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, Assistan t Attorney General (Judith Williams Jagdmann, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

A jury convicted Juliette Ma ria Dixon, appellant, of second -degree murder and stabbing another in the commission of a fe lony. On appeal, appellant cont ends the evidence did not prove the trial court ha d subject matter jurisdiction to try appellant for the offens es. Specifically, appellant argues the evidence did no t establish the crimes occurred within Virginia. We find no merit to appellant’s contention and a ffirm her convictions.
FACTS “On appeal, ‘we review the ev idence in the light most fa vorable 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 opin ion 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 loca ted. Appellant replied, “It’s probably still sticking in her.” Obenrader immediately t ook 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 in troduced Exhibits 15 and 16, diag rams 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 introdu ced an arrest warrant that had been issued against Coleman. Beneath Co leman’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 eviden ce from the crime scene. The evidence was analyzed by scientists at the Di vision of Forensic Science of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The resulting certificates of analysis were sent to Officer Scott Leonar d, a forensic detective employed by the Richmond Police Department at an address in Richmond, Virginia. The evidence established that police officers of th e 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, Ty rone 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 emerge ncy 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 jurisdicti on, the absence of s ubject 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 ci rcuit 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 se t forth in Code § 19.2-239 empowers th e 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 Virgini a”). “The term, ‘jurisdict ion,’ as used in Code § 19.2-239, refers to the circuit cour t’s ‘authority over persons, thi ngs, or occurrences located in a defined geographic area,’ which is properly categorized as ‘territo rial 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 pr ove 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 posse ssed 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 ev idence indicating the cr ime 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 titl es 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 th e crime scene was analyzed by the Division of Forensic Science of the Commonwea lth of Virginia. Police officer s of the City of Richmond and an assistant Richmond Commonwealth ’s attorney were involved in th e investigation of the case. Moreover, an arrest warrant issued for Colema n indicated an address of 4226 Chamberlayne Avenue and a locality of Richmond, Virginia. Considered as a whole, these facts and circum stances proved that the crimes occurred in Richmond, a locality within Virginia. Therefore, th e evidence established th at the trial court had territorial jurisdiction to try appellant for th e charged offenses. Accordingly, appellant’s convictions are affirmed. Affirmed.