2016 Ohio 2786
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On March 15, 2015 Trooper Drew Untied cited James Duff for traveling 110 mph in a 70 mph zone (R.C. 4511.21(D)(4)).
- Duff pled guilty March 24, 2015, received a fine, costs, and a one‑year license suspension for reckless driving; he appealed arguing improper arraignment without counsel.
- This court reversed and remanded for failure to provide a proper arraignment; on remand Duff, represented by counsel, proceeded to a bench trial on October 20, 2015.
- The trial court found Duff guilty, imposed a fine and costs, and suspended his license for six months for reckless operation.
- Duff appealed, raising (1) that the court failed to re‑arraign him on remand in violation of Traf.R. 8(A), and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of recklessness for license suspension.
- The municipal court record showed Duff was alone in the left lane on westbound I‑70, traveling 108–110–107 mph by laser readings; roadway and weather conditions were clear.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Duff) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to re‑arraign on remand violated Traf.R. 8(A) | The court may proceed where parties have acted as if arraignment occurred; Duff waived objection by not raising it below. | The trial court erred by not re‑arraigning Duff after remand; he was unadvised of rights other than the acknowledgment form. | Court: No error — Duff waived the issue by failing to object and proceeded with counsel and discovery after remand. |
| Whether evidence supported a finding of reckless operation for license suspension under R.C. 4510.15 | Speed (110 mph in a 70 zone, >50% over limit) and circumstances (left lane, alone) support reckless operation and justified suspension. | The sole fact of speed alone did not rise to recklessness; insufficient evidence to show willful or wanton disregard. | Court: No abuse of discretion — speed was grossly excessive and evinced heedless indifference; suspension affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642 (U.S. 1914) (parties proceeding without objection can imply waiver of procedural defects)
- Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1896) (dissent relied upon in Garland regarding waiver by conduct)
- Lester v. Leuck, 142 Ohio St. 91 (Ohio 1943) (litigant must object at trial to preserve error; duty of vigilance)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- State v. Newkirk, 255 N.E.2d 851 (Ohio App. 1969) (speeding statutes may support license suspension under statute relating to reckless operation)