COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59344 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION GLENN LEWIS : : Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 7, 1991 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-241,277 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Prosecutor KARL WETZEL, Assistant Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: THOMAS FRYE Attorney at Law 580 East 200 Street Euclid, Ohio 44119 - 1 - FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, P.J.: Defendant-appellant, Glenn Lewis, timely appeals his convic- tion for having a weapon while under disability (R.C. 2923.13) with gun and violence specifications. Appellant now timely appeals, raising one assignment of error for our review. For the following reasons, we affirm the appellant's conviction. THE COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN OVERRULING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE GUN SPECIFICATION CONTAINED IN THE CHARGE OF HAVING A WEAPON WHILE UNDER DISABILITY. Appellant alleges the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the gun specification on double jeopardy grounds. Appellant argues that this court should overrule our previous rulings in which we have held that a gun specification (R.C. 2929.71) attached to a charge of having a weapon while under disability (R.C. 2923.13) is not violative of the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States or Ohio Constitutions. See, State v. Edwards (Sep. 12, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 59131, unreported; State v. Andrews (Sep. 13, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 56983, unreported; State v. Williams (Feb. 18, 1988), Cuyahoga App. No. 53386, unreported; State v. Fleming (June 18, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 52128, unreported; State v. Brown (Nov. 26, 1986), Cuyahoga App. No. 52037, unreported. We disagree. - 2 - Appellant relies on arguments contained in a common pleas court opinion in the case of State v. Andrews (Cuy. Cty. Ct. Common Pleas, Case No. CR-220897) in which the trial court dis- missed a gun specification finding that R.C. 2929.71 violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. However, a panel of this court reversed the trial court's dismissal on appeal. Andrews, supra. In Andrews, we again held that a gun specification charged with the offense of having weapons while under disability does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. This court has consistently held that the gun specification (R.C. 2929.71) does not create a separate offense. State v. Price (1985), 24 Ohio App. 3d 186; Andrews, supra. A gun speci- fication does not stand alone, but comes into play only to enhance the penalty for another offense. Price, supra. The defendant receives a single, more severe sentence rather than two separate sentences. Williams, supra. A gun specification may be attached to other offenses which include possession of a deadly weapon as an element. Id. Fur- thermore, the legislature intended to authorize cumulative pun- ishment when certain offenses were committed with a firearm. Andrews, supra. The imposition of cumulative punishment for a single act does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment where the legislature has specifically authorized cumulative punishment. Id.; Missouri v. Hunter (1983), 459 U.S. 359, 368-69. - 3 - R.C. 2929.71 is expressly applicable to any felony except carrying a concealed weapon. Thus, it is clear that the legisla- ture intended to authorize cumulative punishments for those per- sons with a prior felony conviction who choose to carry a firearm despite their disability. Id; Williams, supra. Accordingly, we again find that the use of a gun specifica- tion (R.C. 2929.71) to enhance the penalty for having a weapon while under disability (R.C. 2923.13) does not violate the United States or Ohio Constitutions. The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's motion to dismiss the firearm specification. Assignment of Error I is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 4 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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 Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 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. JOHN F. CORRIGAN, J. JAMES D. SWEENEY, J. CONCUR PRESIDING JUDGE FRANCIS E. SWEENEY N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .