COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72589 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION EDWARD HALLIS : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION MAY 7, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. CR-337777 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor JOHN R. KOSKO (#0021192) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: CORNELIUS J. O'SULLIVAN (#0046883) Meyers, Hentemann & Rea 815 Superior, Suite 2100 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 SPELLACY, J.: Defendant-appellant Edward Hallis ( appellant ) appeals from -2- his convictions for two counts of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01, and one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C.2903.11. Appellant assigns the following error for our review: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY WITHOUT ENSURING THAT SAID PLEA WAS KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE, AND WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE RIGHTS WAIVED THEREBY. Finding appellant's appeal to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. I. On April 25, 1996, appellant was issued a seven-count indictment. Count I charged appellant with aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01 with a firearm specification. Count II charged appellant with felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11 with a firearm specification. Count III charged appellant with kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01 also with a firearm specification. Count IV charged appellant with aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01 with a firearm specification. Count V charged appellant with attempted murder in violation of R.C. 2923.02/2903.02 with a firearm specification. Count VI and Count VII both charged appellant with having a weapon while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13, each with firearm specifications. On July 25, 1996, the State amended Counts I and IV to include the word gun in the body of the indictment and deleted the firearm specifications. The State also amended Count V from attempted murder to felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11, and deleted the firearm specification and the word gun from the -3- body of the indictment. Subsequently, appellant plead guilty to amended Counts I, IV and V. The remaining counts of the indictment were nolled. On September 23, 1996, the trial court sentenced appellant to ten (10) to twenty-five (25) years on Counts I and IV, and eight (8) to fifteen (15) years on Count V. The trial court ordered Counts IV and V to run concurrent with each other, but consecutive to Count I. II. In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea without ensuring that said plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. First, appellant claims his plea was not knowingly and intelligently made because the court did not inform him that his sentences could be imposed consecutively. This argument is unpersuasive. In accepting a guilty plea, substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) is required. State v. Nero (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108; State v. Strawther (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 298, 300. Substantial compliance with Crim. R. 11(C) is determined upon a review of the totality of the circumstances. State v. Carter (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 34, 38; State v. Flint (1986), 36 Ohio App.3d 4, 7. A review the transcript of the plea hearing clearly shows the court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C) to assure the plea was entered intelligently and knowingly. The record indicates that prior to entering his guilty plea, the defendant was advised as to -4- the maximum penalty for each remaining charge. (Tr. 14). Appellant cannot complain that Crim.R. 11(C) was violated by the imposition of consecutive sentences. In State v. Carter (January 16, 1997), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 70260, 70261, unreported, this court stated: All that is required by Crim.R. 11(C) prior to entering a plea is that the defendant be advised as to the maximum penalty for each charge. State v. Johnson (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 130, 133, 532 N.E.2d 1295, 1298. The decision of imposing sentences consecutively or concurrently is within the discretion of the trial court and cannot be addressed until after a plea has been accepted in compliance with Crim.R. 11. Id. at 133-34; 532 N.E.2d at 1298-99. Carter, supra. As appellant was advised of the maximum penalty for each charge prior to the court's acceptance of his plea, he cannot complain that he was prejudiced by the imposition of consecutive sentences. Appella nt also claims his plea was not knowingly and intelligentlymade because the court failed to determine a factual predicate for the plea. This argument is also unpersuasive. There is no requirement that the court be presented with evidence supporting each element of the crime charged. In State v. Reeder (April14, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 65782, unreported, this court stated: There is no statute or criminal rule which requires in Ohio that a factual basis be presented to the court for a plea of guilty. The requirements pertaining to the court's determination of the defendant's knowledge and understanding of his rights and the effect of his plea does not require that evidence be presented by the state supporting each element of the offense charged or for the court to determine that such evidence would be available. -5- Reeder, supra, citing State v. Butler (1974), 44 Ohio App.2d 177, 183; See, also, State v. Post (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 380, 387; State v. Wood (1976), 48 Ohio App.2d 339, 344; State v. Ricks (1976), 48 Ohio App.2d 128, 132. Accordingly, Appellant's 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. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES M. PORTER, P.J. and JOHN T. PATTON, J. CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE -6- N.B. This 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(B) 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 .