State v. Finley

2026 Ohio 287

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 30, 2026
• Docket: 30505
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Finley, 2026-Ohio-287.]

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

STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 30505 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 2024 CR 01817 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas JAMAIN FINLEY : Court) : Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & : OPINION

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on January 30, 2026, the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

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,

RONALD C. LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE

HUFFMAN, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur. OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30505

CHRISTOPHER BAZELEY, Attorney for Appellant ANDREW T. FRENCH, Attorney for Appellee

LEWIS, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Jamain Finley appeals from his conviction in the Common

Pleas Court of Montgomery County following his no-contest plea to one count of having

weapons while under disability. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the

trial court.

I. Course of Proceedings

{¶ 2} On July 18, 2024, a Montgomery County grand jury indicted Finley on one count

of having weapons while under disability, a third-degree felony in violation of

R.C. 2923.13(A)(2); one count of carrying concealed weapons, a fourth-degree felony in

violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2); and one count of improper handling of a firearm in a motor

vehicle, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B). The having weapons while

under disability charge was based on Finley’s previous adjudication as a delinquent child for

burglary, an offense which would have been a felony offense of violence if committed by an

adult. Finley pleaded not guilty to the charges in the indictment.

{¶ 3} Finley filed a motion to dismiss the indictment because he believed the criminal

charges violated his constitutional rights under the Second Amendment to the United States

Constitution. According to Finley, “the permanent denial of Second Amendment rights on

the basis of a juvenile delinquency adjudication is not supported by historical tradition

restricting the rights of felons.” Finley further argued that “[i]n the case of persons such as

the Defendant, the statutes criminalizing possession of a firearm or carrying of a firearm on

2 the basis of a juvenile adjudication result in a permanent denial of his or her fundamental

rights without the due process afforded to an adult criminal conviction.” The trial court

overruled Finley’s motion to dismiss.

{¶ 4} Finley filed a motion for reconsideration of his motion to dismiss based on State

v. Thacker, 2024-Ohio-5835 (1st Dist.). He contended that the trial court should follow the

First District’s conclusion that R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) is unconstitutional. The State opposed

the motion for reconsideration, arguing that Thacker was distinguishable because Finley

was adjudicated delinquent as a minor for violent conduct while the defendant in Thacker

was adjudicated delinquent as a minor for nonviolent conduct. The trial court overruled

Finley’s motion for reconsideration.

{¶ 5} The parties subsequently entered into a plea agreement. Finley agreed to

plead no contest to one count of having weapons while under disability and to forfeit his

handgun. In exchange, the State agreed to recommend the imposition of community

control sanctions and the dismissal of the remaining counts in the indictment. The trial court

accepted the no-contest plea, found Finley guilty of one count of having weapons while

under disability, and dismissed the remaining counts of the indictment. The court

sentenced Finley to one year of community control sanctions and ordered the forfeiture of

his handgun. Finley filed a timely notice of appeal.

II. Assignment of Error

{¶ 6} Finley’s assignment of error states:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT OVERRULED FINLEY’S

MOTION TO DISMISS.

{¶ 7} Finley was convicted of a violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), which provides, in

pertinent part: “(A) Unless relieved from disability under operation of law or legal process,

3 no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance,

if any of the following apply: . . . (2) The person . . . has been adjudicated a delinquent child

for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a felony

offense of violence.” In his motion to dismiss the indictment, Finley raised only

constitutional arguments. On appeal, Finley concedes that the relevant statutes and Ohio

case law support the trial court’s decision to deny his motion to dismiss. But Finley argues

that applying the relevant statutes and case law to him is “simply unfair.” Appellant’s Brief,

p. 3. According to Finley, “[t]he record clearly shows, and the trial court acknowledged, that

he has rehabilitated himself since the adjudication. In fact, the trial court noted that he has

had no criminal offenses since 2016 and had positive ‘extenuating circumstances that are

not present in most of these kinds of cases.’” Id., quoting Tr. 14.

{¶ 8} Finley did not raise this fairness argument in his motion to dismiss the

indictment. Because Finley did not make this argument before the trial court, he has

forfeited it. In re T.D.S., 2024-Ohio-595, ¶ 32. Further, Finley does not assert on appeal

the constitutional arguments that he raised in his motion to dismiss. Therefore, we will not

consider the constitutional arguments. The assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 9} Having overruled the assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the trial

court.

.............

HUFFMAN, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.