State of Tennessee v. Chad M. Varnell
E2020-01352-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- Varnell pleaded guilty to robbery on Feb. 18, 2016, receiving an eight-year sentence suspended to supervised probation after one year incarceration.
- Probation conditions included reporting address changes, abstaining from illegal drugs, and following probation officer instructions.
- Multiple alleged violations occurred: discharge from a program for noncompliance, failure to report address, missed reporting, positive methamphetamine test, absconding from a residential program, and a Sevier County arrest.
- At the Aug. 14, 2020 revocation hearing, the State presented no evidence and no personal stipulation from Varnell was entered; counsel discussed CAPP eligibility but the court found Varnell ineligible.
- The trial court revoked probation and reinstated the original eight-year sentence to be served in confinement; this Court granted relief to late-file Varnell’s notice of appeal and reversed and remanded for a new hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation hearing was full and proper (sufficiency of proof) | State relied on the warrant allegations; no further argument at hearing | Varnell argued no evidence or personal admission supported revocation | Court: Hearing was inadequate; State presented no proof and no stipulation was entered; reversal and remand for new hearing |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in ordering confinement | State: discretion supported revocation if violations proven by preponderance | Varnell: trial court erred in revoking and ordering confinement without adequate proceedings | Court: Because hearing lacked evidentiary support, revocation reversed; abuse-of-discretion standard requires substantial evidence which was absent |
| Whether the court was required to order an updated validated risk-and-needs assessment before denying alternatives (e.g., CAPP) | State: court has discretion to consider or request updated assessment | Varnell: court should have sought an updated assessment to evaluate CAPP eligibility | Court: Statute makes requesting an updated assessment discretionary; Varnell never requested one; no abuse in failing to order it |
| Whether remand is required and scope of new hearing | State implicitly: prior disposition was proper | Varnell: procedural deficiencies require a new hearing | Court: Remanded for a new revocation hearing so evidence can be presented and an intelligent decision made |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (trial court must have sufficient proof to make a conscientious, intelligent judgment at revocation)
- State v. Milton, 673 S.W.2d 555 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984) (discussing proof required when no stipulation entered)
- State v. Leach, 914 S.W.2d 104 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (duty to adduce sufficient evidence at revocation hearings)
- State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (same principle regarding evidentiary basis for revocation)
- State v. Lewis, 917 S.W.2d 251 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (if violation proven during probation, court may order original sentence be served)
- State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (standard of review: revocation will be overturned only if no substantial evidence supports trial court’s conclusion)