State v. Dorsey

2026 Ohio 581

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Dorsey, 2026-Ohio-581.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 30435 Appellant : : Trial Court Case No. 2024 CR 3100/2 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas KEVIN DORSEY : Court) : Appellee : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & : OPINION

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on February 20, 2026, the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed. The cause is remanded to the trial court to proceed with the

remaining counts in the indictment.

Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.

For the court,

MARY K. HUFFMAN, JUDGE

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur. OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30435

ANDREW T. FRENCH, Attorney for Appellant ANTHONY D. MAIORANO, Attorney for Appellee

HUFFMAN, J.

{¶ 1} The State of Ohio appeals from an order of the Montgomery County Common

Pleas Court that dismissed a carrying concealed weapons count in the indictment against

Kevin Dorsey. Based on our recent decision in State v. Matosky, 2025-Ohio-5658

(2d Dist.), we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause to the trial court to

proceed with the remaining counts in the indictment.

Procedural History

{¶ 2} On December 2, 2024, a Montgomery County grand jury indicted Dorsey on

one count of having weapons under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), a third-

degree felony; one count of carrying concealed weapons in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2),

a fourth-degree felony; and one count of obstructing official business in violation of

R.C. 2921.31(A), a second-degree misdemeanor. At the time of the alleged offenses,

Dorsey was 19 years old. Dorsey pleaded not guilty to the charges.

{¶ 3} Dorsey filed a motion to dismiss the carrying concealed weapons count of the

indictment, arguing that R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) was “facially unconstitutional and as applied to

him in violation of the Fourteenth and Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,

as well as Article I, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution.” The trial court granted Dorsey’s

motion and dismissed count two of the indictment. The State filed a timely notice of appeal.

{¶ 4} After the parties filed their respective briefs and oral argument was held, we sua

sponte ordered that this matter be stayed pending the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in

2 State v. Striblin, Supreme Court Case No. 2024-1050, which is expected to provide guidance

regarding the proper framework for resolving a constitutional challenge to a gun regulation

under the Second Amendment. Dorsey subsequently moved to lift the stay based on our

decision in Matosky, 2025-Ohio-5658 (2d Dist.). On January 7, 2026, we denied Dorsey’s

motion to lift the stay. However, in an order filed contemporaneously with this opinion, we

have ordered sua sponte that the stay be lifted. The matter is now ripe for our review.

Assignment of Error and Analysis

{¶ 5} The State’s sole assignment of error states:

As applied to Dorsey, who was nineteen years-old at the time of his

offense, Ohio’s restriction on the ability of eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds to

carry concealed firearms is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of

firearm regulation and falls outside the Second Amendment’s protection. The

trial court erred in finding otherwise.

{¶ 6} The assignment of error raised in this appeal and the arguments made by the

parties are identical to those raised by the State in the first assignment of error in Matosky.

Similarly, the key fact in this appeal—that Dorsey was not yet 21 years old at the time of his

alleged carrying concealed weapons offense—is identical to the key fact in Matosky.

Therefore, for the same reasons as we expressed in Matosky, we conclude that the

concealed-carry statute, R.C. 2923.12(A)(2), is unconstitutional as applied to Dorsey.

Matosky at ¶ 30-36. The assignment of error is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶ 7} Having overruled the assignment of error, the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed. The cause is remanded to the trial court to proceed with the remaining counts in

the indictment.

3 .............

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.