COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 74256 IN RE: KAREN McALPINE : : JOURNAL ENTRY Appellant : : AND : : OPINION : : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : DECEMBER 3, 1998 OF DECISION : : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS : Civil appeal from : Juvenile Court : Case No. 9714836 : JUDGMENT : REVERSED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: For defendant-appellee: THOMAS M. HORWITZ, ESQ. Peltz & Birne 1880 Midland Bldg. 101 Prospect Avenue, W. Cleveland, OH 44115 MYRIAM A. MIRANDA, ESQ. Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 -2- JOHN T. PATTON, P.J.: Appellant-Karen McAlpine appeals the judgment of the juvenile court, arguing the court erred by failing to make a record of the adjudicatory proceeding. On November 12, 1997, a complaint was filed with the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, charging McAlpine with drug trafficking, a felony of the second degree if committed by an adult. See R.C. 2925.03(A). An adjudicatory hearing was held in front of a magistrate on January 15, 1998. McAlpine, with the assistance of counsel, admitted to the charge and the magis- trate determined that McAlpine's continued residence in her present home would be against her best interest. The magistrate recom- mended that McAlpine be committed to the Ohio Department of Youth Services for an indefinite term. This recommendation was later approved by the juvenile court on March 13, 1998. McAlpine timely filed her notice of appeal and presents a single assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO MAKE A RECORD OF THE ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDING. McAlpine argues the juvenile court violated Juv.R. 37 by not producing an adequate record of the proceeding. She claims the present record from the juvenile court, which contains only a boilerplate, typed page with check-off boxes, does not reflect whether the magistrate personally addressed her, whether she understood the nature of the allegations or consequences of her -3- admission, or whether the prosecution satisfied its burden of establishing that she knowingly entered her admission. In support of her argument, McAlpine cites In re Montgomery (1997), 117 Ohio App.3d 696. In Montgomery, an adjudicatory proceeding was held before a referee where the juvenile was present with a parent. The complaint was read with an explanation of the juvenile's rights. The juvenile then waived representation by counsel and admitted to the charges in the complaint. The referee recommended home detention. A dispositional hearing was held and the trial court accepted the referee's recommendation. During this hearing, the juvenile, who was present with counsel, made a motion to withdraw his previously entered admission. The juvenile court requested that the juvenile's counsel submit a brief. The juvenile court then sentenced the juvenile to the Ohio Department of Youth Services. This court reversed the juvenile court's judgment based on Juv.R. 37(A), holding, [t]here is nothing in the record to show that the proceedings complied with the requirements of due process and this court cannot presume that appellant knowingly waived his rights from a record where the referee's report and journal entry do not disclose that appellant voluntarily and with understanding entered an admission. In the present case, the record consists of a supplemental referee's report and a journal entry. The supplemental report has a section where the referee indicates who is present and another section where the referee makes findings and conclusions. In this report, the referee indicates McAlpine was present at the hearing -4- with her mother and counsel. The report also states (1) McAlpine admitted to the charge of drug trafficking, (2) she has a criminal history, (3) she is pregnant, (4) she has not been attending school, (5) she is living with her grandmother, and (6) she did not follow through on earlier programs instituted by the judge. The journal entry is a one-page typed sheet with check-off boxes. This form reveals McAlpine had counsel, admitted to the charge, the referee recommended her removal from the residential home, and the juvenile court committed her to legal care and custody of the Department of Youth Services. There is nothing in the record revealing the magistrate recorded the adjudicatory proceeding. Juv.R. 37(A) states the record shall be taken in shorthand, stenotype, or by any other adequate mechanical, electronic or video recording device. Because the requirements of Juv.R. 37(A) were not complied with, we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings. Judgment reversed. This cause is reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee her costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. -5- A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. KENNETH A. ROCCO, J. JAMES D. SWEENEY, J., CONCURS. PRESIDING JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON 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 .