COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 78288
STATE OF OHIO                 :         ACCELERATED DOCKET
                              :           JOURNAL ENTRY
          Plaintiff-appellant :                 AND
                              :               OPINION
       -vs-                   :
                              :
ANITA K. MCCORNELL            :
                              :
          Defendant-appellee  :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
    OF DECISION:                   FEBRUARY 8, 2001
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Criminal appeal from the
                                   Court of Common Pleas
                                   Case No. CR-387885
JUDGMENT:                          Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant:           WILLIAM D. MASON, ESQ.
                                   CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR
                                   BY: EDWARD O. FITZGERALD, ESQ.
                                   ASSISTANT COUNTY PROSECUTOR
                                   1200 Ontario Street
                                   Cleveland, Ohio  44113
For Defendant-Appellee:            WILLIAM T. MCGINTY, ESQ.
                                   614 W. Superior Avenue
                                   Suite 1300
                                   Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ANN DYKE, J.:
     The  State of  Ohio  brings  this appeal  pursuant  to  R.C.
2945.67(A)  and challenges  the order  of the  trial court  which
                               -2-
dismissed the indictment for escape issued against defendant Anita
McCornell. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
     On March  2, 2000, defendant was  indicted for one count  of
escape.  On May 26, 2000, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
indictment,  asserting  that the  escape  charge  was  issued  in
connection with defendant's violation for the terms of post-release
control and that R.C. 2967.28, the statute authorizing post-release
control, is unconstitutional.   Specifically, defendant  asserted
that R.C. 2967.28 violates the separation of powers doctrine  and
the  Due  Process   Clauses  of  the   United  States  and   Ohio
Constitutions.  On June 9, 2000, the trial court held a hearing on
the motion and determined that it was well-taken pursuant to State
v. Jones (Sept. 2, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 74247, unreported, and
Woods  v.  Telb  (June  23,  1999),  Lucas  App.  No.  L-99-1083,
unreported.  The state now appeals and assigns a single error for
our review.
     For its  assignment of error, the  State of Ohio notes  that
subsequent to  the  trial  court's decision,  the  Supreme  Court
reversed both State v. Jones, supra, and Woods v. Telb, supra, and
therefore rejected the contentions that R.C. 2967.28, the statute
authorizing post-release control, is unconstitutional.  The state's
assignment of error is meritorious.
     On August 3, 2000, the Supreme Court reversed both Woods  v.
Telb,  supra, and  State  v. Jones,  supra.   The  Supreme  Court
                               -3-
determined that R.C.  2967.28 does not violate the separation  of
powers doctrine or the Due Process Clauses of the United States or
Ohio Constitutions.  See Woods v. Telb (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 504,
and State v. Jones (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 519.  Additionally, this
Court has determined that the post-release control sanction is not
a criminal punishment and does not bar subsequent prosecution for
escape.   See State v.  Hite (Dec. 14,  2000), Cuyahoga App.  No.
77374.
     Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court which
dismissed the indictment issued herein and we remand this  matter
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
     Reversed and remanded.
                               -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.
TIMOTHY E. MCMONAGLE, P.J.,    AND
JAMES J. SWEENEY,  J.,      CONCUR
                                             ANN DYKE
                                               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).
 
 
 
.