COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73874 STATE OF OHIO : : ACCELERATED DOCKET PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : : AND CARYN S. KING : : OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : : PER CURIAM DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-338105. JUDGMENT: DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: ________________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-appellee: Stephanie Tubbs Jones Cuyahoga County Prosecutor William R. Caine Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-appellant: John J. Russo, Esq. Polito & Russo 21270 Lorain Road Fairview Park, Ohio 44126 -2- PER CURIAM: An accelerated appeal is authorized pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 25. The purpose of an accelerated docket is to allow an appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158; App.R. 11.1(E). For the reasons adduced below, we dismiss the notice of appeal. In the case at bar, defendant-appellant Ms. Caryn S. King, immediately prior to the commencement of the scheduled trial on March 6, 1997, pled guilty to one count of attempted patient abuse (R.C. 2903.34, 2923.02) involving a mentally retarded patient at a care facility, as charged in the amended indictment. The trial court sentenced defendant on March 6, 1997, which order was journalized on March 11, 1997, stating in pertinent part: ***It is therefore, ordered and adjudged by the Court that said defendant, Caryn S. King, sentenced to Cuyahoga County jail for 6 month term; pay costs & $110.00 fine. Sentence suspd; deft to serve 4 months inactive prob; pay costs by 5/1/97, receipt to bailiff; pay $100.00 prob sup fee. Deft to never accept employmentin any mentally retarded facility. (Italicization added.) On June 2, 1997, defendant filed her motion to vacate the guilty plea. The State filed a brief in opposition to the motion on June 20, 1997. The trial court, without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the motion, denied the motion on June 25, 1997. On July 23, 1997, appellant appealed from the trial court's June 25, 1997 denial of her post-sentence motion to vacate the guilty plea. That notice of appeal was dismissed for the failure -3- of appellant to file a praecipe in accordance with Loc.App.R. 4. See Stat e v. King (August 21, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 72903, unreported. On September 9, 1997, the court costs were paid in full and inactive probation was terminated. Thereafter, appellant filed a second notice of appeal on January 16, 1998, from the denial of the motion to vacate her guilty plea. It is this second notice of appeal which is the basis for this appeal. There have been no requests seeking, and no orders granting, a delayed appeal from the motion ruling of June 25, 1997, pursuant to App.R. 5, or a reconsideration/ reinstatement of appellate case number 72903 pursuant to App.R. 26. Appellant has waived oral argument. The lone assignment of error provides: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA FILED ON JUNE 2, 1997. This assignment is precluded from being discussed because this appellate court lacks jurisdiction. The notice of appeal filed on January 16, 1998 in appellate case number 73874 was not filed within thirty days of the order appealed from. See App.R. 4(A). Absent jurisdiction and compliance with App.R. 4(A), the notice of appeal must be dismissed. McCann v. Lakewood (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 226, 235. Appeal dismissed. -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. JOSEPH J. NAHRA, P.J. LEO M. SPELLACY, J. JAMES D. SWEENEY, 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 .