State of Tennessee v. Aaron Jermaine Clark
E2017-00616-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 21, 2017Background
- Defendant Aaron Jermaine Clark pleaded guilty (2010) to sale of cocaine and received an eight-year suspended sentence (case no. 275083) to run consecutively to other sentences; later pled to additional felonies and received a consecutive seven-year effective sentence with portions on probation.
- After graduating Hamilton County Drug Court in 2013, Clark repeatedly failed to comply with probation: missed reporting, tested positive for drugs, failed to pay restitution/fees, and absconded at times.
- In May 2016 Clark attempted to fraudulently mask a positive drug screen using a "Whizzinator," admitted planning the scheme, and was suspended/discharged from CADAS outpatient treatment for noncompliance.
- CADAS and House of Refuge testified they would accept Clark into in-patient / structured programs if the court released him to probation.
- The trial court found by a preponderance Clark violated probation (failed drug screens, attempted fraud, unpaid restitution), concluded he willfully relapsed and was not a suitable candidate for lesser sanctions, and ordered execution of his sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark violated probation | State: evidence (drug tests, admission, unpaid restitution) shows violation | Clark: does not contest violations (admitted them) | Court: violation established by preponderance; revocation proper |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by executing sentences instead of ordering treatment | State: court properly weighed history and public interest; execution appropriate | Clark: requests alternative (probation/structured treatment) citing CADAS/House of Refuge willingness | Court: no abuse — history of repeated failures and deliberate fraud made lesser sanctions unlikely to succeed; execution affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kendrick, 178 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for revocation after probation violation)
- State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (probation revocation authority)
- State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate review of revocation for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion review principles)
- State v. Milton, 673 S.W.2d 555 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984) (preponderance standard for probation violation)
- State v. Reams, 265 S.W.3d 423 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) (discretion in sanctions after violation)
- State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 1999) (statutory options after revocation)