COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73234 STATE OF OHIO : ACCELERATED DOCKET : Plaintiff-appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND -vs- : OPINION : WILLIAM HUNTER : PER CURIAM : Defendant-appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JUNE 25, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-318619 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, ESQ. CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BY: MICHAEL S. NOLAN, ESQ. ASSISTANT COUNTY PROSECUTOR 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: THOMAS F. O'MALLEY, JR., ESQ. 12650 Detroit Road Lakewood, Ohio 44107 -2- PER CURIAM: Appellant, William Hunter, appeals his conviction for aggravated murder. He contends his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. For the following reasons, we affirm. Count one of the indictment charged appellant with aggravated murder, R.C. 2903.01, with a firearm specification. Count two charged appellant with aggravated robbery, R.C. 2911.11. Appellant pled guilty to aggravated murder, and the firearm specification and aggravated robbery charge were nolled. At the plea hearing, appellant indicated that he understood the English language. He was on medication for depression, but this did not affect him. Appellant said that no threats or promises were made to induce the plea. The judge explained that appellant could choose to go to trial. Appellant would have the right to counsel, to a jury, to subpoena witnesses on his behalf and the right against self- incrimination. The judge stated that appellant's attorneys would have the right to cross-examine government witnesses. Appellant indicated that he understood these rights, and agreed to waive them. The trial judge also discussed with appellant the sentence, possibility for parole, and the fact that the offense was not probationable. Appellant's sole assignment of error states: THE APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY TO MURDER WAS TAKEN AND ACCEPTED IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND IN -3- VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL RULE 11. The United States Constitution and Ohio Crim.R. 11(C)(2) requires that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights. See Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 359 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , Crim.R. 11(C)(2). The defendant must be informed of the constitutional right to confront his accusers. Id. Appellant contends he was not informed of this right, because the court did not use the exact language of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c), to confront witnesses against him. Instead, the trial judge stated that appellant and his attorneys could cross-examine all of the govern- ment's witnesses. Constitutional rights do not need to be explained to the defendant in the exact words of the Crim.R. 11, but must be explained in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant. Ballard, supra. We find that appellant's right to con- front witnesses against him was explained in a manner reasonably intelligible to the appellant. Appellant also asserts that his plea was not voluntary because the trial judge did not ask appellant if appellant was satisfied with his attorneys. Appellant argues that if the judge so inquired, it may have been brought to light that appellant felt he received inadequate representation so appellant felt he had to plead guilty. Appellant did not give any indication on the record that he was dissatisfied with his attorneys. In fact, the follow- ing took place: THE COURT: And you understand if you wanted to go to trial, you would always have a lawyer to defend and -4- represent you, because if you can't afford a lawyer, we appoint two good lawyers for you. Right? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. The two good attorneys the judge was referring to were Mr. Stanton and Mr. Gardner, appellant's two court appointed lawyers. There must be some showing of prejudicial effect before a guilty plea may be vacated. State v. Johnson (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 130. Appellant has not shown any prejudice by the court's failure to inquire as to whether appellant was satisfied with his counsel. We find that appellant was informed of his rights in com- pliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) and knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled. The decision of the trial court is 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. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES M. PORTER, PRESIDING JUDGE ANN DYKE, JUDGE MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, 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 .