State v. Robinson

2026 Ohio 217

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 23, 2026
• Docket: L-25-00023, L-25-00024
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Robinson, 2026-Ohio-217.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-25-00023, L-25-00024 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202401980, v. CR0202402117

Corey Robinson DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: January 23, 2026

***** Julia R. Bates, Prosecuting Attorney and Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee

Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant *****

SULEK, J.

{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant Corey Robinson appeals the

judgments of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, which convicted him, following

guilty pleas, of one count of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle and one

count of carrying concealed weapons. Robinson states that the trial court erred when it

denied his motions to dismiss the indictments, in which he argued that the criminal

statutes were unconstitutional as applied to him. For the reasons that follow, the trial

court’s judgments are reversed, and the matters are remanded for further proceedings. I. Factual Background and Procedural History

{¶ 2} This appeal involves two separate cases that were not consolidated in the

trial court. Those two cases proceeded together with a third case involving Robinson that

had resulted in a conviction for similar conduct.

{¶ 3} By way of background, in case No. CR-2023-02350—which is not part of

this appeal—the Lucas County Grand Jury indicted Robinson on one count of carrying

concealed weapons in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) and (F)(1) and 2923.111(A), and

one count of improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C.

2923.16(B) and (I) and 2923.111(A). Both counts were felonies of the fourth degree.

{¶ 4} Robinson moved to dismiss the charges on the theory that R.C. 2923.111

was unconstitutional as applied to him. That section provides that a “qualifying adult”

“shall not be required to obtain a concealed handgun license in order to carry in this state

. . . a concealed handgun that is not a restricted firearm,” and “may carry a concealed

handgun that is not a restricted firearm anywhere in this state in which a person who has

been issued a concealed handgun license may carry a concealed handgun.” R.C.

2923.111(B)(1) and (2). It further defines a “qualifying adult” as a person who is, among

other things, “[t]wenty-one years of age or older.” R.C. 2923.111(A)(2)(a). It was

undisputed that Robinson was 19 years old at the time of his alleged offense. The State

opposed the motion to dismiss, arguing that the regulation of possession of firearms by

19-year-olds is consistent with the Second Amendment and the nation’s history and

tradition.

2. {¶ 5} On May 16, 2024, the trial court denied Robinson’s motion to dismiss,

finding that it could not review the issue at that stage of the proceeding.

{¶ 6} After the denial of his motion to dismiss, Robinson pleaded guilty to one

count of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) and (F)(1) and

2923.111, a felony of the fourth degree. In exchange for his plea, the State dismissed the

count of improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle. The trial court accepted

Robinson’s plea and immediately sentenced him to serve two years on community

control.

{¶ 7} Robinson appealed his judgment of conviction in case No. CR-2023-02350,

arguing that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss.

{¶ 8} While Robinson’s appeal was pending, on July 15, 2024, the Lucas County

Grand Jury indicted Robinson in case No. CR-2024-01980 on one count of improperly

handling firearms in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B) and (I) and

2923.111(A), a felony of the fourth degree. The indictment was based on conduct that

allegedly occurred on July 3, 2024. This triggered a notice of community control

violation in case No. CR-2023-02350.

{¶ 9} On July 30, 2024, Robinson moved to dismiss the indictment in case No.

CR-2024-01980, arguing that R.C. 2923.111 was unconstitutional as applied to him. On

August 13, 2024, the trial court denied Robinson’s motion. Both Robinson’s motion and

the trial court’s judgment were functionally identical to those in case No. CR-2023-

02350.

3. {¶ 10} Separately, on August 8, 2024, the Lucas County Grand Jury indicted

Robinson in case No. CR-2024-02117 on one count of carrying concealed weapons in

violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) and (F)(1) and 2923.111(A), a felony of the fourth

degree. Although indicted after case No. CR-2024-01980, case No. CR-2024-02117

involved conduct that allegedly occurred earlier in time on May 30, 2024. Notably, the

factual basis for the offense happened in the early morning hours of May 30, 2024, before

Robinson’s plea and sentence in case No. CR-2023-02350, thus he was not yet on

community control at the time of this alleged offense.

{¶ 11} On August 22, 2024, Robinson moved to dismiss the indictment in case No.

CR-2024-02117. Again, Robinson’s motion was nearly identical to his motions in case

Nos. CR-2023-02350 and CR-2024-01980. The trial court denied Robinson’s motion to

dismiss on September 23, 2024, stating that it was “adopting and incorporating” the

rationale it relied upon in case No. CR-2023-02350.

{¶ 12} On November 7, 2024, Robinson entered guilty pleas in case Nos. CR-

2024-01980 and CR-2024-02117 to the indicted charges.

{¶ 13} The three cases came before the trial court on January 2, 2025. At the

hearing, Robinson admitted to the community control violation in case No. CR-2023-

02350. On that case, the trial court sentenced him to remain on community control and

extended his period of supervision to January 2, 2027. In case Nos. CR-2024-01980 and

CR-2024-02117, the trial court similarly sentenced Robinson to two years of community

control ending on January 2, 2027.

4. {¶ 14} Robinson timely filed his notices of appeal in case Nos. CR-2024-01980

and CR-2024-02117. On February 5, 2025, this court consolidated the two cases into the

present appeal.

