COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 73345 STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-appellee : : AND vs. : : OPINION OTIS BROOKINS : : Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OCTOBER 1, 1998 OF DECISION : : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS : Criminal appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-354330 : JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: SHARON L. MARSHALL, ESQ. Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor, Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 PATRICIA KOCH WINDHAM, ESQ. Schuster & Simmons The Bevelin House 2913 Clinton Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 -2- JOHN T. PATTON, J.: Defendant-appellant Otis Brookins appeals and claims the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea as it was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligently given. Defendant was charged with attempted possession of drugs, receiving stolen property, and possession of criminal tools. Prior to his plea hearing, defendant entered into a plea arrangement with plaintiff-appellee State of Ohio, by agreeing to plead guilty to the first two charges in exchange for the state dismissing the possession of criminal tools charge. During the plea hearing, the trial court discussed with defendant each individual right he was waiving by pleading guilty. Defendant responded to each question from the trial court that he understood he was waiving these rights by pleading guilty. The trial court also informed defendant of the maximum and minimum sentences he faced, the possible fines, and the possibility of probation. Defendant then pleaded guilty to the first two charges. After pleading guilty, defense counsel informed the trial court that defendant did not want a pre-sentence report conducted but rather due to some internal reflections, he [defendant] has been wondering why he is doing what he is doing and he wants me to request a psychological evaluation from this court. The trial court denied defendant's request for a psychological examination and set the matter for sentencing. After sentencing, defendant timely filed his notice of appeal. Defendant's sole assignment of error states as follows: -3- THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING MR. BROOKINS' GUILTY PLEA AS IT WAS NOT KNOWING, VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT. Defendant argues the record indicates there was confusion during the plea hearing and the trial court never attempted to clarify his bewilderment ; thus his plea was not knowingly made. In support, defendant relies on State v. Swift (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 407, 413, for the proposition that before a court accept a guilty plea, it is clear the court must clear up any confusion on the part of the defendant. Defendant claims because the issue of his bewilderment was not resolved by the trial court, his plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent. In Swift, Swift was pleading guilty to rape when he stated he has been very depressed and has had suicide problems. In holding Swift was mentally competent to enter a guilty plea despite requesting a psychiatric exam, the court found [a]ppellant's concern over treatment does not mean that he was confused or did not comprehend what was occurring in the proceeding. Id. at 411. Defendant's reliance on Swift is misplaced. Although Swift was determined to have not entered a knowing plea based on confusion, the confusion the Swift court based its holding on concerns the explanation of the elements of a crime, specifically what constitutes force in relation to the crime of rape. However, this type of confusion was not present in the instant case. In the instant case, defendant had an intelligent dialogue with the trial court regarding the waiver of his Criminal Rule 11 -4- rights. After pleading guilty, defense counsel then stated defendant has been wondering why he is doing what he is doing and wants to request a psychological evaluation from this Court. The trial court denied this request. The confusion relied on by the Swift court is not present in the instant case and defendant does not present any evidence that he did not knowingly enter his guilty plea. Even though defendant may have believed he had been suffering from a mental illness and his request for a psychological examination was denied, this does not mean that he was confused or did not enter his plea knowingly. See State v. Bock (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 (Defendant may be emotionally disturbed or even psychotic and still be capable of understanding the charges against him and of assisting his counsel). Accordingly, defendant's sole 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. 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. -5- 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. DIANE KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR. JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON 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 .