COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71332 and 71333 : ACCELERATED DOCKET STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION : LAWRENCE ROSE : PER CURIAM : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT APRIL 24, 1997 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court Case Nos. CR-335829 and CR-338809 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, ESQ. PAUL MANCINO, JR., ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 75 Public Square PETER GAUTHIER, ESQ. Suite 1016 Assistant County Prosecutor Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2098 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J.: This consolidated appeal was filed, briefed, and argued as an accelerated appeal pursuant to Local R. 25 of this court. Defendant-appellant Lawrence Rose appeals decisions by the trial court convicting him of receiving stolen property and drug abuse and sentencing him accordingly. Rose assigns the following error for our review: DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO BE PLACED TWICE IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY WHEN THE COURT SENTENCED THE DEFENDANT AND OVERRULED HIS MOTION TO DISMISS. In compliance with App.R. 11.1, we find no double jeopardy violation. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the trial court. Lawrence Rose was indicted for drug abuse and drug trafficking on March 18, 1996 (CR-335829). On May 20, 1996, Rose was indicted for receiving stolen property (CR-338809). On July 31, 1996, Rose filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in CR-335829 on double jeopardy grounds. Rose argued that, on June 27, 1996, he was determined to have violated his probation in an earlier case CR- 314529 and ordered to serve the original sentence of three to fifteen years in that case. According to Rose, the termination of his probation was a punishment for drug abuse. He argued that, because he had been punished for drug abuse, his subsequent prosecution for drug abuse and drug trafficking in CR-335829 violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. -3- On August 30, 1996, Rose pleaded guilty to drug abuse in CR- 335829 and to receiving stolen property in CR-338809. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of six months in CR-335829 and one year in CR-338809. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively with CR-335829, the case for which Rose had been on probation. This appeal followed. In his sole assignment of error, Rose argues the trial court violated the double jeopardy clause by prosecuting him for drug abuse after first revoking his probation based upon his use of drugs. He argues he was punished twice for the same offense. We disagree. During the June 27, 1996 probation revocation hearing in CR- 314529, the trial court made it clear the probation violation was not solely due to Rose's indictment in CR-335829. COURT: The court has found you to be a probation violator, not for one reason, but for several reasons; for dirty urine with cocaine, for not fulfilling the obligations of probation, conditions of probation, and also for picking up two cases. (Probation Revocation Hearing Tr. 11.) The hearing revealed Rose missed a scheduled urine test and failed to perform community service as ordered as part of his probation. The trial court specifically stated that Rose's failure to meet the conditions of probation was, at least in part, the basis for the revocation of probation. Though the use of drugs was grounds for revocation of Rose's probation, the court had sufficient other grounds upon which to base its decision. -4- Accordingly, Rose has not established that the probation revocation was a punishment for his use of drugs. Absent such a showing, his double jeopardy claim must fail. We overrule Rose's assignment of error and affirm the decision of the trial court. 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 Common Pleas 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. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, PRESIDING J. DIANE KARPINSKI, JUDGE CHARLES D. ABOOD,* JUDGE (*SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT: CHARLES D. ABOOD, RETIRED OF THE 6TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS) 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 .