Defendant accused of Traffic Violations

The legal saga of a Cleveland Heights resident culminated in an appellate court decision that affirmed her convictions for multiple traffic violations. The City of Cleveland Heights filed the complaint against Jazmane Preston, who represented herself in court, in the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, on February 5, 2026.

The case began when Preston was cited by Cleveland Heights police officers on January 10 and January 16, 2025, for driving with one headlight and an expired license plate. Her arraignment on January 29 turned contentious as she refused to identify herself properly, claiming to be an “attorney-in-fact” without a valid bar number. The court held her in contempt due to her noncompliance but later purged the charge after she cooperated the following day. At trial on February 6, Preston faced charges related to these citations. Despite representing herself and challenging various aspects of the proceedings—including questioning the applicability of certain laws—she was found guilty based on testimony from police officers and evidence presented by the prosecution.

Preston’s appeal raised five assignments of error: improper contempt procedures violating due process; an unknowing plea; double jeopardy concerns over dual convictions for similar offenses; enforcement of conflicting municipal ordinances; and misapplication of judicial review regarding vehicle classification. The appellate court systematically dismissed each claim. It deemed the contempt issue moot since it had been purged once compliance was achieved. It found no merit in her plea argument because she entered a not guilty plea voluntarily and proceeded to trial. Her double jeopardy claim failed as separate incidents warranted distinct charges under Ohio law. The constitutional challenge regarding ordinance conflicts was waived since it wasn’t raised at trial. Lastly, her argument about vehicle classification lacked foundation as it wasn’t properly contested during initial proceedings.

Ultimately, Preston sought relief through reversal or dismissal based on alleged procedural errors and constitutional violations but received none from the appellate court. The judgment required her to pay fines and costs associated with each charge.

Representing herself pro se throughout this ordeal proved challenging for Preston as she navigated complex legal terrain typically requiring professional expertise. The judges presiding over this matter were Eileen A. Gallagher, Michael John Ryan, and Anita Laster Mays under Case No. 114908.