COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT

                           COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

                             NO. 61344


   STATE OF OHIO,                     :
                                      :  ACCELERATED DOCKET
                                      :
             Plaintiff-Appellee       :    JOURNAL ENTRY
                                      :
   v.                                 :        AND
                                      :
   RAYMOND NELSON,                    :      OPINION
                                      :
                                      :     PER CURIAM
             Defendant-Appellant      :


   DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
   OF DECISION:                       OCTOBER 10, 1991

   CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Criminal appeal from
                                      Common Pleas Court
                                      Case No. CR-251,909


   JUDGMENT:                          AFFIRMED.

   DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:


   APPEARANCES:

   For plaintiff-appellee:            Stephanie Tubbs Jones
                                      Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                                      Justice Center
                                      Eighth Floor
                                      1200 Ontario Street
                                      Cleveland, Ohio  44113

   For defendant-appellant:           Robert A. Dixon
                                      1280 West Third Street
                                      Third Floor
                                      Cleveland, Ohio  44113




















                                -2-


   PER CURIAM:

        Appellant's assignments of error are overruled.  Appellant's

   failure to contest the  constitutionality  of  R.C. 2925.01(E)(1)

   and (F)  at trial  constitutes waiver.   State v. Awan (1986), 22

   Ohio St. 3d 120, syllabus; State v. Williams (1977), 51  Ohio St.

   2d  112,  paragraph  one  of  the  syllabus.   These statutes are

   sufficiently explicit and are not void  for vagueness.   State v.

   Young (1980),  62 Ohio  St. 2d  370, 372; see also State v. McCoy

   (Nov. 29, 1989), Summit App. No.  14221, unreported  (court found

   that each  rock of  cocaine constitutes  a unit dose according to

   R.C. 2925.01(F)).  The trial court  did not  abuse its discretion

   in denying  appellant's motion  for a  new trial, where appellant

   was not in compliance with the specific requirements of the rule.

   Crim. R.  33; State  v. Seiber  (1990), 56  Ohio St. 3d 4, 17-18;

   State v. Smith (1986),  30 Ohio  App. 3d  138, certiorari denied,

   479 U.S.  860.   The evidence was sufficient, and the verdict was

   not against the manifest weight of the evidence  where unrebutted

   testimony  from  eyewitnesses  indicated  that  appellant threw a

   package under a booth, and that a package of 75  rocks of cocaine

   was  the  only  thing  under  the  booth,  and  where the state's

   evidence that each rock is  a  unit  dose  was  also uncontested.

   State  v.  Eley  (1978),  56  Ohio  St. 2d 169; State v. Mattison

   (1985), 23 Ohio App. 3d 10.

        Affirmed.
















                                -3-








        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  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.




                                 DAVID T. MATIA, PRESIDING JUDGE



                                 JOSEPH J. NAHRA, JUDGE



                                 SARA J. HARPER, JUDGE




   N.B.   This entry  is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule
   22(D),  Ohio  Rules  of   Appellate  Procedure.     This   is  an
   announcement of  decision (see  Rule 26).  Ten (10) days from the
   date  hereof  this  document   will   be   stamped   to  indicate
   journalization,  at  which  time  it will become the judgment and
   order of the court and time period for review will  begin to run.



.