In re G.W., 2020 Ohio 300

The State sought leave to appeal a juvenile court order denying its motion to access recordings of phone calls made by juvenile G.W. while in detention.
The State filed a notice of appeal in the juvenile court on October 17, 2019 and filed a motion for leave to appeal in the court of appeals on October 21, 2019 (four days later).
App.R. 5(C) requires the prosecution’s notice of appeal and motion for leave to be filed "concurrently." The State acknowledged the timing error and argued the four-day delay was reasonable.
The Second District ordered briefing on whether the filings were properly concurrent; the State responded, G.W. did not.
The court held that App.R. 5(C) must be strictly construed for state discretionary appeals under R.C. 2945.67 and that concurrency requires filing on the same day; it rejected a "reasonable time" or "sufficient compliance" standard.
Because the State failed to strictly comply with App.R. 5(C), the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the State’s motion for leave to appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State satisfied App.R. 5(C) concurrency requirement when notice and motion were filed four days apart	The four-day gap was reasonable and the filings should be treated as concurrent; literal simultaneity impractical because filings go to different clerks	(No response filed by G.W.; court treated appellee as not contesting but nonetheless applied rule)	Concurrency requires filing on the same day; four-day delay fails App.R. 5(C)
Whether a "reasonable time" or "sufficient compliance" standard can cure nonconcurrent filings	The State urged a practical, flexible standard	N/A	Court rejected reasonable/sufficient-compliance standards and required strict compliance with App.R. 5(C); failure is jurisdictional

State ex rel. T.L.M. v. Judges of First Dist. Court of Appeals, 59 N.E.3d 1260 (Ohio 2016) (state must seek leave and is strictly held to App.R. 5 requirements)
State v. Fisher, 517 N.E.2d 911 (Ohio 1987) (State’s motion for leave must be filed concurrently with the notice of appeal)
State ex rel. Steffen v. Court of Appeals, First Appellate Dist., 934 N.E.2d 906 (Ohio 2010) (failure to comply with App.R. 5 means the court lacks jurisdiction)
State v. Jones, 94 N.E.3d 971 (Ohio 2017) (strict compliance with App.R. 5(C) is a jurisdictional prerequisite for state appeals by leave)
State v. Arnett, 489 N.E.2d 284 (Ohio 1986) (government’s right to appeal is limited; statutory exceptions must be strictly construed)
State v. Bassham, 762 N.E.2d 963 (Ohio 2002) (exceptions to the bar on government appeals must be strictly construed)
State v. Caltrider, 331 N.E.2d 710 (Ohio 1975) (statutory exceptions to restrictions on government appeals are narrowly construed)