State v. SteeleState v. Steele
{¶ 2} Subsequently, the State amended the indictment to murder, in violation of
{¶ 3} This court later granted appellant's motion to file a delayed appeal pursuant to
{¶ 4} In his single assignment of error, appellant contends that his guilty plea was not made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily as required by
{¶ 5}
{¶ 6} "(2) In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first addressing the defendant personally and doing all of the following:
{¶ 7} "(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and, if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.
{¶ 8} "(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no contest, and that the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment and sentence.
{¶ 9} "(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant'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 compelled to testify against himself or herself."
{¶ 10} The underlying purpose of
{¶ 11} In determining whether the trial court has satisfied its duties, reviewing courts have distinguished constitutional and non-constitutional rights. Id.; State v. Steward (1977),
{¶ 12} Under the broader standard for rights not protected by the constitution, reviewing courts consider whether the trial court substantially complied with the requirements of
{¶ 13} Appellant first complains that the trial court failed to inform him of the right to a bench trial. Although
{¶ 14} Appellant next complains that the trial court failed to inform him of his right to appointed or retained counsel. The record reflects that the trial court appointed two lawyers for appellant, however, and that both were present at the plea hearing. Where a defendant is actually represented by counsel and counsel is present at the plea hearing, the trial court is not required to inform the defendant of the right to counsel. State v. Robinson (1998),
{¶ 15} Appellant next complains that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to inform him that upon acceptance of his guilty plea, the trial court could proceed immediately to judgment and sentence. Because this is a non-constitutional right, the trial court must substantially comply with this requirement of
{¶ 16} Appellant also claims that the trial court failed to inform him of his right to appeal.
{¶ 17} Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to advise him that his guilty plea would constitute a complete admission of guilt.
{¶ 18} The right to be informed that a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt is nonconstitutional and therefore is subject to review under a standard of substantial compliance. State v. Griggs,
{¶ 19} Here, the totality of the circumstances indicate that appellant understood he was admitting his guilt by pleading guilty. Before the judge spoke to appellant, trial counsel informed the judge that appellant wanted to withdraw his plea of not guilty and enter a guilty plea and that he understood he would be waiving his constitutional rights by entering the plea. After explaining those rights to appellant, the trial judge informed him that he would be going to prison for 15 years to life. When questioned, appellant told the judge that he had no questions about any of the rights he was waiving and, further, that he understood he was giving up those rights by entering his guilty plea.
{¶ 20} In Griggs, supra, the Ohio Supreme Court considered the same argument made by appellant and held that "a defendant who has entered a guilty plea without asserting actual innocence is presumed to understand that he has completely admitted his guilt. In such circumstances, a court's failure to inform the defendant of the effect of his guilty plea as required by
{¶ 21} Contrary to appellant's argument, his assertion at sentencing that he acted in self-defense does not indicate that he did not understand the implications of his plea or the rights he was waiving. Even a defendant who repeatedly claims innocence during the actual plea hearing can still enter a valid guilty plea. North Carolina v. Alford
(1970),
{¶ 22} Finally, appellant claims that the trial court committed reversible error because it did not explain the elements of the murder charge to which he pled guilty. Appellant's argument is without merit. As this court has held, "courts are not required to explain the elements of each offense, or even to specifically ask the defendant whether he understands the charges, unless the totality of the circumstances shows that the defendant does not understand the charges." State v. Whitfield,
{¶ 23} Appellant's assignment of error is therefore overruled.
Affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant 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. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Celebrezze, Jr., P.J., and Calabrese, Jr., Concur.