[Cite as In re A.M. , 2020-Ohio-2666.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY

IN RE: CASE NO. 9-19-54 A.M.,

ADJUDICATED O P I N I O N DELINQUENT CHILD.

Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court Family Division Trial Court No. 2018 DL 00383 Appeal Dismissed Date of Decision: April 27, 2020

APPEARANCES:



### Lauren Hammersmith for Appellant



### Nathan R. Heiser for AppelleeCase No. 9-19-54

-2- ZIMMERMAN, J. {¶1} Adjudicated delinquent child-appellant, A.M., appeals the Augus t 6, 2019 judgment entry of disposition of the Marion County Court o f Common Pleas, Family Division. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss. {¶2} On August 3, 2018, a complaint was filed against A.M. charging him with gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) , a felony of the third degree if committed by an adult, and importuning in violation o f R.C. 2907.07(A), a felony of the third degree if committed by an adult. (Doc. N o. 1). The complaint arose from a June 6, 2018 incident in which A.M., a juvenile, a llegedly had sexual contact with another juvenile. ( Id. ). On September 20, 2018, A.M. appeared and denied the charges in the complaint. (Doc. No. 6). {¶3} On December 12, 2018, A.M. filed a motion to suppress statement s he made in connection with a June 19, 2018 interview with law enfo rcement. (Doc. No. 12). On December 19, 2018, the State filed a memorandum in opposition to A.M.’s motion to suppress. (Doc. No. 13). After a suppression hearing on December 19, 2018, a magistrate of the trial court denied A.M.’ s motion to suppress on January 8, 2019. (Doc. No. 14). On January 14, 2019, A.M. filed a motion to set aside the magistrate’s decision denying his motion to suppr ess. (Doc. No. 15). The trial court denied A.M.’s motion to set aside the magistrat e’s decision on January 17, 2019. (Doc. No. 16).Case No. 9-19-54

-3- {¶4} On April 9, 2019, A.M. withdrew his denial of the charges in th e complaint and entered no-contest pleas to the charges. (Doc. N o. 21). The trial court’s magistrate accepted A.M.’s no-contest pleas and adjudic ated him a delinquent child as alleged in the complaint. ( Id. ). {¶5} At a dispositional hearing on August 5, 2019, the trial court’s magistrate recommended that A.M. be committed to the legal care and custod y of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“DYS”) for a minimum of six month s (not to exceed A.M.’s 21st birthday). (Doc. No. 24). The trial court’s magis trate further recommended that the DYS commitment be suspended and that 18 mo nths of community-control sanctions, including 90 days in detention, wi th those 90 days suspended conditioned on his compliance with his community-cont rol sanctions, be imposed by the trial court. ( Id. ). The trial court’s magistrate filed her “Magistrate Report” on August 6, 2019. ( Id. ). That same day, the trial court filed an entry “approv[ing] and adopt[ing] the Decision of the Magistrate” aft er noting that the parties “voluntarily waived their right to object and/or no obj ection being timely filed * * * .” (Doc. No. 25). {¶6} On September 5, 2019, A.M. filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 30). He raises two assignments of error for our review, which we wil l address together. Assignment of Error No. I A.M. was denied his right to due process and equal protection o f the laws when he was adjudicated delinquent of R.C.Case No. 9-19-54

-4- 2907.05(A)(4), for an offense committed when he was under the age of thirteen and a member of the class protected by the stat ute. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution

. (4/9/2019 Entry; A-1). Assignment of Error No. II The Marion County Juvenile Court erred as a matter of law and violated A.M.’s constitutional rights when it denied his motion to suppress, even though he did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and, Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitutio n. (1/17/2019 Entry; A-2). {¶7} In his first assignment of error, A.M. argues that he cannot be found delinquent of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907 .05(A)(4) because that statute is unconstitutional as applied to children under t he age of 13. In his second assignment of error, A.M. argues that the trial court er red by denying his motion to suppress statements that he made to law enforcement. {¶8} Before addressing the merits of A.M.’s assignments of error, we must address a threshold jurisdictional matter. Courts of appeal in Ohio have appellate jurisdiction over “final appealable orders.” Ohio Constitution , Article IV, Section 3(B)(2). “‘As a result, “[i]t is well-established that an orde r [or judgment] must be final before it can be reviewed by an appellate court. If an o rder [or judgment] is not final, then an appellate court has no jurisdiction.”’” In re L.J.S. , 4th Dist. Washington No. 16CA8, 2016-Ohio-8107, ¶ 10, quoting Gehm v. Timberline Post

