COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70405 STATE OF OHIO : : ACCELERATED DOCKET : PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : STEVEN MUNICI : OPINION : : PER CURIAM DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: AUGUST 22, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-204111. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-appellee: Stephanie Tubbs Jones Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Diane Smilanick Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-appellant: Steven Munici, pro se #A192-667 Lorain Correctional Institution 2075 South Avon Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044 - 2 - PER CURIAM: An accelerated appeal is authorized pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.App.R. 25. The purpose of an accelerated docket is to allow an appellate court to render a brief and conclusionary decision. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158; App.R. 11.1(E). Defendant-appellant Steven Munici appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion for relief from judgment. The appellant was convicted of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01 and was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of fifteen years to life. The appellant's conviction was affirmed by this court in State v. Munici (Nov. 19, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 52579, unreported. On February 14, 1996, the appellant filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). The appellant is seeking redress for the court's denial of this relief. The appellant sets forth one assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, A DISCRETION THE COURT DID NOT HAVE, WHEN DENYING APPELLANT'S CIV.R. 60(B) MOTION WITHOUT HOLDING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, WHERE THE MOTION SET FORTH A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE WHERE THE COURT POSSESSED THE INHERENT POWER TO VACATE A VOID JUDGMENT WHEN THE INDICTMENT IS DEFECTIVE DEPRIVING THE TRIAL COURT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND POWER TO HEAR IN VIOLATION OF 10, ARTICLE I, OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. This court will assume, arguendo, that the appellant has used the correct method of placing his argument before this court and proceed to consider the merits of the appellant's argument. - 3 - The appellant argues that his conviction is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the indictment failed to allege that the charged offense was committed at some place within the jurisdiction of the court. The appellant's argument is not well taken. The indictment states that the murder of Nicole Murray was committed on October 26, 1985 "in the County of Cuyahoga." This designation of place in the indictment is within the jurisdiction of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The indictment was sufficient under R.C. 2941.03(D). This court must note, and other courts have consistently held, that a motion for relief from judgment may not be used as a substitute for an appeal. Blasco v. Mislik (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 684. Any defect in the indictment should have been raised by the appellant before the trial court. City of Maple Hts. v. Martin (August 20, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 60993, unreported. A failure to do so waives the issue on appeal. State v. Reyna (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 79. State v. Burkitt (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 214, 224. Here, the record does not demonstrate that the appellant raised the issue of an allegedly defective indictment before the trial court, nor does the record indicate that the appellant presented the issue on appeal. The appellant has waived his right to question the indictment and is foreclosed from raising this issue at such a late date by way of a motion for relief from judgment. - 4 - Finally, where the material submitted by the movant does not provide operative facts which demonstrate that relief is warranted, a trial court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing on a motion for relief from judgment. Gaines & Stern Co., L.P.A. v. Schwarzwald, Robiner, Wolf and Rock Co., L.P.A. (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 643. The appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 5 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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. JAMES D. SWEENEY, P.J. ANN DYKE, J. JOHN T. PATTON, J. N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, .