IN RE: S.M.B., A Minor Child
No. 99035
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
May 2, 2013
[Cite as In re S.M.B., 2013-Ohio-1801.]
BEFORE: Keough, J., Stewart, A.J., and Rocco, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case No. DL 12105009
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 2, 2013
Timothy Young
State Public Defender
By: Charlyn Bohland
Assistant State Public Defender
250 East Broad Street
Suite 1400
Columbus, Ohio 43215
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Callista R. Plemel
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} S.M.B., a minor, appeals her finding of delinquency.1 For the reasons that follow, we dismiss for lack of a final, appealable order.
{¶2} On March 22, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court alleging that S.M.B. was a delinquent child for committing felonious assault, in violation of
{¶3} It is from this order that S.M.B. now appeals raising as her sole assignment of error that the juvenile court‘s finding of delinquency of felonious assault was against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, because the juvenile court‘s order fails to specify the time period of community control and fails to set forth any penalty for any violation of probation, the order does not constitute a final, appealable order, and we are without jurisdiction to review this appeal.
{¶4} Appellate courts “have such jurisdiction as may be provided by law to review and affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders of the courts of record inferior to the court of appeals within the district[.]”
{¶5} “It is rudimentary that a finding of delinquency by a juvenile court, unaccompanied by any disposition thereof, is not a final appealable order.” In re Sekulich, 65 Ohio St.2d 13, 14, 417 N.E.2d 1014 (1981), citing In re Whittington, 17 Ohio App.2d 164, 245 N.E.2d 364 (5th Dist.1969), paragraph one of the syllabus. Courts have repeatedly held that a journal entry that leaves an issue unresolved or contemplates further action, does not constitute a final, appealable order. See, e.g., In re J.A., 4th Dist. No. 11CA27, 2012-Ohio-2184 (journal entries that order restitution but do not specify the amount or method of payment are not final and appealable).
{¶6} In this case, the juvenile court‘s disposition leaves issues unresolved — specifically, the duration of time S.M.B. was placed on community control and the penalty for any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of her community control sanctions. Moreover, the journal entry also delegates authority to a probation officer to determine whether S.M.B. should be removed from community control. This delegation of authority is improper. See, e.g., State v. Moore, 7th Dist. No. 00AP0741, 2002-Ohio-5047 (improper for court to delegate to probation department task of determining amount of restitution owed); see generally State v. Fair, 2d Dist. No. 8081, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 13314 (Oct. 14, 1983)
{¶7} Accordingly, we find that the court‘s journal entry that leaves issues unresolved and impermissibly delegates the juvenile court‘s authority is not a final, appealable order.
{¶8} Dismissed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
MELODY J. STEWART, A.J., and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR