State of Tennessee v. Calvin Watkins, W2016-01808-CCA-R3-CD

In March 2014 Calvin Watkins pled guilty to aggravated assault and theft; the court suspended his sentences and granted judicial diversion with conditions (obey laws, report all arrests, maintain employment/school, random drug screens, 50 hours community service).
On April 21, 2015 the State petitioned to revoke diversion, alleging: (1) Watkins was arrested Jan. 7, 2015 for stalking; (2) he failed to report that arrest to his probation officer; and (3) he failed to comply with special conditions of diversion.
The trial court revoked diversion on March 10, 2016 and imposed an effective five-year suspended sentence of supervised probation.
Watkins appealed pro se arguing the Jan. 7, 2015 arrest was dismissed before indictment, so it could not support revocation; he failed to provide transcripts of plea, sentencing, or revocation hearings despite extensions.
The Court of Criminal Appeals found the record incomplete (appellate waiver) but also held that even with the incomplete record the presumption is that missing transcripts would support the trial court; the court affirmed the revocation under Rule 20.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation based on an arrest that was not indicted is improper	State relied on the Jan. 7, 2015 arrest as a violation supporting revocation	Watkins contended the arrest was dismissed prior to indictment, so it cannot justify revocation	Court affirmed revocation; record incomplete so appellant waived, and presumption is missing transcript would support trial court
Whether failure to report the arrest justified revocation	State argued Watkins violated diversion by not reporting the arrest to his PO	Watkins did not meaningfully contest this ground on appeal	Court held failure to report alone is sufficient to revoke diversion; Watkins waived review by not arguing it
Whether failure to comply with special conditions justified revocation	State alleged noncompliance with employment/drug tests/community service	Watkins did not address these allegations on appeal	Court accepted these allegations and noted appellate waiver; upheld revocation
Procedural adequacy of appellate record	State argued Watkins waived appellate review by not providing transcripts	Watkins sought extensions but ultimately did not supplement the record	Court held waiver; nonetheless affirmed under presumption that missing record would support trial court decision

State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (describing judicial diversion framework)
State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (standard for abuse of discretion in revocation)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (presumption that missing transcript would support trial court when record incomplete)
State v. Keen, 996 S.W.2d 842 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (same presumption regarding missing parts of the record)
State v. Oody, 823 S.W.2d 554 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (presumption that omitted record would support trial court ruling)
State v. Robinson, 73 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (appellant’s duty to provide a complete record)
State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (no substantial evidence means abuse of discretion)
State v. Johnson, 15 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (probation revocation procedures apply to judicial diversion)
Alder v. State, 108 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (same procedural treatment of diversion revocations)