State of Tennessee v. Dannie Brumfield
M2015-01940-CCA-R3-CD
Tenn. Crim. App.Aug 10, 2016Background
- Dannie Brumfield pled guilty to multiple offenses in 2014–2015 and received an effective six-year sentence on probation across several cases.
- After initial pleas, he was arrested multiple times (theft, resisting arrest, trespass; driving on a suspended license; habitual-offender violation) and tested positive for cocaine and opiates on a random drug screen.
- Probation violation reports and warrants were issued for the new arrests and the positive drug test.
- At the combined revocation and sentencing hearing, officer and probation officer testimony supported the new-arrest and failed-drug-test allegations; Brumfield testified about serious health problems and lack of income.
- The trial court found a probation violation (drug use and continued criminal behavior), revoked probation, ordered the previously imposed six-year sentence to be served in confinement, and imposed concurrent confinement terms for two additional convictions.
- Brumfield appealed, arguing the revocation and confinement sentence were an abuse of discretion given his age, medical conditions, and financial hardship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brumfield) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in revoking probation | The State: substantial evidence (new arrests and positive drug test) supports revocation | Brumfield: health, age, medications, and loss of disability income make confinement unreasonable; probation should remain | Court: No abuse of discretion; revocation affirmed |
| Whether new convictions/sentences to be served concurrent in confinement were improper | The State: trial court properly imposed concurrent confinement for additional convictions | Brumfield: challenged reasonableness of confinement for added sentences (briefly raised) | Court: Issue reviewing those specific confinement sentences waived for inadequate briefing; underlying concurrent service upheld as part of revocation outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (trial court determines witness credibility in revocation hearings)
- Harkins v. State, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (revocation upheld unless no substantial evidence supports violation)
- Grear v. State, 568 S.W.2d 285 (Tenn. 1978) (standard for finding abuse of discretion in revocation cases)
- Delp v. State, 614 S.W.2d 395 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) (same standard on review)
- Kendrick v. State, 178 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005) (probation revocation is within trial court's sound discretion)
- Farrar v. State, 355 S.W.3d 582 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011) (appellate standard of review for probation revocation)
- Shaffer v. State, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion requires improper logic or reasoning)
- Moore v. State, 6 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 1999) (defining abuse-of-discretion review)