State of Tennessee v. Bobby Joe Young, Jr., M2019-01965-CCA-R3-CD

May 12, 2016 court order—drafted by defense and agreed by State—clarified sentence structure and credits across multiple cases, directing that order to control over inconsistent judgments.
Defendant had multiple consecutive sentences (including a 2-year, a 10-year probation, a 3-year, and an 11-month-29-day term); the May 12 order computed remaining balance and awarded confinement credits totaling 292 days.
Probation violation reports (Nov 2016, Dec 2016, Sept 2018) charged new criminal conduct (possession of a firearm, drug paraphernalia, and a later armed robbery) and listed a then-pending total effective sentence of 13 years, 11 months, 29 days.
At the Oct. 15, 2019 revocation hearing the court found by a preponderance that Young violated probation (paraphernalia/firearm and implicated in the Cash Express armed robbery) and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement.
On appeal Young argued (1) the trial court abused its discretion by ordering confinement and (2) the court miscalculated the remaining balance because an earlier sentence had expired before the May 12, 2016 order; the record lacked judgment forms.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed: it found no abuse of discretion in ordering incarceration, and because the record was inadequate (appellant’s burden to provide judgments) it presumed the May 12, 2016 calculation correct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Young)	Held
Whether court abused its discretion by ordering Young to serve the balance in confinement after probation revocation	Revocation was supported by preponderance; incarceration is a permissible option under sentencing statutes	Confinement was an abuse of discretion; probation should have continued or alternative sanctions imposed	No abuse of discretion; court may order original sentence executed after revocation and incarceration was within discretion
Whether the trial court miscalculated remaining sentence balance / whether an earlier sentence had already expired (subject-matter jurisdiction issue)	May 12, 2016 order clarified remaining balance; parties and court relied on that order	First sentence in the series expired before May 12, 2016, so including it in the May 12 order was void and calculation was incorrect	Claim implicates subject-matter jurisdiction (not waivable), but record lacks judgments; appellant failed to develop record, so appellate court presumes trial court’s May 12 calculation correct and affirms

State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (standard of review for probation revocation)
State v. Reams, 265 S.W.3d 423 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court may order execution of original sentence after revocation)
State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2010) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Stamps v. State, 614 S.W.2d 71 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) (trial judge may cause defendant to commence execution of judgment as originally entered)
State v. Duke, 902 S.W.2d 424 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (trial judge retains discretionary authority in post-revocation sentencing)
State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1993) (appellant bears burden to prepare an adequate record on appeal)
State v. Richardson, 875 S.W.2d 671 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (when record is inadequate, appellate court presumes trial court’s ruling correct)