[Cite as State v. Stroub, 2011-Ohio-169.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

WYANDOT COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 16-10-02 

 v. 

EDWARD D. STROUB, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from Wyandot County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court No. 09 CR 0032 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: January 18, 2011 

 

APPEARANCES: 

Scott B. Johnson for Appellant 

Jonathan K. Miller for Appellee 
Case No. 16-10-02 

-2-

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Edward D. Stroub (“Stroub”) brings this appeal 

from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Wyandot County. For the 

reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed. 

{¶2} On April 29, 2009, the Wyandot County Grand Jury indicted Stroub 

on two counts of trafficking in a Schedule II controlled substance in violation of 

R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) with specifications that the sales occurred within the vicinity 

of a school and one count of trafficking in a Schedule III controlled substance in 

violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) with a specification that the sale occurred within 

the vicinity of a school.1

 The arraignment was held on April 30, 2009, and Stroub 

entered pleas of not guilty to all counts. On March 30, 2010, Stroub entered into a 

plea agreement with the State. The plea agreement set forth the following 

conditions. 

Defendant shall plead guilty to Count One of the Indictment 

(F4) [trafficking in Schedule II controlled substance]. The State 

will dismiss the School Specification to County One. 

The State will dismiss Count Two and the School Specification 

to County Two. 

The State will amend Count Three to less than the bulk amount. 

Defendant shall plead guilty to Count Three of the Indictment 

(F3) [trafficking in Schedule II controlled substance], as 

amended, and the School Specification to Count Three. 

 

1

 All three counts also contained criminal forfeiture specifications as well. Upon the State’s motion, the 

trial court dismissed these specifications on March 23, 2010. 
Case No. 16-10-02 

-3-

The State and Defendant will jointly recommend a basic prison 

term of twelve (12) months on Count One and a basic prison of 

(sic) two (2) years on Count Three, consecutive to each other. 

Agreement, 3. The trial court held a change of plea hearing and discussed the 

terms of the plea agreement with Stroub. Stroub then signed the agreement in 

open court and the trial court accepted the plea. 

{¶3} On April 15, 2010, a sentencing hearing was held. The trial court 

sentenced Stroub to twelve months in prison for Count One and three years in 

prison for Count Three. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively 

for a total sentence of four years. Stroub appeals the judgment and raises the 

following assignments of error. 

First Assignment of Error 

The trial court erred in accepting [Stroub’s] criminal rule 

waiver at the plea hearing in that it was not knowing and 

voluntary with respect to the school specification. 

Second Assignment of Error 

[Stroub’s] conviction of trafficking with a school specification 

was not supported by the sufficiency of the evidence with 

respect to the school specification. 

Third Assignment of Error 

The counsel for [Stroub] provided ineffect (sic) assistance of 

counsel. 
Case No. 16-10-02 

-4-

{¶4} Stroub alleges in his first assignment of error that his guilty plea 

was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Specifically, Stroub claims that his 

guilty plea to the school specification was not clear. 

(B) Effect of guilty or no contest pleas. With reference to the 

offense or offenses to which the plea is entered: 

(1) The plea of guilty is a complete admission of the 

defendant’s guilt. 

* * * 

(C) Pleas of guilty and no contest in felony cases. 

* * * 

(1) 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: 

(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 

(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. 

(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 
Case No. 16-10-02 

-5-

the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself or 

herself. 

Crim.R. 11. 

{¶5} Here, Stroub claims that since he did not clearly enter a guilty plea 

to the school specification, the trial court erred in accepting his plea. A review of 

the record reveals the following dialogue between the trial court and Stroub. 

The Court: All right. Mr. Stroub, as to the first aggravated 

trafficking in drugs charge that it’s proposed you’re going to 

plead to, tell me what your understanding of the penalty 

associated with this charge, what that is, the maximum penalty. 

The Defendant: I got it wrote – I got it wrote down here. Is that 

the third degree or the fourth degree? 

The Court: That would be the felony of the fourth degree. 

The Defendant: Yeah. I just started reading it. Is says that I 

can get up to a year, I think, eighteen months. I didn’t read the 

rest of it. Yeah. Eighteen months is on that second sheet. Yeah. 

I seen (sic) that. 

The Court: And you could get a maximum fine of $5,000? 

The Defendant: Right. 

The Court: An also on the felony of the third degree that you 

are proposing to plead to, can you tell me what the maximum 

fine for that is? 

The Defendant: Up to ten thousand. 

