State of Tennessee v. Mark Anthony Thomas, W2016-00122-CCA-R3-CD

Mark Anthony Thomas pled guilty to being a drug felon in possession of a firearm and received an eight-year Range II sentence; after six months in jail and completion of a treatment program his sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation.
Probation conditions included reporting, treatment, employment verification, and payment of fees/costs.
A violation report alleged missed reporting (Sept–Oct 2015), failure to provide employment verification (May, June, Sept, Oct 2015), positive drug tests (cocaine on April 28, 2015; cocaine, benzodiazepine, oxycodone on July 1, 2015), and unpaid supervision/court costs.
At the revocation hearing the probation officer testified to the violations; Thomas admitted drug use and losing his job as a result, and expressed willingness to seek further treatment.
The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Thomas violated probation (failed drug screens and failure to report) and revoked probation, ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in custody.
Thomas appealed the revocation; the State moved to affirm under Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and this Court granted the motion and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking probation	The State argued the record supports revocation based on multiple violations	Thomas argued the court should have only partially revoked because he was remorseful and willing to seek treatment	Court held no abuse of discretion; full revocation affirmed
Whether sufficient evidence supported finding probation violations	State relied on probation officer testimony and drug test results	Thomas admitted using drugs and missing reporting/employment obligations	Court held there was substantial evidence to support violations
Whether the trial court properly exercised sentencing options after revocation	State: once revoked, court may order execution of original sentence	Thomas: sought continued probation or partial revocation to allow treatment	Court held trial court properly ordered execution of the original sentence
Whether credibility determinations required deference on appeal	State: credibility for trial judge to decide	Thomas: implied his remorse warranted leniency despite admissions	Court held credibility is for trial court and its findings were upheld

State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (probation revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Williamson, 619 S.W.2d 145 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981) (standards for reviewing revocation decisions)
State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) (absence of substantial evidence establishes abuse of discretion)
State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (probation revocation evidentiary standards)
State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285 (Tenn. 1978) (revocation standards)
Carver v. State, 570 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978) (credibility determinations reserved to trial judge)
Bledsoe v. State, 378 S.W.2d 811 (Tenn. 1965) (same: credibility is for factfinder)