State v. Rauhuff ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
AUGUST 1997 SESSION
September 4, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. # 03C01-9610-CC-00382
Appellee, * BLOUNT COUNTY
VS. * Hon. D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., Judge
STEVEN L. RAUHUFF, * (Probation Revocation)
Appellant. *
For Appellant: For Appellee:
Mack Garner Charles W. Burson
District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
419 High Street
Maryville, TN 37801 Peter M. Coughlan
Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Philip Morton
Assistant District Attorney General
363 Court Street
Maryville, TN 37804
OPINION FILED:__________________
AFFIRMED--RULE 20 ORDER
PER CURIAM
OPINION
The defendant, Steve Rauhuff, appeals as of right the
judgment of the Blount County Circuit Court revoking his probation. Declared
a habitual motor vehicle offender, the defendant was convicted of violations
of the order in 1992 and 1993 and served a portion of both sentences in
custody. In 1994, the defendant was again convicted of violating the order
and sentenced to full probation1. He filed this appeal. While released on
probation in this case, the defendant was charged with a fourth violation of
the habitual motor vehicle offender order and with resisting arrest.
Thereafter, the trial court revoked probation.
When a probation revocation is challenged, the appellate courts
have a limited scope of review. If the trial judge finds by a preponderance of
the evidence "that the defendant has violated the conditions of his probation,"
probation may be revoked. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(d). This decision
to revoke a suspended sentence rests in the sound discretion of the trial
court. The Sentencing Commission Comments to Section 40-35-310 provide
that "[u]pon revocation, the original sentence imposed can be placed into
effect." The determination by the trial court, if conscientiously made, is
entitled to an affirmance; the record must merely demonstrate that there is
substantial evidence to support its conclusions. State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d
395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980); see also State v. Williamson, 619 S.W.2d
145, 147 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981). On appeal, the findings of the trial court
are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict, and the appellant has the burden to
demonstrate that the record contains no substantial evidence to support the
1
The record indicates that the defendant was given full probation because his sentence was
consecutive to a second, unrelated sente nce served in custo dy.
2
finding of the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation has
occurred. State v. Wall, 909 S.W.2d 8,9-10 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); State v.
Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). Upon a violation of the terms of
probation, "the trial judge shall have the right by order duly entered upon the
minutes of [the] court, to revoke the probation and suspension of sentence
and cause the defendant to commence the execution of the judgment as
originally entered, or otherwise in accordance with § 40-35-310 ...." Tenn.
Code Ann. § 40-35-311(d).
In our view, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
revoked the appellant's probation and ordered his incarceration. The record
supports the trial court's findings that the defendant had not complied with the
terms of his probation by (1) failing to pay fees when employed; (2) failing to
pay court costs when employed; (3) failing to attend required AA meetings;
and (4) failing to perform his required community service. The trial court did
not consider the defendant's pending charges as a basis for the revocation.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant
to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
PER CURIAM
3