COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 77895
STATE OF OHIO                  :
                               :     ACCELERATED DOCKET
     PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT       :
                               :       JOURNAL ENTRY
vs.                            :
                               :            AND
RONALD WALLS                   :
                               :          OPINION
     DEFENDANT-APPELLEE        :
                               :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION:                   MARCH 1, 2001
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:       Criminal appeal from
                               Common Pleas Court,
                               Case numbers CR-384293 and
                               CR-366748.
JUDGMENT:                      REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:        ________________________________
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-appellant:       WILLIAM D. MASON, Esq.
                               Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                               LISA REITZ WILLIAMSON, Esq.
                               SALEH S. AWADALLAH, Esq.
                               Assistant County Prosecutors
                               The Justice Center
                               1200 Ontario Street
                               Cleveland, Ohio 44113
For Defendant-appellee:        PATRICIA HESS PLOTKIN, Esq.
                               1920 Superior Building
                               815 Superior Avenue, N.E.
                               Cleveland, Ohio 44114
                               -2-
JAMES D. SWEENEY, P.J.:
     An accelerated appeal is authorized pursuant to App.R.  11.1
and Loc.App.R. 11.1.  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).
     In this accelerated appeal, plaintiff-appellant State of Ohio
appeals from the dismissal  of the indictment against  defendant-
appellee Ronald Walls for Escape (R.C. 2921.34).  The  indictment
was premised upon appellee violating the terms of his post-release
control sanctions. The trial court's dismissal was based upon this
Court's holding in State v. Jones (Sept. 2, 1999), Cuyahoga  App.
No. 74247, unreported,  1999 WL 684635,  wherein we found  Ohio's
post-release  control  statute,  R.C.  2967.28,  unconstitutional
because it violates the separation of powers doctrine and the due
process clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.  For
the reasons adduced below, we reverse and remand.
     The lone assignment of error presented states the following:
          R.C. 2967.28 DOES NOT VIOLATE THE  SEPARATION
          OF POSERS (SIC)  DOCTRINE OR THE DUE  PROCESS
          CLAUSES  OF   THE  UNITED   STATES  OR   OHIO
          CONSTITUTIONS.
     In State v. Jones (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 519, the Supreme Court
of Ohio,  relying on  Woods v. Telb  (2000), 89  Ohio St.3d  504,
reversed and  remanded our holding  in Cuyahoga  App. No.  74247,
declaring via  Woods v. Telb,  supra, that post-release  controls
pursuant to R.C. 2967.28 do not violate the separation of  powers
                               -3-
doctrine or due process.  Accordingly, the assignment is affirmed
and the indictment reinstated.
     Judgment reversed and remanded.
                               -4-
     This cause is reversed and remanded.
     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.
Exceptions.
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J., and
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR.
                                   ______________________________
                                        JAMES D. SWEENEY
                                        PRESIDING 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. 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).
 
.