Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 01-20-2019
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO v. JONATHAN CHEATHAM
Case Number: 28859
Judge: Jennifer Lee Hensal
Court: COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Plaintiff's Attorney: SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Defendant's Attorney: GEORGE G. KEITH
Description:
The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Cheatham on one count of having weapons while
under disability. Mr. Cheatham moved to dismiss the indictment because the predicate for the
offense was that he had been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an offense that would
have been a felony offense of violence. After the trial court denied his motion, Mr. Cheatham
pleaded no contest to the charge. The trial court found him guilty, and sentenced him to two
years of community control. Mr. Cheatham has appealed, assigning as error that the trial court
incorrectly denied his motion to dismiss.
II
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
2
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CHARGE OF HAVING WEAPONS WHILE UNDER DISABILITY WHEN A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION WAS USED AS A PREDICATE OFFENSE TO PROVE AN ELEMENT OF A SUBSEQUENT ADULT FELONY OFFENSE.
{¶3} Mr. Cheatham argues that his juvenile adjudication could not impose a disability
on him for purposes of Revised Code Section 2923.13. That section provides in relevant part
that, “[u]nless relieved from disability * * *, no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or
use any firearm or dangerous ordnance, if * * * [t]he person * * * has been adjudicated a
delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have
been a felony offense of violence.” R.C. 2923.13(A)(2). According to Mr. Cheatham, because a
juvenile adjudication is not a criminal conviction, it would violate his right to due process if it
was allowed to create a legal disability.
{¶4} We stayed this action pending the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v.
Carnes, Slip Opinion No. 2017-0087, 2018-Ohio-3256. In Carnes, the Court considered
“whether using a prior juvenile adjudication of delinquency for the commission of an offense
that would have been felonious assault if it had been committed by an adult as an element of the
offense of having a weapon under disability as set forth in R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) violates due
process.” Id. at ¶ 1. That is the same issue as the one Mr. Cheatham has raised. The Ohio
Supreme Court concluded that there was no due process violation because the State may impose
restrictions on who may possess firearms and the legislature has created a process through which
a person may seek relief from the disability. Id. at 11-12. Accordingly, we must reject Mr.
Cheatham’s argument. Id. at ¶ 21.
{¶5} Mr. Cheatham also argues that juvenile adjudications are not sufficiently reliable
to be treated the same as a criminal conviction. In Carnes, however, the Ohio Supreme Court
3
explained that the General Assembly had made a policy decision to exclude those with certain
prior juvenile adjudications from possessing weapons. Id. at ¶ 16. It concluded that the fact that
juveniles do not have the right to a jury trial “does not make prior juvenile adjudications
unreliable for risk-assessment purposes.” Id. at ¶ 17. We, therefore, reject Mr. Cheatham’s
argument.
{¶6} Mr. Cheatham further argues that he did not receive notice that his juvenile
adjudication of delinquency might create a disability as to owning or possessing a firearm as an
adult. He notes that, in State v. Lentine, 9th Dist. Medina No. 16CA0032-M, 2017-Ohio-7356,
this Court held that, if a trial court fails to advise a criminal defendant of the immigration
consequences of a guilty plea, the defendant can move to set the judgment aside. Id. at ¶ 13.
There is nothing in the record, however, concerning the circumstances of Mr. Cheatham’s
juvenile adjudication. Accordingly, we conclude that we are unable to review the merits of Mr.
Cheatham’s argument. Mr. Cheatham’s assignment of error is overruled.
Outcome: Mr. Cheatham’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: