[Cite as State v. Ratliff, 2013-Ohio-3823.] 

 

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Appeal Dismissed 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 6, 2013 

John Curp, City Solicitor, Charles Rubenstein, City Prosecutor, and Brian F. Leurck, 

Assistant City Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 

Bradley P. Koeffell, for Defendant-Appellee. 

Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 vs. 

ADAM RATLIFF, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-120683 

 C-120684 

TRIAL NOS. 11CRB-9191(A-B) 

O P I N I O N.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2 

DINKELACKER, Judge. 

{¶1} In one assignment of error, plaintiff-appellant city of Cincinnati 

argues that the trial court erred when it determined that the Adam Walsh Act version 

of R.C. Chapter 2950 was unconstitutional and refused to apply it to defendantappellee Adam Ratliff. The trial court had convicted Ratliff of seven counts of 

voyeurism in violation of R.C. 2907.08. Because this court lacks jurisdiction to 

consider the appeal, we dismiss it. 

{¶2} R.C. 2945.67(A) governs the state’s ability to appeal a decision from a 

trial court. The statute lists two options: appeals that do not require leave from this 

court, and those that do. The instances where the state has a right to appeal, 

however, are limited to those (1) granting a motion to dismiss all or part of an 

indictment, (2) granting a motion to suppress, (3) granting a motion to return seized 

property, and (4) granting postconviction relief. If the state wishes to appeal any 

other decision, it must seek leave to do so pursuant to App.R. 5(C). 

{¶3} In this case, the city filed its notice of appeal, but did not seek leave 

with the court to do so. The decision that the Adam Walsh Act is unconstitutional is 

not one that can be appealed as of right. While the Ohio Supreme Court has 

expanded the dismissal class of appealable cases somewhat—including what it has 

termed the “functional equivalent” to a dismissal—the trial court’s decision here does 

not constitute the “functional equivalent” of dismissing an indictment or complaint. 

See In re A.J.S., 120 Ohio St.3d 185, 2008-Ohio-5307, 897 N.E.2d 629, ¶ 33. 

{¶4} As the Supreme Court noted, “because the state's appeal * * * did not 

constitute an appeal as a matter of right under R.C. 2945.67(A) and did not comply 

with the requirements of App.R. 5 so as to qualify as a proper appeal by leave of 

court, the court of appeals judges patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3 

the state's appeal and should have granted [the defendant’s] motion to dismiss it.” 

State ex rel. Steffen v. Judges of the Court of Appeals for the First Appellate Dist., 

126 Ohio St.3d 405, 2010-Ohio-2430, 934 N.E.2d 906, ¶ 35. It is worth noting that 

in the Steffen case, the state actually had sought permission to appeal, but it was 

outside the 30-day window set forth in App.R. 5. So, even an untimely request for 

permission to appeal leaves this court without jurisdiction to proceed. 

{¶5} In this case, the city appealed from a decision of the trial court that it was 

not entitled to appeal as a matter of right, and it did not seek leave to appeal the decision 

as provided by App.R. 5. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to proceed, and we 

dismiss the appeal. 

Appeal dismissed. 

CUNNINGHAM, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. 

Please note: 

 The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.