[Cite as State v. Vanhorn, 2025-Ohio-5748.]
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 25 CAA 07 0052
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 11 CRI 12 0623 DEREK VANHORN, Judgment: Affirmed Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: December 23, 2025
BEFORE: Andrew J. King; Robert G. Montgomery; Kevin W. Popham, Judges
APPEARANCES: MELISSA A. SCHIFFEL and KATHERYN L. MUNGER, for Plaintiff- Appellee; RICHARD PIATT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Montgomery, J.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶1} Appellant Derek Vanhorn (hereinafter “Vanhorn”) was driving at a high rate
of speed with a suspended license on August 10, 2011, when his car went left of center
and struck another vehicle, killing its passenger. Vanhorn had a history of extensive traffic
offenses and stated he may have been texting at the time of the accident.
{¶2} Vanhorn was charged with Aggravated Vehicular Homicide in violation of
R.C. 2903.06(A)(2)(a) on December 2, 2011, in the Delaware County Court of Common
Pleas. Vanhorn pled “no contest” on April 11, 2012, and the trial court found him guilty on
the same date. Judgment Entry on No Contest Plea 4/13/12, p. 3. {¶3} A sentencing hearing was held on June 12, 2012, wherein Vanhorn was
sentenced to 42 months in prison, ordered to pay court costs and restitution and his
driver’s license was suspended for life. Judgment Entry on Sentence 6/15/12, p. 2.
{¶4} After his release from incarceration, Vanhorn filed a Motion for Limited
Driving Privileges in the Common Pleas Court of Delaware County on July 30, 2015
(hereinafter referred to as “7/30/15 Motion”). The trial court issued a Judgment Entry
Addressing the Defendant’s 7/30/15 Request for Limited Driving Privileges on August 7,
2015 (hereinafter referred to as “8/7/15 Entry”) wherein Judge Gormley, one of the judges
of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, stated, “Before I will consider granting
those privileges, though, the defendant must satisfy the reinstatement requirements set
by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) for various other suspensions that are on
his traffic record.” 8/7/15 Entry, p. 1.
{¶5} The trial court’s 8/7/15 Entry granted Vanhorn permission to renew his
driver’s license. The Entry also stated eight requirements Vanhorn must complete before
Judge Gormley would, “consider granting driving privileges to him.” Id., p. 2.
{¶6} Ten years after the aforementioned trial court’s judgment entry, Vanhorn
filed a Motion on June 3, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “6/3/25 Motion”) in the trial court
seeking an order permitting him to complete a remedial driving course and/or take his
driver’s license examination.
{¶7} The State of Ohio filed a Reply to Defendant’s Motion on June 4, 2025
(hereinafter referred to as “State’s Reply”), opposing Vanhorn’s 6/3/25 Motion.
{¶8} Judge Marianne T. Hemmeter, a trial judge in the Delaware County Court
of Common Pleas, issued a Judgment Entry Denying Defendant’s Request for an Order Allowing Him to Retest For his Driver’s License (hereinafter referred to as “6/6/25 Entry”)
on June 6, 2025.
{¶9} Vanhorn appealed the trial court’s 6/6/25 Entry and asserts the following
assignments of error:
{¶10} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT’S MOTION ALLOWING HIM TO RETEST IN AN EFFORT TO OBTAIN A
VALID OHIO DRIVER’S LICENSE AS THERE WAS A VALID JUDGEMENT [SIC]
ENTRY IN AFFECT [SIC] ALLOWING HIM TO DO SO.”
{¶11} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT’S MOTION ALLOWING HIM TO RETEST TO OBTAIN A VALID OHIO
DRIVER’S LICENSE, AND THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S MOTION
WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶12} This Court will review the decision of the trial court under an abuse of
discretion standard. “Abuse of Discretion” has been defined by the Ohio Supreme Court
as “conduct that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” Blakemore v Blakemore,
5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
ANALYSIS
{¶13} Vanhorn argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred by
denying his motion for an order that would allow him to retest for his driver’s license.
{¶14} Vanhorn argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court’s denial
of his motion filed on June 3, 2025, was an abuse of discretion.
{¶15} Vanhorn’s arguments will be addressed together. {¶16} As a general rule, courts follow the law of the case doctrine. Said rule has
been defined as, “The rule of the law of the case is a rule of practice, based upon sound
policy that when an issue is once litigated and decided, that should be the end of the
matter." United States v. United States Smelting Ref. & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198
(1950).
{¶17} This Court has found, “The doctrine's purpose is to ensure ‘consistency of
results in a case, to avoid endless litigation by settling the issues, and to preserve the
structure of superior and inferior courts as designed by the Ohio Constitution.’ ” Myers v.
Vitanovic, 2022-Ohio-4802, ¶ 18, citing Nolan, at 3, 462 N.E.2d 410. The Myers’ court
went on to say, “The doctrine ‘should not be taken to imply that a trial court can
never, under any circumstances, reconsider its prior ruling.’ " Id., citing Poluse v.
Youngstown, 135 Ohio App.3d 720, 725 (7th Dist. 1999).
