State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Evans, Alias

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
FILED
AT KNOXVILLE
November 1, 1999
SEPTEMBER SESSION, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. E1998-00065-CCA-R3-CD
)
Appellee, )
) KNOX COUNTY NO. 61215
)
VS. )
) HON. RAY L. JENKINS
CHARLES EDWARD EVANS, ) JUDGE
ALIAS, )
) (Probation Revocation)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
MARK E. STEPHENS PAUL G. SUMMERS
District Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
PAULA R. VOSS ELLEN H. POLLACK
DAVID GALL Assistant Attorney General
Assistant Public Defenders 425 Fifth Avenue North
1209 Euclid Avenue Nashville, TN 37243
Knoxville, TN 37921
RANDALL E. NICHOLS
District Attorney General
PAULA GENTRY
Assistant District Attorney
400 Main, P.O. Box 1468
Knoxville, TN 37901-1468
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
ORDER
The appellant, Charles Edward Evans, appeals the Knox County Criminal
Court’s order revoking his probation. In 1996, the appellant was convicted of one (1)
count of selling less than 0.5 grams of cocaine and sentenced to eight (8) years as a
Range II offender. The appellant was placed on probation by the Tennessee
Department of Correction in February 1998. Subsequently, the state filed a petition to
revoke the appellant’s probation, and after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court
revoked the appellant’s probation. On appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court
erred in revoking probation. After a review of the record before this Court, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal
Appeals.
In August of 1996, the appellant pled guilty to one (1) count of selling less than
0.5 grams of cocaine and was sentenced to eight (8) years as a Range II, multiple
offender. At the time of sentencing, the trial court ordered that the appellant be placed
in the Community Alternatives to Prison Program (“CAPP”). A warrant alleging that the
appellant had violated the conditions of CAPP was filed on December 4, 1996;
however, that warrant was dismissed, and the appellant was returned to the CAPP
Program on January 17, 1997. On March 17, 1997, a second CAPP violation warrant
was filed, and the trial court subsequently revoked the appellant’s participation in
CAPP. The appellant was transferred to prison.
In February 1998, the Tennessee Department of Correction released the
appellant on determinate probation. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-206. In October,
the appellant’s probation officer filed a warrant alleging that the appellant had violated
several conditions of his probation, including failing to perform community service as
ordered, failing to pay restitution and/or fines regularly, consuming drugs and alcohol
on a regular basis, failing to keep appointments with his probation officer, moving from
-2-
Blount County to Knox County without the officer’s knowledge or consent, and being
arrested for driving on a revoked license.
After a hearing, the trial court found that the appellant had violated the terms of
his release and revoked the appellant’s probation. From this ruling, the appellant brings
this appeal.
This Court’s standard of review for a probation revocation is an abuse of
discretion standard. State v. Stubblefield, 953 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1997). If the record presents substantial evidence to support revocation, the trial
court’s action will be upheld on appeal. Id.
A trial court has the authority to revoke a defendant’s probation if the court finds
by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated the conditions of
his probation. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-310, 40-35-311(d). At the revocation
hearing, the appellant’s probation officer testified that the appellant failed to report for
meetings as scheduled, failed to perform community service as directed, moved to
Knoxville without her permission or consent, failed to pay court ordered fines and costs,
tested positive for cocaine, admitted frequent use of alcohol and marijuana and had
charges pending against him in General Sessions Court. This testimony was
undisputed. Indeed, the appellant, through counsel, conceded that he “violated the
conditions of probation in a number of ways.”
The evidence that the appellant violated the terms of his probation is
overwhelming. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to revoke
probation. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to
Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Costs of the appeal are taxed to the
State of Tennessee, as it appears that the appellant is indigent.
____________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
-3-
CONCUR:
___________________________________
GARY R. WADE, JUDGE
___________________________________
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE
-4-