Safer roads and lousy drivers not withstanding, it is about the money and it can be particularly harsh on a CDL holder and especially harsh if you're not local to the ticket. It's lose time and money to show up, lose money to hire a lawyer or to simply pay the fine or, as is the case with the OP, lose all the way around. It's a system that I try to avoid at all costs because, once you get caught up in it, there's really no way to win.

My father was a lawyer and his advice was, if you want to keep your license, drive like you don't have one.

You, OP, could and should have beat the ticket. The "highest court in the land" relatively speaking, interpreted that law to mean your only duty was to proceed with caution. That's akin to telling all the lower court judges and all the lawyers who argue before them that there's no reason to squabble over this, here's what the statute means. Your judge may have been completely unaware of that ruling. It was up to your lawyer to make him aware. It didn't happen because either your lawyer didn't know enough or wasn't being paid enough to make it happen.

GH . . as to your fledgling legal career, there's generally only one thing that can trigger an appeal and that's an unresolved issue raised at trial . . kind of like a lawyer says "But judge, you can't do that!" and the judge says "Yes I can and I'm going to!". Then the lawyer goes to the next higher court and says "Look what the rotten judge did!" If, as is the case here, everyone agrees to a plea bargain, there is no basis for an appeal, no matter how absurd it might appear. Of course, as I'm typing this it occurs to me that the OP could file an appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel. (Not me; the paid counsel!)

Swanny said:

Well, you're right of course that you can't appeal if a plea was accepted. However, MY understanding of the basis for appeals is that it is USUALLY a "procedural" mistake by the lower court. Your example is one of those, but there are others. MY point is that there is a certain irrationality and possibly a conflict in law as to dismissing a violation that is BASED on the testimony of a cop saying that the offender didn't MOVE properly, and then accepting a plea of guilty to a charge that essentially says he WASN'T "moving."

By doing so, the court is admitting that the offender wasn't actually "moving" and therefore could NOT be guilty of the offense charged with, because they JUST WANT THE MONEY.

Whether or not the higher court would hear my appeal is another question, but I would MAKE the appeal based on the fact that the lower court's own action/resolution was a finding "in fact" that the offense could NOT have been committed by my client.

This is a really good observation about the way the system works..

does anyone know if Ohio requires the Trooper to come in on their "off duty" days to appear in court or have the "reduced" pay for Court days?
Lawyer's do like to do the "continuance" thing.

Also, the dash cam would have been very useful here too.