CLEVELAND, Ohio – The Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday ordered a pause on a ruling from a lower court that found banning people accused of violent felonies from having firearms is unconstitutional.
Cuyahoga County prosecutors appealed the decision and asked for a stay after the 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals released its ruling in the case of Delvonte Philpotts on April 3.
The state’s high court has considered Philpotts’ case before. It has not decided whether it will take up prosecutors’ appeal.
The matter began when Philpotts, while facing rape charges, was convicted of a weapons charge in 2018. The charge, possessing weapons under disability, often means a person convicted of a violent crime cannot have a firearm. In Philpotts’ case, he was merely accused of a violent crime.
The rape charges against him were later dropped, but his firearm conviction remained.
Philpotts appealed his conviction, and the case ultimately landed in front of the Ohio Supreme Court, which in 2022 punted the case back to the 8th District for reconsideration in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
In June 2024, Common Pleas Judge Deborah Turner threw out Philpotts’ weapons conviction in a 10-page opinion. She found prosecutors failed to show historical precedent of those under indictment being prohibited from having firearms. The 8th District upheld her ruling earlier this month.
A spokeswoman for the county prosecutor’s office called the appellate court’s decision “bizarre.” Assistant county prosecutors Tasha Forchione and Kevin Filiatraut requested the high court put the ruling on hold in an April 16 filing.
The filing, which criticizes the 8th District’s ruling as “wrong” and “destabilizing,” said temporarily putting the brakes on the decision is necessary to prevent regional disparities in the application of state law.
The county public defender’s office agreed with the appellate court’s ruling and opposed prosecutors’ attempt for a pause. Robert McCaleb, an assistant public defender and Philpotts’ attorney, said in response that the move would harm the Second Amendment rights of Ohioans.
McCaleb argued that stripping a constitutional right from a person requires an individualized judicial hearing, complete with defense counsel and a showing of evidence by prosecutors.
McCaleb said he expects the high court will accept the case and hear arguments on it.
