COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70158 STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION ROBERT PETTIGREW : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT November 6, 1997 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-276940 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCE: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES, ESQ. CHARLES H. BRAGG, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor The Courtyard Office Park DANIEL M. MARGOLIS, ESQ. 7055 Engle Road Assistant County Prosecutor Suite 1-103 8th Floor Justice Center Middleburg Heights, Ohio 44130 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J.: Robert Pettigrew, defendant-appellant, appeals the juvenile court's decision to relinquish jurisdiction over him to be tried as 2 an adult for the murder of Clyde White, and the trial court's decision to accept his guilty plea to the lesser count of murder. Pettigrew argues he was 17 years old and amenable to rehabilita- tion as a juvenile. Additionally, he argues the trial court did not comply with Crim.R. 11(C) when accepting his guilty plea. He assigns the following errors for our review: I. THE APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE SINCE THE COURT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAIN TO THE APPELLANT THE RIGHTS HE WAS WAIVING BY ENTERING HIS GUILTY PLEA. II. THE JUVENILE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN RELINQUISHING ITS JURISDICTION OF THIS MATTER SUCH THAT THE APPELLANT WAS INDICTED AS AN ADULT. Having reviewed the record and the legal arguments of the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court. At the bindover hearing, the State presented the details of the crime. The evidence revealed that on September 5, 1991, Pettigrew bound Clyde White with an electrical cord and beat him with a baseball bat. White was able to free himself and attempted to flee when Pettigrew shot him in the leg. Apparently, White was able to distance himself from Pettigrew. When Pettigrew reached him, he shot White in the back of the head. White died as a result of the gunshot wound. In addition to the State's testimony, Pettigrew's probation officer testified he believed Pettigrew was amenable to rehabilitation. Pettigrew's involvement with juvenile court began about a month or so before the shooting when he was charged with receiving stolen property, a motor vehicle. 3 All of the witnesses who testified believed that Pettigrew was amenable to rehabilitation. The testimony showed that he was well behaved in a structured environment. At the detention center he was well liked by the administrators. He was helpful to them and the other juvenile delinquents; he was placed in the honors program and assisted other students. Pettigrew's mother stated he was involved with gang activity. The record indicated that Pettigrew's involvement with the law began with his gang activity. His early childhood was traumatic. He saw his sister murdered by the mother's live-in boyfriend and continues to suffer from nightmares. After his sister's death, he was placed in foster care. The record does not show whether or not he received any counseling or treatment after the murder of his sister. His school records were poor. However, while at the detention home, he was on the honor roll. The Jessness Inventory Mental Examination revealed his propensity to distort reality according to his own needs. At the end of the relinquishment hearing, the juvenile court judge concluded that Pettigrew was not amenable to rehabilitation and relinquished jurisdiction of him to be tried as an adult. Thereafter, he was indicted on four counts: aggravated murder with a firearm specification, aggravated murder with a felony murder and another firearm specification, kidnaping with a firearm specification, and aggravated robbery with a firearm specification. 4 On July 20, 1992, Pettigrew pleaded guilty to count one, amended to the lesser included offense of murder. The firearm specification was deleted and all remaining counts were nolled. In his first assignment of error, Pettigrew argues the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C). Ohio Crim.R. 11(C) was adopted in order to facilitate a more accurate determination of the voluntariness of a defendant's plea by ensuring an adequate record for review. State v. Nero (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 107 (citations omitted). Literal compliance with Crim.R. 11 is certainly the preferred practice, but the fact that the trial judge [does] not do so does not require vacation of the defendant's guilty plea if the reviewing court determines that there was substantial compliance. Id. The following events from the transcript of Pettigrew's plea hearing shows that the court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C): Court: *** I'll ask you the same questions I ask all defendants, and then we'll go over your constitutional rights with you. I know your lawyers have done it, but I want to make sure that you know the rights that your [sic] have under the constitution. *** [A]nd then I'll ask you what plea you want to enter. *** Do you understand the way we're going to proceed? *** Defendant: Yes. *** Court: Let's go over your constitutional rights. All of us when we're charged with a crime have to pay attention to the rights that we have under the Constitution, and it's suggested to me that you want to 5 take responsibility for one of these counts as it's been changed, and that's possible under some circumstances. But before you do that, I need to know that you know what other route you could have taken, which is to go to a full trial, to have a trial by jury. In a trial by jury the State, which has said these things about you, has