COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT 
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 
                             NO. 71112
CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED            :
                                 :  ACCELERATED DOCKET
                                 :
        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE       :    JOURNAL ENTRY 
                                 :
v.                               :        AND 
                                 : 
STUART B. JONES                  :      OPINION 
                                 :
                                 :     PER CURIAM 
        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT      :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF DECISION:                     MARCH 13, 1997  
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:         Criminal appeal from
                                 Rocky River Municipal Court,
                                 Case No. 96-TRC-320AB.
JUDGMENT:                        DISMISSED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:                                       
APPEARANCES:  
For Plaintiff-appellee:          Donald P. Albenze, Esq.
                                 City of North Olmsted
                                 23823 Lorain Road, #270
                                 North  Olmsted, Ohio  44070       
For Defendant-appellant:         Joseph C. Grunda, Esq.
                                 David J. Berta, Esq.
                                 522 Broadway
                                 Lorain, Ohio  44052
                               - 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 Stuart  Jones appeals from  his conviction
for driving under  the influence of  alcohol in violation of  North
Olmsted  Codified  Ordinance  333.01(A)(3).     The  appellant  was
sentenced to a term  of five days incarceration, fined  $350.00 and
ordered to pay costs.  The court suspended the appellant's term  of
incarceration and placed  him on six months of  inactive probation.
In addition, the appellant's driver's license was suspended for six
months, with a  credit of  177 days  for the ALS  suspension.   The
court's entry  was journalized on July  9, 1996.  The  court noted,
and the docket  reflects, that  the appellant paid  both the  court
costs and the fine.
     The  Ohio  Supreme  court  has  held  that "where  a  criminal
defendant,  convicted of  a misdemeanor, voluntarily  satisfies the
judgment imposed upon him or her  for that offense, an appeal  from
the  conviction is moot  unless the defendant  has offered evidence
from which  an inference can  be drawn that  he or she  will suffer
some collateral  legal disability or loss of  civil rights stemming
from that  conviction."   State v.  Golston (1994),  71 Ohio  St.3d
                               - 3 -
    1
224,  citing  to State  v. Wilson  (1975), 41  Ohio St.2d 236  and,
State v. Berndt (1987),  29 Ohio St.3d 3.  See  also Rocky River v.
Zahn  (Oct.  3, 1996),  Cuyahoga  App.  No.  68970, unreported  and
Cleveland  v.  Bawa  (June  3,  1996),  Cuyahoga  App.  No.  69089,
unreported.
     In  the  case  sub  judice,  the  appellant,  a  misdemeanant,
voluntarily  paid  both the  fine  and  court costs.    The imposed
sentence was suspended and  the appellant was placed on  six months
probation beginning July 9, 1996.  Both  the six-month probationary
period  and  the  driver's  license  suspension have  lapsed,  and,
because of  clear  dictates of the  Supreme Court, this court  must
find the appellant's assignment of error moot.
     Case dismissed.   
     1
       In Golston, supra, the  Supreme Court prohibited a finding
of mootness where the defendant is  convicted of a felony holding
that such a defendant has a collateral legal disability or a loss
of civil rights.  Such is not the case here.  
                               - 4 -
     It is ordered that appellee  recover of appellant  its   costs
herein taxed.  
     A certified copy  of this entry  shall constitute the  mandate
pursuant  to  Rule   27  of  the  Rules   of  Appellate  Procedure.
Exceptions.  
                                   JAMES D. SWEENEY, C.J.  
                                   DAVID T. MATIA, J.
                                   DIANE KARPINSKI, 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
.