{¶ 15} While the current appeal was pending, on April 22, 2025, this court entered

its decision reversing the judgment of the trial court in case No. CR-2023-02350 and

remanding the matter for the trial court to conduct a hearing and decide Robinson’s

motion to dismiss. State v. Robinson, 2025-Ohio-1431, ¶ 14-16 (6th Dist.). This court

reasoned that “the ‘as-applied’ constitutional challenge was squarely and properly before

the trial court for determination pursuant to Robinson’s motion to dismiss.” Id. at ¶ 14.

Further, this court noted that “[b]ecause the parties did not provide sworn testimony or

submit any stipulation of facts, and because the trial court entered no factual findings on

the record, there simply isn’t the necessary evidence to consider the appeal.” Id. at ¶ 15.

Finally, this court determined that because the matter must be remanded for the trial court

to rule on the merits of Robinson’s motion to dismiss, his assignments of error

challenging the constitutionality of R.C. 2923.111 were moot. Id. at ¶ 17-18.

{¶ 16} Upon remand in case No. CR-2023-02350, the trial court stayed the

proceedings pending this court’s decision in the current appeal.

II. Assignments of Error

{¶ 17} Robinson presents two assignments of error for review:

1. The trial court committed plain error, or in the alternative, abused its discretion, when it denied Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss without considering the merits of the argument.

5. 2. The age provision of R.C. 2923.111 is arguably unconstitutional as to Appellant, based on Bruen.

III. Analysis

{¶ 18} In his first assignment of error, Robinson argues that the trial court erred

when it declined to rule on the merits of his motions to dismiss. He contends that the

motions were squarely and properly before the trial court and that this court should

reverse and remand the matters to the trial court for the same reasons that were

articulated in State v. Robinson, 2025-Ohio-1431, ¶ 14-16 (6th Dist.). Alternatively, in

his second assignment of error, Robinson argues that this court should decide the ultimate

constitutional question and determine that R.C. 2923.111 is unconstitutional as applied to

him. According to Robinson, only the fact of his age is relevant to the constitutional

issue, and that fact is not in dispute and is easily determined from the record, which

contains his date of birth. Further, to the extent that his prior conviction for carrying a

concealed weapon in case No. CR-2023-02350 is relevant, Robinson asserts that his

conviction is a matter of public record available to this court.

{¶ 19} For its part, the State argues that the trial court’s denial of Robinson’s

motion to dismiss should not be reversed if it does not result in prejudice, and it

maintains that the denial is not prejudicial because the restrictions on carrying firearms

are constitutional as applied to Robinson. Further, it agrees with Robinson that the

necessary facts are undisputed and in the record, and, therefore, likewise invites this court

to decide the constitutional issue presented in these cases.

6. {¶ 20} Consistent with Robinson, this court holds that the “as-applied”

constitutional challenges were squarely and properly before the trial court for

determination pursuant to Robinson’s motions to dismiss. Id. at ¶ 14. As stated in that

case,

“‘Crim.R. 12 empowers trial courts to rule on “any defense, objection, evidentiary issue, or request that is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue.”’” State v. Latham, 2025-Ohio-495, ¶ 19 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Palmer, 2012-Ohio-580, ¶ 22, quoting Crim.R. 12(C). “In considering dismissal, courts may consider “‘evidence beyond the face of the indictment.”’” Id., quoting Palmer at ¶ 22, quoting State v. Brady, 2008-Ohio-4493, ¶ 18. “Dismissal is proper if there is ‘no set of circumstances’ in which the defendant can violate the law’s requirements, or if an ‘indictment depends on the unconstitutional application of the law.’” Id., quoting Palmer at ¶ 23.

Robinson at ¶ 9.

{¶ 21} Because the trial court erroneously declined to rule on the merits of

Robinson’s “as applied” arguments, Robinson’s first assignment of error is well-taken.

Id. at ¶ 14.

{¶ 22} Furthermore, “[b]ecause this Court acts as a reviewing court, it should not

consider for the first time on appeal issues that the trial court did not decide.” State v.

Hoessle, 2025-Ohio-5565, ¶ 17 (9th Dist.), quoting Carriage Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Ohio

Farmers Ins. Co., 2015-Ohio-2617, ¶ 12 (9th Dist.). “If this court were to reach issues

that had not been addressed by the trial court in the first instance, it would be usurping

the role of the trial court . . ..” Id., quoting Carriage Ins. at ¶ 12; Iron Horse Bar and

Grill, LLC v. GGJ Triune, PLL, 2024-Ohio-284, ¶ 39 (6th Dist.).

7. {¶ 23} Accordingly, like in Robinson, this court does not reach the merits of

Robinson’s constitutional arguments presented in his second assignment of error, as that

assignment of error has been rendered moot.

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 24} For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the Lucas County Court of

Common Pleas are reversed. The matters are remanded to the trial court to determine the

merits of Robinson’s “as-applied” constitutional challenges that were raised in his

motions to dismiss.

{¶ 25} The State is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

Judgments reversed and remanded.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Christine E. Mayle JUDGE

Gene A. Zmuda JUDGE

Charles Sulek CONCUR. JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

8.