[Cite as State v. Miller , 2021-Ohio-1749.]

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

State of Ohio/City of Norwalk Court of Appeals No. H-20-01 1 Appellee Trial Court No. TRD 2000726

v. Jacob Miller DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: May 21, 2021 * * * * * G. Stuart O’Hara, Jr., Law Director, and Scott M. Christophel, Assistant Law Director, for appellee. Jacob Miller, pro se.

* * * * * PIETRYKOWSKI, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Jacob Miller, pro se, appeals the May 5, 2020 judgme nt of the Norwalk Municipal Court which, following a trial on his Februar y 23, 2020 speeding ticket issued pursuant to R.C. 4511.21(D)(1), found him guilty, assessed points to his license, and ordered him to pay a fine. {¶ 2} Appellant’s argument is that the court erred when finding him g uilty of speeding as he rebutted the presumption by demonstrating that t he speed was neither2. excessive nor unreasonable under the conditions. Appellant rel ies on multiple Ohio cases involving presumptive, or prima facie, traffic violations and a defendant’s ability for

rebuttal. See Cleveland v. Keah , 157 Ohio St. 331, 105 N.E.2d 402 (1952); State v. Nedelkoff , 24 Ohio Misc. 153, 263 N.E.2d 803 (C.C.1970); State v. Schultz , 1 Ohio Misc. 81, 205 N.E.2d 126 (M.C.1964). {¶ 3} The state, conversely, argues that appellant was charged with s peeding under R.C. 4511.21(D)(1), a per se violation under which a rebuttable presumption is not

available. {¶ 4} R.C. 4511.21(D)(1) provides: (D) No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar upon a street or highway as follows: (1) At a speed exceeding fifty-five miles per hour, except upon a two-lane state route as provided in division (B)(10) of this se ction and upon a highway, expressway, or freeway as provided in divisions (B)( 12), (13), (14), and (16) of this section * * *. {¶ 5} Ohio courts have held that a charge under this section is a per se violation. See State v. Heidelberg , 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-01-036, 2002 WL 445038 (Mar. 22, 2002); Columbus v. Conley , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-1332, 2006-Ohio-4625; State

v. Dennis , 5th Dist. Knox No. 2003-CA-000039, 2004-Ohio-3329. {¶ 6} Compare R.C. 4511.21(A) and (C) which provide, respectively, that a motorist shall not drive at a speed greater or less than is rea sonable under the conditions3. or that it is prima-facie unlawful for a motorist to exceed the posted speed limitations. These sections allow a defendant to rebut the presumption of sp eeding by presenting evidence that the speed was reasonable under the circumstances. See Bellville v. Kieffaber , 114 Ohio St.3d 124, 2007-Ohio-3763, 870 N.E.2d 697. {¶ 7} Because appellant was charged with a per se violation under R.C

. 4511.21(D)(1), and failed to dispute the speed he was measured traveling at by handheld police laser, we find that the court did not err in finding app ellant guilty. Appellant’s assignment of error is not well-taken. {¶ 8} On consideration whereof, we find that the judgment of the Norw alk Municipal Court is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal. Judgment affirmed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pur suant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ________________________

_______ JUDGE Christine E. Mayle, J.

_______________________________ Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE CONCUR.

_______________________________ JUDGE This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.