### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 249 -CR

Ant honyM ar k Sc he m m , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR-04 -81 1 , HO NORAB LE RONALD G. CARR , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O P I N I O N A jury convicted a

ppellant Anthony

Mark Sche mm of attempted sexual performa nce by a child, assessed punishment at te n y ear s’ imprisonment, a nd rec ommended that he be place d on community

supervision. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 15.01 (West 2003), § 43.25 (West Supp. 2006). The district court rende red judg ment acc ording ly . I n his only point of err or, appe llant
c on te nd s th a t th e State fa ile d to pr ov e that ve nu e in Ha y s County wa s p ro pe r. We w ill ov e rr ule thi s contention and a ffirm the judg ment of convic tion.

The re levant fa cts are undisputed. Appellant, using the computer in his W illiamson County residenc e, eng ag ed in a series of sex ually expli cit internet c hat room conve rsations with an
un de rc ov e r inv e sti g a tor po sin g a s a thir te e n- y e ar- old g ir l nam e d “Jes sie .” Th e inv e sti g a tor and his
c omp ute r w e re loc a te d in Tr a vis County
. Ev e ntu a lly , “ Jess ie ” a g re e d to e ng a g e in s e xua l in te rc ours e2

with appellant, and the y

arr ang ed to meet in a r estaura nt parking lot in Hay s County
. Appellant wa s
arr e ste d at th a t lo c a tio n w he n h e arr ive d at the a g re e d time dr ivi ng the ve hic le he ha d d e sc ri be d to “Jessie.” Off

icer s found a dig ital camer a and c ondoms in appellant’s vehic le. Ap pe l l an td o e s n o tqu e s t i o nt h e S t a t e ’ s p r o o f t h a th e a t t e mp t e d

t o i n d u c e a c h i ld y oung e r t ha n e ig hte e n y e ars of a g e to en g a g e in s e xua l c on du c t. R a the r, he c on te nd s th a t th e State failed to prove that the offe nse wa s committed in Hay s Count y as alleg ed. Appe llant raised the venue issue in a

n unsucce ssful motion for directe d verdic t at the close of the State’s evide nce. Appellant has f

ram ed h i s point of error as a c halleng e to the suff iciency of the
e vid e nc e to susta in t

he c on vic tio n. Ho we ve r, ve nu e is n ot a c on sti tue nt e le me nt o f t

he of fe ns e char g ed, and the failure to prove ve nue does not n ega t e the g uilt of the acc used. Sta te
v . B lan k e ns hip , 170 S.W .3d 676, 6 8 1 (T ex . Ap p .—Austin 2005, pet. ref ’d). Ve nue nee d only

be proved by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Te x . Code Crim. Proc. Ann. ar t. 13.17 (West 2005). Re ve rs ibl e e rr or

may re su lt f ro m the fa ilure to p ro ve ve nu e a s se t f or th i n th e c ha

rg ingins tr

ume nt. Blan k e ns hip , 170 S.W .3d at 681. When, a s here , there is not a specia l venue statute a pplicable to the c harg ed off ense, the prope r venue for the prosec ution is the county in w hich the offe nse was c ommitt ed. Te x . Code Crim. Proc . Ann. ar

t. 13.18 (West 2005). Appellant ar g ues that the attempted inducement took plac e durin g t h e o n l ine conve rsations that occ urre d while appe llant was in Wil liamson County and the
un de rc ov e r o ff

ic e r w a s in

Tr a vis County . App e lla

nt u rg e s that “ no thi ngha

pp e ne d in Ha y s Co un ty other than the fact that [he] drove there and was arre sted there .” He asserts t hat t he ac t of driving to H ay s Co un ty

wa s me re pr e pa

ratio n a nd did no t c on sti tut e a

c ri min a l a c t.3 The State a

rg ues that appe llant’s contention i s an s wered by article 13.19, which provides t h at when it ca

nnot be deter

mined within which county the offe nse wa s committed, the defe ndant may

be tried in the c ounty

in which he resides, the county in which he wa s appre hended, or the c ounty

to which he wa s ext radited. Id . art. 13.19. We believe , ho we v er , t h at article 13.19 do e s n ot a pp ly in t his c a se be c a

us e the c ounty

—o r in thi s c a se , the c ounti e s— in w hic h th e of fe ns e
w a s c o m m i t t e d

c anb e d e t e r

m i n e d
. U n d e r

t h e f a c t s s h o w n , t h e t r i a l w a s p r o p e r l y h e l d i nH ays County pursuant to ar

ticle 13.18. Th e c on du c t f

or wh ic h a pp e lla nt w a s p ro se c ute d c an b e div ide d in to t wo pa rt s. F ir st, appellant c ommunicated over the interne t with the underc over of fice r posing as “Jessie.” Dur ing these c onversa

tions, ap p el l an tex p re s s edh i s d es i re t o en gage i ns ex u al i n t er co u rs e w i t h “J es s i e, ” w ho he believe d was a

thirteen-y ear -old g irl. The second part was appe llant’s driving to the ag ree d-upon
me e tin g pla c e . T his c on du c t w a s c or ro bo rativ e a c tio n th a t c on fi rm e d his c ri min a l de sig n a nd wa s,
un d er t h e c i rc u m s t an ce s , a p ar to f ap p el l an t ’s at t em p t edi n d u ce m en to f “ J es s i e. ” U n d er ar t i cl e 13.18, when c onduct constituting a single offe nse i s committed in more than one county , venue is prope r in any of those counties. State v. W eave r , 9 82 S.W. 2d

892, 89 3 (Tex . Crim . App . 1 99 8) ; W ood

v . S tat e , 573 S.W .2d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). In the cause befor e us, part of a ppellant’s
c o n d u c tc o n s t i tu t i n g t h e o f

f e n s e o f a t t e mp t e d

s e x u a l p e r f

o r m an c e o f a c h i l d o c c u r

r e d i nH ays County . T he re fo re , H ay s Co un ty wa s a pr op e r v e nu e fo r a

pp e lla nt’ s tr ia l. Ap pe lla nt a rgue s th a t th e a c t of

dr ivi ng to Ha

y s Co un ty wa s me re pr e pa

ratio n a nd did not amount to a criminal ac t beca use he still had the oppor

tunity to abandon the pla

n. This argument
wo uld be e qu a lly

a pp li cabl e to his in te rn e t c on ve rs a tio ns wi th “ Jess ie ,” and it w ou ld b e e qu a lly4

mista k en . By

definition, an attempt involves conduc t that falls short of ac hieving the intended criminal objective, and there fore abandonme nt of the objective is alwa y s possible. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. § 15.04 (West 2003) (r enunciation defense ). B y arr ang ing to mee t “J essie” f or the purpose of

sexual int erc ourse a

nd then driving to the meeting place at the appointed time, appe llant took ever y possible step he could have take n under the circ umsta n ce s to commit t he off ense of sexual performa

nce by a child. Se e Sm ith v . S

tat e , Nos. 03-05-00399- CR & 03-05-00400- CR, 2006 Tex. App. L E XIS 2062, at *15-17 ( Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 16, 2006, pet. re f’d) (not desig nated for publication) (af

firming conviction for attempted sexual performa nce by a child). A

ppellant’s
a sse rt ion tha t th e a c t of

dr ivi ngto Hay s Coun ty did no t c on sti tut e a

pa rt of the a lle g e d o ff

e ns e is w ith ou t me ri t.

The point of er

ror is over

ruled a nd the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: June 19, 2007 Pub lis h