{¶ 1} Appellant, John Reed, Jr., appeals the decision of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, which found him guilty of importuning. This Court affirms.
{¶ 3} On February 3, 2006, an internet user with the moniker "ReedJE1978" sent an invitation initiating an instant message conversation to "Jamie." Detective Foraker had a conversation with "ReedJE1978" posing as "Jamie." During the course of the conversation, "ReedJE1978" asked for a photo of "Jamie," and Detective Foraker emailed him a photo of Deputy Hawkins when she was around fourteen and a half years old. "ReedJE1978" stated that he was nineteen years old, and Detective Foraker replied that "Jamie" was fifteen years old. "ReedJE1978" implied that he wanted to have sex with "Jamie," and plans were made for the two to meet at Dunkin Donuts on Route 18 in Medina. "ReedJE1978" did not show up for the meeting on February 3, 2006, but he did continue to contact "Jamie" by phone through a number that the Sheriffs Office uses for the internet and also through the internet. Several meetings were arranged, but "ReedJE1978" failed to show up to meet Jamie. Once Detective Foraker received information from America Online regarding the name and address for the screen name "ReedJE1978," he and Deputy Samo Mernik went to Reed's home.
{¶ 4} Reed spoke with Deputies Foraker and Mernik in his backyard. Deputy Foraker explained to Reed how the Sheriffs Office investigates internet offenses against children. Reed admitted that he was the person making the phone *3 calls and sending internet messages to "Jamie." At that time, Reed also gave a tape-recorded statement.
{¶ 5} Reed was indicted by the Medina County Grand Jury on one count of importuning, a violation of R.C.
{¶ 6} On October 19, 2006, the court filed an entry stating that Reed had failed to file affidavits supporting his allegations of impropriety in the selection of the grand jury and that it would hold a non-evidentiary hearing on Reed's motion to dismiss. On November 9, 2006, a short, non-evidentiary hearing was held on Reed's motion to dismiss on the basis that the grand jury was improperly drawn. The Court stated on the record at the hearing that Reed's motion to dismiss was denied. However, the trial court failed to file a journal entry regarding its denial of Reed's motion to dismiss.
{¶ 7} A two-day jury trial commenced on January 3, 2007, at the conclusion of which the jury found Reed guilty as charged in the indictment. The *4 trial court sentenced Reed to a term of imprisonment of six months. Reed timely appealed his conviction, setting forth three assignments of error for review. Some of the assignments of error have been combined to facilitate this Court's review.
"THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY FAILING TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT IN THIS CASE FOR WHOLESALE VIOLATION OF THE OHIO JURY CODE, [R.C.] 2313.01 THROUGH 2313.47 AND [R.C.] 2939.02 ET SEQ."
"THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY FAILING TO DISMISS THE PETIT JURY CALLED TO TRY [REED] IN THIS CASE FOR WHOLESALE VIOLATION OF THE OHIO JURY CODE, [R.C.] 2313.01 THROUGH 2313.47 AND [R.C.] 2939.02 ET SEQ."
{¶ 8} In his first and second assignments of error, Reed argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying his motions to dismiss the indictment for wholesale violation of the jury code and for failing to dismiss the petit jury for wholesale violation of the jury code. This Court disagrees.
{¶ 9} This exact issue has been before this Court previously inState v. Dunning, 9th Dist. No. 06CA0087-M,
{¶ 10} "R.C.
{¶ 11} Accordingly, Reed's first and second assignments of error are overruled.
"[REED'S] IMPORTUNING CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, WHERE VENUE WAS NOT PROPER IN MEDINA COUNTY."
{¶ 12} In his third assignment of error, Reed contends that his conviction of importuning was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The sole reason upon which Reed bases his challenge is that venue was not proper in Medina County. This Court disagrees.
{¶ 13} Although Reed frames his argument as a manifest weight challenge, he is actually arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that venue was proper in Medina County. For the reasons set forth *6 below, this Court finds that Reed failed to preserve this argument and has waived it for purposes of appeal.
{¶ 14} Prior to trial, a defendant may raise by motion "any defense, objection, evidentiary issue, or request that is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue." Crim.R. 12(C). However, because venue is a fact that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the State, a pretrial motion challenging venue is not appropriate. A defendant may only challenge venue prior to trial if it equates to an actual defect in the indictment, for example, if the indictment fails to allege venue. See Crim.R. 12(C)(2). There is no evidence in the case at bar indicating that the indictment was defective.
{¶ 15} In such a case, a defendant may only raise the issue of improper venue at trial via a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, and may later appeal that decision, like any jury determination of fact, based on either the sufficiency of the evidence or manifest weight. SeeState v. Lloyd, 9th Dist. No. 21098,
{¶ 16} Reed's third assignment of error is therefore, overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
*8Costs taxed to appellant.
*1WHITMORE, J., MOORE, J., CONCUR.