COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 61068 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION LEWIS HAMMOCK : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: OCTOBER 1, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Court of Common Pleas Case No. 223471 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, ESQ. MICHAEL E. MURMAN, ESQ. CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR 14701 Detroit Ave., #555 BY: MARK FELLENBAUM, ESQ. Lakewood, Ohio 44107 ASSISTANT COUNTY PROSECUTOR The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 1 - DYKE, J.: Appellant was indicted on four counts of arson on February 12, 1988. Appellant entered a guilty plea on two counts on July 11, 1988. The remaining two counts were nolled by the prosecutor. The trial court sentenced appellant to ten to twenty-five years on both counts, to be served consecutively. Appellant's motion for a delayed appeal was granted on January 18, 1991. Appellant asserts one assignment of error. I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA WITHOUT INFORMING HIM AS TO WHETHER HE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSECUTIVE OR CONCURRENT SENTENCES. Appellant argues that prejudicial error was committed by the trial court by its failure to inform appellant of his eligibility for consecutive or concurrent sentences. Crim. R. 11(C)(2)(a) requires that the trial court accept a defendant's plea of guilty only after addressing him personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily and with an understanding of the nature of the charge and of the maximum penalty involved. Appellant asserts that his plea was not given voluntarily and with the understanding of the maximum penalty involved because the court failed to inform him that his sentences could be ordered to be served consecutively or concurrently. The State argues that the trial court in fact informed the appellant of this sentencing possibility. The State relies on two statements made by the court in an attempt to support its - 2 - position. However, the statements made by the court refer to the possibility of the appellant having to serve time or pay fines, or a combination of those penalties. At no point in the hearing did the court in fact refer to the possibility of concurrent or consecutive sentences. The Supreme Court of Ohio has specifically addressed this issue in State v. Johnson (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d 130. The trial court in Johnson failed to inform the defendant of the possibility of consecutive or concurrent sentencing. The Court held that: There was no error by the trial court here because it carried out the specific mandate of Crim. R. 11(C) by stating to the defendant the exact maximum sentence for each of the crimes as provided by law. There is no rule that an explanation be made that any sentences as given may run consecutively, or only concurrently, as might benefit the defendant. We shall not at this time implant verbiage that is not presently in the rule. State v. Johnson, at 134. The trial court in this case followed the mandate of Crim. R. 11(C), as it is narrowly interpreted by the Supreme Court of Ohio, by explaining to appellant the maximum sentences he could be ordered to serve under both counts. As this court is bound to follow the higher Court's interpretation of Crim. R. 11(C), we find that the trial court made no error in its acceptance of appellant's guilty plea. - 3 - The appellant's assignment of error is overruled and the trial court's decision affirmed. - 4 - 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. FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, J., AND KRUPANSKY, J., CONCUR. PRESIDING JUDGE ANN DYKE 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. .