State v. Deborah Jo Rovsek ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •              IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT NASHVILLE
    JULY 1998 SESSION
    STATE OF TENNESSEE,                )
    )    C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9707-CC-00292
    Appellee,                    )
    )    COFFEE COUNTY
    VS.                                )    (No. 27,487 Below)
    )
    DEBORAH JO ROVSEK,                 )    The Hon. John W. Rollins
    )
    Appellant.                   )    (Probation Revocation)
    FOR THE APPELLANT:                 FOR THE APPELLEE:
    B. CAMPBELL SMOOT                  JOHN KNOX WALKUP
    Public Defender                    Attorney General and Reporter
    14th Judicial District
    605 East Carroll Street            CLINTON J. MORGAN
    P.O. Box 260                       Assistant Attorney General
    Tullahoma, TN 37388                Cordell Hull Building, Second Floor
    425 Fifth Avenue North
    Nashville, TN 37243-0493
    C. MICHAEL LAYNE
    District Attorney General
    KENNETH J. SHELTON, JR.
    Assistant District Attorney General
    14th Judicial District
    307 South Woodland
    P.O. Box 147
    Manchester, TN 37349
    OPINION FILED _______________________
    AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
    DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
    OPINION
    The appellant, Deborah Jo Rovsek, appeals as of right from the trial court’s
    revocation of her probation sentence. She contends that the trial court abused its
    discretion by revoking her probation and ordering her to serve the entire sentence
    previously imposed. The appellant contends that the trial court should have considered
    “a period of shock incarceration followed by Community Corrections.” Based on our review
    of the briefs and of the entire record in this cause, we conclude that this is an appropriate
    case for affirmance under Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules.
    In March of 1996, the appellant pled guilty to eight counts of obtaining a
    controlled substance by fraud. She was sentenced as a Range I, Standard Offender, to
    an effective sentence of four years to be served on probation. The appellant was given
    credit for 74 days served in jail. As a condition of probation, the appellant was ordered to
    complete 300 hours of public service work.
    Subsequently, on February 11, 1997, a probation violation report was filed,
    alleging that the appellant failed to report to her probation officer when instructed to do so,
    failed to pay required probation fees when due, and failed to report to her public service
    work site as scheduled. The trial court issued a probation revocation warrant the same
    day, and a hearing was held on June 17, 1997. At the revocation hearing, the appellant
    pled guilty and was allowed to make a statement in which she asked the trial court to give
    her a second chance. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated “I think I have
    given you every break I can possibly give you. Time is up. I’m sorry. You are going to
    jail.” The appellant was ordered to serve her four-year sentence in the Department of
    Correction.
    The re vocatio n of pro bation is committed to the sound discretion of the trial
    court. State v. Mitch ell, 810 S .W .2d 73 3, 735 (Tenn . Crim . App. 1 991). If the trial court
    finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a probation violation has occurred, it has the
    right to revoke probation and cause the probationer to commence the execution of judgment
    -1-
    as originally entered. T.C.A. § 40-35-310, -311(d). This Court will not find that a trial court
    has abused its discretion unless the record contains no substantial evidence to support the
    trial court's conclusion that the probation should be revok ed. State v. Harkins, 
    811 S.W.2d 79
    , 82 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981). The evidence at the revocation hearing need only show
    that the trial court exercised a conscientious and intelligent judgment in making the decision
    to revoke probation . State v. Leach, 914 S.W .2d 104, 106 (T enn. Crim. A pp. 1995).
    Based on the record before us, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its
    discretion in revoking the appellant’s probation and ordering her to serve the origin al
    sentence in custody. Accordingly, based upon a reading of the entire record, the briefs of
    the parties, and the applicable law, this Court finds that the judgment o f the trial court
    should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules.
    IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the judgmen t of the trial court is affirmed
    pursuant to Ru le 20.
    ________________________________
    DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
    CONCUR:
    ________________________________
    PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
    ________________________________
    JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01C01-9707-CC-00292

Filed Date: 12/1/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014