In In re McKenzie (1995), 102 Ohio App. 3d 275, 277, 656 N.E.2d 1377, the appellate court found that the court failed to comply with Juv.R. 29(D) when it did not personally address the juvenile to determine if he understood the consequences of his admission and the rights waived. The court determined that the prosecutor's statements that the juvenile discussed the admission with his attorney and the attorney's concurrence in the prosecutor's representation did not sufficiently demonstrate compliance with Juv.R. 29(D).