COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59387 STATE OF OHIO : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : JOSE A. RIVERA : OPINION : : DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 7, 1991 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court, No. CR-246818. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Esq. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: Nancy A. Fuerst, Esq. 330 Standard Building Cleveland, OH 44113 -2- MATIA, J.: In the instant appeal, defendant-appellant Jose A. Rivera challenges his plea entered before the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant asserts ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was entered unintelligently. On review, we find no error, and affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court. THE CASE On January 10, 1989, defendant-appellant Jose Rivera was indicted for robbery with a prior aggravated felony specification and possessing criminal tools with a violence specification. On January 17, 1990, appellant Rivera was arraigned. On January 29, 1990, appellant Rivera pled guilty to the first count and was sentenced to eight to fifteen years at CRC. The second count of possession of criminal tools was nolled. It is from that plea and sentence that the defendant appeals. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I AND II "ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1: THAT DEFENDANT- APPELLANT WAS AFFORDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT THE PLEA AND SENTENCING PHASE OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. "ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2: THAT DEFENDANT- APPELLANT UNINTELLIGENTLY ENTERED HIS PLEA OF GUILTY." Assignment of Error I and II are interrelated and will be discussed concurrently. -3- Appellant argues in his two assignments of error that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea and sentencing phase of his bench trial. Specifically, appellant argues that his guilty plea was entered unintelligently. These assignments of error are not well taken. ISSUE: WHETHER THE COURT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH CRIM. R. 11 In order to find that a defendant entered a knowing and informed plea of guilty to the charged offenses, substantial compliance with Crim. R. 11 is required. State v. Beavers (1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 57451, unreported, quoting State v. Stewart (1977), 51 Ohio St. 2d 86. Therein, the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the standard of substantial compliance as enunciated in United States v. Brogan (C.A. 6, 1975), 519 F.2d 28: "In United States v. Brogan (C.A. 6, 1975), 519 F.2d 28, the court held that substantial compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 was sufficient. The court further commented that rote recitation of the rule was not necessary, stating: "We believe that we have not yet reached the state where Courts will require the parroting of any rule; nor should we encourage a defendant to trifle with the court." State v. Stewart, supra, at 92." A review of the record of the proceedings held on January 29, 1990 reveals that a lengthy and thorough oral dialogue occurred between the trial court and the appellant and the following was shown: 1) the trial court informed the appellant of the actual sentence which would be imposed upon a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery with an aggravated felony specification; -4- 2) the trial court informed the appellant that the offense was non-probationable; 3) the appellant acknowledged that no threats or promises were made with regard to the plea of guilty; 4) the appellant acknowledged his constitutional right to a trial before a jury or judge; 5) the appellant acknowledged his right of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the part of the state, the right to confront all witnesses, the right to subpoena witnesses, and the right to testify on his own behalf or refuse to testify; and 6) the appellant was informed of the nature of the pending charge or aggravated robbery with an aggravated felony specification. 7) the appellant was informed that if declared a parole violator on his present parole, time would run consecutive to present sentence. A review of the record of the appellant's plea of guilty reveals that appellant made a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights. The trial court substantially complied with Crim. R. 11. Appellant Rivera's counsel stated for the record that he had discussed the matter at length with appellant, "I explained the situation in which he is involved in, and I discussed in (sic) again in the courtroom just a few moments ago. His plea will be voluntarily made and will be forthcoming to a plea of guilty." (Tr. 4.) Accordingly, we find that the appellant understood the effect of his plea of guilty and understood the nature of the pending charge of aggravated robbery with an aggravated felony specification. -5- Accordingly, Assignments of Error I and II are not well taken. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the trial court is affirmed. -6- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. BLACKMON, J., CONCURS; KRUPANSKY, C.J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY. DAVID T. MATIA JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .