COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 61114, 61115 STATE OF OHIO : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : : OPINION ALLEN HAIRSTON : : : DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: AUGUST 27, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court, Case Nos. CR-242252 and CR-254886. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-appellee: Stephanie Tubbs Jones Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Deborah Naiman Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-appellant: Michael E. Murman, Esq. 14701 Detroit Avenue, #555 Lakewood, Ohio 44107 - 2 - SWEENEY, JAMES D., J.: Defendant-appellant Allen Hairston ("Hairston") appeals from his pleas of guilty. For the reasons adduced below, we affirm. Appellant provides a succinct narrative of the pertinent facts in this case as follows: On October 18, 1989, the appellant, Allen Hairston, was named in a four (4) count indictment in case number 242252. [Appeal number 61114.] The first count alleged a violation of R.C. 2925.11, possession of cocaine in an amount less than bulk. The second count alleged a violation of R.C. 2925.03, aggravated drug trafficking. The third count alleged grand theft of an automobile in violation of R.C. 2913.02. The fourth count alleged a violation of R.C. 2923.24, possession of criminal tools. Appellant pled not guilty at his arraignment on November 6, 1989 and the matter was assigned to the docket of Judge John E. Corrigan. On April 9, 1990, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the first count of the indictment. The remaining three counts were nolled by the State of Ohio and appellant was referred to the probation department for a presentence investigation. On May 10, 1990, appellant was sentenced to one year in the Lorain Correctional Institution. Imposition of his sentence was suspended and he was placed on two years probation. Appellant was subsequently indicted for aggravated drug trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03, being Case No. CR 254886. [Appeal number 61115.] Appellant pled not guilty at his arraignment on September 11, 1990 and the case was assigned to the docket of Judge John E. Corrigan. On October 18, 1990, appellant changed his previously entered plea of not guilty in - 3 - Case No. CR 254886 to a plea of guilty. This offense carried with it a mandatory three year jail sentence. As a result of this plea, a probation violation hearing in Case No. CR 242252 was held on November 20, 1990 same time as appellant's sentencing in Case No. 254886. The court imposed a sentence of three to fifteen years, three years mandatory, and a mandatory $5,000 fine for Case No. CR 254886. In addition, the Court determined appellant to be a probation violator in Case No. CR 242252 and reimposed the original one year sentence, to be served consecutive to the sentence in Case No. CR 254886. Appellant filed a delayed Notice of Appeal and this case is now properly before this Court for review. [Explanation added.] 1 Appellant's brief, at 2-3. One assignment of error is presented for review upon the briefs of the parties. THE TRIAL COURT DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY WITH CRIMINAL RULE 11 WHEN IT ACCEPTS A PLEA OF GUILTY WHERE DEFENDANT HAS NOT EXHIBITED THAT HE ENTERED THE PLEA VOLUNTARILY AND THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE. Crim. R. 11(C) provides: * * * (2) In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest, and shall not accept such plea without first addressing the defendant personally and: 1 Only the transcript of the guilty plea hearing held on April 9, 1990 is in the appellate record. The transcript from the second guilty plea hearing of October 18, 1990, is not included in the appellate record. Appellant, in his argument, does not address the plea of October 18, 1990. We therefore disregard any error pertaining to this second plea. App. R. 12(A). - 4 - (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 applicable, that he is not eligible for probation. (b) Informing him of and determining that he understands the effect of his plea of guilty or no contest, and that the court upon acceptance of the plea may proceed with judgment and sentence. (c) Informing him and determining that he understands that by his plea he is waiving his rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which he cannot be compelled to testify against himself. "Substantial compliance with Crim. R. 11(C) is required when accepting a guilty plea. State v. Stewart (1979), 51 Ohio St. 2d 86, syllabus." State v. Hayes (April 25, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 59812, unreported, at 4. See also State v. Smith (March 28, 1991), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 58334, 58418, 58443, unreported, at 10. Reviewing the transcript of the first guilty plea hearing, it is abundantly evident that the court, in oral discourse with the defendant who was represented by counsel, addressed each and every element required by Crim. R. 11(C)(2)(a)-(c) in the order presented by the criminal rules of procedure. See transcript, at 3-15. There is no question that Hairston understood the effect of the first guilty plea and that the plea was voluntary. Assignment overruled. - 5 - 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 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. DAVID T. MATIA, C.J., and SARA J. HARPER, J., CONCUR. JAMES D. SWEENEY 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. .