State of Tennessee v. Charles R. Presley
M2015-01600-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Feb 24, 2017Background
- Charles R. Presley pled guilty in 2010 to identity theft (Class D felony) and three misdemeanor theft counts; received concurrent sentences including an eight-year sentence that was suspended and placed on probation.
- Multiple prior probation violation warrants (2010–2013) resulted in revocations and reinstatements; on April 8, 2013, the trial court ordered Presley to serve his sentence in confinement after another revocation.
- On October 21, 2014, TDOC released Presley into a technical-violator release/supervision program, returning him to probationary supervision under the trial court’s original terms.
- Probation officer Corwin McCarthy supervised Presley beginning October 2014; McCarthy instructed Presley to report on January 27, 2015 at 2:30 p.m., giving him a business card with the date and time; Presley failed to report and next appeared on February 19, 2015.
- The State charged Presley with violating probation for failing to report as ordered; at the August 13, 2015 revocation hearing, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Presley violated his probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his eight-year sentence in confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved Presley was subject to probation for the identity-theft sentence when the violation occurred | State: TDOC’s technical-violator program returned Presley to supervision under the trial court’s original terms, making him subject to probation | Presley: Record showed the last court order directed confinement (April 8, 2013); State offered no proof he was on probation for identity theft or of the probation terms | Court: TDOC’s release under the technical-violator program restored supervision; Presley was on probation under the original terms and subject to revocation |
| Whether the State proved the condition violated (failure to report) and Presley’s notice of that condition | State: Probation officer McCarthy testified he instructed Presley to report on Jan. 27 and gave him a card with the appointment | Presley: Contended only registry rules had been discussed and the State failed to prove the applicable probation conditions for identity theft | Court: Unrebutted testimony established Presley was instructed to report Jan. 27 and he failed to do so; this satisfied the State’s burden |
| Whether revocation and order to serve original sentence was authorized and an abuse of discretion | State: Trial court may revoke probation upon preponderance showing and order service of original sentence | Presley: Argued procedural/ proof failures undermine revocation | Court: Revocation and confinement were authorized by statute; court did not abuse discretion given repeated violations and poor prospects for compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (trial court may revoke probation and order service of original sentence upon proof of violation)
- State v. Leach, 914 S.W.2d 104 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (probation revocation rests in trial court’s discretion; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2010) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review)
- State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (court authority to order service of original sentence after revocation)