& Frame , 112 Ohio St.3d 514, 2007-Ohio-607, ¶ 14, quoting Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v.Case No. 9-19-54

-5- Ins. Co. of N. Am. , 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989). This court must sua sponte rais e and address jurisdictional issues. Id. , citing Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ. , 44 Ohio St.3d 86 (1989), syllabus and Whitaker-Merrell v. Geupel Co. , 29 Ohio St.2d 184, 186 (1972). {¶9} Because it presents a question of law, we review de novo whethe r an order or judgment constitutes a final, appealable order. State v. Robinson , 9th Dist. Summit No. 26365, 2012-Ohio-3669, ¶ 7. “De novo review is inde pendent, without

deference to the lower court’s decision.” State v. Hudson , 3d Dist. Marion No. 9- 12-38, 2013-Ohio-647, ¶ 27, citing Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. of Ohio , 64 Ohio St.3d 145, 147 (1992). {¶10} A juvenile court’s adjudication of delinquency and subsequent disposition is “‘[a]n order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment.’” In re A.T. , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160597, 2017-Ohio-5821, ¶ 5, quoting R.C. 2505.02(B)(1), and citing In re Cox , 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2004-A-0057, 2005-Ohio-3899, ¶ 28 and In re N.C. , 2d Dist. Clark No. 09CA0023, 2009-Ohio-4603, ¶ 12-15. However, “[ m]agistrate

decisions in matters referred under Juv.R. 40 do not constitute final, appealable

orders.” In re L.J.S. at ¶ 11, citing In re G.S. , 4th Dist. Pike No. 14CA852, 2015- Ohio-1285, ¶ 17, State ex rel. Boddie v. Franklin Cty. 911 Admr. , 135 Ohio St.3d 248, 2013-Ohio-401, ¶ 2, and State v. Wheeler , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26702,Case No. 9-19-54

-6- 2016-Ohio-2964, ¶ 17. “Instead, a trial court retains ultimate responsibility over the matter and must enter a separate and independent judgment that sets forth the parties’ rights and obligations with respect to the issues subm itted to the court.” Id. , citing Burns v. Morgan , 165 Ohio App.3d 694, 2006-Ohio-1213, ¶ 9-10 (4th Dist.),

Yahraus v. Circleville , 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 00CA04, 2000 WL 33226190, *3 (Dec. 15, 2000), Harkai v. Scherba Industries, Inc. , 136 Ohio App.3d 211, 215 (9th Dist.2000), and Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(e). See also In re A.T. at ¶ 6 (noting that “Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(e) provides that ‘[a] court that adopts, rejects, or m odifies a magistrate’s decision shall also enter a judgment”), quoting Juv.R. 40(D)(4) (e). {¶11} Because Juv.R. 40 contains identical language to Civ.R. 53, “a magistrate’s decision does not become final ‘until the trial co urt reviews the magistrate’s decision and (1) rules on any objections, (2) adop ts, modifies, or rejects the decision, and (3) enters a judgment that determines all the claims for relief in the action or determines that there is no just reason for delay .’” In re A.T. at ¶ 6, quoting Alexander v. LJF Mgt., Inc. , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-090091, 2010-Ohio2763, ¶ 12, and citing Roberts v. Skaggs , 176 Ohio App.3d 251, 2008-Ohio-1954, ¶ 4 (1st Dist.) and Yantek v. Coach Builders Ltd. , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060601, 2007-Ohio-5126, ¶ 14. See also In re D.S.R. , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-119, 2012-Ohio-5823, ¶ 14 (noting that “the same principles applied to Civ.R. 53(D) are applicable to Juv.R. 40(D)”).Case No. 9-19-54

