In re C.T.
Dated: September 29, 2014
WHITMORE, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, C.T., appeals from the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division. This Court reverses.
I
{¶2} In April 2013, a complaint was filed against C.T., alleging that he had violated curfеw. In June 2013, C.T., pursuant to a plea agreement, admitted the curfew violation and the court dismissed a truancy charge from another case. A magistrate entered a decision adjudicating C.T. delinquent and included a disposition. As part of the disposition, the magistrate required C.T. to submit to a toxicology screening. C.T. filed a motion to set aside the toxicology screening. Thе court, after a hearing, denied C.T.’s motion and adopted the magistrate’s decision. Subsequently, the magistrate found C.T. in violation of a valid court order for not submitting to a toxicology screening. C.T. then filed objections to that magistrate’s decision. The court overruled his objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision.
{¶3} C.T. then appealed from the court’s ordеr denying his motion to set aside the first magistrate’s decision, requiring a toxicology screening. This Court dismissed the appeal for a lack of a final, appealable order. We cоncluded that the court had not independently entered judgment, but merely adopted the magistrate’s decision. In December 2013, the court reissued its prior order, but included additional adjudicatory and dispositional language. In this entry, the court did not order C.T. to submit to a toxicology screening. C.T. now appeals from this order and raises two assignments of error for our review.
II
Assignment of Error Number One
THE MEDINA COUNTY JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED C.T. TO SUBMIT TO URINALYSIS AS DISPOSITION FOR A CURFEW VIOLATION, IN CONTRAVENTION TO HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.
Assignment of Error Number Two
C.T. WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO PROPERLY CHALLENGE THE MAGISTRATE’S JUNE 7, 2013 DECISION.
{¶4} In his two аssignments of error, C.T. challenges the court’s order requiring him to submit to a toxicology screening. Because the magistrate’s decision did not comply with
{¶5} There is an important distinction between magistrate’s orders and decisions. Cоmpare
- Pretrial proceedings under
Civ. R. 16 ; - Discovery proceedings under
Civ. R. 26 to37 ,Juv. R. 24 , andJuv. R.25 ; - Appointment of an attorney or guardian ad litem pursuant to
Juv. R. 4 andJuv. R.29(B)(4) ; - Taking a child into custody pursuant to
Juv. R. 6 ; - Detention hearings pursuant to
Juv. R. 7 ; - Temporary orders pursuant to
Juv. R. 13 ; - Extension of temporary orders pursuant to
Juv. R. 14 ; - Summons and warrants pursuant to
Juv. R. 15 ; - Preliminary conferences pursuant to
Juv. R. 21 ; - Continuances pursuant to
Juv. R. 23 ; - Deposition orders pursuant to
Juv. R. 27(B)(3) ; - Orders for social histories, physical and mental examinations pursuant to
Juv. R. 32 ; - Proceedings upon application for the issuance of a temporary protection order as authorized by law;
- Other orders as necessary to regulate the proceedings.
{¶6} Magistrate decisions, on the other hand, are “not effective unless adopted by the court.”
{¶7} On June 7, 2013, the magistrate entered an adjudication and disposition of C.T. At the top of the preрrinted form, the magistrate checked the boxes indicating that the entry was both an order and a decision. In the middle of the page, the magistrate only checked the box noting that it was a dispositional decision. However, at the end of the entry, the magistrate checked both boxes to inform the parties that they had a right to object to the magistrate’s decision and a “right to appeal [the] magistrate’s order.”1 Because the magistrate’s entry is an adjudication and disposition of C.T., it is a decision and not an order. Thus, C.T. should have filed objections tо the magistrate’s decision within fourteen days. Instead, C.T. filed a motion to set aside the magistrate’s order.
{¶8} In his motion to set aside, C.T. challenged the magistrate’s disposition requiring C.T. to submit to a toxicology screening. The judge held a hearing on C.T.’s motion to set aside the magistrate’s order on August 22, 2013. On August 26, 2013, the judge overruled C.T.’s motion on the merits and “adopted” the magistrate’s June 7, 2013 “decision.”
{¶9} On September 18, 2013, the magistrate held a hearing and found that C.T. was in violation of a “[v]alid [c]ourt [o]rder” for failing to submit to a toxicology screening. The magistrate, again, checked the boxes in the preprinted form’s heading to indicate that his decision was both a decision and an order. To add to the confusion, he checked the magistrate’s
{¶10} C.T. then, appropriately, filed objections to the magistrate’s September 18, 2013 decision, asserting the exact same arguments as in his motion to set aside the magistrate’s June 7, 2013 “order.” Without an additional hearing, the judge entered an order on September 25, 2013, overruling C.T.’s objections. In its entry, the court noted that the arguments were еxactly the same as the motion to set aside. The court further stated:
The [c]ourt in its decision dated August 26, 2013, found that this identical argument to be without merit, adopted and affirmed the Magistrate’s dеcision, thus making the Magistrates (sic) decision a valid court order. Inasmuch as the court has previously found the order (sic) of the Magistrate, to which the Alleged Delinquent child objects to bе valid, the court will rely on its prior findings and order to rule that the Decision of the Magistrate shall be affirmed.
Juvenile’s objection is denied. The Magistrate’s decision having previously been adopted as an order of the court is affirmed.
{¶11} C.T. then filed an appeal from the trial court’s August 26, 2013 judgment entry denying C.T.’s motion to set aside the magistrate’s order. This Court dismissed the appeal for а lack of a final, appealable order. Specifically, this Court concluded that the August 26, 2013 order merely adopted the magistrate’s decision and did not “independently enter[ ] a judgment adjudicating [C.T.] delinquent or impos[e] a disposition.”
{¶12} On December 16, 2013, the court reissued its August 23, 2013 order, denying C.T.’s motion to set aside the magistrate’s order, with additional language of adjudication and disposition. In this entry, however, the court did not order C.T. to submit to a toxicology
{¶13} This case emphasizes the common confusion between a magistrate’s order and decision. According to the rules, a magistrate’s decision must be labeled as such and the parties must be given conspicuous notice of the consequences of failing to file timely objections.
{¶14} Because C.T. was not given “conspicuous notice” of his right to file objections to the magistrate’s June 7, 2013 decision, we reverse аnd remand the matter to the trial court for the magistrate to prepare a decision that complies with
III
{¶15} The December 16, 2013 judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Apрeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellee.
BETH WHITMORE FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P. J. MOORE, J. CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
BROOKE M. BURNS, Assistant State Public Defender, for Appellant.
DEAN HOLMAN, Prosecuting Attorney, and LAUREN M. HASE, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.