In re A.T.
{¶1} A.T., a minor child, appeals from the juvenile court‘s entries adopting the magistrate‘s dеcisions adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to the permanent custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Serviсes. Because the trial court‘s entries are not final orders, we dismiss his appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
{¶2} On October 5, 2015, A.T. was arrested during a traffic stop. The same day, complaints were filed alleging that A.T. was delinquent of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana, and possession of herоin. On January 27, 2016, A.T. filed a motion to suppress, challenging the search of his person during the traffic stop. A magistratе heard the motion on March 8, 2016. After hearing testimony, the magistrate overruled the motion, and the matter prоceeded immediately to trial. Following the trial, the magistrate adjudicated A.T. delinquent of each of the above offenses. A.T. timely filed a motion to set aside the magistrate‘s orders and objections to the magistrate‘s decisions. The trial court overruled the objections and adopted the magistrate‘s decisions on the motion to suppress and the adjudications of delinquency.
{¶3} As to the heroin possession charge, the trial court‘s entry stated, “Upon review, the Decision of the Magistrate is adopted. Continue for disposition * * *. Transcript is reviewed. Argument heard. The objection is denied.” In a separate entry following the magistrate‘s disposition on this charge, the trial court stated, “After independent review, the Magistrate‘s Decision and Order in this matter * * * is hereby approved and adopted as the Judgment of this Court.” As to the other two charges, thе trial court‘s entries both stated, “Upon review, the Decision of the
This Court Lacks Jurisdiction
{¶4} Our jurisdiction is limited to the review of final orders.
{¶5} A juvenile court‘s adjudication of delinquency is “[a]n order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment.” See
{¶6} However,
{¶7} None of the trial court‘s entries in this case fulfilled these requirements. While the trial court reviewed the magistrate‘s decisions, ruled on A.T.‘s objections, and adopted the magistrate‘s decisions, the trial court did not enter judgments that determined all the claims for rеlief in the action. “[T]he entry should ‘clearly and finally dispose of the dispute between the parties,’ ” and contain ” ‘a statement of the relief to which the parties are entitled’ [that] is ‘definite enough to be susceptible to further enforcement and provide sufficient information to enable the parties to understand the outcome of the case’ * * *.” Alexander at ¶ 13, quoting Millies v. Millies, 47 Ohio St.2d 43, 44, 350 N.E.2d 675, (1976), fn. 2, and Champion Contracting & Constr. Co. Inc. v. Valley Post No. 5563, 9th Dist. Medina No. 03CA0092-M, 2004-Ohio-3406, ¶ 18.
{¶8} The Tenth District faced a similar circumstance in In re D.P., 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 06AP-179, 06AP-180 and 06AP-181, 2006-Ohio-5098. There, following a magistrate‘s decision, the trial court‘s entries stated:
The Court adopts the magistrate‘s decision and approves same * * * and enters the same as a matter of record, and includes same as the Court‘s judgment herein. The Court further finds there is no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate‘s decision. The Court incorporates by rеference the attached magistrate‘s decision and makes same the judgment of this Court.
Id. at ¶ 2. The defendant then filed objections, and in overruling them, the trial court issued entries stating: “[T]he Court overrules the objection to thе magistrate‘s decision * * * and upholds the decision of the magistrate * * *.” Id. at ¶ 3.
{¶10} Herе, the trial court‘s entries simply stated “[t]he objection is denied“; “the Magistrate‘s Decision and Order * * * is hereby aрproved and adopted as the Judgment of this Court“; and “[u]pon review, the Decision of the Magistrate is adоpted. * * * The objection is denied.” The entries adopted the magistrate‘s decisions but contained no “сlear pronouncement of the trial court‘s judgment that expressed what appellant‘s responsibilities and obligations are.” D.P. at ¶ 7. Therefore, the entries failed to satisfy
Conclusion
{¶11} Absent final appealable orders, we lack jurisdiction and these appeals must be dismissed.
Appeals dismissed.
MOCK, P.J., and DETERS, J., concur.
Please note:
This court has recorded its own entry this date.