State of Tennessee v. Devon Alvon Wilson, M2017-00248-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Devon Alvon Wilson entered a global plea in 2014 resolving three cases: effective 19-year sentence (3 years incarcerated followed by two consecutive 8‑year probationary terms).
While on probation, Wilson was arrested on January 28, 2015 after an undercover controlled buy where he sold a white powder (later tested as flour).
Probation violation warrant (Feb 24, 2015) alleged: arrest (Rule 1), failure to notify probation officer of address change (Rule 5), failure to report (Rule 6), and failure to pay fines/supervision fees (Rule 9).
At the revocation hearing, the probation officer and an investigator testified to the controlled buy, the defendant’s post‑bond cessation of contact, and that he had absconded from supervision.
The trial court found violations of Rules 1, 5, and 6, cited the defendant’s repeated drug offenses as aggravating, revoked probation, and ordered the defendant to serve a 16‑year sentence in confinement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wilson)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by fully revoking probation and ordering full service of the remaining sentence	Revocation and execution of the original sentence is statutorily authorized where probation violation proven by preponderance; trial court acted within discretion	Abuse of discretion; court should have imposed a partial revocation (one year) or only executed the 8‑year sentence for case no. 21698	Court affirmed: substantial evidence supported violations; full execution of sentence is a permissible discretionary sanction

State v. Kendrick, 178 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005) (discusses standard for probation revocation)
State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (probation may be revoked and original sentence imposed)
State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate review of revocation is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (standards for appellate review of discretionary rulings)
State v. Milton, 673 S.W.2d 555 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984) (proof of violation need only be by preponderance)
Roberts v. State, 584 S.W.2d 242 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979) (same principle on burden of proof for revocation)
State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 1999) (enumerates post‑revocation options available to trial court)
State v. Reams, 265 S.W.3d 423 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) (distinguishes finding a violation from selecting appropriate sanction)