COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67904 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : : OPINION DAVID HARRIS : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-302,965 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor PAUL J. DALEY, Assistant 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: EDWARD M. GRAHAM Attorney at Law 11705 Detroit Avenue Lakewood, Ohio 44107 DAVID HARRIS, pro se Pickaway Correctional Inst. Post Office Box 209 Orient, Ohio 43146 SWEENEY, JAMES D., P.J.: Defendant-appellant David Harris appeals from his conviction for felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11, with a violence specification. The appellant entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to a term of incarceration of four to fifteen years to run consecutively with his sentence in case number 294002. The appellant has set forth one assignment of error: THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO INFORM APPELLANT THAT IF FOUND A PROBATION VIOLATOR HE WOULD HAVE TO SERVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. The appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it failed to inform the appellant that any sentence imposed on the case sub judice would be consecutive with the sentence on a previous case in which he was found to be a probation violator. The appellant contends that his plea was not entered voluntarily as it was made without the understanding of the maximum penalty which could be imposed. The appellant was informed that if he pled guilty he would be a probation violator, but he was not advised that his sentences would be consecutive. R.C. 2929.41(B)(3) mandates that a sentence of imprisonment shall be served consecutively to any other sentence of imprisonment where it is imposed for a new felony committed by a probationer. The trial court is without discretion in the imposition of the consecutive term of imprisonment. This court has held that Ohio does not require the trial court to explain the consequences and effects of prior convictions to a 3 defendant before accepting a guilty plea. State v. Brockman (Feb. 23, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 55037, unreported; State v. Gibson (1986), 34 Ohio [App.]3d 146. See also State v. Waddell (1985), 26 Ohio App.3d 33, where the court held that the failure to advise a defendant that the sentence would have to be consecutive with a prior sentence from which he was on probation is not error since the court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2), and the record reveals no prejudice to the defendant. In the case sub judice, the trial court informed the appellant that if he pled guilty, he would be a probation violator (T. 5). The court did not separately inform the appellant that it was required to order the sentence for which the appellant was on probation and the sentence for the new felony to be served consecutively. There is no allegation that the trial court otherwise failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). We find that the trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 (C)(2), and that the appellant suffered no prejudice from the court's failure to explain the consequences and effects of prior convictions before accepting a guilty plea. Waddell, Gibson and Brockman, supra. The appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment 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 Cuyahoga County 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. SARA J. HARPER, J. CONCURS DIANE KARPINSKI, J. CONCURS JAMES D. SWEENEY PRESIDING 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 .