to come forward and prove each thing they say beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you understand that's what a trial involves? Defendant: Yes. *** Court: If you were to go to trial, then you'd also have the right to confront witnesses against you that the State would use in a trial. You could challenge them and test them through your lawyers. Do you understand that? Defendant: Yes. *** Court: If we went to trial, you could bring witnesses to the courthouse for your side of the case. I'm sure you've heard by now that you can't be forced to testify against yourself, none of us can, but if you want to testify yourself, if you want to bring other witnesses to court and put them on the stand as part of your defense in a trial, you can do that. You don't have to do it. It's completely up to you and your lawyers. Do you understand that? Defendant: Yes. *** Court: You heard the penalties in this. In the event that the Court were to accept a plea from you, the first count with the changes in it, it would be, nonetheless, a sentence of 6 15 years to life. Do you understand that? Defendant: Yes. *** Court: What plea do you want to enter? Defendant: Fifteen to life. Guilty. Court: Is that the plea you want to enter? Defendant: Yes. *** Court: Then we'll accept your guilty plea. Do you understand your constitutional rights? Defendant: Yes. [Tr. 7-14 (Emphasis added)] Pettigrew claims he was threatened for his plea. However, the record does not support his contention. The following colloquy took place: Court: Is anyone putting you under any pressure? Defendant: No Court: Is there anyone anywhere who threatened you in order to get you to say you were guilty? Defendant: Johnson,Detectiv e Johnson. Court: Did he threaten you? Defendant: Yes. Court: Well, then, I think you should talk to your lawyer. *** Court: So this isn't a plea of your own free will; is that right? 7 Defendant: It is now. *** Court: *** I'm concerned about whether you want to take responsibility for this, and I know you're concerned about something that happened in the process of investigating this situation with a detective and the statement. I'm concerned about this, too. Let me let your lawyers talk. *** As the transcript shows, the trial judge inquired about the threat. Pettigrew stated that the threat occurred during the investigation by the police not at the plea hearing. Pettigrew's guilty plea was made after consulting his lawyers. Moreover, the trial judge gave Pettigrew ample opportunity to reconsider his plea and to change it if he wished. Pettigrew reiterated his guilty plea. While it is true the court failed to inform Pettigrew he was not eligible for probation as is required by Crim.R. 11(C), Pettigrew was not prejudiced by this omission. Pettigrew knew he was not eligible for probation. He said to the judge he was pleading to 15 to life. It has been held that failure to inform of the ineligibility of probation is grounds for reversal. State v. Hawk (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 96. However, in that case the defendant was promised probation and did not receive it. The relevant concern is whether he fully understood the consequences of his plea. State v. Bowen (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 27. Pettigrew clearly did understand that he would be sentenced to 15 to life. 8 Pettigrew's plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. The trial judge repeatedly asked Pettigrew if he understood the effect of his guilty plea. Pettigrew affirmatively replied each time. The trial judge informed Pettigrew of his right to a trial by jury, his right to confront witnesses against him, his right to obtain compulsory witnesses, and his sentence. After explaining each of his rights, the judge asked Pettigrew if he understood. Each time, Pettigrew said that he did. Pettigrew's first assignment of error is overruled. In his second assignment of error Pettigrew argues the trial court abused its discretion when it bound him over to adult court. We disagree. When the juvenile court makes a determination as to a juvenile offender's amenability to rehabilitation it must consider the five factors set forth in Juv.R. 30(E), State v. Oviedo (1982), 50 App.3d 168. Those factors are: (1) The child's age and his mental and physical health; (2) The child's prior juvenile record; (3) Efforts previously made to treat or rehabilitate the child; (4) The child's family environment; and, (5) School record. However, the court need not resolve all of these factors against the juvenile to warrant the court in relinquishing its jurisdiction and transferring the juvenile for prosecution in adult court. Id. Here, the court received evidence from many witnesses of Pettigrew's amenability to rehabilitation. However, it also had before it Pettigrew's age, prior record, family, and school 9 environment. These factors were sufficient for the court to relinquish jurisdiction. Additionally,the court had information regarding seriousness of the crime. In deciding whether to relinquish jurisdiction, a juvenile court may consider the seriousness of the alleged offense when determining amenability. State v. Watson (1988), 47 Ohio St.3d 93. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the court only considered the seriousness of the crime. In fact, the court specifically said it was considering the other factors, age, and heinousness and brutality of the crime. Under State v. Watson and State v. Oviedo, this is perfectly proper to do. Pettigrew's second assignment of error is overruled. 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. DYKE, J., and ROCCO, J., CONCUR. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON PRESIDING JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the .