State of Tennessee v. Desmond Eugene Davis
E2016-01608-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | May 11, 2017Background
- Defendant Desmond Eugene Davis pled guilty in 2010 to aggravated assault and received an eight-year sentence to be served on probation, consecutive to another conviction.
- In 2014 the Defendant was arrested twice for alleged violent acts involving firearms; those charges were later dismissed after a 2015 partial revocation of probation.
- In April 2015 the trial court partially revoked probation, ordered six months incarceration, then returned the Defendant to probation.
- On February 1, 2016 the Defendant was arrested for unlawful possession of a weapon, driving on a revoked license, and theft; he later pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm and theft and received concurrent 11-month-29-day sentences for each.
- A July 2016 revocation hearing addressed whether the 2016 firearm conviction violated his probation; the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that possession of the firearm violated probation and revoked the remainder of his probation, ordering incarceration.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court relied on improper grounds (the dismissed 2014 arrests), violated due process by questioning an officer about those arrests, and improperly re-litigated the 2015 revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court relied on improper grounds (2014 arrests) in revocation | State: Court properly considered only proven violation (2016 firearm possession) | Davis: Court impermissibly considered dismissed 2014 arrests and underlying allegations | Court: No abuse of discretion; revocation based on 2016 firearm possession only |
| Whether State’s explanation of dismissed 2014 charges constituted improper evidence | State: Explanation did not form basis for revocation; relevant conviction was 2016 plea | Davis: Explanation improperly introduced dismissed allegations as proof of dangerousness | Court: Explanation noted but not relied upon; revocation supported by 2016 conviction |
| Whether asking officer about 2014 arrests denied procedural due process | State: Questioning was inquiry into probation compliance, not a denial of due process | Davis: Officer’s questioning introduced irrelevant dismissed charges, violating due process | Court: No due process violation; questions did not drive revocation decision |
| Whether court improperly re-litigated 2015 partial revocation | State: Court appropriately reviewed history but revoked based on new violation | Davis: Court re-litigated and penalized previously resolved matters | Court: No; revocation rested on admitted 2016 firearm possession, so no re-litigation error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (standard of review for probation revocation is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (revocation requires proof by preponderance that probation conditions were violated)
- State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2010) (abuse of discretion defined and reversal standard for revocations)
- State v. Beard, 189 S.W.3d 730 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005) (trial court credibility findings carry weight of jury verdict)
- State v. Lewis, 917 S.W.2d 251 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (appellate deference to trial court findings unless evidence preponderates otherwise)
Conclusion: The Court affirmed the revocation because substantial evidence—specifically the Defendant’s admitted 2016 unlawful firearm possession—supported that he violated probation, and the trial court did not rely on dismissed 2014 charges in reaching its decision.