COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67843 IN RE: ANTONIO McKENZIE, : A MINOR, : : Plaintiff-Appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY : and : OPINION : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MARCH 30, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Common Pleas Court -- : Juvenile Court Division : Case No. 9407280 JUDGMENT : REVERSED AND REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant Robert M. Ingersoll Assistant Public Defender 1276 West Third Street Marion Building, Room 307 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellee James P. Boyle Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street - 8th Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- NAHRA, J.: Appellant, Antonio McKenzie, is appealing the trial court's journal entry finding him delinquent and committing him to the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Appellant contends the trial court's acceptance of an admission to the amended complaint was in violation of Juv.R. 29 and appellant's constitutional rights. For the following reasons, we reverse and vacate the admission and the commitment, and remand. The complaint against appellant alleged he had received a stolen automobile, a third degree felony. On the record, the prosecutor stated that after discussing the matter with McKenzie's attorney, the prosecutor was prepared to amend the complaint to attempted receiving stolen property, a fourth degree felony. The prosecutor further stated that the youth was prepared to enter admission to the amended complaint. McKenzie's attorney agreed with the prosecutor's statements. Then, the prosecutor briefly summarized the facts of the case. Immediately thereafter, the judge granted the prosecutor's motion to amend the complaint and accepted Antonio McKenzie's admission. The judge never addressed appellant personally to ascertain whether appellant understood the consequences of an admission or understood the rights he was waiving. Antonio McKenzie never personally stated on the record that he admitted the amended charge. Appellant's sole assignment of error states: ANTONIO MCKENZIE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT HIS RIGHT TO A TRIAL, WHEN THE TRIAL COURT JUDGED HIM TO BE A -3- DELINQUENT ON THE BASIS OF AN ADMISSION THAT DID NOT COMPORT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF JUV.R. 29. Juv.R. 29 states in pertinent part: The court may refuse to accept an admission and shall not accept an admission without addressing the party personally and determining both of the following: (1) The party is making the admission voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the allegations and the consequences of the admission; (2) The party understands that by entering an admission the party is waiving the right to challenge the witnesses and evidence against the party, to remain silent, and to introduce evidence at the adjudicatory hearing. Juv.R. 29 requires the judge to address the youth personally and conduct an on the record exchange to determine whether the admission is knowing and voluntary. In re Meyer (Jan. 15, 1992), Hamilton App. No. C-910292, C-910404, unreported, In re Green (1982), 4 Ohio App.3d 196, 198, see In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 15. Such an on the record personal exchange is required for a valid guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2). McCarthy v. United States (1969), 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418, State v. Caudill (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 342, State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473. Review of an admission pursuant to Juv.R. 29(D) is similar to review of a guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2). In re Allen (Jan. 13, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 64441, unreported, 2-3, In re Meyer, supra. A valid waiver cannot be presumed from a silent record. Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed. 274, In re Meyer, supra, Garfield Heights v. Brewer (1984), 17 Ohio -4- App.3d 216. The prosecutor must affirmatively demonstrate that the requirements of Juv.R. 29(D) or Crim.R. 11(C)(2) were met. Id. Representations by the defendant's attorney that the defendant understood the rights waived and the consequences of his plea, are not sufficient to demonstrate a knowing and voluntary waiver. State v. Caudill, supra, McCarthy, supra. In this case, the judge did not address appellant personally to determine if appellant understood the consequences of his admission and/or the rights waived. The statements by the prosecutor that the youth had discussed the admission with his attorney, and the concurrence in this statement by appellant's attorney was not sufficient to demonstrate a knowing and voluntary waiver. The admission did not comply with Juv.R. 29(D), and is therefore void. We need not address appellant's contention that there was no admission on the record because appellant himself did not make the admission. Accordingly, this assignment of error is sustained. The decision of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings. -5- This cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee his costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. HARPER, P.J., and O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR. JOSEPH J. NAHRA JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .