COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 77752 STATE OF OHIO : : ACCELERATED DOCKET Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION KIMBERLY NORTON : : Defendant-appellee : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 8, 2001 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-382,708 JUDGMENT : REVERSED AND REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: WILLIAM D. MASON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor PATRICK LAVELLE, Assistant Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellee: MARIE T. SMYTHE Attorney at Law 1148 Euclid Avenue, #300 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J.: -2- This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the record from the lower court, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel. 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. Appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of the indictment issued against defendant-appellee Kimberly Norton. Appellee was charged with violation of R.C. 2921.34, Escape, for failure to comply with R.C. 2967.28 post- release control sanctions. Basing its order of dismissal upon Woods v. Telb (June 23, 1999), Lucas App. No. L-99-1083, unreported and State v. Jones (Sept. 2, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 74247, unreported, the trial court determined R.C. 2967.28 unconstitutional and, thus, appel- lee's indictment improper. Both of the opinions relied upon by the trial court, however, have been reversed by the Ohio Supreme Court in Woods v. Telb (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 504 and State v. Jones (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 519. See, also, State ex rel. Mosley v. Nichols (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 517. Moreover, the supreme court specifically reinstated a conviction for escape based upon the defendant's failure to comply with post-release control sanctions. State v. Duncan (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 522. Since, therefore, the trial court improperly dismissed appel- lee's indictment, the state's assignment of error is sustained. -3- See, also, State v. Mitchell (Nov. 30, 2000), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 77679 and 77928, unreported; State v. Buckney (Dec. 15, 2000), Champaign App. No. 2000-CA-9, unreported; State v. Jeter (Sept. 13, 2000), Lorain App. No. 99CA007505, unreported; and State v. Holder (June 12, 2000), Warren App. No. CA99-09-117, unreported. Accordingly, the trial court's order is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. -4- This cause is reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee its costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J. and COLLEEN C. COONEY, J. CONCUR PRESIDING JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO 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 clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1). .