Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton
County Court of Common Pleas, Trial No. B-1503485
T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alex
Scott Havlin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for
Rhett Baker, for Defendant-Appellant.
Following a jury trial, defendant-appellant Furious Carney
was convicted of one count of having weapons while under a
disability under R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) and one count of carrying
concealed weapons under R.C. 2923.12(A)(2). He was acquitted
of one count of felonious assault with accompanying firearm
specifications. The trial court sentenced Carney to three
years' imprisonment on the weapons-under-a-disability
charge and 18 months' imprisonment on the
carrying-concealed-weapons charge, to be served
consecutively. We find no merit in Carney's two
assignments of error, and we affirm his convictions.
Juvenile Adjudication as a Disability
In his first assignment of error, Carney contends that his
conviction for having weapons while under a disability must
be vacated. He argues that under the Ohio Supreme Court's
decision in State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94,
2016-Ohio-5504, 73 N.E.3d 448, a juvenile adjudication cannot
be the disability on which the conviction is based. This
assignment of error is not well taken.
In Hand, the Ohio Supreme Court held that because a
juvenile adjudication is not established through a procedure
that provides a right to a jury trial, it cannot be used to
increase a sentence beyond a statutory maximum or mandatory
minimum. Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
Carney seeks to extend that holding to the disability element
of having weapons while under a disability.
This court rejected that argument in State v.
Carnes, 2016-Ohio-8019, 75 N.E.3d 774 (1st Dist.). We
stated that "the mere fact of Carnes's 1994
adjudication imposed a disability that made it illegal under
R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) for Carnes to possess a firearm in Ohio.
The reliability of Carnes's adjudication is immaterial
for purposes of that statute." Id. at ¶
14. We went on to state,
The dissent relies on State v. Hand * * * for its
position that Carnes's adjudication should be off-limits
for purposes of establishing the disability element of the
WUD charge. Hand does not apply in this case. Its
holding is limited to banning the use of a juvenile
adjudication to enhance punishment. It is therefore not
relevant to the issue raised in this appeal.
Id. at ¶ 15.
We reiterated that holding in State v. McCray, 1st
Dist. Hamilton No. C-160272, 2017-Ohio-2996. We stated,
In State v. Carnes * * *, we recently declined to
extend the application of Hand to bar the use of a
juvenile adjudication to prove the disability element of a
weapon-under-disability charge under R.C. 2923.13(A)(2).
Therefore, we hold that McCray's right to due process was
not violated by the use of his prior juvenile adjudication ...