COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67952 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION SHARON CANNON : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 2, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. CR-276752 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: THOMAS E. CONWAY (#0021183) and JOHN W. MONROE (#0061845) Assistant County Prosecutors The Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: THOMAS P. GILL (#0006107) 75 Public Square - Suite 1320 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2096 - 2 - 2 SPELLACY, P.J.: Sharon Cannon appeals from her conviction for murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02, and raises the following assignment of error: THE APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY TO MURDER WAS TAKEN AND ACCEPTED IN VIOLATION OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL RULE 11. After being indicted for aggravated murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.01, with a firearm specification, and aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01, with a firearm specification, Cannon entered a plea of guilty to the lesser included offense of murder and the remaining count was nolle prossed. The trial court conducted the required colloquy before accepting Cannon's plea, during which it informed Cannon of, among other things, her right to a jury trial and her "right to cross-examine all witnesses called by the State to prosecute [her]." (Tr. 8). Cannon contends her constitutional rights were violated and the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 because it did not ask her whether she was satisfied with her trial counsel and did not inform her that she had the right to a bench trial and the right to confront witnesses. Before accepting a guilty plea, a trial court must inform the defendant that the plea will waive the following constitutional rights: the right against self-incrimination, the right to a jury trial, the right to confront accusers, and the right to compulsory process of witnesses. State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473, - 3 - 3 paragraph one of the syllabus; see, also, Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 U.S. 238, 243-244. These constitutional rights, along with other, nonconstitu- tional, rights, were incorporated into Crim.R. 11(C)(2), which provides: (2) In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no con- test, 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. Although a trial court is not required to follow the exact language of Crim.R. 11(C)(2) when informing a defendant of her constitutional rights, it must explain the rights "in a manner reasonably intelligible to that defendant." Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, at paragraph two of the syllabus. When informing a defendant of the nonconstitutional rights, the trial court must substantially comply with Crim.R. 11. State v. Nero (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 106, syllabus; State v. Stewart (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 86, syllabus. - 4 - 4 We find that Cannon's constitutional rights were not violated and that the trial court properly complied with Crim.R. 11. The trial court was not required to ask Cannon whether she was satisfied with her trial counsel or to inform her of the right to a bench trial. Further, the trial court explained the right to confrontation in a reasonably intelligible manner. Accordingly, Cannon's assignment of error is not well taken. Judgment affirmed. - 5 - 5 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. SARA J. HARPER, J. and ANN DYKE, J., CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY 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 .