COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67510 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION TARA CORETHERS : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : MARCH 30, 1995 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-292103 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, ESQ. CHARLES H. BRAGG, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 303 East Bagley Road DOMINIC DELBALSO, ESQ. P.O. Box 309 Assistant County Prosecutor Berea, OH 44017 Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 - 2 - PATTON, C.J. Defendant-appellant, Tara Corethers ("appellant") appeals her guilty plea for involuntary manslaughter in violation of R.C. 2903.04(A). Appellant was the subject of a one count indictment. The appellant pled not guilty at her arraignment. On October 12, 1993, appellant entered a plea of guilty. Appellant's first assignment of error states: THE APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT KNOWINGLY, AND VOLUNTARILY MADE SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS ON MEDICATION AND DEMONSTRATED SYMPTOMS OF CONFU- SION AT THE TIME HER PLEA WAS ENTERED. Appellant maintains that her guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made since she was on medication and demonstrated symptoms of confusion at the time her plea was entered. Specifi- cally, appellant claims that she did not understand what was hap- pening during her plea because she was taking antidepressants. 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 with- out 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 in- volved, 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 accep- - 3 - tance 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 re- quire the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which he cannot be compelled to testify against himself. * * * The Ohio Supreme Court has articulated very clear rules on when there has been compliance with Ohio Criminal 11(C)(2), as well as when a criminal defendant has adequately been informed of the nature of the charges against him. See State v. Stewart (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 86; State v. Nero (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 106. Literal compliance with Crim.R. 11 is certainly the preferred practice. However, the fact that the trial judge did not strictly comply with Crim.R. 11 does not compel vacation of the defendant's guilty plea if the reviewing court determines that there was sub- stantial compliance. Nero, supra, at 108. In Stewart, the rule is that an evaluation of the circum- stances of the case is necessary to determine if there is substan- tial compliance with Crim.R. 11. Substantial compliance allows the trial court to infer from the totality of the circumstances that the defendant understood the charges against him. Stewart, supra, at 93. After a thorough review of the guilty plea hearing transcript we conclude that the trial court substantially complied with Crim. - 4 - R. 11. The transcripts show that the appellant's medication did not impair her judgment. Moreover, it is clear from the tran- scripts that the appellant understood the proceedings and was not confused by them. Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. Appellant raises four pro se assignments of error which argue her constitutional rights were violated when: (a) the trial court failed to have a hearing on her motion to suppress evidence and statements; (b) the trial court did not provide her a speedy trial; (c) she was not provided effective assistance of counsel and (d) the trial court failed to make a determination of her competency prior to trial. The Ohio Supreme Court has held: When a criminal defendant has solemnly admit- ted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense in which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea. State v. Spates (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 269, 272. Accordingly, appellant's first, second and forth pro se as- signments of error are overruled because they relate to the depri- vation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea. Appellant's third pro se assignment of error relating to ineffective assistance of counsel must be addressed separately. In State v. Barnett (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 244, 249 the court held that "it is clear that a plea of guilty waives the right to claim - 5 - that the accused was prejudiced by constitutionally ineffective counsel, except to the extent the defects complained of caused the plea to be less than knowing and voluntary." In the present case appellant has not addressed why she be- lieves she was denied effective assistance of counsel. Moreover, appellant does not assert that ineffective assistance of counsel caused her plea to be less than knowing and voluntary as required in Barnett, supra. After a thorough review of the record we do not find any evidence that appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, appellant's third pro se assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 6 - 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 Court of Common Pleas 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. DYKE, J. BLACKMON, J., CONCUR. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN T. PATTON 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 here- of, 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. .