COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

01C01-9612-CC-00517
01C01-9612-CC-00517

01C01-9612-CC-00519
01C01-9612-CC-00519

Gary Mayes vs. State
01C01-9704-CR-00137
Trial Court Judge: Thomas T. Woodall

State vs. Nassel Brown
02C01-9606-CR-00187
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman

State vs. Clifton Epps
02C01-9601-CR-00022

Stat e vs. Michael Moore
02C01-9705-CR-00180
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman

State vs. David Hassell
02C01-9611-CR-00396
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Michael Walton
01C01-9509-CR-00290
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

Terry Phelps vs. State
01C01-9610-CC-00451
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee

01C01-9510-CR-00347
01C01-9510-CR-00347
Trial Court Judge: Jerry Scott

Patrick v. Kelfalla,
01C01-9608-CR-00357
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

State vs. Orlando Hobson
01C01-9612-CC-00527
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton

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.

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.

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).

State of Tennessee vs. Andrew R. Ewing
02C01-9604-CR-00119
Authoring Judge: Judge Paul G. Summers
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Fred Axley

The appellant, Andrew R. Ewing, and his co-defendant, Derrick C. Brooks, were tried jointly by a jury for first degree murder. Ewing and Brooks were found guilty of felony murder for committing a murder during the perpetration of an aggravated burglary. Both men were sentenced to life in prison. Because Derrick C. Brooks’ appeal has been severed from Andrew R. Ewing’s appeal, we will address only the issues presented by Andrew Ewing in this opinion.

State of Tennessee vs. Woody Dozier
02C01-9610-CC-00357
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford

The appellant, Woody J. Dozier, appeals his jury convictions for the crimes of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape. Following these convictions, the Circuit Court of Dyer County sentenced the appellant to concurrent sentences of eight years for the aggravated kidnapping conviction and fifteen years for the aggravated rape conviction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues:

I. Whether the Chancellor, sitting by interchange, had jurisdiction to try the case;
II. Whether the appellant is entitled to a new trial because ofalleged juror misconduct; and
III. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his convictions foraggravated rape and aggravated kidnapping.

After reviewing the record before us, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. Steven E. Baker
01C01-9608-CR-00349
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

The defendant, Steven Eugene Baker, pled guilty to one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and two counts of sexual battery. The trial court imposed concurrent, Range I sentences of nine years and one year, respectively. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the length of the sentence and the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing.

Gates vs. State
03C01-9510-CC-00313
Trial Court Judge: Mayo L. Mashburn

03C01-9405-CR-00161
03C01-9405-CR-00161
Trial Court Judge: R. Steven Bebb

State vs. Ball
03C01-9512-CC-00387
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle

McBee/Dunlap vs. State
03C01-9509-CR-00276

State vs. Harris
03C01-9611-CR-00428

03C01-9612-CR-00453
03C01-9612-CR-00453

Miller vs. State
03C01-9608-CC-00323
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.