The Eighth Appellate District Court of Ohio has affirmed a lower court’s decision to deny Da’Brad Monroe’s application for relief from firearms disability. The ruling, issued on November 6, 2025, means Monroe will continue to be prohibited from owning or possessing firearms.
Background of the Case
Monroe had previously been convicted of serious crimes, including two counts of robbery (third-degree felonies) and one count of attempted robbery (a fourth-degree felony). These convictions, under Ohio law, automatically disqualified him from owning firearms.
On January 2, 2025, Monroe sought to have this disability lifted. In his application, he cited his relationship status, graduation from a real estate program, and veteran status as reasons why he should be granted relief.
However, the state raised concerns about outstanding warrants for Monroe’s arrest in Cleveland Heights. A hearing was held on March 11, 2025, and the trial court denied Monroe’s application that same day, citing the outstanding warrants as the reason. Monroe then appealed this decision.
The Appellate Court’s Decision
The appellate court, in its review, focused on whether the trial court had abused its discretion in denying Monroe’s application. The court explained that an abuse of discretion occurs when a court’s decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
The court noted that Monroe failed to provide a transcript of the hearing from the lower court. Without this transcript, the appellate court had to assume the trial court proceedings were conducted properly. This lack of a transcript severely limited the appellate court’s ability to assess the evidence presented by Monroe.
Reasons for the Ruling
The appellate court highlighted several reasons for upholding the trial court’s decision:
* Severity of Prior Convictions: The court emphasized that Monroe’s prior convictions, which included multiple violent offenses such as robbery, gave the trial court discretion to deny his application. The court pointed out that Ohio law allows a court to consider the nature of the offenses when deciding on relief from firearms disability.
* Outstanding Warrants: The appellate court also noted the existence of outstanding arrest warrants for Monroe in Cleveland Heights. The court considered this evidence to be a factor in determining whether Monroe had led a “law-abiding life” since his release from incarceration, a critical factor in determining eligibility for relief. The court specifically cited repeated failure to appear for court as evidence against granting relief.
Legal Framework
The court’s decision hinged on Ohio Revised Code 2923.14, which outlines the process for seeking relief from firearms disabilities. This law allows individuals prohibited from owning firearms to apply to the court of common pleas in their county of residence for relief. The court may grant relief if it finds the applicant has led a law-abiding life since discharge or release and is likely to continue to do so.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Eighth Appellate District Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Monroe’s application. The court’s decision was based on the gravity of Monroe’s prior convictions and the existence of outstanding warrants for his arrest. The court’s ruling reinforces the legal standards for individuals seeking to regain their right to possess firearms after being previously convicted of disqualifying offenses.