[Cite as State v. Bradley,
2025-Ohio-304.]
COURT OF APPEALS
DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
: Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs- :
:
JOSEPH BRADLEY, : Case No. 24 CAA 02 011
:
Defendant - Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
23-CR-I-07-0366
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 31, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
MELISSA A. SCHIFFEL APRIL F. CAMPBELL
Prosecuting Attorney Campbell Law, LLC
545 Metro Place South, Suite 100
By: KATHERYN L. MUNGER Dublin, Ohio 43017
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Delaware County Prosecutor’s Office
145 North Union Street, 3rd Floor
Delaware, Ohio 43017
Delaware County, Case No. 24 CAA 02 0011 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} The appellant, Joseph Bradley, appeals the judgment of the Delaware
County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to dismiss. The appellee is the State
of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to the appeal are as follows.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} On July 20, 2023, the appellant was indicted on one count of Having
Weapons While Under Disability in violation of R.C. §2923.13(A)(1).
{¶3} On September 18, 2023, the appellant filed a motion to dismiss.
{¶4} On October 11, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the appellant’s motion
to dismiss.
{¶5} On November 13, 2023, the trial court denied the appellant’s motion to
dismiss.
{¶6} On January 10, 2024, the appellant entered into a plea agreement, where
the appellant would enter a plea of no contest to an amended charge of Improper
Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle in violation of §2923.16(C).
{¶7} The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and herein raises the following
two assignments of error:
{¶8} “I. BRADLEY’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE WRONG STANDARD. IT
IMPERMISSIBLY PLACED THE BURDEN ON BRADLEY WITHOUT REQUIRING THE
STATE TO MEET ITS BURDEN.
THE STATE DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN UNDER BRUEN: IT DID NOT PROVE THAT
THE FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE COMPONENT OF THE WEAPONS WHILE UNDER
Delaware County, Case No. 24 CAA 02 0011 3
DISABILITY STATUTE IS CONSITENT WITH THE NATION’S HISTORICAL TRADITION
OF FIREARM REGULATION.”
{¶9} “II. THE TRIAL COURT’S MOTION TO DISMISS DECISION SHOULD BE
REVERSED BECAUSE THE SUBSECTION OF THE HAVING WEAPONS WHILE
UNDER DISABILITY STATUTE THAT PROHIBITS FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE FROM
POSSESSING A WEAPON, R.C. §2923.13(A)(1), IS FACIALLY INVALID.”
I., II.
DOCTRINE OF MOOTNESS
{¶10} As an initial matter, we first must determine whether the appellant’s
assignments of error are moot.
{¶11} The Ohio Supreme Court discussed mootness in State ex rel. Ames v.
Summit Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas, 2020-Ohio-354, stating:
“ ‘A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or
the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’ ” State ex rel.
Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow, 125 Ohio St.3d 407,
2010-Ohio-1844,
928
N.E.2d 728, ¶10-11, quoting Powell v. McCormack,
395 U.S. 486, 496,
89
S.Ct. 1944,
23 L.Ed.2d 941 (1969). Because Ames seeks to prevent Judge
Rowlands from exercising jurisdiction in a now dismissed case, this writ
action is no longer “live.” And although under certain circumstances a writ
of prohibition may be granted to prevent the future unauthorized exercise of
jurisdiction and to “correct the results of previously jurisdictionally
authorized actions,” State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Reed, 99 Ohio St.3d 106,
Delaware County, Case No. 24 CAA 02 0011 4
2003-Ohio-2506,
789 N.E.2d 203, ¶14, this appeal may not continue solely
to determine whether Judge Rowlands had jurisdiction to issue the
November 2018 order reinstating the underlying case. Here, a decision on
whether a trial court had authority to reinstate a case that has since been
dismissed would result in a purely advisory opinion.
Id. at ¶8. Mootness was subsequently discussed by this Court in State v. McCauley, 2023-
Ohio-2133 (5th Dist.):
“Mootness is a jurisdictional question because the Court ‘is not
empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions.’ ” State v.
Battigaglia, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2020CA00157, 2021-Ohio-2758, ¶11, citing
State v. Feister, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2018 AP 01 0005, 2018-Ohio-
2336, ¶28, internal citations omitted. Ohio courts have long exercised
judicial restraint in cases that are not actual controversies. Battigaglia,
supra, citing Fortner v. Thomas,
22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14,
257 N.E.2d 371, 372
(1970).
The Ohio Supreme Court has interpreted a “justiciable matter” to
mean the existence of an actual controversy, a genuine dispute between
adverse parties. State v. Wolfe, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2020CA00021, 2020-
Ohio-5501, ¶45, citing State ex rel. Barclays Bank PLC v. Hamilton Cty.
Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 536, 542,
660 N.E.2d 458 (1996).
In order for a justiciable question to exist, the “threat” to a party’s position
“must be actual and genuine and not merely possible or remote.” Wolfe,
supra, citing M6 Motors, Inc. v. Nissan of N.Olmstead, L.L.C., 2014-Ohio-
Delaware County, Case No. 24 CAA 02 0011 5
2537, 14 N.E.3d 1054, ¶17, citing Mid-Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Heasley,
113
Ohio St.3d 133,
2007-Ohio-1248,
863 N.E.2d 142, ¶9.
Id. at ¶13-14.
{¶12} Although the mootness doctrine has exceptions, none apply in the case at
bar. See, e.g. In re Appeal of Suspension of Huffer from Circleville High School, 47 Ohio
St.3d 12,
546 N.E.2d 1308 (1989), paragraph one of the syllabus (noting the two
exceptions to the mootness doctrine are when “the issues are capable of repetition, yet
evading review” or the case “involves a matter of public or great general interest”).
{¶13} In the case sub judice, the appellant is challenging the trial court’s denial of
the appellant’s motion to dismiss the charge of Having Weapons While Under Disability
in violation of R.C. §2923.13(A)(1). However, after the trial court denied the motion, the
appellant and appellee entered into a plea agreement where the appellant entered a plea
of no contest to a different charge, Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle in
violation of §2923.16(C). As the charge of Having Weapons While Under Disability was
amended to Improperly Handling Firearms, a decision on whether the trial court erred in
denying a motion to dismiss the charge of Having Weapons While Under Disability would
be purely advisory as the appellant was not convicted of that charge. Therefore, this is
not a “live” controversy as explained in State ex rel. Ames v. Summit Cnty. Ct. of Common
Pleas, 2020-Ohio-354.
Delaware County, Case No. 24 CAA 02 0011 6
{¶14} Accordingly, the appellant’s first and second assignments of error are moot
and the appeal is dismissed.
By: Baldwin, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
King, J. concur.
