State v. Melvin Black ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
AUGUST 1998 SESSION
September 16, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate Court Clerk
) No. 01C01-9710-CC-00501
Appellee, )
) Montgomery County
v. )
) Honorable John H. Gasaway, Judge
MELVIN KEITH BLACK, )
) (Probation Revocation)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Collier W. Goodlett John Knox Walkup
Assistant Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
109 South Second Street 425 Fifth Avenue, North
Clarksville, TN 37040 Nashville, TN 37243-0493
OF COUNSEL: Timothy F. Behan
Assistant Attorney General
Michael R. Jones 425 Fifth Avenue, North
District Public Defender Nashville, TN 37243-0493
109 South Second Street
Clarksville, TN 37040 John W. Carney, Jr.
District Attorney General
204 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Clarksville, TN 37040-3420
William M. Cloud, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney General
204 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Clarksville, TN 37040-3420
OPINION FILED: ______________________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
L. T. LAFFERTY, SPECIAL JUDGE
OPINION
The appellant, Melvin Keith Black, appeals as of right from the trial court’s
revocation of his probation sentence. The appellant contends the record is insufficient, as
a matter of law, to support a revocation of probation. Based on our review of the briefs and
the entire record in this cause, we conclude that this is an appropriate case for affirmance
under Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
On April 13, 1995, the defendant entered two pleas of guilty to the offenses of
driving under the influence of an intoxicant before the Montgomery County Circuit Court.
The trial court imposed sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days to be run
consecutively, and placed the defendant on probation for eleven months and twenty-nine
days with a condition of forty-five days to be served on weekends.
On February 10, 1997, a violation of probation warrant was sworn out alleging
several grounds including:
a new arrest by Ofcr. L. Pearson on 10/07/96 for driving on a revoked
license and leaving the scene of a traffic accident; failure to report that
arrest to his probation officer; a new arrest on 10/29/96 by Ofcr. P.
Ashby for driving under the influence, implied consent and driving on a
revoked license; being out at a late or unusual hour at the time of that
arrest; failure to report that arrest to his probation officer; failure to
complete a DUI school; failure to complete educational requirements;
failure to report weekly as directed since 08/28/96; failure to make
satisfactory progress in the MRT program (no steps attempted); failure
to pay fines and court costs totalling $3,040.42 at the rate of $100.00
per month ($500.00 paid as of 12/26/96); failure to pay probation fees
totalling $240.00 as of 12/26/96.
Following a hearing on the merits, the trial court revoked the defendant’s
probationary status.
The revocation of probation is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). 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 as
originally entered. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-310, -311(d). This Court will not find that a
2
trial court abused its discretion unless the record contains no substantial evidence to
support the trial court’s conclusion that the probation should be revoked. 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 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1995).
The defendant did not submit a transcript of the revocation hearing to support his
allegation of insufficient evidence to revoke his periods of probation.
On May 19, 1997, the trial court entered an order revoking the defendant’s probation
and finding the defendant had a hearing on the facts alleged in the violation warrant. Also,
the order found the facts alleged in the violation warrant were proved by a preponderance
of the evidence. Accordingly, based upon a reading of the entire record, the briefs of the
parties, and the applicable law, this Court finds that the trial court’s judgment should be
affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
________________________________________
L. T. LAFFERTY, SPECIAL JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE
___________________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
3