COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59388, 59389 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION ROBERT NELSON : : Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 7, 1991 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-247,263/244,603 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Prosecutor LINDSAY M. JERRY, Assistant Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: KEVIN S. LISTER Attorney at Law 131 West Eagle Street Painesville, Ohio 44077 - 1 - FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, J.: Defendant, Robert Nelson, entered pleas of guilty to one count of possession of cocaine (R.C. 2925.11) in Case No. CR- 244,603 and to one count of possession of cocaine in Case No. CR- 247,263. Appellant now timely appeals the conviction entered following his guilty plea in Case No. CR-247,263. For the fol- lowing reasons, we affirm the appellant's conviction. On January 9, 1990, defendant-appellant, Robert Nelson, pled guilty to one count of possession of cocaine, less than the bulk amount, (R.C. 2925.11) in Case No. CR-244,603. The sentencing was set for January 30, 1990. On that date, appellant decided to also pled guilty to one count of possession of cocaine, less than the bulk amount, (R.C. 2925.11) in Case No. CR-247,263. As part of a plea agreement in Case No. CR-247,263, one of two vio- lence specifications was deleted from the indictment on the recommendation of the prosecutor. Appellant's guilty plea to the indictment minus specifica- tion one was accepted by the trial court. The trial court then sentenced appellant in Case Nos. CR-244,603 and CR-247,263, with the sentences running concurrently. - 2 - Appellant now timely appeals his conviction in Case No. CR- 247,263, arguing that his conviction was the result of an unknow- ing and involuntary guilty plea. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I ROBERT NELSON HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY HIS CONVICTIONS, WHICH WERE THE RESULT OF UNKNOW- ING AND INVOLUNTARY GUILTY PLEAS THAT CANNOT SERVE AS A WAIVER OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Appellant argues that the trial court failed to determine whether appellant understood the nature of the charge in that the specification was not identified and the elements of the offense were not recited. This argument is without merit. Crim. R. 11(C)(2) provides in pertinent part: (2) In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no con- test, and shall not accept such plea without first addressing the defendant personally and: (a) Determining that he is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charge and of the maximum penalty involved, and, if appli- cable, that he is not eligible for pro- bation. In order for a trial court to determine that a defendant is making a plea with an under- standing of the nature of the charge to which he is entering a plea, it is not always necessary that the trial court advise the defendant of the elements of the crime, or to specifically ask the defendant if he under- stands the charge, so long as the totality of the circumstances are such that the trial court is warranted in making a determination that the defendant understands the charge. - 3 - In other words, under some circumstances, the trial court may be justified in concluding that a defendant has drawn an understanding from sources other than the lips of the trial court. (Citations omitted.) State v. Raney (1982), 3 Ohio App. 3d 441, 442; accord, State v. Claflin (Oct. 29, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 52948, unreported. In the present case, the record reveals the trial court had a discussion with the prosecutor and defense counsel regarding appellant's intention to plead guilty to the indictment in Case No. CR-247,263 minus specification one. Afterwards, the appel- lant indicated to the trial court that he heard the discussion, understood what was going on, and had no questions. The trial court then instructed appellant that the remaining specification in Case No. CR-247,263 concerned his being found guilty of com- mitting robbery in November, 1978. The trial court explained the maximum penalty which appellant would be subjected to if he entered a plea of guilty and the effect of the prior conviction on his potential penalty. The state discussed the factual background of the case, detailing how they discovered cocaine on the premises where appellant was hiding. Appellant indicated that this factual background was substantially correct. After the indictment was read to appellant, he pled guilty to the charge of possession of cocaine. Therefore, the totality of the circumstances supports the conclusion that appellant understood the nature of the charge. Accordingly, we find the appellant's guilty plea was made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. - 4 - Assignment of Error I is overruled. Judgment affirmed. Judgment affirmed. 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 Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 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. JOHN F. CORRIGAN, J. JAMES D. SWEENEY, J. CONCUR PRESIDING JUDGE FRANCIS E. SWEENEY N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .