COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59996 STATE OF OHIO : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : JAMES GLOVER : OPINION : : DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 21, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. CR-245910 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BY: JAMES A. CLOUGH ASSISTANT COUNTY PROSECUTOR THE JUSTICE CENTER 1200 ONTARIO STREET CLEVELAND, OHIO 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: PATRICK E. TALTY SUITE 211 20800 CENTER RIDGE ROAD ROCKY RIVER, OHIO 44116-4386 -2- SPELLACY, P.J.: On December 14, 1989, defendant-appellant James Glover ("appellant") was indicted for Aggravated Robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01, with an aggravated felony specification. On April 2, 1990, the trial court, at the request of the State, amended the indictment to Robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.02, without the felony specification. Appellant then pled guilty to the amended indictment. The trial court accepted appellant's plea and subsequently sentenced him to a term of three to fifteen years. On July 6, 1990, this court granted appellant's motion for a delayed appeal. On appeal, appellant raises the following assignment of error: APPELLANT, JAMES GLOVER, WAS NOT ACCORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THAT THE SENTENCE WHICH COULD BE IMPOSED UPON HIM WAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED TO HIM PRIOR TO THE TIME HE ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY. A two-step test is applied to determine whether a criminal defendant has been denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. First, it must be determined whether the counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation. If this is the case, then it must be determined whether the defendant was prejudiced by the counsel's performance. State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St. 3d 136; see, also, Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668; State v. Lytle (1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d 391. -3- Appellant supports his assignment of error by arguing that he did not understand the maximum penalty involved because his attorney failed to require the trial court to comply with Crim. R. 11(C)(2). Crim. R. 11(C)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that: In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty *** and shall not accept such plea without first addressing the defendant personally and: Determining that he is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charge and of the maximum penalty involved, and, if applicable, that he is not eligible for probation. (Emphasis added.) In its dialogue with appellant, the trial court stated: THE COURT: Okay. This is what's called an aggravated felony of the second degree. And it's punishable by an indefinite term of imprisonment and also a possible fine of up to $7,500.00. Do you understand the penalty involved? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. (Tr. 8-9). Appellant goes on to argue he did not realize that, because he had violated the terms of probation in Cases CR-234919 and CR- 237949, his sentence in this case would be served consecutively 1 with his sentence in Cases CR-234919 and CR-237949. In its dialogue with appellant, the trial court stated: 1 The trial court subsequently terminated appellant's probation in Cases CR-23419 and CR-237949. -4- THE COURT: And any sentence I would impose, by law, must run consecutively with the case you're on probation for; do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Do you know what the word consecutive means? THE DEFENDANT: Together, I believe. MR. LAMBROS: No. THE COURT: It means one after the other. THE DEFENDANT: One after the other, okay. (Tr. 5). After a review of the record, we find the trial court complied with the requirement that it determine appellant understand the maximum penalty involved. Appellant also argues that his attorney allowed him to believe that his sentence would be limited to the time he served prior to the sentencing hearing. Nothing in the record, however, supports appellant's argument. We find, therefore, that the performance of appellant's trial counsel did not fall below an objective standard of reasonable representation. Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is not well taken. Judgment affirmed. -5- 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. HARPER, J., AND KRUPANSKY, J., CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY PRESIDING 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. .