IN RE: DENNIS D. REED, [STATE OF OHIO - APPELLANT].
CASE NO. 9-14-44
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY
July 6, 2015
2015-Ohio-2742
ROGERS, P.J.
Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court, Trial Court No. 14 MS 0024
Denise M. Martin for Appellant
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County relieving Applicant-Appellee, Dennis Reed, of disability pursuant to
{¶2} On July 16, 2014, Reed filed an application for relief from disability pursuant to
{¶3} In its judgment entry, filed on October 23, 2014, the trial court granted Reed‘s application. The entry noted that the State did not oppose Reed‘s application. (Docket No. 4, p. 1). The trial court found that Reed had two prior
{¶4} However, the court found that a conflict existed between
[w]hile it would not be inconsistent for the Legislature to impose a stricter requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit than it does to openly carry a firearm, it would be inconsistent to permit a person with a conviction for a felony offense of violence to obtain relief from disability and a concealed carry permit while a person with only a nonviolent felony conviction would be prohibited from obtaining a permit.
Id. at 4.
{¶5} The court then discussed the requirements to apply for relief from disability and how the relief statute restores all civil firearm rights to the full extent enjoyed by any citizen. Thus, because the statute includes “all civil firearm rights,” the court found that
Assignment of Error
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT RELIEVED THE APPLICANT OF DISABILITY PURSUANT TO
{¶7} In its sole assignment of error, the State argues that the trial court erred by granting Reed‘s application for relief from disability. Specifically, the State argues that Reed, a person with two nonviolent felony convictions, cannot seek relief from
{¶8} Initially, we note that the State did not raise the issue that Reed was barred from seeking relief from disability under
{¶9} By its very language,
{¶11} On appeal, the State has failed to offer any argument that plain error existed. It does not explain how the trial court‘s decision affected the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process. Nor does it explain how this is an example of an extremely rare case that challenges the legitimacy of our judicial process. The only argument the State put forth in its brief was that
{¶12}
{¶14}
{¶15} Moreover, the former
{¶16} Finally, although this court agrees with the trial court‘s ultimate decision, we find no basis for the trial court‘s statutory interpretation of
{¶17} Accordingly, we overrule the State‘s sole assignment of error.
{¶18} Having found no error prejudicial to the State in the particulars assigned or argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI, J., concurs.
SHAW, J., concurs in Judgment Only.
/jlr