[Cite as State v. Oten,
2024-Ohio-3004.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 112467
v. :
ANTONIO Z. OTEN, JR., :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 8, 2024
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-20-650975-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Kerry Sowul, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Erin R. Flanagan, for appellant.
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, J.:
Appellant Antonio Z. Oten, Jr. (“appellant”) challenges his conviction in
the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. After a thorough review of the
applicable law and facts, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. Factual and Procedural History
Appellant was charged with nine counts, including rape, gross sexual
imposition, abduction, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, disseminating matter
harmful to juveniles, and aggravating menacing. The charges related to appellant’s
inappropriate relationship and sexual conduct with a 12-year-old girl.
Appellant pled guilty to two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a
minor and one count of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles. The trial court
sentenced appellant to 24 months in prison and labeled him a Tier II sex offender.
Appellant then filed the instant appeal, raising one assignment of error
for our review:
The lower court’s findings of guilt were not supported by sufficient
evidence in violation of appellant’s rights under the Due Process
Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Section 10 of Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
II. Law and Analysis
In his sole assignment of error, appellant asserts that the record does
not contain sufficient evidence of venue in this matter.
As an initial matter, it appears that appellant is raising this argument
for the first time on appeal. He did not assert any issue with venue in the trial court
prior to his guilty plea or even seek to withdraw his plea on that basis. Accordingly,
this argument has been waived for purposes of appeal. However, even considering
his assertions, we find no merit to his argument.
The indictment in this matter contained nine charges. Only Count 1,
the rape charge, contained any reference to venue, stating that the offense had
occurred in Cuyahoga County. Appellant correctly notes that there is no mention in
Counts 4, 6, or 8 — the charges to which he pled — as to any location where the
offenses occurred. Appellant further asserts that there were no factual statements
made at the plea hearing that would provide support for venue.
This court has addressed this issue in State v. Smith, 2015-Ohio-2266,
¶ 16 (8th Dist.):
Although venue is not a material element of any offense, “venue is a fact
that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt unless it is waived by
the defendant.” State v. Jackson, 2014-Ohio-3707, ¶ 143. A guilty plea
is not only an admission of the essential elements of the offense, it is
also an admission of the facts alleged in an indictment, including
venue. Crim.R. 11(B); State v. Pruitt, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 86707
and 86986, 2006-Ohio-4106, ¶ 12; State v. McCartney,
55 Ohio
App.3d 170,
563 N.E.2d 350 (9th Dist.1988).
We note that appellant is not arguing that the offenses did not take
place in Cuyahoga County; he is simply asserting that the State did not present
sufficient evidence related to venue to support his conviction. We are not persuaded
by appellant’s argument. In the instant case, the bill of particulars specified that
each offense, including Counts 4, 6, and 8, to which appellant pleaded guilty, was
committed in Euclid, Ohio. The trial court was permitted to take judicial notice that
the City of Euclid is located within Cuyahoga County. See Linndale v. Krill, 2003-
Ohio-1535, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), citing Middleburg Hts. v. Milner, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS
3037 (8th Dist. July 6, 2000), citing State v. Collins,
60 Ohio App.2d 116, 125 (3d
Dist. 1977).
Regardless, “‘[b]y entering a guilty plea, a defendant waives his right
to present manifest-weight-of-the-evidence or sufficiency-of-the-evidence attacks
against his convictions.’” State v. Shabazz, 2020-Ohio-799, ¶ 9-10 (8th Dist.),
quoting State v. Barrett,
2011-Ohio-2303 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Griggs, 2004-
Ohio-4415; State v. Rice,
2018-Ohio-5356, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.). Crim.R. 11(B)(1) provides
that “a plea of guilty is a complete admission of the defendant’s guilt.” Upon
pleading guilty, appellant relinquished his right to have the State prove his guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Id., citing State v. Patton,
2017-Ohio-1197, ¶ 16 (2d
Dist.).
Moreover, a challenge to venue must be raised before trial begins or it
is considered waived. State v. Chuparkoff, 2019-Ohio-2827, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.). “‘[A]
guilty plea precludes a defendant from challenging the factual issue of venue on
appeal.’” (Citations omitted.)
Id., quoting State v. Fort,
2002-Ohio-5068, ¶ 45 (8th
Dist.). See also State v. Johnson,
2011-Ohio-4954 (8th Dist.) (summarily overruling
assigned error regarding venue because appellant’s guilty plea precluded him from
challenging the factual issue of venue).
Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
Appellant’s plea of guilty constituted a waiver of the factual issue of
venue. His assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant 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. 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.
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, JUDGE
LISA B. FORBES, P.J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR
