State v. Fuller, 2011 Ohio 860

Fuller was stopped for tinted windows and minor traffic irregularities observed by trooper Hoffman on State Route 35; the stop proceeded after a canine alert following a walk-around; cocaine was found during a pat-down and Fuller admitted marijuana; Fuller was indicted for trafficking and possession of crack cocaine; Fuller filed a motion to suppress on April 22, 2010 arguing untimeliness and delay; the trial court denied the motion as untimely and the case proceeded to trial resulting in guilty verdicts on both counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the suppression motion timely and properly denied?	Fuller argues untimely filing and error in denial.	State contends no abuse of discretion in denying late motion.	Yes, the motion was properly denied as untimely.
Should ineffective assistance of counsel be considered on appeal for an untimely motion?	Fuller asserts counsel's delay violated Strickland standard.	State argues issue not properly briefed or reasoned.	The issue is not properly argued and will not be considered.

State v. McIntire, 2010-Ohio-3955 (Ohio App. 2010) (applies abuse-of-discretion standard to extension of pretrial deadlines; no reversal for untimeliness)
State v. Evans, 2010-Ohio-2554 (Ohio App. 2010) (abuse of discretion in extending time for pretrial motions; must show justification)
State v. Robson, 2006-Ohio-628 (Ohio App. 2006) (pretrial motion deadlines; extension reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254 (1996-Ohio) (defines abuse of discretion standard and limits on court opinions)
State v. Turner, 2010-Ohio-5420 (Ohio App. 2010) (acknowledges discretion to overlook minor rule violations in some contexts)
State v. Hudnall, 2004-Ohio-5369 (Ohio App. 2004) (discusses whether counsel may argue ineffective assistance on appeal)