COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT 
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 
                             NO. 68729
CITY OF WESTLAKE                 :
                                 :
                                 :
        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE       :    JOURNAL ENTRY 
                                 :
v.                               :         AND
                                 : 
                                 :       OPINION
MICHAEL J. MAMINSKAS             :              
                                 :
                                 :
        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT      :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF DECISION:                     SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:         Criminal appeal from
                                 Rocky River Municipal Court,
                                 Case No. 94-TRC-13234ABC.
JUDGMENT:                        AFFIRMED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:                                      
APPEARANCES:  
For Plaintiff-appellee:   Mary  A. Lentz,  Acting Law  Director and
   Prosecutor,  City   of  Westlake,   27216  Hilliard   Boulevard,
   Westlake,  Ohio,  44145;  Betty  D.  Montgomery,  Ohio  Attorney
   General and Diane R. Richards, Assistant Attorney General, Chief
   Counsel's Staff,  30 East  Broad Street,  17th Floor,  Columbus,
   Ohio  43215.
For Defendant-appellant:   Kevin  G. Killeen,  Esq., 13317  Madison
   Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio, 44107. 
                               - 3 -
SWEENEY, JAMES D., P.J.:
     Defendant-appellant  Michael  J.  Maminskas  appeals from  his
conviction of driving  under the influence of alcohol  in violation
of Westlake Codified Ordinances 333.01(A1) and (A3), and 331.34(B).
For the reasons adduced below, we affirm.
     The appellant's sole assignment of error argues that the trial
court  erred in not dismissing these  offenses subsequent to having
administratively suspended  his driver's  license pursuant  to R.C.
4511.191.  Appellant  contends that further prosecution  subsequent
to  the   administrative  license  suspension   constitutes  Double
Jeopardy in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution  and Article I,  Section 10 of the  Ohio
Constitution.  
     The  lone  assignment is  without  merit.   The  Supreme Court
recently pronounced the following:
          1.  The  Double Jeopardy  Clauses of the  Fifth
          Amendment to the United States Constitution and
          Article I, Section 10 of the  Ohio Constitution
          do not preclude criminal prosecution and  trial
          of motorists  for driving in  violation of R.C.
          4511.191  based  upon, and  subsequent  to, the
          imposition   of   an   administrative   license
          suspension pursuant to R.C. 4511.191.
State v. Gustafson (1996), 76 Ohio  St.3d 425, paragraph one of the
syllabus, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 552.
     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 Rocky  River Municipal 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.  
ANN DYKE, J., and                  
TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, J., CONCUR.  
                                         JAMES D. SWEENEY
                                         PRESIDING JUDGE
N.B. This entry  is an announcement  of the court's decision.   See
App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and  26(A); Loc.App.R. 27.  This  decision will
be journalized and  will become the judgment and order of the court
pursuant  to App.R. 22(E) unless a  motion for reconsideration with
supporting brief, per App.R.  26(A), is filed within ten  (10) days
of  the announcement of the court's  decision.  The time period for
review by  the Supreme Court  of Ohio shall  begin to run  upon the
journalization  of  this court's  announcement  of decision  by the
.