Court of Criminal Appeals Opinions

Format: 08/29/2016
Format: 08/29/2016
State vs. Robbie James
01C01-9609-CR-00388
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Davidson County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/14/97
Stat e vs. Michael Moore
02C01-9705-CR-00180
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman
Shelby County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/13/97
State vs. David Hassell
02C01-9611-CR-00396
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley
Shelby County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/13/97
State vs. Nassel Brown
02C01-9606-CR-00187
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman
Shelby County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/13/97
State vs. Clifton Epps
02C01-9601-CR-00022
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Shelby County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/13/97
State vs. Michael Walton
01C01-9509-CR-00290
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
Davidson County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/12/97
Terry Phelps vs. State
01C01-9610-CC-00451
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee
Lincoln County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/12/97
01C01-9510-CR-00347
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Jerry Scott
Court of Criminal Appeals 11/10/97
State vs. Orlando Hobson
01C01-9612-CC-00527
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Maury County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/10/97
Patrick v. Kelfalla,
01C01-9608-CR-00357
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
Davidson County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/10/97
State of Tennessee vs. Dorothy Sheldon - Dissenting
01C01-9604-CC-00151
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leonard W. Martin

The majority concludes that venue was proper in Dickson County. I respectfully disagree. In finding venue in Dickson County, the majority, relying upon Girdley v. State, 29 S.W.2d 255 (Tenn. 1930), employs an agency theory to establish the appellant's constructive presence in Dickson County. I am unable to agree with the majority's rational for two reasons. First, in Girdley, the defendant was charged with the offense of uttering or attempting to pass a forged check. Had the appellant in this case been charged with uttering or passing a forged writing, I would agree that venue would have been proper in Dickson County. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(1)(D). However, as reflected by the indictment, the State chose to indict the appellant in Dickson County for forgery. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(1)(A).

Dickson County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/06/97
State of Tennessee vs. Dorothy Sheldon
01C01-9604-CC-00151
Authoring Judge: Judge Paul G. Summers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leonard W. Martin

The appellant, Dorothy Sheldon, was convicted by a jury of forgery. She was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to four years incarceration. She appeals raising the following issues for our review: 1. Whether the evidence is sufficient to support her conviction; 2. Whether the evidence is sufficient to establish venue in Dickson County; and 3. Whether the manner of service of her sentence is proper. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence.

Dickson County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/06/97
State of Tennessee vs. Dorothy Sheldon - Concurring
01C01-9604-CC-00151
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leonard W. Martin

I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately however because I have reached the conclusion that venue is proper in this case through a somewhat different rationale than that expressed in the majority opinion.

Dickson County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/06/97