COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 77876
STATE OF OHIO,                :
                              :
     Plaintiff-Appellee       :         JOURNAL ENTRY
                              :               and
     vs.                      :             OPINION
                              :
DANIEL OBERACKER,             :
                              :
     Defendant-Appellant      :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    MARCH 22, 2001
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:      :    Criminal appeal from
                              :    Common Pleas Court
                              :    Case No. CR-342242
JUDGMENT                      :    REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellee:       William D. Mason, Esq.
                              Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              BY: Rebecca Maleckar, Esq.
                              Assistant County Prosecutor
                              The Justice Center   8th Floor
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
For defendant-appellant:      Michael E. Murman, Esq.
                              MURMAN & ASSOCIATES
                              14701 Detroit Avenue, Suite 555
                              Lakewood, Ohio 44107
                               -2-
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, P.J.:
     Defendant Daniel Oberacker pleaded  guilty to two counts  of
rape, each count against a different teenaged victim.  Just before
sentencing, and without any prior notice to defendant, the  court
classified defendant a sexual predator.  The primary issue in this
appeal is whether the court gave defendant sufficient notice of the
sexual predator classification hearing.
     The state concedes the court did not give defendant adequate
notice of the sexual predator classification hearing.  In State v.
Gowdy(2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 387, the Ohio Supreme Court established
that the notice provision of R.C. 2950.09(B)(1) is mandatory and a
failure to provide  notice is per se  error.  Hence, despite  the
overwhelming evidence justifying the court's decision to classify
defendant as a sexual predator and defendant's failure to object to
lack of notice at the sexual predator classification hearing,  we
are bound under Gowdyto sustain the second assignment of error and
remand the cause for further proceedings.
     Despite the state's  concession, defendant  claimed at  oral
argument that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel went
beyond counsel's  failure to  object to  the lack  of notice  and
encompassed a failure to protect defendant's due process rights in
a way that cast doubt on the validity of the guilty plea.  We see
nothing in either appellant's merit brief or reply brief that makes
this argument, and there is nothing in the proceedings that would
cause  us to  doubt  the  validity of  defendant's  guilty  plea.
Certainly, counsel's failure to  prepare for the sexual  predator
                               -3-
hearing could  be explained by  his admitted  failure to  receive
notice of the hearing.
     Reversed and remanded.
                               -4-
     This cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
     It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover  of
said appellee his 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.
                                        MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN
                                          PRESIDING JUDGE
BLACKMON, J., and
DYKE, J., CONCUR.
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).
 
.