In Re Gibson
{¶ 2} On March 8, 2006, Gibson entered an admission to one count of burglary, a fifth degree felony if committed by an adult, pursuant to an agreement with the state. The magistrate accepted the admission and proceeded to a disposition hearing that same day. Berlin Carroll ("Carroll"), Gibson's probation officer, recommended a suspended six month commitment to the Ohio Department of Youth Services ("DYS"). The state, defense, and Gibson's mother all deferred to the recommendation by Carroll. At the dispositional hearing, both Gibson and his mother were given the opportunity to speak. Thereafter, the magistrate stated: "Well, I don't know what to do frankly, Justin. My initial inclination is to simply commit you to the Department of Youth Services immediately. As far as I'm concerned, your record and this offense more that warrant that kind of treatment. I'm going to have to carefully consider the recommendation of the probation officer. I'm not going to decide today. I'm going to put you back in the Detention Center while I consider what final orders in these cases should be. So you will remain in the Detention Center until my decision is filed." The trial court then remanded Gibson to the detention center.
{¶ 3} On March 9, 2006, the magistrate filed a judgment entry committing Gibson to DYS for a minimum of six months and a maximum period not to exceed Gibson's twenty-first birthday. The juvenile court adopted the magistrate's decision.
{¶ 4} It is from this judgment that Gibson appeals and sets forth two assignments of error for our review. For clarity of analysis, we have combined Gibson's two assignments of error.
{¶ 5} In his first assignment of error, Gibson argues that the trial court erred when it failed to make a complete record of the proceedings as required under
{¶ 6} As a threshold matter, we address the state's claim that Gibson waived the arguments he now raises on appeal when he failed to file any objections to the magistrate's decision.
{¶ 7}
(a) Time for filing. A party may file written objections to amagistrate's decision within fourteen days of the filing of thedecision, regardless of whether the court has adopted thedecision pursuant to
* * *
(d) Waiver of right to assign adoption by court as error onappeal. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court'sadoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless theparty has objected to that finding or conclusion under thisrule.1
{¶ 8} Gibson concedes he did not file any objections to the magistrate's decision. However, Gibson asserts that nothing in
{¶ 9} Gibson's arguments on appeal do not challenge any "findings of fact" or "conclusions of law." Instead, Gibson's arguments raise challenges regarding the manner in which the magistrate sentenced Gibson. Consequently, Gibson has not waived the errors that he has assigned. However, even if Gibson had waived the errors that he has assigned, this court could still review his assignments of error under the plain error doctrine. See In Re Etter (1998),
{¶ 10} Juvenile proceedings are generally considered to be civil proceedings rather than criminal proceedings. In ReAnderson,
{¶ 11} The scope of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure is set forth at
{¶ 12} The Twelfth District has also held that a trial court is not required to hold a hearing at which the juvenile is present to announce its decision regarding disposition. In ReKash, 12th Dist. No. CA2001-06-057,
{¶ 13} In In Re Kash, the trial court held a dispositional hearing on April 5, 2001, however, the trial court did not make a decision that day. Kash,
{¶ 14} Gibson also maintains that
{¶ 15}
(A) General Provisions. Unless otherwise stated in this rule,the juvenile court may conduct its hearings in an informal mannerand may adjourn its hearings from time to time.
* * *
(1) Public access to hearings. * * *. In all otherproceedings, the court may exclude the general public from anyhearing, but may not exclude either of the following: (a) Persons with a direct interest in the case.
* * *
{¶ 16} We find that
{¶ 17} Gibson's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 18} Gibson also maintains that even though the trial court recorded part of the dispositional hearing, the trial court erred when it failed to record the sentence being imposed pursuant to
{¶ 19}
{¶ 20} The magistrate in this case held both an adjudicatory and a dispositional hearing on March 8, 2006, and recorded both hearings. The magistrate did not hold an additional hearing when it filed the written decision to commit Gibson to DYS. Since the decision to commit Gibson to DYS was based on the March 8, 2006 dispositional hearing, which the trial court recorded, and the magistrate did not hold an additional hearing, we find the magistrate's sentencing decision was not a proceeding that was required to be recorded under
{¶ 21} Gibson's first assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{¶ 22} Having found no error prejudicial to appellant herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed. Bryant, P.J., and Shaw, J., concur.