COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NOS. 71392 & 71393 STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION JAMES W. DOWDELL, : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MAY 22, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeals from : Common Pleas Court : Case Nos. CR-299897 and : CR-305092 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: Dominic Delbalso Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: Kevin M. Spellacy McGINTY, GIBBONS & HILOW 1375 East Ninth Street, #1920 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 -2- NAHRA, J.: Appellant, James W. Dowdell, appeals his conviction after pleading guilty in Case No. CR-299897 to violations of R.C. 2925.11, drug abuse, R.C. 2923.12, carrying a concealed weapon, and R.C. 2923.13, having a weapon under disability and in Case No. CR- 305092 to a violation of R.C. 2903.01, aggravated murder. Appellant's only assignment of error reads: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ACCEPTING JAMES DOWDELL'S GUILTY PLEA WITHOUT ADEQUATELY DETERMINING THAT MR. DOWDELL WAS NOT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS, ALCOHOL, AND/OR MEDICATION, AND THAT THE PLEA WAS KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE. Crim.R. 11(C) provides in part that: (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 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 of 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. In taking a plea of guilty, a court is required to substantially comply with Crim.R. 11. State v. Stewart (1977), 51 -3- Ohio St.2d 86, 92-93. Substantial compliance means that, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving. Id.; State v. Carter (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 34, 38. In this case, the court, during its explanation of appellant's rights, frequently asked appellant whether he understood his rights and the proceedings. The court then accepted appellant's guilty plea having satisfied itself that appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered his plea. After accepting the plea, the court, although not specifically required to do so by Crim.R. 11(C), engaged in the following colloquy with appellant: THE COURT: Mr. Dowdell, although you have been incarcerated for a substantial amount of time and have not been out of the County Jail during that period of time, under the circumstances of this case and the seriousness of your guilty pleas I want to be certain on the record that you have not had any drugs, any alcohol, any medications of any kind that would affect your understanding of your making this guilty plea today. Have you had any drugs? THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Have you had any alcohol? THE DEFENDANT: No, Your honor. THE COURT: Have you had any medications that would affect your judgment or understanding? THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor. Appellant contends that the court erred by not first asking the defendant these specific questions. However, the court need only satisfy itself that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, -4- and voluntarily enters a plea of guilty. The fact that the court, "to be certain on the record," determined that the appellant was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol does not negate the court's previous finding that appellant entered his pleas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Moreover, the record does not indicate in any way appellant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol or that he did not understand the plea and sentencing proceedings. See, e.g., State v. Magnotta (June 19, 1991), Summit App. No. 14955, unreported (Court does not abuse its discretion in accepting a plea where record does not indicate defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.); cf. Toledo v. Chiaverni (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 43, 45, 463 N.E.2d 56, 59. (Record indicating appellant was "clouded" and court failed to resolve appellant's misunderstanding of proceedings requires vacation of guilty plea.) For these reasons, appellant's assignment of error is not well taken. The court's March 31, 1994 journal entry accepting appellant's plea is undisturbed. Affirmed. -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. PORTER, P.J., and DYKE, J., CONCUR. JOSEPH J. NAHRA 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 journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .