COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

State vs. Paul Max Quandt, Jr.
M1998-00446-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: James Curwood Witt

State vs. Glen H. Earls
M1998-00447-CCA-R3-CD

M1998-00460-CCA-R3-CD
M1998-00460-CCA-R3-CD

M1998-00467-CCA-R3-CD
M1998-00467-CCA-R3-CD

M1999-00107-CCA-R3-CD
M1999-00107-CCA-R3-CD

M1999-00178-CCA-R3-CD
M1999-00178-CCA-R3-CD

State vs. Calvin Otis Tankesly
M2000-00135-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft

State vs. William Davis, Jr.
M1999-01738-CCA-R3-CD

State vs. Ricky Dale Langford
M1999-01740-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris

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.

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.

State vs. Dennis Bondon
W1999-01686-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft

W1998-00455-CCA-MR3-CD
W1998-00455-CCA-MR3-CD
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.

03C01-9810-CR-00376
03C01-9810-CR-00376
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

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:

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.

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.

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.