State of Tennessee v. Gregory Charles Dixon, M2016-00620-CCA-R3-CD

In April 2012 Gregory Dixon, owner of Dixon Jewelers, sold Amy and Jason Statum an engagement ring for $8,000 represented as a two‑carat diamond; the Statums paid in cash and received only a receipt.
Mrs. Statum left the ring mostly in her possession except for a short sizing visit at Dixon’s and a five‑minute cleaning/examination at B&B Jewelers in May 2013.
A GIA‑trained gemologist at B&B Jewelers determined the stone was moissanite (a diamond simulant) and appraised the ring at about $1,880; the Statums then confronted Dixon.
Dixon initially agreed the stone tested as fake when confronted, later claimed the Statums or others had switched the stone after sale, and denied knowingly selling a fake; he purchased the ring earlier for $2,000 from an unnamed individual.
A jury convicted Dixon of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000; the trial court imposed an in‑range sentence of 2 years and 6 months confinement and denied probation. Dixon appealed on sufficiency and excessive sentence grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict of theft	State: circumstantial and expert evidence showed Dixon knowingly sold a counterfeit stone as a diamond and intended to deprive Statum of $8,000.	Dixon: evidence insufficient; claimed stone was switched after sale and challenged chain of custody.	Conviction affirmed — viewing evidence in State's favor, jury could find intent and knowledge; chain‑of‑custody objection waived and jury credited victims/ expert over Dixon.
Excessiveness of sentence / denial of probation	State: customary sentencing analysis supports confinement to protect society and deter similar offenses.	Dixon: sentence of 2.5 years fully incarcerative is excessive; requested probation given health and work circumstances.	Sentence affirmed — within statutory range; trial court considered statutory purposes, found mitigating/credibility facts, and reasonably denied probation to avoid depreciating seriousness and to deter.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (application of sufficiency review to combined direct and circumstantial evidence)
State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1978) (trier of fact determines witness credibility; appellate court must afford State strongest legitimate view of evidence)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑range sentences reflecting proper application of sentencing principles)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard with presumption of reasonableness applies to probation decisions tied to within‑range sentences)
State v. Mounger, 7 S.W.3d 70 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (defendant’s burden to show suitability for full probation)
State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (probation must serve interests of justice and public)
Hooper v. State, 297 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1956) (historical articulation of probation suitability standard)