 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hartman11/16/1987
Per Curiam.
This cause came on to be heard upon an appeal from the Eaton Municipal Court of Preble County.
This is an appeal by defendant-appellant, David Hartman, from his conviction for speeding. According to an agreed statement of facts filed herein, on October 17, 1986, Trooper Gary D. Shepard of the Ohio State Highway Patrol observed appellant operating a motor vehicle eastbound on Interstate 70 at a speed greater than that of the accompanying traffic. Shepard followed appellant's car, paced its speed at sixty-five miles per hour in a fifty-five mile per hour zone, confirmed that speed by radar, and pulled it over after having followed it for at least two and one-half miles.
After approaching the stopped vehicle, Shepard detected a moderate odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle. He observed nothing unusual about appellant's gait at that time. Once inside the patrol car, however, Shepard noticed appellant's eyes were watery and red. The trooper then performed a gaze nystagmus test on appellant, which was inconclusive. Appellant was then asked to perform two field sobriety tests on the berm. One was walking and turning and the other was a one-leg stand. After he apparently performed these field tests in an unsatisfactory manner, he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (hereinafter "DUI").
Once at the highway patrol post, appellant submitted to a breath test. The test's result was .094 hundredths of one gram of alcohol per two hundred and ten liters of breath. Since this reading did not exceed the permissible state standard set forth in R.C. 4511.19(A)(3), appellant was arrested for DUI based on his manner of operating his motor vehicle (R.C. 4511.19 ). He was also issued a citation for speeding.
After a pretrial conference, the state of Ohio agreed to dismiss the DUI charge if appellant entered a plea of guilty or no contest to speeding. Appellant entered a plea of no contest to the speeding charge and was found guilty of traveling sixty-five miles peshour in a fifty-five-mile- per-hour zone. The DUI charge was then dismissed.
As a result of the speeding violation, the court below fined appellant $100 and costs and ordered him to have a Guardian Interlock System, which is a breath-test device that is integrated into a car's ignition system, installed in his automobile. The trial court further found appellant's driving to have been "erratically reckless," so it suspended his driver's license for one year. This appeal followed.
Appellant's brief before this court lists two assignments of error which state:
First Assignment of Error:
"The trial court erred when it found that Appellant's conduct was reckless and suspended Appellant's license pursuant to O.R.C. 4507.34."
Second Assignment of Error:
"The trial court abused its discretion when it suspended Appellant's license pursuant to O.R.C. 4507.34."
Since we believe the two assignments of error for all practical purposes are identical, we will address them together.
Appellant argues he was given a one-year driver's license suspension because he was charged with, but not convicted of, DUI and not because of any "reckless operation" on his part. The state of Ohio, on the other hand, contends speeding alone constitutes reckless operation under R.C. 4507.34 according to Akron v. Willingham (1957), 166 Ohio St. 337, 2 O.O. 2d 248, 142 N.E.2d 653, and, in any case, the trial court's action has already been examined by this court and approved in State v. Kirkpatrick (June 22, 1987), Preble App. No. CA87-02-003, unreported.
R.C
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|