COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60053 STATE OF OHIO : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : AND vs. : : OPINION RALPH E. BEASLEY : : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 2, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court No. CR-248407 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor EDWARD KRAUS, Assistant The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: JO ANNE FRENCH 330 Standard Building Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - KRUPANSKY, J.: Defendant-appellant Ralph E. Beasley appeals from his conviction and sentence for domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25. Defendant was indicted by the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury in Case No. CR-248407 December 27, 1989 on the following counts, viz.: (1) attempted rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02 and R.C. 2923.02, (2) domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25 with an accompanying violence specification based upon a prior conviction for domestic violence June 14, 1988 in Lakewood Municipal Court Case No. 89-B-346, and (3) two counts of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11. Defendant was arraigned March 8, 1990 and subsequently filed a "Motion to Suppress" his prior domestic violence conviction and various other pretrial motions during the course of the proceedings. Defendant's motion to suppress argued the record of the "proceedings will not affirmatively show that defendant was personally informed of the consequences of entering" his no contest plea in connection with his prior conviction for domestic violence in Case No. 89-B-346. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress defendant's domestic violence conviction in Case No. 89-B-346 prior to the bench trial on the indictments in the case sub judice. The trial court subsequently found defendant committed the offense of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25. - 3 - Defendant timely appeals from his conviction and sentence for domestic violence raising three assignments of error. Defendant's first and second assignments of error contend the trial court failed to conduct a hearing or properly rule on his motion to suppress as follows: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO STATE ITS ESSENTIAL FINDINGS OF FACT ON THE RECORD IN RULING ON THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE PRIOR CONVICTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE PRIOR CONVICTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. A. WHERE FACTUAL ISSUES ARE RAISED IN A MOTION TO SUPPRESS, THE TRIAL COURT IS REQUIRED TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. B. IT IS PLAIN ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO DENY SUA SPONTE THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE PRIOR CONVICTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WHEN THE PROSECUTION HAS OFFERED NO OBJECTION OR OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION. Defendant's first and second assignments of error lack merit. Defendant complains that the trial court failed to conduct a pretrial hearing or state its findings of fact on the record prior to denying his motion to suppress his prior conviction for domestic violence contrary to Crim. R. 12(E). Crim. R. 12(E) provides as follows: (E) Ruling on motion. A motion made before trial other than a motion for change of venue, shall be timely determined before trial. Where factual - 4 - issues are involved in determining a motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the record. However, it is well established that a trial court need not conduct a hearing or state its essential findings on the record when defendant's motion to suppress does not raise any factual issues. See, State v. Almalik (1986), 31 Ohio App. 3d 33. In the case sub judice, defendant failed to produce any evidence that his prior domestic violence conviction based upon his no contest plea in Case No. 89-B-346 was defective in any way. In this context, the Ohio Supreme Court has held as follows: Where questions arise concerning a prior conviction, a reviewing court must presume all underlying proceedings were conducted in accordance with the rules of law and a defendant must introduce evidence to the contrary in order to establish a prima facie showing of constitutional infirmity. State v. Brandon (1989), 45 Ohio St. 2d 85, syllabus. Accord State v. Hairston (19858), 27 Ohio App. 3d 125. Defendant failed to make such a prima facie showing in the case sub judice. Defendant's motion to suppress the prior conviction is Case No. 89-B-346 merely claims "the record of said proceedings will not affirmatively show that defendant was personally informed of the consequences of his plea." Defendant failed to produce any transcript of the underlying no contest plea hearing or affidavit stating he had not been informed of the consequences of his plea in that case. The journal entries from - 5 - Case No. 89-B-346 in the record sub judice indicate defendant was represented by counsel, withdrew his not guilty plea and jury demand and subsequently entered a plea of no contest. Under the circumstances, since defendant failed to establish a prima facie showing to the contrary, the trial court properly presumed regularity of the no contest plea proceedings and declined to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Id. See also State v. Summers (1981), 3 Ohio App. 3d 234. Accordingly, defendant's first and second assignments of error are overruled. Defendant's third assignment of error contends his conviction for domestic violence is against the manifest weight of the evidence as follows: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THAT RENDERING A VERDICT OF GUILTY TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. Defendant's third assignment of error lacks merit. Defendant contends his conviction for domestic violence was against the weight of the evidence since the evidence indicated defendant was incapable of knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm to the victim due to his intoxication. State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, stated the standard for determining whether a conviction is against the weight of the evidence as follows: There being sufficient evidence to support the conviction as a matter of law, we next consider the claim that the judgment was - 6 - against the manifest weight of the evidence. Here the test is much broader. The court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. ***. See Tibbs v. Florida (1982), 457 U.S. 31, 38, 42; Id. at 175. Based upon the record sub judice, we cannot conclude the trial court lost its way and committed a manifest miscarriage of justice. Voluntary intoxication is no defense to any crime but may be considered to determine whether a defendant was capable of forming the specific intent of the indicted offense. State v. Wolons (1989), 44 Ohio St. 3d 64; State v. Otis (Jan. 23, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 59685, unreported. The Ohio Supreme Court has noted in this context that "intoxication, even severe intoxication, can coexist with purpose." State v. Hicks (1989), 43 Ohio St. 3d 72, 74. The victim and her son testified defendant knew what he was doing despite the fact that he had been drinking. Moreover, defendant's conduct in disconnecting the telephone to prevent calling the police and fleeing to elude the police indicate he was aware of the situation and capable of rational thought. The trial court could properly discount the testimony of defendant's brother, Daniel White, who had no opportunity to observe defendant during these events but stated defendant - 7 - becomes like "a walking vegetable" after drinking and can not control his body. Although defendant's blood alcohol level was measured at .415 and .426 within hours after the altercations giving rise to the charges sub judice, the trial court could have found based upon all the evidence defendant was not sufficiently impaired at the time of the altercations and ingested additional alcohol after the altercations and prior to his blood tests. Accordingly, defendant's third assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 8 - 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. NAHRA, P.J., and PATTON, J., CONCUR JUDGE BLANCHE KRUPANSKY 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 journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .