State v. Rochon
This text of 2025 Ohio 1716 (State v. Rochon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Rochon, 2025-Ohio-1716.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OTTAWA COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. OT-24-040
Appellee Trial Court No. TRD-24-3191
v.
David J. Rochon DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: May 13, 2025
*****
James J. VanEerten, Esq., Prosecuting Attorney, and Blake W. Skilliter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Erik Wineland, for appellant.
MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} The defendant-appellant, David J. Rochon, appeals a September 16, 2024
decision by the Ottawa County Municipal Court that denied his request for limited
driving privileges, following his conviction for reckless operation and speeding. As set
forth below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. I. Background
{¶ 2} On August 9, 2024, Rochon was cited for reckless operation and speeding
while driving on S.R. 53 in Ottawa County. At a hearing on September 4, 2024, Rochon
appeared pro se and expressed his intention to plead no contest to each charge. The trial
court offered Rochon a continuance to speak with an attorney and asked whether he had
“questions on getting advice or recommendation from counsel.” Rochon declined.
{¶ 3} During the Crim.R. 11 colloquy, the trial court advised Rochon that his
sentence included a possible fine of $150, as to each offense, and “up to a three-year
license suspension.” The court then heard from the State, which reviewed the report from
the sheriff’s deputy who cited Rochon. According to that report, Rochon was observed
driving at an excessive rate of speed while traveling northbound in the southbound lane
of S.R. 53 and while coming “head-on” with the deputy’s vehicle. After the deputy
“maneuver[ed]” out of Rochon’s way, the deputy turned around, activated his radar and
“got a reading of 110 [mph].” The posted speed limit for that partly-residential area is 55
mph.
{¶ 4} The court accepted Rochon’s no-contest plea and found him guilty of
reckless operation, in violation of R.C. 4511.20, and speeding, in violation of R.C.
4511.21, both minor misdemeanors. It imposed a $150 fine, plus costs, in each case, and
a two-year license suspension.
2. {¶ 5} Rochon immediately filed a motion for occupational driving privileges.
Rochon explained that he works as an industrial engineer for IET, Inc. and is assigned to
the General Motors’ facility on Alexis Road in Toledo. Rochon commutes to his full-time
job from his home in Perrysburg, and he submitted a letter from his employer to that
effect, as well as proof of insurance. The trial court denied Rochon’s motion.
{¶ 6} Rochon retained counsel and filed a second “motion for limited driving
privileges” on September 13, 2024. This time, Rochon cited his work commute and his
need to transport his grandson to and from high school, in Toledo. In support of the
motion, Rochon included a judgment entry from the Wood County Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, indicating that Rochon and his wife have legal custody of their
grandson. Rochon also included a personal letter, addressed to the court, in which he
expressed his regret for driving with “disregard” for other people’s safety. The letter re-
emphasized his family’s dependence on him to provide financially and to help with
transportation. The trial court denied the second motion on September 16, 2024. Rochon
appealed. He assigns a single assignment of error for our review.
1. The Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Not Granting Appellant Occupational and Child Care Driving Privileges Under the Facts and Circumstances of the Instant Case.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 7} The granting of limited driving privileges is governed by R.C. 4510.021, which
provides that “a court may grant limited driving privileges for any [of the following limited]
3. purpose[s] . . . during any suspension imposed by the court: (1) Occupational. . . [or for] (5)
Transporting a minor to. . . school.” The statute “clearly grant[s] the trial court substantial
discretion regarding whether to grant [limited driving] privileges.” State v. Uliveto, 2018-Ohio-
1364, ¶ 11 (5th Dist.).
{¶ 8} The decision of a trial court to grant or deny driving privileges will not be disturbed
absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Neace, 2006-Ohio-3072, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.). An abuse of
discretion constitutes more than an error of law or judgment. Rather, it implies that the trial
court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d
217, 219 (1983). When applying the abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court may not
simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Id.
{¶ 9} On appeal, Rochon argues that the sheriff deputy’s report, indicating that Rochon
was driving 110 mph “makes no sense.” However, Rochon’s plea of no contest constitutes an
admission of the facts alleged in the complaint as well as the facts set forth by the State in its
explanation of the circumstances surrounding the charges. State v. Downs, 2015-Ohio-3398, ¶ 8
(9th Dist.), citing State v. Perry, 83 Ohio St.3d 41, 43 (1998); Crim.R. 11(B)(2). Accordingly,
Rochon may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal “so long as the State
fulfilled its obligation to allege sufficient facts in support of the charges.” Id., citing Cuyahoga
Falls v. Doskocil, 2013–Ohio–2074, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). Accordingly, we reject Rochon’s challenge
to the “accuracy” of the evidence of his guilt.
4. {¶ 10} Next, Rochon complains that the trial court denied his request for limited driving
privileges “without explanation.” However, R.C. 4510.021 does not require the trial court to
engage in any analysis on the record. Accord, State v. Burlington, 2019-Ohio-351, ¶ 9 (8th
Dist.) (Trial court’s denial of motion to terminate license suspension “without a reason” was not
an abuse of discretion where the statute, R.C. 2925.03(G), “does not require the trial court to
engage in that analysis on the record.”). Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s decision
not to include findings of fact or conclusions of law to support its denial of Rochon’s motion.
{¶ 11} Finally, Rochon argues that the trial court acted unreasonably by denying him
relief, because it effectively “limits his ability to work, earn an income and care for his
grandchildren.” We disagree.
{¶ 12} The trial court had before it evidence that Rochon endangered himself and others
by driving at twice the legal limit, into on-coming traffic. As Rochon admitted in his letter to
the court, he bears “total responsibility” for having put others in “grave danger.” The record
also includes evidence that Rochon’s driving record includes 15 prior citations for speeding.
Considering the “substantial discretion” afforded to a trial court when determining whether to
grant driving privileges, we cannot conclude that its decision to deny the request in this case was
unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Uliveto, 2018-Ohio-1364, at ¶ 11 (5th Dist.).
Accordingly, we find Rochon’s assignment of error not well-taken.
5. III. Conclusion
{¶ 13} For the foregoing reasons, Rochon’s assignment of error is found not well-taken,
and the September 16, 2024 judgment of the Ottawa County Municipal Court is affirmed. Costs
are assessed to the appellant pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 Ohio 1716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rochon-ohioctapp-2025.