Sproat v. State , 2022 Ohio 746 ( 2022 )

[Cite as Sproat v. State, 2022-Ohio-746.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
SHELBY COUNTY
STEVEN SPROAT,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 17-21-16
v.
STATE OF OHIO, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
Appeal from Shelby County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 21CV000037
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: March 14, 2022
APPEARANCES:
Darren L. Meade for Appellant
Timothy S. Sell for Appellee
Case No. 17-21-16
MILLER, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Steven Sproat, appeals the July 27, 2021 judgment
of the Shelby County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for relief from
weapons disability. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On January 4, 1999, Sproat pled guilty to one count of domestic
violence, a first-degree misdemeanor, in Shelby County Municipal Court case
number 99CRB-00005. He was sentenced to probation, fines, and costs. One year
later, Sproat was successfully terminated from probation. Since that time, Sproat
has had no other criminal record aside from an OVI charge approximately 14 years
ago.
{¶3} On February 19, 2021, Sproat filed a “Petition for Relief from Weapons
Disability Pursuant to R.C. 2923.14(A)” in the trial court. In his petition, Sproat
stated that he applied for a concealed-carry license after completing the required
course work; however, his application was denied on the basis of his 1999
misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction. Therefore, he petitioned the trial court
to grant him relief from his weapons disability.
{¶4} The trial court held a hearing on Sproat’s petition on May 14, 2021. At
the hearing, the State indicated it did not oppose the petition. However, on July 27,
2021 the trial court filed its judgment entry denying Sproat’s petition for relief from
his firearm disability. In its judgment entry, the trial court reasoned that 1) Sproat
-2-
Case No. 17-21-16
was not under a disability imposed by R.C. 2923.13 but rather, a federal firearms
disability pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), 2) the trial court did not have the
authority to relieve Sproat of any disability imposed under federal law, and 3)
because of his misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction, Sproat is not eligible for
a concealed-carry license.
{¶5} Sproat filed his notice of appeal on August 23, 2021. He raises one
assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The trial court erred as a matter of law in overruling Appellant’s
Motion for Relief from firearm disability.
{¶6} In Sproat’s assignment of error, he argues the trial court erred by
denying his petition for relief from firearm disability. Specifically, Sproat argues
the trial court erred by determining that he was under a federal firearms disability
and not under a firearms disability imposed by R.C. 2923.13 which he claimed the
court could remove. For the reasons that follow, we disagree.
{¶7} Ohio’s weapons-under-disability statute, R.C. 2923.13, provides in
pertinent part that “no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any
firearm or dangerous ordinance, if * * * [t]he person * * * has been convicted of
any felony offense of violence * * *.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2923.13(A).
Accordingly, by the plain language of the statute, Sproat’s conviction for
-3-
Case No. 17-21-16
misdemeanor domestic violence does not trigger a firearms disability under Ohio
law because it is not a felony offense of violence.
{¶8} Nevertheless, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful
for any person * * * who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or
possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any
firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign
commerce.” Accordingly, Sproat’s misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence
triggered a firearms disability under the federal Gun Control Act.
{¶9} However, the definitions section of the Gun Control Act carves out four
exceptions to the firearms disability for misdemeanor convictions of domestic
violence:
A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an
offense for purposes of [18 U.S.C. 921 et seq.] if the conviction has
been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has
been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the
applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such
an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil
rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport,
possess, or receive firearms.
(Emphasis added.) 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(ii).
{¶10} R.C. 2923.14 governs the determination of whether Sproat has had his
“civil rights restored” under the meaning of the Gun Control Act. State ex rel.
Suwalski v. Peeler, ---Ohio St.3d ---, 2021-Ohio-4061, ¶ 7. In pertinent part, R.C.
-4-
Case No. 17-21-16
2923.14 permits a common pleas court to grant an application for the removal of a
firearm disability provided that the applicant: (1) “has been fully discharged” if the
disability was the result of a conviction, (2) “has led a law-abiding life since
discharge * * * and appears likely to continue to do so,” and (3) “is not otherwise
prohibited from acquiring, having, or using firearms.” R.C. 2923.14(D). Sproat
reasons that all of the conditions delineated in R.C. 2923.14(D) have been met and
that, accordingly, the trial court had the ability to remove his federal firearm
disability.
{¶11} However, in State ex rel. Suwalski v. Peeler, the Supreme Court of
Ohio recently addressed the issue of whether a state common pleas court has the
authority to grant relief from the federal firearms disability resulting from a
misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction. The Court stated that, “[u]nder Ohio’s
weapons-under-disability statute, an offender’s conviction for misdemeanor
domestic violence (or any other misdemeanor) does not bar the offender from
acquiring, having, carrying, or using a firearm.” Peeler at ¶ 28. Thus, as a matter
of federal law, Sproat, who was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, is
ineligible to have his firearms rights restored through the state courts of Ohio
because he never lost those rights under Ohio law. Id.{¶12} Furthermore, the Court in Peeler held that R.C. 2923.14(D)(3) does
not provide an Ohio court with the ability to grant relief from a firearms disability
-5-
Case No. 17-21-16
to a petitioner who is convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence because “in
order for an Ohio court to grant relief from a firearms disability, the applicant must
not be ‘otherwise prohibited by law from acquiring, having, or using firearms.’”
Peeler at ¶ 29, quoting R.C. 2923.14(D)(3). However, such an individual is
prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms by virtue of his domestic-
violence conviction. Id. Thus, a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic
violence “does not qualify for any relief from * * * firearms disability under R.C.
2923.14.” Id. Therefore, because Sproat is prohibited by federal law from
possessing firearms, he does not qualify to have his firearms disability removed
under R.C. 2923.14. Id. Consequently, the trial court did not err by denying
Sproat’s petition for relief from firearms disability.
{¶13} Accordingly, Sproat’s assignment of error is not well taken and is
overruled.
{¶14} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Shelby County Court
of Common Pleas.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-6-