Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor BY: Daniel T. Van Assistant Prosecuting
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Mark Stanton Cuyahoga County Public
Defender BY: Erika B. Cunliffe Jeff Gardner Assistant Public
BEFORE: E.T. Gallagher, P.J., Boyle, J., and Blackmon, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
T. GALLAGHER, P.J.
Appellant, the state of Ohio ("the state"), appeals
from the trial court's judgment granting
defendant-appellee, Antonio Ortiz's, motion to dismiss
the offense of having weapons while under disability, as
charged by information. The state raises the following
assignment of error for review:
1. Under the holding of State v. Hand, Slip Opinion
No. 2016-Ohio-5504, using a prior juvenile adjudication for a
conviction of having weapons while under disability is not a
constitutional violation; therefore, the trial court erred in
dismissing the charge.
After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we
reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Procedural and Factual History
In August 2016, Ortiz was charged by way of information with
one count of having weapons while under disability in
violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), and one count of carrying a
concealed weapon in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2). The
offense of having weapons while under disability was
predicated on Ortiz's prior juvenile adjudication for
In November 2016, Ortiz filed a motion to dismiss his having
weapons while under disability charge "based upon the
Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Hand,
[149 Ohio St.3d 94');">149 Ohio St.3d 94, 2016-Ohio-5504, 73 N.E.3d 448]."
Ortiz argued that according to the reasoning of the Ohio
Supreme Court's decision in Hand, his prior
juvenile adjudication cannot support a having weapons while
under disability charge.
The state opposed the motion, arguing that the language of
Hand is limited to instances in which a juvenile
adjudication enhanced a criminal offense committed by an
adult and does not create a prohibition against using all
Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion,
stating in relevant part:
The state's arguments lack merit because the
Hand decision does not preclude the application of a
juvenile adjudication "for the purposes of determining
the offense with which the person should be charged" as
stated in R.C. 2901.08(A). Nor does it do so concerning any
other statute, such as Having Weapons While Under Disability.
The Supreme Court of Ohio in Hand focused only on