State v. Carla Smith

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
DECEMBER 1997 SESSION
December 30, 1997
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9701-CC-00033
Appellee, )
) Montgomery County
V. )
) Honorable John H. Gasaway, III, Judge
)
CARLA SMITH, ) (Assault & Driving on a Revoked License)
)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Michael R. Jones John Knox Walkup
District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
Collier W. Goodlett, Jr. Daryl J. Brand
Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General
109 S. Second Street Criminal Justice Division
Clarksville, TN 37040 450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
John W. Carney, Jr.
District Attorney General
Steven L. Garrett
Assistant District Attorney General
204 Franklin Street, Suite 200
`` Clarksville, TN 37040
OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED
PAUL G. SUMMERS,
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Carla Smith, pled guilty to assault and driving on a
revoked license. She received an effective sentence of eleven months and
twenty-nine days probation. A probation violation warrant issued alleging that
the appellant failed to report, did not fulfill educational requirements, and did not
pay various fees and fines. The hearing court found the allegations and the
warrant to be valid and revoked the appellant’s probation. She appeals to this
Court. We affirm the court’s disposition.
The appellant is no neophyte to the system. She has previously been
on post-trial diversion and probation prior to this revocation. The court found
sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations made in the revocation warrant.
We agree with the hearing court’s findings.
Appointed counsel for the appellant cites Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1976); and we duly note his position. Counsel also moves in his brief to be
allowed to withdraw. We respectfully deny the request for withdrawal at this
time. Counsel may resubmit the motion pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 14 at the
appropriate time.
This Court finds that the evidence does not preponderate against the
findings of the trial court. Furthermore, there is no error of law which would
mandate a reversal. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in revoking
probation. See State v. Harkins, 811 S.W .2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). Hence, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court revoking probation pursuant to Tenn. Ct. of
Crim. App. Rule 20.
______________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
-2-
CONCUR:
______________________________
JOSEPH B. JONES, Presiding Judge
______________________________
WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge
-3-