State v. Armes, 2016 Ohio 5087

On Nov. 27, 2014, a state trooper issued Armes a citation for operating a vehicle under the influence.
Trial was initially set for Jan. 2, 2015; Armes obtained two continuances to secure additional discovery, moving the trial to Jan. 30 and then Feb. 13.
On Feb. 6, after receiving more discovery, Armes filed a motion to suppress evidence (challenging the traffic stop and field sobriety tests).
The State opposed the motion as untimely under Traf.R. 11(C); Armes replied that his earlier continuance requests explained the need for additional discovery and urged the court to hear the motion in the interest of justice.
The municipal court denied the motion to suppress as untimely because Armes never sought leave to file late; Armes then pleaded no contest, was convicted, and sentenced to 10 days in jail.
Armes appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying a suppression hearing and not considering the stated reasons for delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Armes)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Armes’s untimely motion to suppress	The motion was untimely under Traf.R. 11(C); Armes waived the issue by not timely filing and did not request leave to file late	Armes filed promptly after receiving discovery and his prior continuance motions put the court on notice that more time was needed to file a suppression motion; court could grant relief in the interest of justice	Court affirmed: denial was within trial court’s discretion because Armes never sought leave to file late and only sought exception after State objected

Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 (abuse-of-discretion standard; appellate court defers to trial court’s discretionary decisions)