COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70665 IN RE: NORA IBRAHIM : JOURNAL ENTRY : and Plaintiff-appellant : OPINION : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JUNE 5, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Juvenile Division : Case No. 9516328 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: NICHOLAS K. THOMAS Attorney at Law 21801 Lake Shore Boulevard Euclid, Ohio 44123 For appellee State of Ohio: STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor KIMBERLY MAHANEY, Assistant Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PARRINO, J.: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which found appellant, Nora Ibrahim, to be delinquent and committed her to the legal custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services ("ODYS"). The briefs of the parties and the transcript of the proceed- ings make reference to two juvenile cases against appellant, Case Numbers 964487 and 9516328. A review of the record, however, reveals that only Case Number 9516328, containing the allegations for receiving stolen property, is presently before this court. It is the judgment from the latter case that is appended to the notice of appeal, and it is this case number only that is referenced on the praecipe accompanying the notice of appeal. Consequently, any arguments regarding Case Number 964487 will not be considered by this court. As such, in the amended complaint for Case Number 9516328, appellant is alleged as being a delinquent child for attempted receiving stolen property, a fourth-degree felony if committed by an adult. Appellant, while represented by counsel, admitted the allegations as contained in the complaint and was subsequently - 3 - committed to ODYS for a period of six months. Appellant appeals 1 this decision, assigning the following error for our review: THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED HER FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND UNDER ARTICLE I SEC- TION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. Succinctly, appellant contends that her admission to the charge against her is not in compliance with Crim.R. 11(C). Spe- cifically, she argues that the trial court failed to inform her that she was giving up her right to confront her accusers, her right against self-incrimination and her right to compulsory process. The state, on the other hand, maintains that juvenile proceedings are governed by Juv.R. 29(D) rather than Crim.R.11(C) and that the record supports compliance with this rule. Crim.R. 1 outlines the scope of the criminal rules and spe- cifically excepts the applicability of these rules in juvenile proceedings. Crim.R. 1(C)(5). In all proceedings within the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts, the juvenile rules apply. Juv.R. 1(A). Juv.R. 29(D) governs the initial procedure upon entering an admission. This rule requires that, before accepting an admission, the court must personally address the party and determine whether: 1 In her brief, appellant claims to assert two assignments of error. It appears that appellant is including the issue presented for consideration as an assignment of error. Because both the assignment of error and the issue for consideration are related and argued as such, this court will do likewise. - 4 - (1) He is making the admission voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the alle- gations and the consequences of the admission; and (2) He understands that by entering his ad- mission he is waiving his rights to challenge the witnesses and evidence against him, to remain silent and to introduce evidence at the adjudicatory hearing. While Crim.R. 11(C) may not be applicable in the case sub judice, this court has held that a reviewing court's standard of review is similar in that the trial court must substantially com- ply with the dictates of Juv.R. 29(D). In re Flynn (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 778, 782; In re McKenzie (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 275, 277. The record reflects the following colloquy between the trial court judge and appellant: THE COURT: All right. Nora, do you un- derstand that by admitting these charges, you're right (sic) up the right to a trial, you're giving up the right present [sic] evidence on your behalf and the right to challenge the state's case against you? MISS IBRAHIM: Yes. THE COURT: You understand you're giving up your right to remain silent? MISS IBRAHIM: Yes. THE COURT: Did anybody promise you any- thing or threaten you anything to get you to admit these charges? MISS IBRAHIM: No. - 5 - THE COURT: Are you under the influence of drugs, alcohol or any other chemical substances? MISS IBRAHIM: No. As can be ascertained from the excerpts above, the trial court complied with the requirements of Juv.R. 29(D). Appellant was apprised that she was relinquishing her right to challenge the state's evidence against her, her right to remain silent and her right to introduce evidence at the adjudicatory hearing. Moreover, the record reveals that no threats or promises were made to her and, therefore, her admission was made voluntarily. Finding that the trial court complied with the requirements set forth in Juv.R. 29(D), the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is hereby affirmed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, 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. JOHN T. PATTON, P.J. and LEO M. SPELLACY, J. CONCUR JUDGE *THOMAS J. PARRINO *SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT: Thomas J. Parrino, retired Judge of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Supreme Court of Ohio. N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E), unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .