COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69942 STATE OF OHIO : ACCELERATED DOCKET : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION DOUGLAS W. SMITH : : PER CURIAM Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OF DECISION : AUGUST 15, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-298000 JUDGMENT : Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Stephanie Tubbs-Jones John B. Gibbons Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 2000 Standard Building By: Stephen L. Miles 1370 Ontario Street Assistant Prosecuting Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- -3- PER CURIAM: A Cuyahoga County Grand Jury issued a four-count indictment against defendant-appellant, Douglas Smith, on July 15, 1993. Appellant was charged with aggravated burglary, R.C. 2911.11; felonious assault, R.C. 2903.11; unlawful possession of dangerous ordnance, R.C. 2923.17; and kidnapping, R.C. 2905.11. The first and second counts of the indictment carried firearm and violence specifications. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to all counts on August 3, 1993. Appellant, on September 8, 1993, withdrew his previously entered not guilty pleas and entered a guilty plea to count two, amended so as to delete the firearm specification. The trial court dismissed all remaining counts pursuant to the state's request. The trial court subsequently sentenced appellant to a term of four to fifteen years. This accelerated appeal followed with appellant claiming as his sole assignment of error that the trial court failed to substantially comply with Crim.R. 11(C) in accepting his guilty plea. He argues that the court's failure to scrupulously adhere to the rule, "coupled with [appellant's] assertion that his trial counsel conspired with the Court to coerce a confession and plea indicates that [the] plea was not voluntarily and knowingly made." Crim.R. 11(C)(2) provides: 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: -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 that 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. Reviewing courts, in determining whether a guilty plea is voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly made, look to the totality of the circumstances. See State v. Nero (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 106; State v. Calvillo (1991), 76 Ohio App.3d 714. Literal compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) as to the non-constitutional provisions is preferred, but not required, since the vacation of a guilty plea is not warranted if the reviewing court finds substantial compliance. See Nero; State v. Colbert (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 734. A trial court substantially complies with Crim.R. 11(C) where under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant subjectively understands the rights he is waiving and the consequences of the plea. Nero, 108. The trial court herein personally addressed appellant, and substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). Moreover, the trial court informed appellant about the constitutional rights he would waive by pleading guilty to the amended count. See Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 385 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274. The record additionally reveals that the trial court specifically asked appellant whether anyone, including the defense attorney, the prosecutor and/or the court, "made any promises or -5- threats in order to induce or make you enter these pleas?" Appellant not only responded in the negative, he later acknowledged satisfaction with his counsel and the free and voluntary nature of the plea. Appellant also responded negatively when asked if he wanted the court to explain the proceedings further. Finally, appellant reduced his potential sentence substantially by entering the plea. Appellant's assertion relating to conspiracy and coercion is, therefore, totally without evidentiary proof. See Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197; Volodkevich v. Volodkevich (1989), 48 Ohio App.3d 313; App.R. 12(A)(2), 16(A)(7). Appellant's 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 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, PRESIDING JUDGE DAVID T. MATIA, JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL, 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 .