[Cite as State v. Tyree, 2014-Ohio-2978.]

 Court of Appeals of Ohio

 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

 Nos. 100377 and 100378 

STATE OF OHIO 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

CORTEZ TYREE

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case Nos. CR-13-573022 and CR-13-573669 

BEFORE: Kilbane, J., Rocco, P.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 3, 2014
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Robert L. Tobik 

Cuyahoga County Public Defender

John T. Martin 

Assistant Public Defender 

310 Lakeside Avenue 

Suite 200 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

Oscar E. Albores 

James M. Rice 

Assistant County Prosecutors 

The Justice Center - 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.: 

{¶1} In this consolidated appeal, defendant-appellant, Cortez Tyree (“Tyree”), 

appeals from his guilty pleas in two separate cases. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm. 

{¶2} In Case No. CR-13-573022, Tyree was charged with aggravated robbery, 

which carried one- and three-year firearm and two weapon forfeiture specifications, and 

having a weapon while under disability, which carried two weapon forfeiture 

specifications for robbing a victim at gunpoint. In Case No. CR-13-573669, Tyree was 

charged with having a weapon while under disability. 

{¶3} Pursuant to a plea agreement, in Case No. CR-13-573022, Tyree pled guilty 

to an amended charge of attempted aggravated robbery with a one-year firearm 

specification and two weapon forfeiture specifications. The three-year firearm 

specification was deleted, and the charge of having a weapon while under disability was 

nolled. In Case No. CR-13-573669, Tyree pled guilty to an amended count of attempted 

having a weapon while under disability. 

{¶4} In Case No. CR-13-573022, the trial court sentenced Tyree to one year in 

prison on the firearm specification, to be served prior to three years on the attempted 

aggravated robbery charge, for a total of four years in prison. The trial court ordered that 

Tyree pay $319 as restitution. In Case No. CR-13-573669, the trial court sentenced him 

to twelve months in prison on the attempted having a weapon while under disability 

charge. The trial court ordered that the sentence in this case be served concurrent to the 
sentence in Case No. CR-13-573022, for an aggregate sentence of four years in prison. 

The court found Tyree indigent and ordered that the costs and fees be waived. 

{¶5} Tyree now appeals, raising the following single assignment of error for 

review. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

The trial court failed to advise [Tyree] of the potential fine attendant to his 

plea of guilty to attempted [aggravated] robbery, thus rendering his plea 

unconstitutional. 

{¶6} In the sole assignment of error, Tyree argues that his guilty plea must be 

vacated because the trial court did not advise him that the aggravated robbery charge 

carried a potential fine of $15,000. In support of his argument, he relies on this court’s 

decision in State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91884, 2009-Ohio-2268. 

{¶7} In Johnson, this court interpreted the oral dialogue implied in Crim.R. 11 to 

include the mention of any particular fines and costs associated with a guilty plea, so that 

a defendant may properly be advised of the maximum penalty involved in pleading guilty. 

Id. at ¶ 10. We vacated Johnson’s guilty plea on the grounds that the trial court did not 

substantially comply with Crim.R. 11 because it failed to mention the fine associated with 

pleading guilty to a single charge of rape. However, we find Johnson distinguishable 

from the instant case. 

{¶8} First, in Johnson, the state conceded the trial court’s error, so we were 

constrained to vacate Johnson’s plea. Second, in the instant case, the state informed the 

court at the plea colloquy of the potential fine, and no objection was made by Tyree. 
Furthermore, at the time of sentencing, the trial court stated that the potential fine for the 

aggravated robbery was $15,000. Lastly, the trial court in the instant case never imposed 

a fine at sentencing. Rather, the trial court found Tyree indigent and waived all costs and 

fines. 

{¶9} Moreover, this court has addressed Tyree’s argument in State v. Simmons, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 99513 and 100552, 2013-Ohio-5026, and held as follows: 

With respect to the trial court’s omission to notify Simmons of the possible 

fines and court costs, because the trial court never actually imposed the 

fines or court costs, Simmons cannot show that he would not have entered 

the plea. Simmons received the incarceration penalty within the range of 

what the trial court informed him was possible at sentencing, including the 

mandatory three-year term of postrelease control on the felonious assault 

count. Further, this court has consistently held that a trial court’s failure to 

inform the defendant of the maximum penalty aside from the fines and costs 

satisfies the court’s obligation pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2) when the court 

does not impose any monetary punishments. [State v.] Flagg, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga Nos. 93248 and 93279, 2010-Ohio-4247, ¶ 33; State v. Smith, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 36588, 1977 Ohio App. LEXIS 8585 (Dec. 8, 1977). 

Id. at ¶ 7. 

{¶10} Likewise, in the instant case, the trial court never actually imposed fines or 

court costs. Rather, the trial court found Tyree to be indigent and waived costs and fines. 
Additionally, the state informed the court at the plea colloquy of the potential fine, and no 

objection was made by Tyree. At the time of sentencing, the trial court stated that the 

potential fine for the aggravated robbery was $15,000. Based on the foregoing, Tyree 

cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s omission regarding the fine, 

nor can he demonstrate that he would not have entered the plea had he been advised of 

the potential fine. 

{¶11} Accordingly, the sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶12} Judgment is affirmed. 

Costs waived. 

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. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE 
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR