State of Tennessee v. Clyde Hobbs, M2016-00924-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Clyde Hobbs pleaded guilty in 2013 to sexual battery by an authority figure and attempted sexual exploitation of a minor; received an effective eight-year probated sentence with special sex-offender probation conditions (including restrictions on Internet use, electronic devices, and contact with minors).
In January 2016 a probation-violation warrant alleged Hobbs accessed the Internet via a ROKU device, used a cell phone with hundreds of images of animal genitalia for sexual gratification, and had unsupervised contact with minors on multiple occasions.
Probation officer Andrew Thorton supervised Hobbs under specialized sex-offender conditions; the written conditions bore Hobbs’s signature/initials and included Rule Two (restricting Internet/electronic sexual use) and Rule Nine (restricting contact with minors absent pre-approved chaperone).
At the revocation hearing Thorton, Hobbs, and Hobbs’s sister testified about the ROKU device, the cell-phone images (Hobbs admitted using them for arousal), and three incidents of contact with minors (picking up a niece with another child in the car, interactions at a senior center, and a July 4 visit where Hobbs was outside playing with nieces while his sister watched from a window).
The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Hobbs violated Rule Two (ROKU Internet access and sexually oriented images on a cell phone) and Rule Nine (unsupervised/substantial contact with minors), rejected mental-capacity as excusing noncompliance, revoked probation, and ordered Hobbs to serve the remaining eight years in confinement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ROKU/cell-phone usage violated specialized Internet/electronic-device probation rules	State: ROKU is an Internet-connected device and Hobbs possessed an Internet-capable phone with hundreds of sexually explicit animal images used for arousal, violating Rule Two.	Hobbs: He didn’t obtain Internet on a computer; family-installed ROKU on TV, he rarely used it, and he didn’t realize it was an Internet device.	Court: Affirmed — ROKU is an Internet device and phone images were used for sexual gratification; Rule Two violated.
Whether Hobbs had prohibited contact with minors (Rule Nine) given ambiguity over “contact” and his mental limitations	State: Hobbs had substantial/non-incidental unsupervised contact on multiple occasions (vehicle incident, senior center interactions, July 4 with nieces).	Hobbs: Did not understand what ‘incidental contact’ meant; thought supervised and had diminished mental capacity; sister was chaperone.	Court: Affirmed — evidence supported non-incidental/unsupervised contact; sister’s supervision inadequate; mental-capacity findings insufficient to excuse violations.
Whether trial court abused discretion by fully revoking probation without considering alternatives	State: Revocation and execution of original sentence permitted upon finding a violation by preponderance.	Hobbs: Court should have considered alternatives to incarceration given his admissions and limitations.	Court: Affirmed — trial court acted within discretion; once violation proved, execution of original sentence is allowed and no entitlement to a second grant of probation.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (credibility determinations and revocation discretion rest with trial court)
State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (probation revocation affirmed unless no substantial evidence of violation)
State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained; court must articulate reasoning)
State v. Kendrick, 178 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005) (revocation decision entrusted to trial judge)
State v. Farrar, 355 S.W.3d 582 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011) (standards for upholding revocation findings)