State of Tennessee v. Leopold Mpawinayo, M2015-00778-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Defendant Leopold Mpawinayo was convicted (April 20, 2015) of two violations of the habitual motor vehicle offender law and sentenced to consecutive three-year terms, to be served on supervised probation.
First probation violation (Sept. 2015): arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and failure to pay fees; court sustained violation, restarted probation, and imposed intensive probation including GPS, 6 p.m. curfew, and stay-away from wife (Nov. 10, 2015).
Second probation violation (Nov. 11, 2015): arrested on four counts (later reduced to domestic assault) for allegedly pointing a gun at his children after a family meeting; police interviewed defendant and children; preliminary hearing testimony and recordings were admitted at the revocation hearing.
Evidence at the revocation hearing: children's recorded statements and preliminary-hearing testimony that the defendant waved a gun and that at least one child was scared; defendant admitted possessing a black gun/movie prop and later produced a rhinestone-covered belt-gun prop; officers found a holster and empty ammunition tray but no firearm.
Trial court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant violated probation, sentenced him to serve one year at 100%, reinstated intensive supervised probation for six years with GPS, curfew, stay-away from wife, and ordered parenting and 26-week anger-management programs; court also confiscated the prop gun and belt.
Defendant appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence to support revocation and (2) additional imposed probation conditions were onerous. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Mpawinayo's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in revoking probation for the November incident	No substantial evidence showed a probation-violating offense; testimony conflicted and no real gun was recovered	Statements and recordings, demeanor, and defendant's admissions support that children were placed in fear	Revocation affirmed — preponderance standard met
Whether evidence of other allegations (not on warrant) could be considered	Court relied on collateral/uncharged conduct and prior allegation improperly	Court may consider relevant testimony and credibility in revocation proceedings	Court properly considered the record; credibility determinations for judge
Whether imposing incarceration and restarting probation term was lawful	Argued these penalties were excessive/onerous	Statute allows revocation, incarceration, and reinstatement or extension of probation	Sentencing (1 year at 100% and restart) lawful and within discretion
Whether added conditions (parenting, anger mgmt., GPS/curfew, stay-away) were unreasonable	Claimed conditions were onerous/harmful	Many conditions were already imposed earlier; added programs are permissible and not shown harmful	Conditions upheld; defendant failed to prove harm

Key Cases Cited

Stamps v. State, 614 S.W.2d 71 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) (probation revocation requires only preponderance of evidence)
State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (trial judge determines witness credibility in revocation hearings)
State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 1999) (options after probation revocation: confinement, execution of judgment, return to probation on modified conditions, or extension)
State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate review: revocation will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion)
State v. Smith, 909 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (standard for reviewing revocation decisions)
Stiller v. State, 516 S.W.2d 617 (Tenn. 1974) (probation is a privilege and court may impose conditions it deems fit)
Moore v. State, 6 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 1999) (abuse of discretion defined by improper logic or reasoning)