COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NOS. 73378/73379/73380 STATE OF OHIO : ACCELERATED DOCKET : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : -vs- : AND : KENNETH COOK : OPINION : Defendant-Appellant : : PER CURIAM Date of Announcement of Decision: APRIL 23, 1998 Character of Proceeding: Criminal appeals from Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-271143; CR-226445; CR-163033 Judgment: Affirmed Date of Journalization: Appearances: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES KENNETH J. COOK, PRO SE Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Inmate No. 242-696 RALPH KOLASINSKI, Asst. P.O. Box 57 Prosecuting Attorney Marion, Ohio 43301-0057 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- PER CURIAM: This appeal is before the Court on the accelerated docket pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc. App.R. 25. Defendant-appellant Kenneth Cook, Pro Se, contends in essence he is entitled to have his sentences reduced pursuant to new S.B. 2 and the trial court erred in denying his motion seeking that result. We find no error and affirm. The record reflects that defendant was sentenced years ago in the follow cases: In CR-163033 (C.A. 73380) the defendant entered a guilty plea to aggravated robbery on April 1, 1981, and was sentenced to 7 to 25 years in prison on May 4, 1981. This appeal was dismissed sua sponte on November 25, 1997 for failure to file a record. (Motion No. 89263). In CR-226445 (C.A. 73379) the defendant was found guilty in a bench trial on June 28, 1988 to receiving stolen property (Motor Vehicle) and sentenced to 2 to 10 years on July 12, 1988. This was affirmed on appeal by this Court. State v. Cook (Dec. 18, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 56320, unreported. In CR-271143 (C.A. 73378) the defendant pled guilty to a theft offense with two furthermore specifications, to wit: his prior convictions in CR-163033 and CR-226445. Defendant was sentenced to one year in prison on November 7, 1991. We will address Assignments of Error I and II together as they both address the issue of defendant's right to reduced sentences. I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF THE MOTION, DENYING THIS APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE 14 AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS -3- WELL AS ARTICLE I S 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION WHEN APPELLANT HAS A CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT TO RESENTENCE UNDER S.B.2 ACCORDING TO O.R.C. S 1.58(b), O.R.C. S 2901.04(A) AND ARTICLE II S 15 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THIS APPELLANT'S RIGHT UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IN DENYING SAID MOTION. Senate Bill 2 became effective July 1, 1996. The law is clear as stated in State v. Abelt (Feb. 27, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71361, unreported and the Ohio Supreme Court, State ex rel. v. Adult Parole (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 187, that Senate Bill 2 applies only to those persons committing offenses on and after July 1, 1996. Defendant does not meet those requirements. His assignments of error are without merit and are dismissed. 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 Court of Common Pleas 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, PRESIDING JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL, JUDGE JAMES D. SWEENEY, 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 of decision by the .