State of Tennessee v. Cecil Glen Dobbs, Jr.
E2017-00437-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Defendant Cecil Glen Dobbs, Jr. pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and theft (value < $500) and received a seven-year split sentence: two years incarcerated, five years probation.
- October 2015: probation officer reported violations (failure to report, failure to report an arrest for Schedule III narcotics, drug possession, failure to pay costs); court ordered 75 days incarceration then return to probation.
- March 2016: new probation violation report after arrest for attempted burglary of a motor vehicle, possession of drug paraphernalia, resisting arrest, and failure to notify probation officer.
- At the revocation hearing Dobbs (through counsel) admitted a second probation violation; the trial court revoked probation and ordered execution of the sentence (incarceration).
- Dobbs appealed, arguing (1) the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation and (2) he was prevented from presenting evidence or testifying at the revocation hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking probation | Revocation was an abuse of discretion | Revocation was supported by Defendant's admission and evidence of new criminal conduct and failure to report | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supported revocation; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Dobbs was denied due process / prevented from presenting evidence or testifying | Trial court "prohibited" him from presenting reasons/evidence against revocation | No contemporaneous objection; record shows no request or denial to testify or present evidence | Court held issue not preserved and record contains no support for claim; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (trial judge determines witness credibility in revocation hearings)
- State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 1999) (court has discretion to order confinement after probation violation; consequence determination is separate exercise of discretion)
- State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate review of revocation is for abuse of discretion; must be substantial evidence of violation)
- State v. Smith, 909 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (standards for reviewing probation revocation)
- State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 1999) (explaining abuse-of-discretion review and its meaning)