{¶ 1} The Ohio Public Defender has filed a motion to strike the state’s notice of appeal and to dismiss the appeal in this case because of the state’s failure to serve the notice of appeal on the Ohio Public Defender as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2)(A)(3), which provides as follows: “In a case involving a felony, when a county prosecutor files a notice of appeal under S.Ct.Prac.R. II or an order certifying a conflict under S.Ct.Prac.R. IV, the county prosecutor shall also serve a copy of the notice or order on the Ohio Public Defender.” The Ohio Public Defender asserts that the failure of county prosecutors to comply with S.Ct. Prac.R. XIV(2)(A)(3) is a significant and recurring problem that interferes with its ability to fully discharge its responsibilities.

{¶ 2} In State v. Cargile, 121 Ohio St.3d 1208, 2009-Ohio-477, 901 N.E.2d 1289, State v. Lester, 121 Ohio St.3d 1209, 2009-Ohio-478, 901 N.E.2d 1290, and State v. Rohrbaugh, 121 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2009-Ohio-479, 901 N.E.2d 1291, we noted that county prosecuting attorneys have a clear duty to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2)(A)(3), and we put county prosecuting attorneys and their staffs on notice that failure to comply with the requirements of S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2)(A)(3) may result in the dismissal of a notice of appeal.

{¶ 3} In this case, there was an unquestioned failure of the Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney to comply with the requirements of S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2)(A)(3). Compliance with those requirements is not optional.

{¶ 4} Accordingly, the motion to strike is granted. The notice of appeal is stricken, and the cause is dismissed.