COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70461 STATE OF OHIO : ACCELERATED DOCKET : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION JOHN T. BRAGG : : Defendant-appellant : PER CURIAM : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-237718 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: DIANE SMILANICK, ESQ. JOHN T. BRAGG, PRO SE Assistant County Prosecutor A215-337 8th Floor, Justice Center Lorain Correctional 1200 Ontario Street Institution Cleveland, OH 44113 2075 South Avon-Beldon Road Grafton, OH 44044 - 2 - PER CURIAM: This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App. R. 11.1 and Loc. R. 25, the records from the court of common pleas and the briefs. A jury found defendant John T. Bragg guilty of aggravated murder (with felony murder and prior calculation and design specifications), kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. We affirmed the conviction in State v. Bragg (July 15, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58859, unreported. Defendant, acting pro se, filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B) in which he claimed the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter because the indictment failed to specify the place of the offense. The trial court denied the motion without granting a hearing. Defendant's sole assignment of error complains the court should have granted the motion. "A judgment rendered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void ab initio." Patton v. Diemer (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 68, paragraph two of the syllabus. The authority to vacate a void judgment is derived from the court's inherent power, not under Civ.R. 60(B). Id. at 70; Ransome v. Lampman (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 8, 15. Ordinarily, defects in an indictment must be challenged prior to trial; however, jurisdictional defects "shall be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of the proceeding." See Crim.R. 12(B)(2). Venue is neither a jurisdictional matter nor an - 3 - essential element of the charged offense. State v. McCartney (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 170. Defendant's citation to State v. Luna (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 207 is not on point. Luna restates accepted law that the indictment must contain words which are sufficient to give the accused notice of all the elements of the offense charged. Id. at 210. Because venue is not an element of the offense, the indictment need only state in general terms that the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and that the offense was committed in the territory encompassed by the court. See R.C. 2901.12(A). Defendant concedes these requirements were met in this case. Although precise times and dates are not ordinarily essential elements of an offense, a defendant may seek this information by filing a motion for a bill of particulars. R.C. 2941.07; State v. Sellards (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 171. The bill of particulars does not serve as a substitute for discovery, but the state does have the obligation to supply specific times and dates of offenses where it possesses such information. Id. at syllabus. Defendant filed just such a motion for a bill of particulars. In response, the state claimed the offense occurred "on or about the 11th day of March, 1989, at approximately 5:00 a.m., in the vicinity of East 65 [sic] Street and Sidaway Avenue, in the City of Cleveland, Ohio ***." This information more than satisfied the - 4 - state's obligation to inform defendant of the time and place of the offense. The assigned 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 Court of Common Pleas 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, PRESIDING JUDGE ANN DYKE, JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON, JUDGE 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, .