[Cite as N. Olmsted v. Keller, 2013-Ohio-1996.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

 No. 99273 

CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

THEODORE J. KELLER

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Rocky River Municipal Court 

Case No. 12 TRD 18840 

BEFORE: Kilbane, J., Jones, P.J., and E.A. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 16, 2013
APPELLANT

Theodore Keller, pro se 

6751 Cypress Drive 

North Olmsted, Ohio 44070 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Michael Gordillo 

City Prosecutor 

Stephanie E. Landgraf 

Legal Intern 

City of North Olmsted 

5200 Dover Center Road 

North Olmsted, Ohio 44070 
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Theodore Keller, pro se, appeals from a citation for 

speeding, a violation of North Olmsted Ordinances 333.03. For the reasons set forth 

below, we affirm. 

{¶2} On October 24, 2012, defendant was cited for traveling at 51 m.p.h. in a 35 

m.p.h. zone on Stearns Road. On November 6, 2012, defendant was arraigned, and trial 

was set for November 8, 2012. On that date, defendant appeared in court pro se and 

asked for a continuance of the trial. The court granted the motion and continued the trial 

until November 29, 2012. 

{¶3} Also on November 8, 2012, defendant served a discovery request upon the 

prosecuting attorney. Defendant requested, inter alia, copies of “approvals” and surveys 

authorizing the city “to amend and lower speed limit” of Stearns Road to 35 m.p.h., and 

documents pertaining to “ODOT approval to use a 24” x 30” sign instead of a mandated 

30” x 36” sign under the OMUTCD [Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices].” 

 The prosecuting attorney provided discovery on November 16, 2012. 

{¶4} The matter proceeded to trial on November 29, 2012. On that date, 

defendant filed a motion to dismiss the citation, contending that the city had improperly 

lowered the speed limit on Stearns Road and the speed limit sign was smaller than 
required under the OMUTCD. The trial court subsequently found defendant guilty of 

speeding in an order that provided in relevant part as follows: 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss * * * is overruled as not timely filed and not 

properly served. Defendant’s argument alleges that discovery was not 

provided as to the size of the sign in question. Court reviewed discovery 

issue including the fact that his discovery request relating to the size of the 

sign was not granted at a hearing on 11/08/12. There is uncontroverted 

evidence that defendant was speeding. Defendant found guilty of 

speeding. $50 fine and court costs. Execution of sentence stayed pending 

appeal. 

{¶5} Defendant now appeals and raises three issues for our review. Defendant 

complains that he was denied discovery in this matter, that the area where he received his 

citation should be designated 45 m.p.h. and not 35 m.p.h., that the speed limit sign is not 

the correct size and was obstructed by other signs, and therefore, the posted speed limit is 

unenforceable pursuant to Oakwood Village v. Blum, 8th Dist. No. 97081, 

2012-Ohio-814. 

{¶6} An appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error by reference to 

matters in the record. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 

N.E.2d 384 (1980); State v. Johnson, 9th Dist. No. 02CA008193, 2003-Ohio-6814, ¶ 8. 

If there is no verbatim transcript pursuant to App.R. 9(B), the appellant is required to 

utilize App.R. 9(C) or 9(D) in order to have the contents of the trial court proceedings 

included in the record on appeal. State v. Woods, 9th Dist. No. 23414, 2007-Ohio-1423. 

In the absence of a complete and adequate record, a reviewing court must presume the 

regularity of the trial court proceedings and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the 
trial court’s decision. Bohrer v. Bakers Square Restaurant, 8th Dist. No. 88143, 

2007-Ohio-2223, ¶ 5. 

{¶7} In this matter, following the trial, the lower court determined that “[t]here is 

uncontroverted evidence that defendant was speeding.” On appeal, defendant has not 

provided us with a transcript of the trial proceedings pursuant to App.R. 9(B), and he has 

not provided us with an App.R. 9(C) statement or an App.R. 9(D) agreed statement of the 

case. Consequently, we must presume regularity, and we are unable to conclude that the 

trial court committed reversible error in this matter. 

{¶8} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Rocky 

River Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR