State of Tennessee v. Neal Armour ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT KNOXVILLE
    Assigned on Briefs July 28, 2004
    STATE OF TENNESSEE v. NEAL LEVONE ARMOUR
    Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County
    No. 234432 Rebecca Stern, Judge
    No. E2003-02907-CCA-R3-CD - Filed September 9, 2004
    The defendant, Neal Levone Armour, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s revocation of
    probation. Because the record supports the trial court’s actions, we affirm.
    Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court is Affirmed.
    JAMES CURWOOD WITT , JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID H. WELLES and
    JERRY L. SMITH , JJ., joined.
    Ardena J. Garth, District Public Defender; and Donna Robinson Miller, Assistant District Public
    Defender, for the Appellant, Neal Levone Armour.
    Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; John H. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney General;
    William H. Cox, III, District Attorney General; and Bates Bryan, Assistant District Attorney General,
    for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.
    OPINION
    Pursuant to his guilty pleas, the defendant was convicted on February 13, 2001, of
    attempted burglary, a Class E felony, and possession of burglary tools, a Class A misdemeanor. His
    effective six-year, persistent-offender sentence was to be probated after the defendant served eleven
    months and 29 days in confinement. The trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $1,000. On
    November 22, 2002, the state filed a probation violation report that alleged that the defendant had
    failed to report to his probation officer since September 24, 2002, and that he had failed to pay
    supervision fees and restitution via his scheduled $50 monthly installments.
    The court appointed counsel and conducted a hearing, at which the defendant’s
    counsel conceded violations. The defendant testified that he missed one appointment only and that
    was due to his employment. After he missed the appointment, he assumed a violation warrant was
    issued, and he made no attempt to contact the probation officer further. Although the defendant did
    not deny being in arrears in his financial obligations to the court, he testified that he had been
    working and had made weekly payments to the court. The court found that the defendant was in
    arrears in making his payments, but it primarily based its revocation of probation upon the
    defendant’s failure to report since September 2002. The court ordered the defendant to serve his
    sentences. The defendant filed a timely appeal, in which he simply claims that the evidence is
    insufficient to warrant revocation of his probation.
    The decision to revoke probation lies in the sound discretion of the trial judge. State
    v. Mitchell, 
    810 S.W.2d 733
    , 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). The judgment of the trial court to
    revoke probation will be upheld on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion. State v.
    Harkins, 
    811 S.W.2d 79
    , 82 (Tenn. 1991). To find an abuse of discretion in a probation revocation
    case, the record must be devoid of any substantial evidence that would support the trial court’s
    decision that a violation occurred. Id.; State v. Grear, 
    568 S.W.2d 285
    , 286 (Tenn. 1978); State v.
    Delp, 
    614 S.W.2d 395
    , 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). Proof of a probation violation is sufficient
    if it allows the trial court to make a conscientious and intelligent judgment. State v. Milton, 
    673 S.W.2d 555
    , 557 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984).
    In this case, the defendant admitted that he had failed to report as required by his
    probation rules. Essentially, then, the defendant conceded an adequate basis for a finding that he had
    violated the terms of probation. See State v. Nkobi I. Dunn, No. E2001-02120-CCA-R3-CD, slip
    op. at 3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 23, 2002) (Witt, J., concurring); State v. Mitzi Ann Boyd,
    No. 03C01-9508-CC-00246 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Nov. 1, 1996). Accordingly, there is no
    abuse of the trial court’s discretion in revoking probation, and, contrary to the defendant’s claim, the
    evidence sufficiently supports that action.
    The order of the trial court is affirmed.
    ___________________________________
    JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E2003-02907-CCA-R3-CD

Judges: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.

Filed Date: 9/9/2004

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014