-7- “‘“[T]he content of the judgment must be definite enough to be susceptible to further enforcement and provide sufficient infor mation to enable the parties to understand the outcome of the case. I f the judgment fails to speak to an area which was disputed, uses ambiguous or confusing language, or is otherwise indefinite, th e parties and subsequent courts will be unable to determine how t he parties’ rights and obligations were fixed by the trial court.” ’”

In re L.J.S. at ¶ 12, quoting Harkai at 216, quoting Walker v. Walker , 9th Dist. Summit No. 12978, 1987 WL 15591, *2 (Aug. 5, 1987). See also Reiter v. Reiter , 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-98-32, 1999 WL 378354, *2 (May 11, 1999) . In other words, merely approving and adopting a magistrate’s decision is not enough, the trial judge “‘must still separately enter his or her own judgme nt setting forth the outline of the dispute and the remedy provided.’” State ex rel. Boddie at ¶ 2, quoting

Harkai at 218. Consequently, a judgment entry that orders that a mag istrate’s decision be affirmed or incorporated is not a valid, final appe alable order. See Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(e); Civ.R. 54(A); R.C. 2505.02, {¶12} Here, the trial court’s August 6, 2019 entry does not fulfill t hose requirements. The record reflects that the trial court’s magis trate issued decisions denying A.M.’s motion to suppress evidence on January 8, 2019; adjudicating A.M. as a delinquent child on April 9, 2019; and disposing of the ca se on August 6, 2019. The trial court issued an order stating the following: The above captioned case(s) came before the Court upon complaint filed 08/03/2018 alleging the child to be Delinquent/Unruly. A hearing was held before the Magistrate by Order of Reference. A Decision of the Magistrate was issuedCase No. 9-19-54

-8- therefrom and filed. The parties hereto were served with a cop y of the Decision of the Magistrate. The parties were further advis ed of their right to object to the same pursuant to Juvenile Rule 40(D)(3)(b)(i). The parties having voluntarily waived their right to object and /or no objection being timely filed herein; the Decision of the Mag istrate is to have immediate effect. The Court approves and adopts the Decision of the Magistrate and the same is hereby entered of record as the Order of this C ourt by reference in the above captioned case (s). (Doc. No. 25). {¶13} We conclude that the trial court’s August 6, 2019 entry does no t conform with its obligation to enter an independent judgment wh ich determines the

action. See In re A.T. at ¶ 10 (“The entries adopted the magistrate’s decisions but contained no ‘clear pronouncement of the trial court’s judgment that expressed what appellant’s responsibilities and obligations are.’”), quoting In re D.P. , 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 06AP-179, 06AP-180, and 06AP-181, 2006-Ohio-5098, ¶ 7; In re

Elliott , 4th Dist. Ross No. 97 CA 2313, 1998 WL 101351, *2 (Mar. 5, 19 98); Civ.R. 54(A). Indeed, the trial court did not indicate which magistra te’s decisions it reviewed and was adopting or enter a judgment of adjudication a nd disposition. See

In re L.J.S. at ¶ 15. That is, the trial court’s entry fails to set forth the dispute and order the specific relief afforded. {¶14} For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court’s August 6, 2019 entry is not a final, appealable order and we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.Case No. 9-19-54

-9- See In re A.T. at ¶ 10 (“Therefore, the entries failed to satisfy Juv.R. 40(D) (4)(e)’s requirement that the court ‘also enter a judgment,’ and they ar e not final, appealable orders.”), quoting Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(e); In re A.K. , 9th Dist. Medina No. 08CA0024- M, 2009-Ohio-398, ¶ 3 (“The trial court order adopts the magist rate’s decision; however, the order does not enter judgment finding A.K. to be a delinquent child.”);

In re D.P. at ¶ 7. Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed for lack o f jurisdiction. Appeal Dismissed SHAW, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur. /jlr