[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-20-011 

 

 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 judgment of the 

Norwalk Municipal Court which, following a trial on his February 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 guilty of 

speeding as he rebutted the presumption by demonstrating that the speed was neither 
2.

excessive nor unreasonable under the conditions. Appellant relies 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 speeding 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 section 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 reasonable under the conditions 
3.

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 speeding 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 appellant guilty. Appellant’s 

assignment of error is not well-taken. 

{¶ 8} On consideration whereof, we find that the judgment of the Norwalk 

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 pursuant 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 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/.