State v. Cantwell

[Cite as State v. Cantwell, 2013-Ohio-1685.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Respondent-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
Case No. 12CA59
DAVID A. CANTWELL
Applicant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2012-MIS-0039
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 25, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Respondent-Appellee For Applicant-Appellant
JAMES J. MAYER, JR. KEITH A. YEAZEL
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 5354 North High Street
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO Columbus, Ohio 43214
By: JOHN C. NIEFT
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
38 South Park Street
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 12CA59 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Applicant-appellant David Cantwell appeals the June 29, 2012 Judgment
Entry entered by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his
Application for Relief from Disability. Respondent-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} Appellant filed an Application for Relief from Disability in the Richland
County Court of Common Pleas on June 7, 2012. Therein, Appellant stated he was
convicted of robbery in 1970, and sentenced to a term of incarceration of 1 – 15 years in
the Mansfield Reformatory. Appellant was released from prison in 1972, and completed
parole in 1973. In his affidavit in support of his application, Appellant avers he is 64
years old, and lives in Kentucky. He has worked at the K&B Pawnshop since his
release from prison in 1972. Appellant and his wife are approved foster parents in the
state of Kentucky. Appellant explained restoration of his firearm rights is necessary in
order for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives to permit his wife’s
pawnshop to become a federally licensed firearms dealer.
{¶3} Appellee filed a response on June 15, 2012, asserting the trial court did
not have jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2923.14, to grant the requested relief. Thereafter,
Appellant filed a reply memorandum in support of his application for relief from disability.
Appellee responded with a memorandum in support of dismissal of Appellant’s
application. Via Judgment Entry filed June 29, 2012, the trial court denied Appellant’s
application, finding it did not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.
{¶4} It is from that judgment entry Appellant appeals, assigning as error:
Richland County, Case No. 12CA59 3
{¶5} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED DAVID A.
CANTWELL’S APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM DISABILITY ON THE GROUNDS
THAT IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION.”
I
{¶6} R.C. 2923.14(A) sets forth the procedure for an applicant seeking relief
from a disability. The statute specifically provides: “Any person who is prohibited from
acquiring, having, carrying, or using firearms may apply to the court of common pleas in
the county in which the person resides for relief from such prohibition.”
{¶7} Appellant insists he properly filed his application in Richland County as the
use of the word “may” in R.C. 2923.14(A) modifies the phrase “in the county in which
the person resides.” Thus, Appellant argues, the statutory language provides an
applicant with an option of where to file his or her application. We disagree.
{¶8} In interpreting statutes, a reviewing court should make every effort to give
effect to each word, phrase and clause. Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 125 Ohio
St.3d 510, 2010–Ohio–2550, 929 N.E.2d 448, ¶ 21. In addition, “[s]tatutes must be
construed, if possible, to operate sensibly and not to accomplish foolish results.” State
ex rel. Saltsman v. Burton, 154 Ohio St. 262, 268, 95 N.E.2d 377 (1950).
{¶9} In order to properly construe this statute, we must first look at the express
wording of the statute. Provident Bank v. Wood (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 101, 65 O.O.2d
296, 304 N.E.2d 378. We are instructed to give effect to the words of a statute and not
modify an unambiguous statute by deleting words used or inserting words not used.
Shover v. Cordis Corp. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 213, 218, 574 N.E.2d 457, 461. Simply
stated, “an unambiguous statute means what it says.” Hakim v. Kosydar (1977), 49
Richland County, Case No. 12CA59 4
Ohio St.2d 161, 164, 3 O.O.3d 211, 213, 359 N.E.2d 1371, 1373, citing Chope v. Collins
(1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 297, 300, 2 O.O.3d 442, 444, 358 N.E.2d 573, 575, fn. 2.
{¶10} We find the language of R.C. 2923.14(A) is unambiguous. The statute
indicates a person with a disability “may” make an application for relief from such
prohibition, and clearly states such application is to be made “in the court of common
pleas in the county in which the person resides.” We agree with Appellee the word
“may” goes to the optional nature of making the application, and not the optional nature
of where to establish venue. Such construction is logical given the county in which an
applicant resides has the most interest in whether an applicant should be released from
his disability.
{¶11} We find the trial court properly dismissed Appellant’s application for lack of
jurisdiction.
{¶12} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ John W. Wise _____________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
s/ Craig R. Baldwin ___________________
HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN
Richland County, Case No. 12CA59 5
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Respondent-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
DAVID A. CANTWELL :
:
Applicant-Appellant : Case No. 12CA59
For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, Appellant’s sole assignment
of error is overruled. Costs to Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ John W. Wise _____________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
s/ Craig R. Baldwin ___________________
HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN