COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67468 : STATE OF OHIO : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION JAMES M. WOODRUFF : : : Defendant-Appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JUNE 1, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-285856 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, ESQ. JANE M. VARGA, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Twin Lakes Office Bldg. GEORGE J. SADD, ESQ. 5851 Pearl Road, Suite 205A Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Parma Heights, Ohio The Justice Center 44130-2112 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - KARPINSKI, J.: Appellant, James M. Woodruff, appeals from his conviction for aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01. Appellant was originally indicted on September 10, 1992 on aggravated robbery with two violence specifications and a firearm specification. On October 5, 1992, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. This case was assigned case number CR-285856. On February 11, 1993, the date of the beginning of the trial, the state of Ohio dropped the first and second violence specifications as well as the firearm specification. Appellant then retracted his former plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty as to the charge of aggravated robbery in the amended indictment. Additionally, on this date appellant was awaiting sentencing in a separate case, CR-284332. Upon learning of appellant's intention to plead guilty, the trial court had a detailed discussion with appellant to comply with Crim.R. 11. The pertinent parts are as follows: THE COURT: But you haven't had anything intoxicating for two days? THE DEFENDANT: No. THE COURT: So you're sober and clearheaded here this morning, right? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. * * * THE COURT: And you understand that upon a plea of guilty I can proceed to sentence and incarcerate you today. - 3 - THE DEFENDANT: Yes. * * * THE COURT: Do you understand that if you don't plead we'll proceed to trial. I have a jury waiting. They are back there to do it. And you can always pick, before you start anyway, to change that and go with a trial to the judge, correct? THE DEFENDANT: Beg your pardon? THE COURT: You get to select -- and you know that -- trial to the judge, trial to the jury, understood? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: And do you understand that at trial you'd always have Mr. Butler there to represent you. If for some reason Mr. Butler couldn't continue, and in any event, any time you can't afford a lawyer, you always have one appointed for you. You understand that, don't you? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: And you understand at trial you and your lawyer get to cross-examine each of the State's witnesses. You get subpoena power to bring in your witnesses. Understood? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: And you understand at trial you have an absolute right to remain silent. No one can compel you to testify or even comment to the judge or the jury on the fact you chose to remain silent. Understood? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Do you understand at trial you're presumed innocent. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If he can't meet that burden of proof, you're acquitted and discharged in the case. Understood? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. - 4 - THE COURT: Very well. And do you understand if you enter a plea of guilty to this indictment here today you're admitting your guilt specifically to aggravated robbery? Understood? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: You understand further that if you enter a plea of guilty you are waiving all of your constitutional rights under the bill of rights. Understood? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Let's look at the amended accusation against you. It is that on June 19, 1992, in this county, you unlawfully did, in attempting or committing a theft offense, or in fleeing immediately thereafter, upon John Stoudermire, have a deadly weapon or dangerous ordinance on or about your person, specifically a firearm. Do you understand that accusation? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Do you understand that's an aggravated felony of the first degree, so it carries a minimum term of actual incarceration of either five or six or seven or eight or nine or ten years to a maximum of 25 years, possible fine of up to $10,000? Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Knowing what you do about this amended charge against you, aggravated robbery, and the penalty that attaches if you're convicted of it, tell me how you want to plead to it this morning. THE DEFENDANT: Guilty. Thereafter, appellant was sentenced in case No. CR-285856 to six to twenty-five years incarceration at the Lorain Correctional Institution. Appellant's sole assignment of error is as follows: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA WHERE THE PLEA WAS NOT - 5 - SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY ARTICULABLE FACTS AND WHERE THE TRIAL COURT MADE ONLY A CURSORY INQUIRY AS TO APPELLANT'S FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT RIGHTS HE WAIVED BY PLEADING GUILTY. Appellant contends that the trial court failed to determine whether the defendant was aware his constitutional rights were being waived and the consequences of this waiver. Additionally, appellant argues that the court did not explain the maximum sentence could be imposed upon appellant. A review of the record reveals there is no basis for appellant's contentions. Crim.R. 11 was adopted in order to safeguard a defendant's constitutional rights and states, in pertinent part, as follows: (C) Pleas of Guilty and No Contest in Felony Cases. * * * (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: (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. * * * - 6 - (F) Negotiated Plea in felony cases. When, in felony cases, a negotiated plea of guilty or no contest to one or more offenses charged or to one or more other or lesser offenses is offered, the underlying agreement upon which the plea is based shall be stated on the record in open court. The Ohio Supreme Court has held a trial court's colloquy with a defendant pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C) must demonstrate substantial compliance with the requirements of the rule. Substantial compliance means that under the totality of the circumstances the defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving. Stewart, supra; State v. Carter (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 34, 38, 14 O.O.3d 199, 201, 396 N.E.2d 757, 760, certiorari denied (1980), 445 U.S. 963. Furthermore, a defendant who challenges his guilty plea on the basis that it was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made must show a prejudicial effect. Stewart, supra, at 93, 5 O.O.3d at 56, 364 N.E.2d at 1167; Crim.R. 52(A). The test is whether the plea would have otherwise been made. State v. Nero (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108. In this case, given the totality of the circumstances, the trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11. The entire colloquy between the court and appellant ensured that appellant's plea was voluntarily and knowingly made. Appellant was sober and cognizant of proceedings on the morning of February 1, 1994. He understood that upon his guilty plea the court would proceed with sentencing. Appellant was also aware of his rights to a jury trial, his right to an attorney, and his right to subpoena. The court then made sure that the appellant knew that he was presumed innocent and the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove all the elements of the offense. Further, the specific charge and applicable penalties were read to the appellant. The record - 7 - amply demonstrates that appellant's guilty plea was voluntarily and knowingly made. - 8 - 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. LEO M. SPELLACY, P.J., and O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR. DIANE KARPINSKI 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 .