COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 81032
STATE OF OHIO                 :        ACCELERATED DOCKET
                              :
          Plaintiff-appellee  :
                              :          JOURNAL ENTRY
     vs.                      :               and
                              :             OPINION
TONY McCALL                   :
                              :
          Defendant-appellant :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    AUGUST 8, 2002
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING       :    Civil appeal from Cuyahoga
                              :    County Court of Common Pleas,
                              :    Case No. CR-166002, CR-166093
JUDGMENT                      :    AFFIRMED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellee:       WILLIAM D. MASON
                              Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              DIANE SMILANICK, Assistant
                              Justice Center, Courts Tower
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44113
For defendant-appellant:      TONY McCALL, pro se
                              Inmate No. 167-246
                              Ross Correctional Institution
                              P.O. Box 7010
                              Chillicothe, OH 45601-7010
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.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.
     Appellant Tony McCall plead guilty to two charges of voluntary
manslaughter in March 1982, and was sentenced to consecutive terms
of five  to  twenty-five years'  and  six to  twenty-five  years'
imprisonment.  He did not appeal these convictions.  However,  in
January 2002, McCall filed petitions for post-conviction relief in
each case, urging the court to modify his sentences so that  they
would be  served concurrently. The  state moved  to dismiss  both
petitions as untimely.  The court denied the petitions in  orders
entered March 4, 2002.
     McCall argues that the court erred by overruling his  motion
for post  conviction relief because  the 1995  amendment to  R.C.
2953.21 is an ex post facto law which violates the Ohio and United
States constitutions. We rejected this argument in State v. Sharif
(Sep. 27, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79325.
     Under the savings provision of Senate Bill 4, McCall had one
year  from the  amended  statute's  effective date  to  file  his
petition.  McCall did not timely file a petition within one  year
after the effective date of Senate Bill 4, nor did he demonstrate
that he met the criteria for filing a delayed petition under R.C.
2953.23(A).  McCall's petition was untimely, so the court  lacked
jurisdiction to consider it.  State v. Haliwell (1999), 134  Ohio
                               -3-
App.3d 730, 734. Accordingly, we overrule the assignment of error
and affirm the common pleas court's decision.
                               -4-
     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 common  pleas 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.
                                        PRESIDING JUDGE
                                        KENNETH A. ROCCO
JAMES D. SWEENEY, J.       and
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J. CONCUR
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).
 
.