COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 75560
STATE OF OHIO                  :
                               :     ACCELERATED DOCKET
     PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE        :
                               :       JOURNAL ENTRY
vs.                            :
                               :            AND
DOMINIC GULINO                 :
                               :          OPINION
     DEFENDANT-APPELLANT       :
                               :        PER CURIAM
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION:                   MAY 27, 1999
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:       Criminal appeal from
                               Court of Common Pleas,
                               Case No. CR-348506.
JUDGMENT:                      AFFIRMED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:        ________________________________
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-appellee:        WILLIAM D. MASON
                               Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                               SHERRY F. McCREARY
                               Assistant County Prosecutor
                               The Justice Center
                               1200 Ontario Street
                               Cleveland, Ohio 44113
For Defendant-appellant:       MARK B. MAREIN, Esq.
                               Synenberg & Marein
                               222 Leader Building
                               526 Superior Avenue
                               Cleveland, Ohio 44114
                               -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 conclusory decision.
Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983) 11 Ohio App.3d 158.
     Defendant-appellant Dominic Gulino appeals his sentence after
his conviction for  trafficking in cocaine  in violation of  R.C.
2925.03(A)(2), possession of criminal tools in violation of  R.C.
2923.24;  and  possession  of   cocaine  in  violation  of   R.C.
2925.03(A)(4).    The  appellant  was  sentenced  to  a  term  of
incarceration of 18 months on count one, 12 months on count  two,
and  24  months  on count  three.  A  term of  18  months  actual
incarceration was  imposed on count  three.   All sentences  were
ordered to be served consecutively.
     The appellant asserts only one assignment of error:
          THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE
          SENTENCES FOR THE OFFENSES OF DRUG TRAFFICKING
          IN VIOLATION  OF R.C.  SECTION 2941.25  WHICH
          PRECLUDES CONVICTION  AND MULTIPLE  SENTENCES
          FOR ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT.
     The appellant  essentially argues  that he  was charged  and
convicted twice  for the same  type and quantity  of drugs.   The
appellant posits that where there are no facts to indicate that the
amount of drugs possessed was greater than the amount involved in
the sale, a trial court is prohibited from convicting a defendant
on both counts.
     The record indicates that the appellant failed to object  to
the convictions or sentences at trial, hence, this claimed error is
                               -3-
waived. State v. Williams (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 471, 481, citing
to State v. Comen (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 206.  A finding  of plain
error is to be entered with the utmost caution, under exceptional
circumstances and  only  to  prevent a  manifest  miscarriage  of
justice. State v. Hill (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 433, citing to State
v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91.
     In the case sub judice, plain error does not exist because, as
this court has held on many previous occasions, drug  trafficking
and drug possession  are not allied  offenses of similar  import.
State  v.  Jolly  (July  10,  1997),  Cuyahoga  App.  No.  70482,
unreported, citing to State v. Jordan (1992), 73 Ohio App.3d 524;
State v. Powell (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 157.  We find these cases to
be dispositive.
     The appellant's assignment of error is overruled.
     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.
                                   ______________________________
                                   JOHN T. PATTON, P.J.
                                   ______________________________
                                   KENNETH A. ROCCO, 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. 22.  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
.