{¶ 2} On October 29, 2004, a 13-count indictment was filed against defendant for three counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of felonious assault, two counts of aggravated murder, three counts of aggravated burglary, and three counts of kidnapping. Each of the counts contained one-and three-year firearm specifications.
{¶ 3} On November 30, 2004, defendant entered "no contest" pleas to all charges in the indictment. Following the plea, defendant was referred for a mitigation of penalty report with the Probation Department and Court Psychiatric Clinic.
{¶ 4} On February 2, 2005, the Court Psychiatric Clinic prepared a competency evaluation finding defendant incompetent to stand trial or assist in or understand the legal proceedings against him. Defendant was referred for treatment to restore his competency and his case was transferred to the docket of a mental health court judge.
{¶ 5} On August 24, 2005, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his no contest pleas claiming that he entered the pleas without the requisite capacity. *4
{¶ 6} On September 15, 2005, the trial court held a hearing on the matter, and on February 28, 2006, in a written decision, denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and found defendant competent to enter his pleas of "no contest."1 On February 28, 2006, the trial court also accepted defendant's pleas of "no contest" and sentenced defendant to a prison term of 13 years, with a five-year term of post-release control. It is from this ruling and sentence that defendant timely appeals and raises three assignments of error for our review, which will be addressed out of order.
{¶ 7} "II. Appellant's no contest plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent where the trial court did not address the firearm specifications before accepting his plea."
{¶ 8} In his second assignment of error, defendant contends that his no contest pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the trial court failed to inform him of the maximum penalties. Specifically, defendant argues that he was not informed that the firearm specifications carried an additional mandatory three-year term.
{¶ 9} In determining whether to accept a no contest or guilty plea, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and *5
voluntarily entered the plea. Crim.R. 11(C); State v. Johnson (1988),
{¶ 10} A firearm specification carries a mandatory additional term of imprisonment of one or three years and constitutes a portion of the maximum penalty involved in an offense for which a prison term will be imposed. See State v. Higgs (1997),
{¶ 11} Here, we find that although the defendant was informed that there were firearm specifications attached to his indictment and plea, the trial court failed to *6 inform him that these firearm specifications carried mandatory additional prison terms of one or three years.2 Therefore, we conclude that the court's explanation of the maximum penalties was inadequate and did not substantially comply with the court's responsibilities under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). In addition, the record shows that defendant asserted that he was not guilty of the firearm specifications and that the trial court failed to make a further inquiry regarding whether defendant understood the nature of the specifications.3 See Higgs, supra at 409. Accordingly, we sustain defendant's second assignment of error, vacate his guilty pleas, and remand for further proceedings.
{¶ 12} "I. The trial court erred by denying appellant's pretrial motion to withdraw his no contest plea where the evidence reflected he was incompetent to enter the plea.
{¶ 13} "III. Appellant's maximum sentences were imposed under unconstitutional statutes and are contrary to law."
{¶ 14} Our resolution of defendant's second assignment of error renders his remaining assignments of error moot. Accordingly, we do not address them here. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
Judgment reversed and remanded.
It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee his 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. Case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J., and CHRISTINE T. McMONAGLE, J., CONCUR