[Cite as State v. Reavis,

.]

COURT OF APPEALS MORROW COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUDGES: STATE OF OHIO : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. : -vs- : : Case No. 2012-CA-0003 JESSICA REAVIS AKA REVIS : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Morrow County Municipal Court, Case No. 5911-2011-TRD- 4967

JUDGMENT: Reversed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 9, 2012

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

STEVEN PHILLIPS JESSICA FORREST 312 North Main Street JOHN KIM Mt. Gilead, OH 43338-9789 6233 Michael Glen Lane Wadsworth, OH 44281-8005 [Cite as State v. Reavis,

.]

Gwin, J.,

{¶1} Defendant Jessica Reavis aka, Revis, appeals a judgment of the

Municipal Court of Morrow County, Ohio, which convicted her for speeding in violation

of R.C. 4511.21 (D). Appellant assigns a single error to the trial court:

{¶2} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY NOT

APPLYING R.C. 4511.091 (C) AND, IN SO FAILING TO APPLY IT, FINDING

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT GUILTY OF SPEEDING BASED SOLELY ON AN

OFFICER’S UNAIDED VISUAL ESTIMATION OF THE SPEED OF DEFENDANT-

APPELLANT’S MOTOR VEHICLE.”

{¶3} The State’s evidence consisted of the testimony of State Highway Patrol

Trooper Striker regarding his visual estimate of her speed and his use of the UltraLyte

20/20 Laser device to measure it. The court correctly found absent expert testimony or

judicial notice, it could not admit evidence of the construction, reliability, accuracy and

mode of operation of this device. Thus the court correctly found only the evidence of

the speed of appellant’s vehicle was the trooper’s visual estimate.

{¶4} R.C. 4511.091 (C) provides in pertinent part:

No person shall be arrested, charged, or convicted of a violation of any

provisions of divisions (B) to (O) of Section 4511.21 or Section 4511.211

of the Revised Code or a substantially similar municipal ordinance based

on a peace officer’s unaided visual estimation of the speed of a motor

vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar.

{¶5} The statute became effective on September 30, 2011. Morrow County, Case No. 2012-CA-0003 3

{¶6} Appellant was stopped on August 25, 2011, prior to the effective date of

R.C. 4511.091. She was convicted on December 11, 2011, after the statute was

effective. The court found R.C.4511.091 was not retroactive to the date she was

charged and therefore does not apply to appellant. Instead, the court applied the

holding in Barberton v. Jenney,

,

. In Jenney,

decided before the effective date of R.C.4511.091, the Supreme Court found an

officer’s unaided visual estimate of a vehicle’s speed is legally sufficient to convict if

there is evidence the officer has the appropriate training, certification, and experience.

{¶7} If R.C. 4111.091 provided only that no person shall be arrested or

charged, then it would clearly not apply to appellant. However, the Ohio Legislature

chose to include the phrase “or convicted” in the statute. The Supreme Court has

instructed us that where the language used in a statute is clear and unambiguous, we

must apply it as written, so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words the

legislature chose. In Re: Adoption of M.B.,

,

,

¶ 19, citing In Re: Estate of Centorbi,

,

,

, ¶ 14. The Supreme Court found we must construe a statute as a

whole and give it the interpretation that will give effect to every word and clause. We

must not treat any part as superfluous unless it is manifestly so, and we must avoid

any construction which renders a provision meaningless.

citing State ex rel. Myers

v. Spencer Township Rural School District Board of Education,

, 377,

(1917); and R.C. 1.47(B). Morrow County, Case No. 2012-CA-0003 4

{¶8} In light of the above, we need not analyze R.C. 4511.091 to determine

whether it applies retroactively. The statute applies prospectively to appellant’s

conviction.

{¶9} We find the court erred in finding the statute inapplicable. The assignment

of error is sustained.

{¶10} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Municipal Court of Morrow

County, Ohio, is reversed.

By Gwin, J.,

Delaney, P.J., and

Farmer, J., concur

_________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN

_________________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY

_________________________________ HON. SHEILA G. FARMER

WSG:clw 0906 [Cite as State v. Reavis,

.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MORROW COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : JESSICA REAVIS AKA REVIS : : : Defendant-Appellant: CASE NO. 2012-CA-3

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the

judgment of the Municipal Court of Morrow County, Ohio, is reversed. Costs to

appellee.

_________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN

_________________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY

_________________________________ HON. SHEILA G. FARMER