COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 79067
STATE OF OHIO                 :         ACCELERATED CASE
                              :
          Plaintiff-appellant :
                              :          JOURNAL ENTRY
     vs.                      :               and
                              :             OPINION
JERRY C. GARCIA               :
                              :
          Defendant-appellee  :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    JUNE 28, 2001
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING       :    Criminal appeal from
                              :    Court of Common Pleas,
                              :    Cuyahoga County
                              :    Case No. CR-48,840
JUDGMENT                      :    REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellant:      WILLIAM D. MASON
                              Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              LISA REITZ WILLIAMSON, Assistant
                              Justice Center, Courts Tower
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44113
For defendant-appellee:       JAMES A. DRAPER
                              Cuyahoga County Public Defender
                              DARIN THOMPSON, Assistant
                              1200 West Third Street, N.W.
                              100 Lakeside Place
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44ll3-1569
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.
     The State of Ohio appeals from the trial court's order  that
granted an application for expungement of a conviction for  grand
theft that had been filed by defendant-appellee Jerry C.  Garcia.
The state contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the
order on the  basis that appellee was  not a "first offender"  as
required by R.C. 2953.32(A)(1).
     Since  the record  reflects  appellee  previously  also  was
convicted  of driving  under  suspension, since  R.C.  2953.31(A)
specifically includes such  a conviction as  one that "shall"  be
considered an additional conviction, and since appellee  concedes
the state's assignment of error has merit, the state's assignment
of error is sustained. State v. Thomas (1979), 64 Ohio App.2d 141;
State v. May (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 664; State v. Meador (May 27,
1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 75389, unreported; State v. Brown  (July
15, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 75458, unreported.
     The trial court's order, therefore, is reversed.  This case is
remanded to the trial court with instructions to vacate the order
of expungement and any additional order sealing appellee's record
of conviction.  The trial court further is directed to notify all
appropriate state agencies of this court's decision.
                               -3-
     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 the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas 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.
DIANE KARPINSKI, A.J.  and
JAMES J. SWEENEY,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).
 
.