{¶18} This Court ruled in Myers, “We find that the trial court did not err in failing to
apply the law of the case doctrine and was within its discretion to review the facts and
evidence submitted at the time of the hearing to determine appellant's income for
purposes of child support.” Id., at ¶ 19.
{¶19} Vanhorn argues that the trial court “lacked the authority to reconsider its
own valid judgement [sic]”. Appellant Brief, p. 5.
{¶20} Since the trial court imposed its sentence on April 11, 2012, Vanhorn has
filed two separate motions with the trial court regarding the lifetime suspension of his
driving privileges.
{¶21} Judge Gormley considered Vanhorn’s 7/30/15 Motion and issued the trial
court’s 8/7/15 Entry that granted him permission to renew his driver’s license. {¶22} Ten years later, Judge Hemmeter considered Vanhorn’s 6/3/25 Motion and
issued the trial court’s 6/6/25 Entry that denied Vanhorn’s request for an up-to-date order
to provide to the BMV to allow him to retest.
{¶23} Ten years passed between the filing of Vanhorn’s two motions. Vanhorn
incurred one criminal conviction and one traffic conviction during this time.
{¶24} Vanhorn was convicted of F3 failure to comply in Washington County, Ohio
in 2019 when he fled from law enforcement. Vanhorn also operated a vehicle without a
license on October 1, 2023, and was convicted of driving under suspension and physical
control. State’s Reply, p. 2.
{¶25} The trial court was within its discretion to review the facts and evidence submitted
at the time of the filing of each of Vanhorn’s motions. The trial court in the case sub judice
considered Vanhorn’s recent convictions and denied Vanhorn’s 6/3/25 Motion.
{¶26} The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Vanhorn’s 6/3/25
Motion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Vanhorn, 2025-Ohio-5748.]
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 25 CAA 07 0052
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 11 CRI 12 0623 DEREK VANHORN, Judgment: Affirmed Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: December 23, 2025
BEFORE: Andrew J. King; Robert G. Montgomery; Kevin W. Popham, Judges
APPEARANCES: MELISSA A. SCHIFFEL and KATHERYN L. MUNGER, for Plaintiff- Appellee; RICHARD PIATT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Montgomery, J.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶1} Appellant Derek Vanhorn (hereinafter “Vanhorn”) was driving at a high rate
of speed with a suspended license on August 10, 2011, when his car went left of center
and struck another vehicle, killing its passenger. Vanhorn had a history of extensive traffic
offenses and stated he may have been texting at the time of the accident.
{¶2} Vanhorn was charged with Aggravated Vehicular Homicide in violation of
R.C. 2903.06(A)(2)(a) on December 2, 2011, in the Delaware County Court of Common
Pleas. Vanhorn pled “no contest” on April 11, 2012, and the trial court found him guilty on
the same date. Judgment Entry on No Contest Plea 4/13/12, p. 3. {¶3} A sentencing hearing was held on June 12, 2012, wherein Vanhorn was
sentenced to 42 months in prison, ordered to pay court costs and restitution and his
driver’s license was suspended for life. Judgment Entry on Sentence 6/15/12, p. 2.
{¶4} After his release from incarceration, Vanhorn filed a Motion for Limited
Driving Privileges in the Common Pleas Court of Delaware County on July 30, 2015
(hereinafter referred to as “7/30/15 Motion”). The trial court issued a Judgment Entry
Addressing the Defendant’s 7/30/15 Request for Limited Driving Privileges on August 7,
2015 (hereinafter referred to as “8/7/15 Entry”) wherein Judge Gormley, one of the judges
of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, stated, “Before I will consider granting
those privileges, though, the defendant must satisfy the reinstatement requirements set
by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) for various other suspensions that are on
his traffic record.” 8/7/15 Entry, p. 1.
{¶5} The trial court’s 8/7/15 Entry granted Vanhorn permission to renew his
driver’s license. The Entry also stated eight requirements Vanhorn must complete before
Judge Gormley would, “consider granting driving privileges to him.” Id., p. 2.
{¶6} Ten years after the aforementioned trial court’s judgment entry, Vanhorn
filed a Motion on June 3, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “6/3/25 Motion”) in the trial court
seeking an order permitting him to complete a remedial driving course and/or take his
driver’s license examination.
{¶7} The State of Ohio filed a Reply to Defendant’s Motion on June 4, 2025
(hereinafter referred to as “State’s Reply”), opposing Vanhorn’s 6/3/25 Motion.
{¶8} Judge Marianne T. Hemmeter, a trial judge in the Delaware County Court
of Common Pleas, issued a Judgment Entry Denying Defendant’s Request for an Order Allowing Him to Retest For his Driver’s License (hereinafter referred to as “6/6/25 Entry”)
on June 6, 2025.
{¶9} Vanhorn appealed the trial court’s 6/6/25 Entry and asserts the following
assignments of error:
{¶10} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT’S MOTION ALLOWING HIM TO RETEST IN AN EFFORT TO OBTAIN A
VALID OHIO DRIVER’S LICENSE AS THERE WAS A VALID JUDGEMENT [SIC]
ENTRY IN AFFECT [SIC] ALLOWING HIM TO DO SO.”
