Winnebago County v. Thomas J. Roberts, 2023AP1808, District II, 6/12/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a rare appeal of a conviction for speeding, COA easily dispatches Roberts’s arguments given the deferential standard of review for findings of fact.
Roberts was cited for speeding after a trooper first visually estimated his speed at 80 mph in a 70 mph zone and then confirmed, using a laser detection device, that his vehicle was traveling 82 mph. (¶2). The deputy in question testified that the device was in proper working order, although he acknowledged on cross-examination he did not know old the device was, its repair history, or when the last time it was calibrated. (¶3). His training for speed detection occurred in 2004 and he had not received any additional training since. (Id.). Roberts testified and explained that while he was not sure of his exact speed, it was not “out of the ordinary” for the highway in question. (¶4). The circuit court, relying on the deputy’s 23 years of experience, his visual estimation, and the lack of any evidence that the device was malfunctioning, found Roberts guilty. (¶5).
On appeal, Roberts runs into several problems. First, as COA explains, its review of the circuit court’s factual findings is exceedingly deferential, and requires it to search the records for reasons to affirm. (¶6). Second, Roberts’s brief does not identify the standard of review or meaningfully develop an argument. (¶7). Third, his citation to an Ohio statute is obviously unhelpful here. (¶8). Fourth, while Roberts does cite SCOW’s decision in State v. Hanson “for the proposition that the County failed to establish the accuracy of the laser gun[,]” he also fails to develop that argument and, in any case, COA holds that Hanson is distinguishable. (¶8). Finally, his sufficiency argument is dispatched within a few sentences given the evidence of speeding presented at the trial. (¶9).
