APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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).

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.

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.

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.