COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 77917
STATE OF OHIO                 :   ACCELERATED DOCKET
                              :
     PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT      :     JOURNAL ENTRY
                              :
v.                            :          AND
                              :
EUGENE MITCHELL               :        OPINION
                              :
     DEFENDANT-APPELLEE       :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION:                  MARCH 15, 2001
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:      Criminal appeal from
                              Court of Common Pleas,
                              Case No. CR-375480.
JUDGMENT:                     REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-appellant:      WILLIAM D. MASON, Esq.
                              Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              PETER GAUTHIER, Esq.
                              Assistant County Prosecutor
                              8th Floor Justice Center
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
For Defendant-appellee:       RICHARD AGOPIAN, Esq.
                              1750 Standard Building
                              1370 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1735
                               -2-
SWEENEY, JAMES D., 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).
     Plaintiff-appellant State of Ohio appeals on the accelerated
docket from the sentence imposed by the trial court on defendant-
appellee Eugene Mitchell (  Mitchell ).  For the reasons  adduced
below, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing.
     A review of the record on appeal indicates that Mitchell was
indicted on April 28, 1999, to one count of Escape in violation of
R.C. 2921.34. On April 6, 2000, Mitchell pled guilty to an amended
count of Attempted Escape in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2921.34,
a felony of the fourth degree.  Immediately following his plea of
guilty, the trial court sentenced Mitchell to time served, which in
Mitchell's case  was thirty  days.   The State  objected to  this
sentence.
     The lone assignment of error states:
          THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING A  SENTENCE
          OF TIME  SERVED FOR  A FELONY  OF THE  FOURTH
          DEGREE SINCE  THE DEFENDANT  HAD ONLY  SERVED
          THIRTY DAYS, WHICH IS NOT ONE OF THE STATUTORY
          PENALTIES FOR A FELONY OF THE FOURTH DEGREE.
     The  trial court had  two options available  at the time  of
Mitchell's sentencing.   First, a  definite term of  imprisonment
pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(A)(4).  Or, second, place Mitchell under
community control sanctions pursuant to R.C. 2929.13 to .18.
                               -3-
     Community control sanctions, in general, are inapplicable to
the facts of  this case due  to the absence  of a predicate  pre-
sentence investigation report made prior to sentencing.  See R.C.
2951.03(A)(1)  and Crim.R.  32.2,  which require  a  pre-sentence
investigation  report  prior  to  imposing  a  community  control
sanction.  Thus,  the court's only viable  option at the time  of
sentencing was a period of incarceration.
     R.C. 2929.14(A)(4) unambiguously provides a mandatory definite
prison term for a fourth degree felony:
          (4) For  a felony of  the fourth degree,  the
          prison term shall be six, seven, eight, nine,
          ten,  eleven,  twelve,  thirteen,   fourteen,
          fifteen,  sixteen,  seventeen,  or   eighteen
          months.  (Italicization added.)
     The  sentence  imposed  is  clearly  incompatible  with  the
available  terms under  R.C.  2929.14(A)(4).    Accordingly,  the
assignment is  affirmed,  the sentence  vacated, and  the  matter
remanded for  re-sentencing.  Prior  to re-sentencing, the  trial
court may order the  preparation of a pre-sentence  investigation
report and, at the time of sentencing, may then consider  whether
community control sanctions are applicable to the offense for which
Mitchell was convicted, or the trial court may sentence Mitchell to
a definite term pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(A)(4).
     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.
DIANE KARPINSKI, A.J., and
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR.
                                   ______________________________
                                        JAMES D. SWEENEY
                                             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).
 
.