State of Tennessee v. Blake Austin Weaver
E2016-01774-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | May 15, 2017Background
- Blake Austin Weaver pleaded guilty to one count of theft (> $60,000) and eleven counts of forgery; effective sentence 15 years with suspension after 180 days and placement on community corrections.
- Community corrections terms included drug screens, maintaining employment, and paying $146,340.91 restitution (minimum $1,000/month).
- A warrant alleged violations: failed drug screen (Feb 24, 2016), no restitution payments, and failure to attend intensive outpatient treatment and enter a halfway house.
- Evidence at the revocation hearing: positive drug test for oxycodone/suboxone (Feb 2016), attendance at only one outpatient session, no restitution payments, and testimony that Weaver spent income on drugs and had wage garnishments.
- Trial court found multiple violations, concluded Weaver chose other debts and drugs over restitution and failed to follow orders, revoked community corrections, and ordered incarceration for the remainder of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Weaver's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation of community corrections was proper | Revocation supported by preponderance: failed drug screen, failure to attend programs, failure to pay restitution | Trial court abused discretion; revocation improper | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports revocation based on drug test and failure to follow orders |
| Whether trial court relied on unnotice d grounds | Even if some improper grounds were mentioned, properly noticed violations supported revocation | Court relied on grounds not alleged in warrant (e.g., earlier drug screen, attendance issues) | Harmless error if other properly noticed violations were proven; revocation stands |
| Whether court erred by not considering ability to pay restitution | Nonpayment may justify revocation if willful; alternatively harmless if other violations exist | Weaver lacked ability to pay (wage garnishment, low net pay) so nonpayment should not trigger incarceration | Court found willfulness (paid other debts/used income for drugs); regardless, other violations make any error harmless |
| Whether revocation and incarceration was excessive | State: sentencing alternative within court's discretion after proven violation | Weaver: revocation too harsh; should remain in community corrections or alternative treatment | Affirmed — imposing incarceration for remainder of sentence is within trial court discretion upon proven violations |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (preponderance standard and probation revocation discretion)
- State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (revocation decision rests in trial court's discretion)
- State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion standard for revocation review)
- State v. Dye, 715 S.W.2d 36 (Tenn. 1986) (nonpayment of restitution: must determine willfulness vs inability to pay)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (due process requires inquiry into reasons for nonpayment before imprisoning for restitution)
- State v. Gregory, 946 S.W.2d 829 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (standard for abuse of discretion and sufficiency of evidence for revocation)