COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 71696
STATE OF OHIO                 :
                              :    JOURNAL ENTRY
     PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE       :
                              :         AND
v.                            :
                              :       OPINION
DAVID GUNDIC                  :
                              :
     DEFENDANT-APPELLANT      :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION:                  NOVEMBER 13, 1997
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:      Criminal appeal from
                              Court of Common Pleas,
                              Case No. CR-273981.
JUDGMENT:                     AFFIRMED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee:       Stephanie Tubbs Jones
                              Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              John F. Corrigan
                              Assistant County Prosecutor
                              The Justice Center
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
For Defendant-Appellant:      Robert A. Dixon, Esq.
                              1280 West 3rd Street, #100
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
                                2
SWEENEY, JAMES D., C.J.:
     Defendant-appellant David  Gundic  appeals  from  the  trial
court's determination that he violated the terms of his probation.
In 1992,  the  appellant was  convicted of  aggravated  vehicular
assault  in   violation  of   R.C.  2903.08,   with  a   violence
specification. For this offense he was sentenced to a term of one
and one-half to five years incarceration.
     Subsequently, the trial  court granted  the appellant  shock
probation.  On September 26, 1996, the appellant appeared  before
the trial court once more.  The appellant admitted to violating his
probation based  upon a finding  of guilt by  the trial court  in
Common Pleas Case No. 339320, and a plea of guilt in Common Pleas
Case No. 332209. These cases have been appealed to this Court, and
bear the Appellate Case Numbers 71698 and 71697, respectively.  The
court imposed  the appellant's  original sentence,  to be  served
consecutively with the sentences in the above cases.
     The appellant sets forth one assignment of error:
          THE APPELLANT'S  PROBATION VIOLATION MUST  BE
          VACATED, AS IT WAS BASED SOLELY UPON  INVALID
          CONVICTIONS IN TWO OTHER CASES.
     The appellant argues that since the court found him to  have
violated his probation solely on the convictions in Appellate Case
Nos. 71697  and  71698, and  since  these convictions  should  be
overturned by this court, that his probation should be reinstated.
     R.C. 2951.02(C) requires that a defendant, during the pendency
of probation, is required to abide by the law.  In order to revoke
probation the court must comply with Crim.R. 32.3(A), which states:
          The court shall  not revoke probation  except
          after a hearing at which the defendant  shall
          be presented and  apprised of the grounds  on
                                3
          which such action is proposed.
     Due process requires  that the defendant be informed of  the
reasons for revoking his probation.  Columbus v. Beuthin  (1996),
108 Ohio App.3d 651, citing to Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973), 411 U.S.
778.
     In the  case sub judice, the  trial court complied with  the
mandates of the law and the criminal rules.  A hearing was  held,
the court informed the appellant that the basis for the violation
was  his guilt  in  two  subsequent criminal  offenses,  and  the
appellant admitted that  he violated his  probation.  Since  this
court has  affirmed  the appellant's  convictions which  led  the
revocation of his probation,  the appellant's sole assignment  of
error is not well taken.  See State v. Gundic (November 13, 1997),
Cuyahoga App. No. 71697, unreported, and State v. Gundic (November
13, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71698, unreported.
     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 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.
JAMES M. PORTER, and,
DIANE KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR.
                                   ______________________________
                                          JAMES D. SWEENEY
                                           CHIEF JUSTICE
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
.