COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59956 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION WILLIE WATKINS : : Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MARCH 12, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-242,030 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Prosecutor DEBORAH NAIMAN, Assistant Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: KREIG BRUSHNAHAN Attorney at Law 1220 West 6th Street, #702 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - ECONOMUS, J.: After a jury trial, defendant-appellant, Willie L. Watkins, was convicted on one count of possession of cocaine (R.C. 2925.1- 1), one count of trafficking in drugs (R.C. 2925.03[A][2]), and one count of possession of criminal tools (R.C. 2923.24). Appel- lant now timely appeals, raising one assignment of error for our review. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the con- victions of appellant. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTOR DENIED WILLIE WATKINS A FAIR TRIAL AS GUARANTEED HIM BY THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U. S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. Appellant argues that the prosecutor's cross-examination of appellant was improper and denied appellant a right to a fair trial. Specifically, appellant argues that the prosecutor's questioning of appellant as to his attendance at a technical school on the date of the alleged offense and the status of his friend's driver's license were not in evidence and were, there- fore, improper. Evid. R. 611(B) provides that cross-examination shall be per- mitted on all relevant matters and matters affecting credibil- ity. A cross-examiner may ask a question if the examiner has a - 2 - good-faith belief that a factual predicate for the question ex- ists. State v. Gillard (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d 226. The appellant was questioned on cross-examination concerning his whereabouts on the morning of the alleged offense. Appellant testified that he "started off to school" that morning. The prosecutor then attempted to impeach appellant's testimony based on documentation from the school stating that appellant was no longer a student on the day of the alleged offense. Since the prosecutor's questions concerning his attendance at technical school were done to impeach appellant's credibility and were based on documentation that he was no longer a student at the school, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing questioning on this matter. As to the prosecutor's cross-examination regarding whether appellant knew his friend had no driving privileges, the appel- lant did not object to this line of questioning and, therefore, this alleged error is waived unless it is plain error. State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St. 2d 112; Crim. R. 52(B). Since the prosecutor's question was an attempt to impeach appellant's tes- timony that he allowed his friend to drive on the day of the alleged offense because appellant had no driver's license, we cannot find that the trial court erred in allowing this ques- tioning at trial. Assignment of Error I is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 3 - 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. NAHRA, P.J. JOHN F. CORRIGAN, J. CONCUR JUDGE PETER ECONOMUS* *Sitting by Assignment: Peter Economus, Judge of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. 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. .