State v. Bryson
85 N.E.3d 1123
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Michelle Bryson was charged with OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)), refusal (R.C. 4511.19(A)(2)), driving without a valid license, and reckless operation after a traffic stop.
- Bryson was arraigned May 16, 2016; the state provided discovery and produced a trooper dash‑cam video on June 28, 2016 (after the 35‑day window for pretrial suppression motions).
- Bryson filed a Request for Leave to File an Untimely Motion to Suppress on July 8, 2016, arguing the dash‑cam showed no erratic driving and therefore no reasonable suspicion for the stop; the trial court denied leave without a hearing or stated findings.
- Bryson entered no contest pleas to all charges on August 12, 2016 but reserved the right to appeal the denial of leave; the trial court stayed sentence pending appeal.
- The appellate court reviewed whether denying leave to file an untimely suppression motion was an abuse of discretion, focusing on the timing of discovery, absence of prejudice to the state, and lack of trial scheduling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to file an untimely motion to suppress | The State implicitly argued the motion was untimely and within the trial court’s discretion to deny | Bryson argued the dash‑cam (provided after the 35‑day deadline) disclosed the grounds for suppression and she promptly sought leave to file once she received it | Court held denial was an abuse of discretion: discovery produced after deadline and prompt filing warranted leave |
| Whether trial court was required to state essential findings under Crim.R. 12(F) when denying leave | State did not assert the requirement applied here | Bryson argued the court failed to state essential findings, which hampered review | Court discussed Crim.R. 12(F) but found the trial court did not state findings; majority cites the rule but notes defendant did not request findings; concurrence says Crim.R. 12(F) discussion unnecessary |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to timely file a suppression motion | State would oppose reversing based on ineffective assistance where procedural rules apply | Bryson argued counsel was ineffective for not timely filing; counsel filed for leave after receiving dash‑cam | Court deemed ineffective‑assistance claim moot after reversing denial of leave |
| Remedy: disposition of convictions and remand | State would seek affirmance or limited relief | Bryson sought vacatur and new proceedings allowing a suppression motion | Court reversed trial court’s denial, vacated conviction and sentence, and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wade, 53 Ohio St.2d 182 (1978) (discusses waiver for failure to timely move to suppress)
- State v. Benner, 40 Ohio St.3d 301 (1988) (Crim.R. 12(F) requirements and effect of failing to invoke rule)
- State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164 (1984) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d 61 (1994) (appellate review may rely on record when trial court fails to state findings)
- State v. Davis, 1 Ohio St.2d 28 (1965) (timing of knowledge of suppression grounds governs waiver analysis)