State v. Melissa Roberts ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •         IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT NASHVILLE            FILED
    MARCH SESSION , 1999         April 16, 1999
    Cecil W. Crowson
    STATE OF TENNESSEE,            )                   Appellate Court Clerk
    C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9806-CR-00238
    )
    Appellee,                )
    )
    )    SUMNER COUN TY
    VS.                            )
    )    HON. JANE W. WHEATCRAFT,
    MELISSA ROBERTS,               )    JUDGE
    )
    Appe llant.              )    (Probation Revocation)
    ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
    CRIMINAL COURT OF SUMNER COUNTY
    FOR THE APPELLANT:                  FOR THE APPELLEE:
    DANA L. SCOTT                       JOHN KNOX WALKUP
    Assistant Public Defender           Attorney General and Reporter
    117 East Main Street
    Gallatin, TN 37066                  GEORGIA BLYTHE FELNER
    Assistant Attorney General
    425 Fifth Avenu e North
    Nashville, TN 37243
    LAWRENCE RAY WHITLEY
    District Attorney General
    WAYNE HYATT
    Assistant District Attorney General
    113 East Main Street
    Gallatin, TN 37066
    OPINION FILED ________________________
    AFFIRMED
    DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
    OPINION
    The Defenda nt, Melissa Ro berts, appea ls as of right the trial cou rt’s
    revocation of her probation. She was sentenced on November 24, 1997 to four
    years at thirty percent for theft of property valued over $50 0 and th eft of prope rty
    valued over $1000 . The court permitted her to serve her sentence on probation,
    and the conditions of her probation included being employed, paying probation
    costs, m aking res titution paym ents, and reporting to her pro bation offic er.
    Defend ant’s probation officer, Taz Whitley, reported that Defendant had
    violated her probation, and the trial court held a revocation hearing on May 15,
    1998.    After hearing testimo ny from W hitley and Defen dant, the trial court
    revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered her sente nce to be se rved in
    confinement. Defendant appeals the decision of the trial court, and we affirm.
    Both the granting and denial of probation rest in the sound discretion of the
    trial judge. State v. Mitch ell, 
    810 S.W.2d 733
    , 735 (Ten n. Crim. App . 1991).
    Moreover, the trial judge has the d iscretiona ry authority to revoke probatio n if a
    preponderance of the evidence establishes that a defendant violated the
    conditions of proba tion.     The trial judge m ust, how ever, add uce su fficient
    evidence during the probation revocation hearing to perm it an intelligent decision.
    
    Id. The determ
    ination mad e by the trial court, if made with conscientious
    judgm ent, is given the weight of a jury verdict an d entitled to affirman ce. Stamps
    v. State, 614 S.W .2d 71, 73 (T enn. Crim. A pp. 1980).
    -2-
    When a probation revocation is challenged, this Court has a limited scope
    of review. Before concluding that a trial judge erred by finding a probation
    violation, we must establish that the record c ontains n o subs tantial evide nce to
    support the conclusion of the trial judge. State v. Harkins, 
    811 S.W.2d 79
    , 82
    (Tenn. 1991). If the violation is so supported by the record, the judgment of the
    trial court revoking proba tion will not be disturbed o n appeal un less it appears
    that the trial cou rt acted arb itrarily or otherw ise abus ed its discre tion. State v.
    Williamson, 619 S.W .2d 145, 146 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1981 ).
    In this case, we find that the reco rd does contain s ubstan tial evidenc e to
    support the trial judge’s determination that Defendant violated the terms and
    conditions of her probation. We further find no abuse of discretion in her decision
    to revoke Defendant’s probation. Defendant testified she understood that the
    conditions of her pro bation were to remain employed, pay probation fees and
    court costs, pay restitution, and report to her probation officer. She admitted that
    she was not employed; that she had not made any payments toward probation
    fees, court costs, or restitution; and that she had failed to report to her probation
    officer since December of 1997. Taz Whitley confirmed that the foregoing were
    conditions of D efendant’s pro bation and tha t she had inde ed failed to com ply.
    Desp ite Defendant’s testimony that she had not obtained employment
    because of her child-care commitments , that she h ad not m ade pa ymen ts
    because she had n o mone y, and th at she had not reported to her probation
    officer because she was ill and afraid; th e trial jud ge rev oked Defe ndan t’s
    probatio n, stating,
    -3-
    [Defen dant] has done absolutely nothing. And at the time she was
    sentenced, it was made clear to her I expec ted her to have
    employm ent and m ake re stitution to the vic tims. T he m ost sim ple
    and elementary thing that any probationer can do is report. I can
    understand not havin g mon ey. I can understand some other
    problems, but I cannot understand why so meone would not rep ort
    in to a prob ation office r.
    Having listened to her, just by her demeanor, I have no
    reason to believe this defendant is going to ever take probation
    seriou sly or ever try and comply w ith the requ iremen ts of a
    community-based sentence, so I am going to revoke her probation
    and order that she do the time.
    W e find that a proba tion violation is well supported by the record—most
    notab ly by Defendant’s own testimony. Therefore, the trial cou rt’s decision to
    revoke her probation may not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion . We
    conc lude th at the re vocatio n in this instan ce wa s within the proper range of the
    trial judge’s discretion, rather than an abuse of her discretion.
    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court revoking
    Defendant’s probation is affirmed.
    ____________________________________
    DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
    CONCUR:
    ___________________________________
    JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
    ___________________________________
    JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01C01-9806-CR-00238

Filed Date: 4/16/1999

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014