COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70015 CITY OF PARMA : : ACCELERATED DOCKET : PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : IRENE WYNNYTSKY : OPINION : : PER CURIAM DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: OCTOBER 10, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Parma Municipal Court, Case No. 95-TRC-1831. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-appellee: William Mason, Parma Law Director David W. Toetz, Asst. Prosecutor City of Parma 5750 West 54th Street Parma, Ohio 44129 For Defendant-appellant: Walter P. Bubna, Esq. 5700 Pearl Road, Suite 304 Cleveland, Ohio 44129 - 2 - PER CURIAM: An accelerated appeal is authorized pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.App.R. 25. The purpose of an accelerated docket is to allow an appellate court to render a brief and conclusionary decision. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158; App.R. 11.1(E). Defendant-appellant Irene Wynnytsky appeals from her conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Parma Codified Ordinance 333.01. The appellant sets forth two assignments of error. In the first assignment of error, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in not dismissing her offense subsequent to having administratively suspended her driver's license pursuant to R.C. 4511.191. Appellant contends that further prosecution subsequent to the administrative license suspension (ALS) 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 first assignment of error 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. - 3 - State v. Gustafson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 425, paragraph one of the syllabus. In the second assignment of error, the appellant argues that the administrative license suspension imposed pursuant to R.C. 4511.191 constitutes a punishment for purposes of a double jeopardy analysis. The Supreme Court in Gustafson, supra, agreed and held "...an administrative license suspension ceases to be remedial and becomes punitive in nature to the extent it is deemed to continue subsequent to conviction and sentencing for violation of R.C. 4511.19." The court concluded that because such a suspension loses its remedial character upon judicial adjudication of guilt and sentencing for a DUI charge, "the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions preclude continued recognition of an ALS following judicial imposition of criminal penalties." The record shows that the appellant's suspension was terminated by the trial court as of June 17, 1995. The appellant was not sentenced until November 20, 1995. Since the suspension expired before the imposition of the criminal sentence, the appellant was not placed in double jeopardy. The appellant's second assignment of error 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 Parma 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. JAMES D. SWEENEY, P.J. ANN DYKE, J. TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, J. 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 .