COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70289 CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED : ACCELERATED DOCKET : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and : -vs- : OPINION : DARRYL L. DICKERSON : PER CURIAM : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT FEB. 5, 1997 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Rocky River Municipal Court Case #95-TRC- 11445B JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Donald P. Albenze, Esq. Paul J. Stano, Esq. 23823 Lorain Road, #270 6650 Pearl Road - Suite 202 North Olmsted, Ohio 44070 Parma Heights, Ohio 44130 - 2 - PER CURIAM: This is an accelerated appeal 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. Defendant-appellant ("appellant") appeals from the trial court's decision which denied his motion to dismiss criminal proceedings against him. On October 19, 1995, appellant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of 4511.19(A)(1) and having a blood alcohol concentration content ("BAC") of .134 percent, in excess of permissible limits in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(3). Pursuant to R.C. 4511.191, appellant's driver's license was administratively suspended ("ALS"). Subsequently, appellant was charged with a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(3). Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the criminal proceedings against him, but the trial court denied the request. On February 9, 1996, appellant entered a "no-contest" plea. The trial court found appellant guilty as charged. He was then fined seven hundred dollars, three hundred and fifty suspended; committed to thirty days incarceration, twenty seven days suspended; and placed on inactive probation for three years. Appellant's license suspension was terminated. Appellant appeals from the trial court's order and raises this sole assignment of error for this court's review: - 3 - THE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN, PREJUDICIAL AND REVERSIBLE ERROR BY DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY. In his sole assignment of error, appellant attacks the trial court's ruling that denied his motion to dismiss criminal proceedings. Appellant submits that he was unconstitutionally subjected to a second punishment for the same offense, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution do not preclude criminal prosecution and trial of motorists for driving in violation of R.C. 4511.19 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. An administrative license suspension does not constitute a proceeding to which jeopardy attaches so as to preclude subsequent criminal prosecution for drunk driving. Id., at 436. A defendant facing criminal prosecution after an immediate administrative license suspension is not subjected to a second trial because he has not undergone a "first" trial. Id. Thus, a state retains its right to seek criminal conviction through criminal prosecution. Id. The trial court herein did not err when it denied appellant's motion to dismiss criminal proceedings against him. An ALS is not violative of the Double Jeopardy Clause when the state initiates criminal proceedings subsequent to the ALS proceedings. Id. Here, appellant's ALS was terminated at the - 4 - time of sentencing. Therefore, appellant was not placed in double jeopardy as a result of the criminal proceedings. Gustafson. Accordingly, appellant's assignment is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 5 - 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. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. SARA J. HARPER, PRESIDING JUDGE DAVID T. MATIA, JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI, 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 .