The Court: And do you understand at least five thousand is 

mandatory? 

The Defendant: That’s what it says, yeah. 
Case No. 16-10-02 

-6-

The Court: Can you tell me what the maximum time in prison 

is you could receive? 

The Defendant: It says five years. 

The Court: And you understand you could receive five years if 

you got the maximum penalty? 

The Defendant: That’s what it says, yes. 

* * * 

The Court: do you understand the nature of these charges and 

the possible defenses you might have to them? 

The Defendant: Yes. 

The Court: Are you entering this plea voluntarily and of your 

own free will? 

The Defendant: yes. 

* * * 

The Court: Well, let’s read the sentence recommendation. It 

says, Defendant shall plead guilty to Count One in the 

indictment, F4. The State will dismiss the school specification to 

Count One. State will dismiss Count Two and the school 

specification to Count Two. State will amend Count Three to 

less than the bulk amount. Defendant shall plead guilty to 

Count Three of the indictment, an F3 as amended, and the 

school specification to Count Three.

* * * 

The Court: Again, Mr. Stroub, are you entering this plea 

voluntarily? 

The Defendant: Yes. 
Case No. 16-10-02 

-7-

The Court: You may sign the plea. 

March 30, 2010 Transcript, 5-14 (emphasis added). Stroub then signed the plea 

agreement in open court. Although Stroub later questioned whether the school 

was within 1,000 feet of his home, the State stated that GPS mapping was done 

and Stroub’s home was within the required distance for the specification. Tr. 16. 

The trial court then questioned Stroub as to whether he admitted the specification. 

The Defendant: If that’s what they say. I didn’t measure it. 

I’m just going by what they’re saying. 

The Court: Well, I need to know you know what the amended 

indictment, what it accuses you of in Count One and in Count 

Three with the specification and you’re admitting to those 

allegations. 

The Defendant: I thought they was (sic) dropping that school 

specification. Okay. I thought they was (sic) dropping it. Like 

I said, if they’re saying it’s within one thousand feet, I have no 

way of measuring it. 

The Court: But what I’m saying is you’re admitting to what 

you’re accused of in the amended indictment in Count 1 and 

Count 3? 

The Defendant: Yes. 

Tr. 17. Despite the fact that Stroub stated that he did not know about the school 

specification remaining for Count Three, a review of the record indicates that the 

trial court informed him that the specification as to Count Three was remaining 

and that Count Three would be an F3. Thus the record supports a conclusion that 
Case No. 16-10-02 

-8-

the guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. The first assignment of 

error is overruled. 

{¶6} In his second assignment of error, Stroub argues that the school 

specification was not supported by sufficient evidence. Crim.R.11(B)(1) provides 

that a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt. By entering a guilty plea, one 

waives the requirement that the State prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). The guilty plea itself provides all the necessary proof of the 

elements of the offense and is sufficient evidence to support the conviction. State 

v. Fuller, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-09-240, 2009-Ohio-5068, ¶105. Since Stroub 

entered a guilty plea to the offenses, including the school specification, he cannot 

now argue that the evidence is insufficient. Thus, the second assignment of error 

is overruled. 

{¶7} Finally, Stroub claims that he was denied effective assistance of 

counsel. “Reversal of convictions on ineffective assistance requires the defendant 

to show ‘first that counsel’s performance was deficient and, second that the 

deficient performance prejudice the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a 

fair trial.’” State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751, ¶105, 772 

N.E.2d 81. The defendant must show that there was a reasonable probability that 

but for counsel’s error, the result of the trial would have been different. Id. at 

¶108. 
Case No. 16-10-02 

-9-

{¶8} Stroub argues that counsel was ineffective for not speaking up at the 

change of plea hearing concerning the school specification and for not clarifying 

the State’s sentencing memorandum. However, in both instances, the trial court 

was aware of the facts. The trial court specifically questioned Stroub about his 

plea to the school specification. As discussed above, Stroub voluntarily and 

knowingly entered his guilty plea. The trial court also heard Stroub’s statement as 

to the involvement of the third party to the sales. The trial court acknowledged 

that Stroub had twice facilitated drug sales from his home near a school. Stroub 

has not indicated in any way how the alleged ineffectiveness of counsel 

prejudiced him. Without a showing of prejudice, the third assignment of error 

must be overruled. 

{¶9} Having found no error prejudicial to Stroub, the judgment of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Wyandot County is affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed 

ROGERS P.J., and PRESTON, J., concur. 

/jlr