COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70335 : ACCELERATED DOCKET CITY OF WESTLAKE : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION : JOHN W. GRIFFIN : PER CURIAM : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT FEBRUARY 13, 1997 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Rocky River Municipal Court Case No. 95-TRC-13037A JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: MARY A. LENTZ, ESQ. JOHN C. OBERHOLTZER, ESQ. Acting Law Director & Pros. Oberholtzer, Filius, Young City of Westlake & Lesiak 27216 Hilliard Blvd. 230 S. Court Street Westlake, Ohio 44145 Medina, Ohio 44256 - 2 - PER CURIAM: Defendant-appellant, John W. Griffin, appeals his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and assigns the following error for our review: AN ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO R.C. 4511.19(1) VIOLATES THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS ARTICLE I SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND IT IS ERROR FOR THE COURT TO OVERRULE SUCH A MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL CHARGES WHEN SUCH CHARGES VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.[sic] Having reviewed the record of the proceedings and the legal arguments presented by the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court. On December 14, 1995, Griffin was arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (DUI), operating a motor vehicle with a Blood Alcohol Concentration of .202, and failure to control. He was placed on Administrative License Suspension (ALS) at the time of his arrest. Griffin moved to dismiss the case and argued that after the issuance of the ALS, the criminal prosecution would constitute double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion. Griffin entered a no contest plea to the DUI, and the prosecution dismissed the remaining charges. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 180 days in jail and ordered him to pay a $900 fine and court costs. The trial court suspended 170 days of the jail time and $450 of the fine and placed him on active probation for two years. The trial court also suspended his - 3 - license for two years and gave him 44 days ALS credit; thereby, terminating the ALS. The sentence was stayed, and this appeal followed. In his sole assignment of error, Griffin argues because the prosecution for DUI after the ALS was imposed violated the constitutional prohibition against Double Jeopardy, the case should have been dismissed. We disagree. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution do not preclude criminal prosecution under R.C. 4511.19 for DUI subsequent to an ALS under R.C. 4511.191. Furthermore, an ALS is remedial and does not constitute punishment so long as it terminates at the time of sentencing for the DUI. State v. Gustafson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 425, 442, 443. In Gustafson, the Ohio Supreme Court went on to say if the ALS extends beyond the sentencing for the DUI, then jeopardy attaches. In this case, the trial court terminated the ALS after sentencing Griffin. Consequently, under State v. Gustafson the Double Jeopardy Claim fails. 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. JAMES D. SWEENEY, CHIEF JUSTICE PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON, 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 .