COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT 
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 
                             NO. 69312
CITY OF BEACHWOOD                :
                                 :  ACCELERATED DOCKET
                                 :
        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE       :    JOURNAL ENTRY 
                                 :
v.                               :        AND 
                                 : 
RENNIS ROUSE, JR.                :      OPINION 
                                 :
                                 :     PER CURIAM 
        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT      :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF DECISION:                     JANUARY 23, 1997
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:         Criminal appeal from
                                 Shaker Heights Municipal Court,
                                 Case No. 94-TRC-1481.
JUDGMENT:                        AFFIRMED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:                                       
APPEARANCES:  
For Plaintiff-appellee:          Louis H. Orkin
                                 Law Director
                                 Avery Fromet
                                 Prosecuting  Attorney for         
                                 City of Beachwood                
                               23625 Commerce Park Road
                                 Beachwood, Ohio  44122
For Defendant-appellant:         Christopher J. Mallin, Esq.
                                 P.O. Box 46565
                                 Bedford, Ohio  44146
                               - 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  Rennis  Rouse,  Jr.,  appeals  from   his
administrative license suspension (R.C. 4511.191) which was imposed
subsequent to his arrest  for driving while under the  influence of
alcohol.  Execution  of the  sentence has been  stayed pending  the
outcome of this appeal.  The sole assignment of error presented  by
appellant is that  the continued  criminal prosecution for  driving
under the influence after the administrative license suspension was
issued constitutes a violation of appellant's right to be free from
double jeopardy.   See  the Fifth  Amendment to  the United  States
Constitution; Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
     The Supreme Court, in State v. Gustafson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d
425,  paragraph one of  the syllabus,  stated that  double jeopardy
does  not  preclude  criminal  prosecution  for driving  under  the
influence subsequent to the imposition of an administrative license
suspension pursuant to R.C. 4511.191.  Also see City of Lakewood v.
Polomsky (December 19, 1996), Cuyahoga  App. No. 70684, unreported.
Accordingly, the  trial court  did not  err in  not dismissing  the
criminal prosecution herein.  
     Judgment 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 Shaker Heights 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, C.J.    
                                   PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J. 
                                   JOHN T. PATTON, 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
.