DocketNumber: No. 23160.
Citation Numbers: 170 Ohio App. 3d 705, 2006 Ohio 5425, 868 N.E.2d 1044
Judges: Slaby, Moore, Boyle
Filed Date: 10/18/2006
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
{¶ 1} Appellant, Gary G. Pivar, appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of appellee, Summit County Sheriff (the "Sheriff), affirming the Sheriff's denial of Pivar's application for a concealed-handgun license ("CHL") pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 2} In October 2004, Pivar applied to the Sheriff for a CHL pursuant to R.C.
The trial court erred in upholding the decision of [the Sheriff] because such decision was not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and was not in accordance with law.
{¶ 3} Pivar asserts that the Sheriff is required to issue a CHL where the requirements of R.C.
{¶ 4} We first note the appropriate standard of review. Appeals taken from an administrative agency's decision are governed by R.C.
{¶ 5} In reviewing a decision of a common pleas court that determines whether an agency's order is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, this court must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. Wise v. Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd.
(1995),
{¶ 6} Pivar asserts that he is entitled to the CHL because he met all the requirements of R.C.
{¶ 7} The trial court found, however, that Pivar had not met the requirement set forth in R.C.
A. Question of Law
{¶ 8} The trial court concluded that the Pivar had been "committed to a mental institution," which precluded the Sheriff from issuing Pivar a CHL pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 9} The principles of statutory construction require courts to first look at the specific language contained in the statute, and if the language is unambiguous, to then apply the clear meaning of the words used. RoxaneLaboratories, Inc. v. Tracy (1996),
{¶ 10} A court may interpret a statute only where the statute is ambiguous. State ex rel. Celebrezze v.Allen Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1987),
{¶ 11} Here, the statute is not ambiguous. The word "committed" is not modified by the words voluntary or involuntary. Under Ohio law, commitment may be voluntary or involuntary and the legislature provides "a person who is committed, voluntarily or involuntarily" with the same rights. R.C.
B. Question of Fact
{¶ 12} The trial court found, based on the sealed records before it, that "Mr. Pivar was hospitalized at St. Thomas Hospital for psychiatric treatment [and that] there is evidence of multiple incidents of erratic behavior including threatening sheriff's department personnel, discharging a firearm at his girlfriend's house, arriving at a Doctor's office with hand grenades, as well as suicidal tendencies." The trial court also noted that "in 1987, Appellant was placed on Disability by the Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio for mental health reasons and erratic behavior." Thus, the trial court found that Pivar did not satisfy the requirements of R.C.
{¶ 13} We find, based on the review of the record filed under seal, and applying our discussion of the statutory language above, that the trial court's finding does not represent an error in judgment and was not an abuse of discretion. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
*Page 710MOORE and BOYLE, JJ., concur.