{¶ 2} On August 17, 2005, appellant was indicted on one count of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, which is a felony of the fourth degree as аppellant had been *2 convicted of or pleaded guilty to three previous charges of the same or similar offense within six years. On October 4, 2005, appellant еntered a guilty plea. The trial court accepted appellant's plea, and sentenced appellant to serve a prison term of 27 months. Appellant appeals his conviction, raising a single assignment of error.
{¶ 3} Assignment of Error:
{¶ 4} "THE COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE MANDATORY LANGUAGE OF CRIMINAL RULE 11 (C) PRIOR TO ACCEPTING A PLEA OF GUILTY."
{¶ 5} Appellant argues that his conviction should be reversed because the trial court impropеrly advised him as to the maximum possible sentence it could impose. Further, appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to properly advise appellant of the constitutional rights he would be waiving by entering a guilty plea until after the court accepted appellant's plea. We disagree.
{¶ 6} Prior to acceрting a guilty plea, the trial court must personally address the defendant to determine that the plea is made voluntarily. Crim.R. 11(C)(2). The court must ensure that the defendant comprehends the crimes charged, the maximum penalties, and his ineligibility for probation or community control sanctions, if applicable. Id. The court must also ensure that the defendаnt understands the court may enter judgment and impose sentence upon acceptance of the guilty plea. Id. Additionally, the court must determine that the defendant undеrstands the constitutional rights he is waiving by entering a guilty plea, including "the rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the dеfendant's favor, and to require the state to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be compellеd to testify against himself or herself." Id.
{¶ 7} Before accepting a guilty plea, a trial court must strictly comply with the *3
constitutional requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2). State v. Jones, Warren App. No. CA2002-10-113,
{¶ 8} Appellant was convicted of OVI in violation of R.C.
{¶ 9} Further, R.C.
{¶ 10} "(G)(1) Whoever violates any provision of [R.C.
{¶ 11} "(d) * * * [A]n offender who, within six years of the offense, previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to three or four violations of division (A) or (B) of this section or other equivalent offenses or an offender who, within twenty years of the offense, previously *4 has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to five or more violations of that nature is guilty of a felony of the fourth degree. The court shall sentence the offender to all of the following:
{¶ 12} "(i) * * * either a mandatory term оf local incarceration of sixty consecutive days in accordance with [R.C.
{¶ 13} According to the record, before accepting appellant's guilty plea, the trial court engaged in a meaningful colloquy with appellant, where the court ensured that appellant understood the charges. Further, the trial court explained to appellant that his sentence would consist of a mandatory 60-day prison term and that the court could impose an additional six to 30 months for a total maximum possible sentence of approximately 32 months imprisonment. Further, the court explained that it would impose a mandatory fine of at least $800 but not more than $10,000, and that it would impose a driver's liсense suspension for a minimum of three years to a maximum of the balance of appellant's life. The trial court also explained to appellant that instеad of being imprisoned for a portion of the *5 sentence, the court could place appellant on community control sanctions for up to five years, and if appellant violates sanctions, the court could impose the maximum sentence permitted for this crime.
{¶ 14} After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court еrred in informing appellant that the maximum possible sentence was 32 months, as the maximum possible sentence for a fourth degree felony OVI offense is 30 months. See State v. Knoph, Franklin App. No. 05AP-1201,
{¶ 15} With respect to appellant's second argument, we find that the trial court did not accept appellant's guilty plea until after the court informed appellant that he would be waiving his constitutional rights by entering a guilty plea. According to the record, before informing appellant of his constitutional rights pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c), the court asked appellant how he wished to plead, and appellant responded that he wanted to enter a guilty plea. The court then explained to appellant in detail each of the constitutional rights enumerated in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). The trial court asked appellant if he understood thаt he was waiving each of these rights, and appellant responded in the affirmative. Then, the trial court accepted appellant's plea, finding that apрellant made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his rights pursuant to Crim.R. 11.
{¶ 16} Accordingly, we find that in accepting appellant's plea, the trial court substantially complied with the nonconstitutional aspects of Crim.R. 11(C), and strictly *6 complied with the constitutional aspects. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled.1 Judgment affirmed.
WALSH, P.J., and YOUNG, J., concur.