In 2004, Williе Brown was convicted in Toombs County of two counts of selling cocaine to an informant, with one sale occurring on November 14, 2002, and the other occurring on Dеcember 5, 2002. The Court of Appeals affirmed Brown’s convictions, for which he had obtained new counsel. See
Brown v. State,
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate сounsel, a habeas petitioner must show that his appellate counsel was deficient in failing to raise an issue on appeal and that, if counsel had raised that issue, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the appeal would have been different. See
Brown v. Baskin,
The Georgia Constitution requires that “all criminal cases shall be tried in the county where the crime was committed.. . .” Ga. Const, of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VI. We have therefore held that “venue is a jurisdictional element of every crime” that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Dixon,
In this case, the evidence presented at trial showеd that Brown made both drug sales to an informant cooperating with a multijurisdictional drug task force. The informant testified that the November 14 sale occurred at somе point while he and Brown were driving from Brown’s residence to a store, both of which are located in Vidalia, Georgia. The December 5 sale occurred whilе they were driving from another store in Vidalia to Brown’s residence. Testimony from drug task force agents working with the informant established that they constantly surveilled the informant while he was driving with Brown, but that they did not witness the drug sales. Like the informant, the agents identified various stores and locations as being in Vidalia, but no witness testified that the entire driving route (or any location except Brown’s residence) was in Toombs County.
The habeas court properly took judicial notice that Vidalia is
*856
located in two differеnt counties, Toombs and Montgomery. See
Collins v. State,
Relying exclusively on OCGA § 17-2-2 (e), the warden nevertheless argues that venue was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Subsection (e) provides that
[i]f a crime is committed upon any railroad car, vehicle, waterсraft, or aircraft traveling within this state and it cannot readily be determined in which county the crime was committed, the crime shall be considered as having been cоmmitted in any county in which the crime could have been committed through which the railroad car, vehicle, watercraft, or aircraft has traveled.
The trial court did not specifically charge the jury on venue, much less that the jury could find venue based on OCGA § 17-2-2 (e), and the warden did not argue the statute before the habeas court. This argument therefore was not properly raised at trial or preserved below.
Moreover, even assuming that it is appropriate for us to review subsection (e)’s application to this case, it would be of no help to the warden. OCGA § 17-2-2 (e) applies only when “it cannot readily be determined in which county the crimе was committed.” Here, because the informant would have known the general locations where the two sales occurred and because the agents knew the exact route that the informant and Brown traveled, the State could have readily determined whether the drug sales occurred in Toombs County and offered evidence to the jury on that essential point. See
Rogers v. State,
The only other potential venue evidence in the record relates to the agents who followed the informant and Brown during the drives on which the drugs were sold. However, there was no evidence that the agents, who were part of a multi-jurisdictional tаsk force, were limited to acting within Toombs County. Thus, we cannot apply the rationale of
Chapman v. State,
Having reviewed the trial trаnscript in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we conclude that the State failed to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt. See
Jones v. State,
We understand thаt all the participants in Brown’s trial — the members of the jury, the judge, the prosecutor, defense counsel, and Brown himself — may have known from their daily lives in and around Toombs County that the entire route driven by Brown and the informant was in the part of Vidalia that lies in that county, making venue over the drug sales seem obvious to them. Nevertheless, thаt fact is not established by the trial record, and defendants may not be convicted of crimes based on extra-judicial knowledge rather than evidence of such essential facts admitted at trial. We have noted before that, “[i]n light of the ease with which venue [generally] can be proved, it is difficult to understand why the appellate courts are repeatedly faced with this issue.”
Chapman,
One way to encourage prosecutors to make sure they have prоven venue and to alert the juries to their role in determining venue is to instruct juries that they must find venue beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this Court *858 strongly urges trial courts to begin giving an appropriate charge on venue tailored to the facts of the case.
Lynn v. State,
Judgment affirmed.