{¶ 2} Foster was indicted on 18 counts stemming from five separate incidents. On November 13, 2002, and with agreement of the state, Foster withdrew his pleas of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to 11 of the 18 charges.1 The remaining counts were nolled. The trial court accepted Foster's plea and sentenced him to 84 years.
{¶ 3} It is from this sentence that Foster advances two assignments of error.
{¶ 5} "To comply with the constitutional requirements of Ohio R. Crim. P. 11, the court must explain to the defendant that he is waiving: (1) the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; (2) the right to a trial by jury; (3) the right to confront one's accusers; (4) the right to compulsory process of witnesses; and (5) the right to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Failure to strictly comply with these constitutionаl requirements invalidates a guilty plea." State v.Andre D. Foster, Cuyahoga App. No. 81309,
{¶ 6} Although literal compliance with Crim.R. 11 is preferred, if under the totality of the circumstances it is apparent the defendant subjectively understood the implications of his plea, the plea should not be vacated. Id. We review this issue de novo. State v. Sample, Cuyahoga App. No. 81357,
{¶ 7} The record reveals that the trial court adequately complied with Rule 11(C). The court addressed Foster personally, advising him of the rights that he was relinquishing by his guilty plea. The court concluded: "Mr. Foster, the Court accepts all of the pleas of guilty and makes findings of guilt as well as findings of voluntariness." Further, both Foster and his attorney indicated that the pleа agreement was being entered into willingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
{¶ 8} Appellant also argues that the court failed to adequately explain the 11 offenses with which Foster was charged. However, "the court need not always recite the elemеnts of the crime as long as the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea are such that the court is warranted in making the determination that the defendant understands the charge." Foster, supra. Under the circumstances of this case, it is clear thаt the court acted properly, having determined Foster subjectively understood the implications of his plea.
{¶ 9} Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 11} Foster argues that under R.C.
{¶ 12} "The court has held that where a defendant is convicted of two offenses, not allied offenses of similar import, but arising out of the same act or transaction, the triаl court may impose only one firearm specification under R.C.
{¶ 13} Under R.C.
{¶ 14} For example, Foster pled guilty to three crimes that occurrеd on March 26, 2001; namely, aggravated robbery and two felonious assaults. Count four, felonious assault, occurred against one Leonard Goldsmith. Count five, the second felonious assault, concerned Willie Naylor. Because the state's brief is devоid of any facts, and due to the lack of specifics in Foster's brief, we are unable to determine whether or not the еvents of March 26, 2001 were committed as part of the same act or transaction.2
{¶ 15} Under the facts as presented to us, and without the guidance of a trial transcript3, we are compelled to find that the trial court incorrectly orderеd consecutive sentences on the firearm specifications.
{¶ 16} Therefore, we reluctantly vacate and remand for resentencing as to the firearm specifications.
{¶ 17} Appellant's second assignment of error is sustained.
Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing.
The sentence is vacated, and this cause is remandеd for resentencing.
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, P.J., and FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR.