State of Tennessee v. Melvin L. Horne, M2017-00647-CCA-R3-CD

In May 2016 Melvin L. Horne was indicted for criminal simulation and theft; he pleaded guilty to theft on August 22, 2016 and received a four-year sentence suspended to supervised probation plus $1,543.87 restitution.
Probation was supervised in Davidson County, where Horne lived and worked.
A violation warrant issued November 18, 2016 alleged an arrest for violating community supervision, multiple curfew violations, and a positive cocaine test.
At the February 27, 2017 revocation hearing Horne admitted violating probation: he acknowledged a Davidson County plea on community-supervision violation and admitted snorting cocaine.
The trial court revoked probation and activated the four-year sentence; Horne appealed, arguing the court prejudged the matter based on a file note reading “Last Chance.”
The State argued the note was not in the appellate record, Horne waived the issue by not objecting at trial, and Horne’s admissions independently supported revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Horne)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation	Revocation appropriate because Horne admitted violations; court acted within discretion	Trial court prejudged outcome by relying on a “Last Chance” note in the file	No abuse of discretion; revocation affirmed
Whether the “Last Chance” note may be considered on appeal	Note not part of the certified record and therefore not before the Court	Note shows trial court predetermined revocation	Note excluded from consideration because not properly certified; no plain error shown
Whether Horne preserved objection to the court’s alleged reliance on the note	Objection was not made at hearing, so issue is waived	Failure to object should not bar review because note shows prejudice	Issue waived for failure to object; plain error review not warranted
Whether Horne’s admissions constitute substantial evidence for revocation	Admission alone supplies substantial evidence to revoke probation	Admissions insufficient if court predetermined outcome	Admissions sufficient; revocation supported by substantial evidence

State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (revocation of probation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Leach, 914 S.W.2d 104 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (standard for appellate review of revocation)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard with presumption of reasonableness for sentencing decisions)
State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) (probation revocation requires substantial evidence of violation)
State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (discussing standard for finding abuse of discretion)
State v. Bunch, 646 S.W.2d 158 (Tenn. 1983) (appellant’s duty to prepare an adequate record on appeal)
State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (documents attached to briefs not part of certified record)