State of Tennessee v. Richard Adrian Vaughn
E2016-02357-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- Richard Adrian Vaughn pled guilty in 2011 to hindering a secured creditor, writing a worthless check, four counts of theft, and failure to appear; received a five‑year sentence suspended to six years probation.
- In 2015 he pled guilty to additional theft-related charges, received a consecutive two‑year sentence, and his prior probation was reinstated with a requirement to attend a Day Reporting Center (DRC).
- Multiple probation violation reports were filed: a failed drug screen (oxycodone and benzodiazepine) after misleading admissions, and failure to attend DRC/communicate with his PO.
- The DRC discharged Vaughn as an absconder and recommended incarceration; his probation officer testified she repeatedly attempted to help him and recommended execution of the sentence.
- At the revocation hearing Vaughn waived a formal hearing, admitted the violations, and did not object to the PO’s statements; the trial court revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence (seven years total).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation based on evidence of violations | State: substantial evidence (failed DRC attendance and positive drug test) supports revocation | Vaughn: revocation was an abuse of discretion | Court: No abuse; substantial evidence supports finding of violation and execution of sentence |
| Whether the trial court improperly considered unsworn testimony of the probation officer | State: trial court properly considered PO statements and Vaughn waived objection by not contemporaneously objecting | Vaughn: trial court relied on unsworn PO testimony improperly | Court: Issue waived for appeal; in any event Vaughn admitted violations, so any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (trial judge determines witnesses' credibility in revocation hearings)
- State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate review of revocation uses abuse‑of‑discretion; revocation must be supported by substantial evidence)
- State v. Smith, 909 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (standard for disturbing revocation judgments)
- State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 1999) (court’s discretion in choosing consequences after probation violation)
- State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 1999) (abuse‑of‑discretion explained in revocation context)