State v. Clayton, 2013 Ohio 2198

Clayton faced drug trafficking-related charges with forfeiture specifications on a scale, a handgun, and $22,832 found in his vehicle.
The money and seized assets were initially held by local police and later transferred to federal authorities under a federal warrant.
Clayton moved to dismiss and for pretrial release of money; the state showed federal seizure custody.
The trial court dismissed the case without prejudice and denied Clayton’s motion to return property as moot because the property was in federal custody.
Clayton appealed, arguing the trial court’s order was not final and that the state’s transfer to federal authorities circumvented Ohio forfeiture law.
The majority held that the denial of the motion for return of forfeited property was a final, appealable order despite the case dismissal without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the order denying return of forfeited property a final, appealable order?	Clayton argues it is not final due to dismissal without prejudice.	State contends the order is final under the provisional-remedy framework.	Yes, it is final and appealable.
Does dismissal without prejudice bar appellate review of the forfeiture denial?	Clayton contends dismissal precludes meaningful appellate review.	State asserts review remains possible for the ancillary remedy.	No; the order is still appealable.

State v. Muncie, 91 Ohio St.3d 440 (OH 2001) (three-part test for finality of provisional remedies under R.C. 2505.02)
State ex rel. Chandler v. Butler, 61 Ohio St.3d 592 (OH 1991) (federal forfeiture does not defeat state remedies; supremacy concerns)
DiBella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121 (1959) (denial of return of seized property can be final and appealable)
State v. Primm, 2011-Ohio-328 (OH 2011) (discusses adoptive federal forfeiture concerns under 18 U.S.C. 981(b)(2))
Harris v. Mayfield Hts., 2011-Ohio-1943 (OH 2011) (state’s role in forfeiture and replevin considerations)