[Cite as State v. Brown-Bowman, 2017-Ohio-7974.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

 : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

DANIEL BROWN-BOWMAN : Case No. 2017CA00059 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 2016CR1378 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 29, 2017 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JOHN D. FERRERO STEVEN A. REISCH 

Prosecuting Attorney 201 Cleveland Avenue, SW 

By: KRISTINE W. BEARD Suite 104 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Canton, OH 44702 

110 Central Plaza South 

Suite 510 

Canton, OH 44702-1413 
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00059 2 

Wise, Earle, J. 

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Daniel Brown-Bowman, appeals his April 6, 2017 

conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio. Plaintiff-Appellee is the 

state of Ohio. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} On April 2, 2016, a confidential informant sent a text message to appellant 

to arrange a drug buy (methamphetamine). The informant was located at the Alliance 

Police Department in Stark County, Ohio when he sent the text. 

{¶ 3} Appellant responded to the text, and the informant met appellant at 

appellant's residence located within the bordering county of Mahoning County, Ohio and 

completed the drug purchase. Based upon what was observed during this sale, a 

search warrant was executed on appellant's residence. As a result, appellant was 

charged in Mahoning County with manufacturing methamphetamine and subsequently 

pled guilty to illegal possession/assembly of chemicals for manufacturing drugs. 

Appellant was sentenced to four years in prison. 

{¶ 4} On August 1, 2016, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted appellant on one 

count of trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03 stemming from the drug buy in 

Mahoning County. The subject drug buy was not included in the charges appellant 

faced in Mahoning County. On November 29, 2016, appellant filed a motion to dismiss 

the indictment based on improper venue because the drug buy occurred in Mahoning 

County. A hearing was held on December 28, 2016. By judgment entry filed March 21, 

2017, the trial court denied the motion, finding "an element of the offense of drug 
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00059 3 

trafficking, namely the offer to sell a controlled substance, occurred here in Stark 

County, Ohio." 

{¶ 5} On March 30, 2017, appellant pled no contest to the charge. By judgment 

entry filed April 6, 2017, the trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to 

eighteen months in prison, to be served concurrently with the Mahoning County 

sentence. 

{¶ 6} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignment of error is as follows: 

I 

{¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO 

DISMISS BASED UPON IMPROPER VENUE." 

I 

{¶ 8} In his sole assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in 

denying his motion to dismiss based upon improper venue. We disagree. 

{¶ 9} " 'Venue' commonly refers to the appropriate place of trial for a criminal 

prosecution (or dispute) as between different geographical subdivisions within a state, it 

being assumed that the court or courts involved have subject matter or territorial 

jurisdiction." State v. Shrum, 7 Ohio App.3d 244, fn. 2, 455 N.E.2d 531 (1st Dist.1982). 

"Venue is satisfied where there is a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the 

county of the trial." State v. Chintalapalli, 88 Ohio St.3d 43, 45, 723 N.E.2d 111 (2000), 

citing State v. Draggo, 65 Ohio St.2d 88, 92, 418 N.E.2d 1343 (1981). 

{¶ 10} R.C. 2901.12 governs venue. Subsection (A) states: "The trial of a 

criminal case in this state shall be held in a court having jurisdiction of the subject 
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00059 4 

matter, and * * * in the territory of which the offense or any element of the offense was 

committed." Subsection (H)(3) states the following: 

(H) When an offender, as part of a course of criminal conduct, 

commits offenses in different jurisdictions, the offender may be tried for all 

of those offenses in any jurisdiction in which one of those offenses or any 

element of one of those offenses occurred. Without limitation on the 

evidence that may be used to establish the course of criminal conduct, 

any of the following is prima-facie evidence of a course of criminal 

conduct: 

(3) The offenses were committed as part of the same transaction or 

chain of events, or in furtherance of the same purpose or objective. 

{¶ 11} Appellant argues venue in this case was improper because the only 

connection between appellant and Stark County is the text sent from the informant from 

the Alliance Police Department located in Stark County arranging the drug buy which 

occurred in Mahoning County. 

{¶ 12} In State v. Tucker, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 98CA25, 1999 WL 333120 (April 

27, 1999), this court reviewed a similar challenge to venue. As explained by the court at 

*3: 

 For purposes of R.C. 2925.03(A), the phrase, "offer to sell a 

controlled substance", means to declare one's readiness or willingness to 
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00059 5 

sell a controlled substance or to present a controlled substance for 

acceptance or rejection. State v. Henton (July 14, 1997), Ashtabula App. 

No. 96-A-0015, unreported (Citation omitted). The issue of whether a 

defendant has knowingly made an offer to sell a controlled substance in 

any given case must be determined by an examination of the totality of the 

circumstances, including "the dialogue and course of conduct of the 

accused". State v. Patterson (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 445, 447, 432 N.E.2d 

802. 

{¶ 13} In Tucker, the informant sent a page to the defendant from Fairfield 

County, Ohio and the drug buy occurred in Franklin County, Ohio. The court concluded, 

"appellant's answering the page constitutes an offer to sell." The defendant returning 

the page to a telephone number in Fairfield County "is tantamount to an offer to sell in 

Fairfield County." 

{¶ 14} In the case sub judice, the informant sent a text from the Alliance Police 

Department in Stark County to appellant to set up a drug buy, requesting "the usual," 

meaning a "$20 bindle of methamphetamine." T. at 8-10. While still at the Alliance 

Police Department, the informant received a response from appellant, texting back, " 'U 

know where I'm at.' You can come through, 'just let me know when you're close.' " T. at 

10. Alliance Police Detective Bob Rajcan was standing right next to the informant when 

he was texting and receiving appellant's responses. T. at 19. The responses were 

coming from a telephone number belonging to appellant. T. at 21. The informant 
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00059 6 

traveled to appellant's residence to complete the drug buy. Appellant's residence was 

located just within the bordering county of Mahoning County. T. at 12-13. 

{¶ 15} We find sufficient evidence that appellant knowingly made an offer to sell 

a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in Stark County constituting a significant 

nexus between appellant and Stark County. Therefore, venue was proper in Stark 

County. 

{¶ 16} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in denying the motion to 

dismiss. 

{¶ 17} The sole assignment of error is denied. 

{¶ 18} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio is 

hereby affirmed. 

By Wise, Earle, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Baldwin, J. concur. 

 

 

EEW/sg 9202