COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 78544
STATE OF OHIO                 :
                              :       ACCELERATED DOCKET
          Plaintiff-appellee  :
                              :         JOURNAL ENTRY
     vs.                      :               and
                              :             OPINION
JESSE V. WILLIAMS, SR.        :
                              :
          Defendant-appellant :
                              :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    APRIL 12, 2001
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING       :    Criminal appeal from
                              :    Court of Common Pleas
                              :    Case No. CR-390,623
JUDGMENT                      :    AFFIRMED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellee        WILLIAM D. MASON
                              Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              CATHLEEN J. CHANEY, Assistant
                              Justice Center, Courts Tower
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44113
For defendant-appellant:      WESLEY ALTON JOHNSTON
                              Attorney at Law
                              One Park Centre, #107
                              Wadsworth, Ohio  44281
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:
     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
                               -2-
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.
     Defendant-appellant Jesse Williams, Sr. appeals from the sen-
tence imposed upon him following the trial court's acceptance  of
appellant's plea of guilty  to possession of crack cocaine in  an
amount of one gram or less.
     In his assignment of error, appellant asserts the trial court
failed to make the requisite findings prior to imposing the maximum
term of incarceration for the offense.
     Appellant's assignment of error is overruled on the basis of
the supreme  court's reasoning as  expressed in  State v.  Arnett
(2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 208 at 214-215, and this court's decisions as
set forth in State v. Trembly (2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 134; State v.
Ayala  (Dec.  16, 1999),  Cuyahoga  App.  No.  75207,  unreported
(discretionary appeal not allowed [2000], 88 Ohio St.3d 1480); and
State v. Cruz (Jan. 27, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 75723, unreported.
     In State v. Arnett, supra,  even though the use of the  word
 unless in the sentencing portion of the rape statute pursuant to
which the defendant was convicted indicated the trial court  need
nothave considered the seriousness and recidivism factors prior to
imposing sentence, the trial court's comments displayed both  its
proper consideration  of a relevant   societal interest  and  its
 discretionary  decision   to  assign a  heavier weight  to  that
interest.
                               -3-
     Similarly,  drug offenses  are  treated differently  in  the
sentencing statutes, and  the trial court  has the discretion  to
consider both the weight to be given to each sentencing factor and
the existence of  other "factors that  are relevant to  achieving
[the] purposes and  principles of sentencing.   R.C.  2929.12(A);
State v. Trembly, supra.
     In this case, in view of appellant's lengthy criminal record
and failure to obtain  treatment for his drug problem, the  trial
court acted  within its discretion  in imposing  sentence.   R.C.
2929.12(D)(3), (4); R.C. 2929.13(C).
     Since the record  affirmatively supports  the trial  court's
decision to  impose  the maximum  term for  appellant's  offense,
appellant's assignment of error is overruled.  R.C. 2953.08(G)(1);
State v. Trembly, supra.
     Appellant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.
     It is ordered  that appellee recover of appellant its  costs
herein taxed.
     The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
     It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court
directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this
judgment into execution.  The defendant's conviction having  been
affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated.  Case remanded to
the trial court for execution of sentence.
     A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the  mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                               -4-
TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE,, P.J.  and
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J. CONCUR
                                             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).
 
.