COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71972 : STATE OF OHIO, : ACCELERATED : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND vs. : OPINION : ISMAEL SOLIVAN, : PER CURIAM : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : Criminal appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. CR-305703 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: Blaise D. Thomas Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: Cornelius J. O'Sullivan 323 Lakeside Avenue, West Lakeside Place, Suite 410 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, Ismael Solivan, brings this appeal after entering guilty pleas to violations of R.C. 2925.03, aggravated trafficking, and R.C. 2923.13, having a weapon under disability. On June 29, 1994, the trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea. At that time, the following dialogue between the court and appellant was had: THE COURT: Now, you did hear that the state recommended the minimum sentence on count 2, which in actuality would be five to ten years with four and-a-half years of those being actual. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: What? (Discussion had.) THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: And that the state further recommended that any sentence imposed on count 4 be ordered to be served concurrently, meaning at the same time, with the sentence on count 1? Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. *** THE COURT: Okay. The charge of aggravated drug trafficking in violation of 2925.03 as amended in count 2, 03(A)(4) as amended in count 2 to which you are desirous of pleading guilty is punishable by a possible term of incarceration of two, two and-a-half, three, four, to a maximum of ten years, which sentence would include 18 months of that sentence being actual term of incarceration, as well as a three-year actual term of incarcerationto be served prior to and consecutive with such sentence on the firearm specification. Do you understand the nature of the charge? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: And the possible sentence in that case? THE DEFENDANT: Uh-huh. 3 *** (Emphasis added.) Appellant's assignments of error read: . THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ACCEPTED THE DEFENDANT'S GUILTY PLEA, BY NOT INFORMING THE DEFENDANT THAT HE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PROBATION. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS OF CRIMINAL RULE 11 (C)(2)(a). In accepting a plea of guilty, a court need only substantially comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 11. See, State v. Nero (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 106. Substantial compliance means that, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant understands the implications of his guilty plea as well as the rights that he is waiving. Id. at 92-93; State v. Carter (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 34, 38. 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. In State v. Nero (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 106, the syllabus reads: Where the circumstances indicate that the defendant knew he was ineligible for probation and was not prejudiced by the trial court's failure to comply with Crim. R. 11(C)(2)(a), the trial court's acceptance of the defendant's guilty plea to the nonprobationable crime of rape without personally advising the defendant that he was not eligible for probation constitutes substantial 4 compliance with Crim. R. 11. (State v. Stewart [1977], 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 5 O.O.3d 52, 364 N.E.2d 1163, followed.) Here the court satisfied Crim.R. 11 (C). Although it did not specifically say that the crimes to which he was pleading guilty to were not probationable, the court did indicate to appellant more than once, that the penalties which could be imposed required actual incarceration, and appellant acknowledged that he understood that the possible sentences included actual incarceration. Under these circumstances, the court substantially complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 11. Accordingly, appellant's assignments of error are not well taken and we affirm the trial court's judgment. 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. 5 JAMES M. PORTER, PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH J. NAHRA, JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO, 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 .