COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

County

Authoring Judge

Originating Judge

Date Filter

Case Number

Case Name

Keyword Search

Sort by

Order

State vs. Calvin Otis Tankesly M2000-00135-CCA-R3-PC Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft	Sumner	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/15/99
State vs. William Davis, Jr. M1999-01738-CCA-R3-CD	Montgomery	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/15/99
State vs. Ricky Dale Langford M1999-01740-CCA-R3-CD Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin	Cheatham	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/15/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX	Davidson	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/15/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris	Williamson	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/15/99
State vs. Frankie E. Casteel E1999-00076-CCA-R3-CD Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of the first-degree murders of Richard Mason, Kenneth Griffith and Earl Smock in the Hamilton County Criminal Court, Douglas A. Myer, J., and the defendant appealed. The Court holds (1) that the trial court's failure to follow statutory procedures before admitting evidence that the defendant had committed prior bad acts was harmless error; (2) evidence that the defendant had threatened trespassers was properly admitted; (3) the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant; (4) failure to swear-in the jury prior to voir dire was at most harmless error where the jury was impaneled in another county and sworn in there; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to present alternative perpetrator evidence when that evidence was too far removed in time and place to connect it to the murders; (6) the trial court's failure to suppress evidence found on the defendant's property was proper because the evidence was seized during a search for the victims; (7) testimony about the contents of incriminating letters and newspaper articles was necessary to explain the defendant's attempt to destroy them; (8) the trial court properly allowed the state to cross examine the defendant about items seized from his home; but (9) the admission of five hours of an extremely prejudicial conversation between the defendant, his wife and his mistress in order to allow the jury to hear one adoptive admission was reversible error, especially when (10) the state relied on the unfairly prejudicial portion of the conversation when arguing its case to the jury in order to highlight the defendant's character. Reversed and remanded.	Hamilton	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/15/99
State of Tennessee v. Marico Finnie W2004-02166-CCA-R3-CD Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton Trial Court Judge: John P. Colton, Jr.	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/14/99
State vs. Dennis Bondon W1999-01686-CCA-R3-CD Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/13/99
W1998-00455-CCA-MR3-CD W1998-00455-CCA-MR3-CD Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/13/99
03C01-9810-CR-00376 03C01-9810-CR-00376 Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.	Blount	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/13/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman	Davidson	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/10/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX	Marshall	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/10/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX	Davidson	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/10/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX	Sumner	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/10/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX	Davidson	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/10/99
Victor James Cazes v. State of Tennessee W1998-00386-CCA-R3-PC Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris Craft The petitioner, Victor James Cazes, appeals as of right from the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying him post-conviction relief from his 1990 convictions for felony murder, aggravated rape and first degree burglary. The petitioner was sentenced to death for the murder conviction and received twenty-five-year and six-year sentences, respectively, for the aggravated rape and burglary convictions. The judgments of conviction were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253 (Tenn. 1994). In this post-conviction appeal, the petitioner raises the following issues:	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/08/99
State of Tennessee vs. Ronald Wayne Smith M1999 01439 CCA R3 CD Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles Trial Court Judge: Judge Allen Wallace The Defendant, Ronald W ayne Smith, pleaded guilty in the C ircuit Court of Dickson County to possession of cocaine for resale and possession of marijuana for resale, reserving a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The certified question of law is whether there were sufficient spec ific and articu lable facts to justify the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle and/or whether the duration of the stop excessive. We find that there were not sufficient specific and articulabe facts to justify the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle. Because we conclude that the stop was illegal, we reverse the order of the trial judge overruling the motion to suppress.	Dickson	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/07/99
State of Tennessee vs. Ronald Reece Cross E1998-00364-CCA-R3-CD Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck On July 21, 1998, Ronald Reece Cross (the “defendant”) pled gu ilty to the following charges arising out of a single incident: violating an habitual traffic offender order, evading arrest, driving under the influence of alcohol (eighth offense), running a stop sign, reckless driving, and violation of registration. Following a sentencing hearing on the above charges, the trial court denied alternative sentencing for the defendant, and instead ordered the defendant to serve an effective ten (10) year, eleven (11) month, and twenty-nine (29) day sentence. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing to the defendant, and (2) whether the trial court erred in ordering the defendant to serve consecutive sentences. Because we find that the trial court sentenced the defendant appropriately, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.	Sullivan	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/06/99
State of Tennessee vs. Arthur Copeland E1999-00044-CCA-R3-CD Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman The appellant, Arthur Copeland, was convicted by a Blount County jury of one (1) coun t of simple assa ult, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days in the county jail and ordered tha t the appellant’s sentence for assault run consecutively to his sentence for a prior aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in (1) im posing sentence immediately after the jury rendered its verdict without affording the appellant a separate sentencing hearing; and (2) ordering consecutive sentences. After thoroughly reviewing the record before this Court, we conclude that th ere is no evidence in the record to support the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. Therefore, this case is remanded to the trial court for another sentencing hearing.	Blount	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/06/99
John Paul Seals vs State of Tennessee C.C.A. 03C01-9903-CC-00 Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R. Wade Trial Court Judge: Judge James E. Beckner The petitioner, John Paul Seals, entered a guilty plea to first degree murder on December 12, 1988. The state had originally sought the death penalty. The trial court imposed a life sentence. Six years later, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus or, in the alternative, post-conviction relief. The trial court, which treated the petition as one for post-conviction relief, dismissed based upon the statute of limitations. This court affirmed on direct appeal. John Paul Seals v. State, No. 03C01-9409-CR-00319 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Feb. 22, 1995), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. 1995). On January 7, 1998, the petitioner filed this claim for post-conviction relief alleging several constitutional violations. The petitioner argued that the statute of limitations should not apply because he had been mentally incompetent since before the commission of the offense. The petitioner also contended that none of the grounds had been waived or previously determined because the first petition had been filed by someone other than himself. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition at the preliminary stage. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(a), (f). In John Paul Seals v. State, No. 03C01-9802-CC-00050 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jan. 6, 1999), this court reversed and remanded the cause to the trial court to allow the petitioner to present evidence on the issue of his mental capacity as it related to the statute of limitations: If the petitioner carries his burden of proving facts which require tolling the statute of limitations due to mental incompetence, then the trial court shall proceed to the merits of the constitutional issues presented in the petition. On the other hand, if the petitioner does not carry his burden of proving mental incompetence as regards the statute of limitations, the trial court shall dismiss the petition as untimely. Id., slip op. at 8.	Hamblen	Court of Criminal Appeals	12/06/99
01C01-9901-CC-00027 01C01-9901-CC-00027 Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch	Cheatham	Court of Criminal Appeals	11/30/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter	Williamson	Court of Criminal Appeals	11/30/99
03C01-9810-CR-00358 03C01-9810-CR-00358 Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.	Cumberland	Court of Criminal Appeals	11/30/99
03C01-9906-CR-00222 03C01-9906-CR-00222 Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner	Greene	Court of Criminal Appeals	11/30/99
Melvin Sawyer vs. State 01C01-9811-CR-00440	Davidson	Court of Criminal Appeals	11/29/99