession. He was indicted under Ohio R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) (weapons-while-under-disability for persons under indictment for a felony offense of violence).
- The underlying rape indictment was later dismissed; Philpotts pleaded no contest to the weapons-under-disability charge and appealed, arguing constitutional defects in R.C. 2923.13(A)(2).
- He raised three challenges: (1) facial Second Amendment invalidity, (2) as-applied Second Amendment invalidity, and (3) procedural due process violation.
- The trial court denied his motion to dismiss; the appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed the conviction, holding the statute constitutional on its face and as applied and not violative of due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) is facially inconsistent with the Second Amendment | State: statute serves significant public-safety interest and is presumptively constitutional | Philpotts: automatic ban on indictees is not a longstanding restriction and violates Heller | Statute is facially constitutional under intermediate scrutiny: narrowly tailored and leaves alternative relief (R.C. 2923.14) |
| Whether R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) is unconstitutional as applied to Philpotts | State: application valid because indictee status and facts (social-media boasting, gun possession) support disability | Philpotts: needed firearm for self-defense in high-crime neighborhood; presumption of innocence bars disability | As applied: constitutional — Philpotts never sought relief under R.C. 2923.14 and his conduct (publicly displaying gun) undermined self-defense claim |
| Whether the statute violates procedural due process (notice and hearing) | State: statute gives fair warning; statutory relief process provides hearing | Philpotts: deprivation of Second Amendment right without individualized process is due process violation | No due process violation: notice present (arraignment/ankle monitor); R.C. 2923.14 provides opportunity for hearing and individualized review |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny for Second Amendment challenges to the statute | State: intermediate scrutiny applies; statute survives because tailored to public-safety interest | Philpotts: argued Heller core applies to indictees as law-abiding citizens | Court applied intermediate scrutiny and upheld the statute as narrowly tailored with alternative avenues for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (Second Amendment secures individual right but is not unlimited; recognized longstanding prohibitions as presumptively lawful)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (incorporated Second Amendment against the states)
- State v. Carnes, 154 Ohio St.3d 527 (Ohio 2018) (deference to legislature’s risk assessment in R.C. 2923.13 categories)
- State v. Taniguchi, 74 Ohio St.3d 154 (Ohio 1995) (upheld R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) disability based on indictment despite later dismissal)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (facial-challenge standard: challenger must show no set of circumstances where statute is valid)
- United States v. Laurent, 861 F. Supp. 2d 71 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) as applied to indictees under intermediate scrutiny; presumption of innocence not dispositive outside trial context)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 2010) (knowledge of disability need not be proven for R.C. 2923.13 convictions)
- State v. Wheatley, 94 N.E.3d 578 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018) (applied intermediate scrutiny to R.C. 2923.13-related Second Amendment challenges)