COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Clements, Haley and Senior Judge Overton 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

JULIETTE MARIA DIXON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY 

v. Record No. 2153-04-2 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 MAY 2, 2006 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Robert W. Duling, Judge Designate 

 Mark S. Gardner (Gardner, Maupin, Sutton & Haney, P.C., on brief), 

for appellant. 

 Donald E. Jeffrey III, Assistant Attorney General (Judith Williams 

Jagdmann, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 A jury convicted Juliette Maria Dixon, appellant, of second-degree murder and stabbing 

another in the commission of a felony. On appeal, appellant contends the evidence did not prove 

the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to try appellant for the offenses. Specifically, appellant 

argues the evidence did not establish the crimes occurred within Virginia. We find no merit to 

appellant’s contention and affirm her convictions. 

FACTS

 “On appeal, ‘we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.’” Archer v. Commonwealth, 

26 Va. App. 1, 11, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (1997) (citation omitted). 

 During the early morning hours of July 16, 2001, Officer Thomas Obenrader of the 

Richmond police responded to the scene of a reported stabbing at 4226 Chamberlayne Avenue, a 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
 -2-

rooming house where appellant lived across the hall from Ebony Coleman. Obenrader found 

appellant inside the residence and asked her what had happened. Appellant said she had 

“stabbed the bitch.” Obenrader asked appellant where the knife was located. Appellant replied, 

“It’s probably still sticking in her.” Obenrader immediately took appellant into custody. 

The police found Coleman in the upstairs hallway of the rooming house. Coleman had sustained 

a single fatal stab wound to the chest. 

At trial, the Commonwealth introduced Exhibits 15 and 16, diagrams of the two floors of 

the residence at 4226 Chamberlayne Avenue. Within the title of both diagrams was “4226 

Chamberlayne Ave., Richmond VA.” The Commonwealth also introduced an arrest warrant that 

had been issued against Coleman. Beneath Coleman’s name on the warrant was an address on 

Old Denny Street in “Richmond, VA,” as well as the street address “4226 Chamberlayne #1C.” 

 The police seized numerous items of evidence from the crime scene. The evidence was 

analyzed by scientists at the Division of Forensic Science of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

The resulting certificates of analysis were sent to Officer Scott Leonard, a forensic detective 

employed by the Richmond Police Department at an address in Richmond, Virginia. The 

evidence established that police officers of the City of Richmond and an assistant Richmond 

Commonwealth’s attorney were involved in the investigation of the case and the circumstances 

leading to the incident. 

On the night of the killing, Tyrone Williams, a resident of the rooming house, placed two 

911 calls to the police regarding Coleman’s behavior toward appellant. The transcripts of the 

two 911 calls indicate the calls were received by an emergency communications center in 

Richmond, Virginia. 
 -3-

DISCUSSION

 Appellant maintains the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the 

evidence did not prove the crimes occurred within Virginia. “Because a court’s power to act 

presupposes subject matter jurisdiction, the absence of subject matter jurisdiction ‘may be raised 

at any time, in any manner, before any court, or by the court itself.’” Jones v. Commonwealth, 

42 Va. App. 142, 146, 590 S.E.2d 572, 574 (2004) (en banc) (quoting Humphreys v. 

Commonwealth, 186 Va. 765, 772, 43 S.E.2d 890, 893 (1947)). 

 As this Court has noted, 

[t]he criminal jurisdiction of the circuit courts is specified in Code 

§§ 19.2-239 and 17.1-513. Code § 19.2-239 grants the circuit 

courts jurisdiction in criminal cases for “all presentments, 

indictments and information for offenses committed within their 

respective circuits.” Code § 17.1-513 provides the circuit courts 

with jurisdiction over all felonies committed in the 

Commonwealth. 

Thomas v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 326, 330 n.1, 549 S.E.2d 648, 650 n.1 (2001). “The 

jurisdictional grant set forth in Code § 19.2-239 empowers the circuit court to try charges 

relating to offenses committed within the Commonwealth.” Id. at 332, 549 S.E.2d at 651. See

also Moreno v. Baskerville, 249 Va. 16, 18, 452 S.E.2d 653, 655 (1995) (“[e]very crime to be 

punished in Virginia must be committed in Virginia”). “The term, ‘jurisdiction,’ as used in Code 

§ 19.2-239, refers to the circuit court’s ‘authority over persons, things, or occurrences located in 

a defined geographic area,’ which is properly categorized as ‘territorial jurisdiction’ rather than 

‘subject matter jurisdiction.’” Gordon v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 818, 822, 568 S.E.2d 

452, 454 (2002). Nonetheless, if the evidence “failed to prove that the offenses charged occurred 

at a locality within the Commonwealth and, thus, failed to prove that the offenses occurred in the 

Commonwealth,” there is “a deficiency in proof of jurisdiction.” Thomas, 36 Va. App. at 332, 

549 S.E.2d at 651. 
 -4-

 To establish that the trial court possessed jurisdiction, “evidence supporting the 

conclusion “‘must affirmatively appear on the face of the record, that is, the record must show 

affirmatively that the case is one of a class of which the court rendering the judgment was given 

cognizance.”’” Jones, 42 Va. App. at 146, 590 S.E.2d at 574 (quoting Owusu v. 

Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 671, 673, 401 S.E.2d 431, 432 (1991)). Territorial jurisdiction 

may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence indicating the crime occurred in the 

Commonwealth. See Owusu, 11 Va. App. at 673, 401 S.E.2d at 432. 

 Undisputed evidence proved that appellant stabbed Coleman inside the rooming house at 

4226 Chamberlayne Avenue. No witness identified this address as located within the City of 

Richmond or within Virginia. However, the titles of Exhibits 15 and 16, the diagrams of the 

residence at 4226 Chamberlayne Avenue, indicated that the address was located in Richmond, 

Virginia. The physical evidence taken from the crime scene was analyzed by the Division of 

Forensic Science of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Police officers of the City of Richmond and 

an assistant Richmond Commonwealth’s attorney were involved in the investigation of the case. 

Moreover, an arrest warrant issued for Coleman indicated an address of 4226 Chamberlayne 

Avenue and a locality of Richmond, Virginia. 

Considered as a whole, these facts and circumstances proved that the crimes occurred in 

Richmond, a locality within Virginia. Therefore, the evidence established that the trial court had 

territorial jurisdiction to try appellant for the charged offenses. Accordingly, appellant’s 

convictions are affirmed. 

 Affirmed.