COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 71511 ACCELERATED DOCKET STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-appellee : : AND vs. : : OPINION JOHN SHEA : : PER CURIAM Defendant-appellant : : : SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OF DECISION : : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS : Criminal appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-321563 : JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES, ESQ. JOHN B. GIBBONS, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 2000 Standard Building MICHAEL D. HORN, ESQ. 1370 Ontario Street Assistant County Prosecutor Cleveland, OH 44113 Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 PER CURIAM: This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar 2 pursuant to App. R. 11.1 and Loc. R. 25, the records from the court of common pleas and the briefs. Defendant-appellant, John Shea, appeals a guilty plea to murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02. The sole issue on appeal is whether defendant freely and voluntarily entered his guilty plea. Defendant was indicted on March 28, 1995, on one count of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01. Subsequently, defendant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilt to the lesser included offense of murder. He was then sentenced to a period of incarceration of fifteen (15) years to life. In his sole assignment of error defendant states as follows: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA AS IT WAS NOT FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE. Defendant argues his plea was not freely and voluntarily entered under the totality of the circumstances. He claims he was not meaningfully informed of his rights by a discussion with either the court or counsel. The state maintains defendant was adequately informed of his rights by the trial court based on the colloquy between the trial court and defendant. For the reasons below, we agree. Crim.R. 11 was adopted in order to safeguard a defendant's constitutional rights provided for in the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. A defendant must be personally advised by the trial court of his constitutional rights and must waive these rights voluntarily and intelligently prior to the court's acceptance of a guilty plea. 3 State v. Holder (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 486, 489. A reviewing court must find that the trial court did not substantially comply with Crim.R. 11 prior to vacating a defen- dant's guilty plea. State v. Nero (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108. A trial court substantially complies with Crim.R. 11 where, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant subjectively understands the rights he is waiving and the consequences of the plea. State v. Stewart (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 86. A defendant must also demonstrate a prejudicial effect when arguing that he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enter a guilty plea. Id., at 93. The trial court had an extensive discussion with defendant making sure he understood the effect of entering a guilty plea. Defendant stated he had discussions with his attorneys and that no one was forcing him to plead guilty, that no one made any promises to him, that he had the right to a jury trial or bench trial, that the state has to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty, that by entering a plea of guilt he is giving up the presumption of innocence, that he could call witness and subpoena witnesses, and that he need not testify. The trial court instructed defendant that if he entered a guilty plea he would be stuck with it and can't later on indicate that [he] didn't know what [he was] doing. Defendant was told that murder is a non-probationable offense and the sentence was a minimum of fifteen years to life. The trial court informed defendant that at trial his attorneys could ask questions and 4 challenge the State's case on [his] behalf. Defendant stated he was satisfied with his attorneys. Lastly, defendant was asked whether he understood the charge and the penalty. Defendant responded affirmatively and then pleaded guilty to murder. The trial court accepted defendant's plea and sentenced him to fifteen years to life imprisonment. After each inquiry by the trial court defendant stated he understood the court's questions and the right he was waiving. Defendant's two attorneys stated they had extensive discussions with defendant about entering a guilty plea. At no time did defendant or his attorneys object during the proceedings. We find that under the totality of the circumstances the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 and defendant understood the rights he was waiving and the consequences of his plea. Accordingly, defendant's sole assignment of error is overruled. Judgment 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 Court of Common Pleas 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. John T. Patton, Presiding Judge Leo M. Spellacy, Judge Robert E. Holmes, Justice* (*SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT: Robert E. Holmes, Retired Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court). 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 reconsidera- ation 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 .