{¶11} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT’S MOTION ALLOWING HIM TO RETEST TO OBTAIN A VALID OHIO
DRIVER’S LICENSE, AND THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S MOTION
WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶12} This Court will review the decision of the trial court under an abuse of
discretion standard. “Abuse of Discretion” has been defined by the Ohio Supreme Court
as “conduct that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” Blakemore v Blakemore,
5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
ANALYSIS
{¶13} Vanhorn argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred by
denying his motion for an order that would allow him to retest for his driver’s license.
{¶14} Vanhorn argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court’s denial
of his motion filed on June 3, 2025, was an abuse of discretion.
{¶15} Vanhorn’s arguments will be addressed together. {¶16} As a general rule, courts follow the law of the case doctrine. Said rule has
been defined as, “The rule of the law of the case is a rule of practice, based upon sound
policy that when an issue is once litigated and decided, that should be the end of the
matter." United States v. United States Smelting Ref. & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198
(1950).
{¶17} This Court has found, “The doctrine's purpose is to ensure ‘consistency of
results in a case, to avoid endless litigation by settling the issues, and to preserve the
structure of superior and inferior courts as designed by the Ohio Constitution.’ ” Myers v.
Vitanovic, 2022-Ohio-4802, ¶ 18, citing Nolan, at 3, 462 N.E.2d 410. The Myers’ court
went on to say, “The doctrine ‘should not be taken to imply that a trial court can
never, under any circumstances, reconsider its prior ruling.’ " Id., citing Poluse v.
Youngstown, 135 Ohio App.3d 720, 725 (7th Dist. 1999).
{¶18} This Court ruled in Myers, “We find that the trial court did not err in failing to
apply the law of the case doctrine and was within its discretion to review the facts and
evidence submitted at the time of the hearing to determine appellant's income for
purposes of child support.” Id., at ¶ 19.
{¶19} Vanhorn argues that the trial court “lacked the authority to reconsider its
own valid judgement [sic]”. Appellant Brief, p. 5.
{¶20} Since the trial court imposed its sentence on April 11, 2012, Vanhorn has
filed two separate motions with the trial court regarding the lifetime suspension of his
driving privileges.
{¶21} Judge Gormley considered Vanhorn’s 7/30/15 Motion and issued the trial
court’s 8/7/15 Entry that granted him permission to renew his driver’s license. {¶22} Ten years later, Judge Hemmeter considered Vanhorn’s 6/3/25 Motion and
issued the trial court’s 6/6/25 Entry that denied Vanhorn’s request for an up-to-date order
to provide to the BMV to allow him to retest.
{¶23} Ten years passed between the filing of Vanhorn’s two motions. Vanhorn
incurred one criminal conviction and one traffic conviction during this time.
{¶24} Vanhorn was convicted of F3 failure to comply in Washington County, Ohio
in 2019 when he fled from law enforcement. Vanhorn also operated a vehicle without a
license on October 1, 2023, and was convicted of driving under suspension and physical
control. State’s Reply, p. 2.
{¶25} The trial court was within its discretion to review the facts and evidence submitted
at the time of the filing of each of Vanhorn’s motions. The trial court in the case sub judice
considered Vanhorn’s recent convictions and denied Vanhorn’s 6/3/25 Motion.
{¶26} The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Vanhorn’s 6/3/25
Motion.
{¶27} Vanhorn also argues that the trial court’s decision to deny his 6/3/25 Motion
“had the same effect of changing the trial court’s decision1 and altered the original intent
of the trial court.” Appellant Brief, p. 5.
{¶28} We disagree with Vanhorn’s argument.
{¶29} Vanhorn agrees that the trial court’s 6/6/25 Entry did not change the trial
court’s 8/7/15 Entry. Appellant Brief, p. 5.
{¶30} Vanhorn’s 6/3/25 Motion requested an “up-to-date” order, a different order.
The trial court considered Vanhorn’s actions from 2015 to 2025 in making its decision,
1 Vanhorn refers to the trial court’s 8/7/15 Entry. specifically that Vanhorn has “recent driving convictions involving driving under a
suspended license.” 6/6/25 Entry.
{¶31} Contrary to Vanhorn’s argument, the trial court’s 6/6/25 Entry does not
change or alter the trial court’s 8/7/15 Entry. The 6/6/25 Entry does not even mention the
trial court’s 8/7/15 Entry.
{¶32} We find Vanhorn’s arguments to be unpersuasive.
{¶33} The trial court’s 6/6/25 Judgment Entry was not unreasonable, arbitrary or
unconscionable. The trial court did not err in denying Vanhorn’s Motion filed on June 3,
2025.
{¶34} Vanhorn’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶35} The decision of the trial court issued on June 6, 2025, in the Delaware
County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.
{¶36} Costs to Appellant.
By: Montgomery, J. King, P.J. and Popham, J. concur.