State v. Kepler, 2024 Ohio 2283

Thomas Kepler received a citation for driving 108 mph in a 55 mph zone on a wet, rural road at night in Clay Center, Ohio.
The citation indicated this was his second offense for speeds double the limit and noted unsafe conditions but no crash.
Kepler pled no contest to an amended charge of speeding (79 mph in a 55 mph zone); the magistrate found him guilty and also found recklessness under R.C. 4510.15, recommending a $150 fine and one-year license suspension.
Kepler objected to the recklessness finding and the license suspension, arguing these were beyond what was charged or permitted for a speeding offense; however, his objections were underdeveloped and procedurally deficient (no transcript, lack of specificity).
The trial court overruled his objections, adopted the magistrate’s recommendation, and imposed the sentence; Kepler appealed, raising claims about improper findings and procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was a finding of recklessness proper based on speed and conditions?	Kepler: Speed alone is insufficient for recklessness under R.C. 4510.15.	State: Circumstances supported recklessness.	No plain error; circumstances supported finding related to recklessness.
Did the court improperly consider Kepler's driving record?	Kepler: The court used his driving record inappropriately.	State: No evidence the record was considered.	No plain error; no evidence record relied on in decision.
Did the court use the correct speed (amended vs. original ticket) in its findings?	Kepler: Court relied on original ticket, not amended complaint.	State: Court used correct, amended speed.	No plain error; no evidence that incorrect speed was considered.
Was the sentence beyond permissible sanctions for speeding?	Kepler: One-year suspension exceeds court's authority for speeding.	State: Suspension allowed for reckless-related conduct.	No plain error; suspension proper under R.C. 4510.15 for reckless-related operation.

State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191 (plain error standard should apply in exceptional circumstances)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (plain error to be found only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice)
State v. Hartman, 41 Ohio App.3d 142 (court must consider all circumstances to determine recklessness)
Columbus v. Tyson, 19 Ohio App.3d 224 (R.C. 4510.15 license suspension can apply even without conviction for reckless operation)
State v. Perkins, 2018-Ohio-2240 (objections to magistrate decisions must be specific and supported)