696 S.W.3d 98
Tenn. Crim. App.2024Background
- Richard Rand, Jr. was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver (Class C felony) and received a four-year suspended sentence to probation.
- While on probation, Rand was found to have committed new criminal conduct and was ordered to serve twelve months in custody, after which he was released to Georgia to face charges there.
- Upon release from Georgia in January 2023, Rand did not report to his probation officer or otherwise reestablish contact, despite requirements to do so.
- Multiple unsuccessful attempts were made by the probation officer to contact Rand at his last known address and phone number; the residence was found uninhabitable and phone numbers were disconnected.
- Rand was arrested after returning to Tennessee but did not attempt to report to his probation officer for approximately two weeks before his arrest.
- The trial court found by a preponderance of evidence that Rand absconded from supervision, constituting a non-technical violation, and fully revoked his probation.
Issues
| Issue | Rand's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Rand's conduct constitute absconding (a non-technical violation)? | Failure to report was only a technical violation, not absconding. | Rand intentionally avoided supervision, meeting absconding criteria. | Rand’s conduct was absconding; non-technical violation. |
| Was the trial court within its discretion to fully revoke probation for this violation? | Full revocation not justified for technical violation. | Full revocation proper for non-technical (absconding) violation. | Trial court acted within its discretion to fully revoke probation. |
| Did the trial court make sufficient findings to support revocation? | N/A | Sufficient findings made and placed on the record. | Sufficient findings; review for abuse of discretion applies. |
| Was the consequence of full revocation appropriate given Rand's probation history? | N/A (no argument apart from violation nature) | Given history and conduct, probation not suitable. | Full revocation affirmed as within permissible range. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Enix, 653 S.W.3d 692 (Tenn. 2022) (addresses the standard of appellate review in probation cases)
- State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2022) (sets forth two-step process and standard for probation revocations)
- State v. Beard, 189 S.W.3d 730 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for finding probation violation by preponderance of evidence)
- State v. Burdin, 924 S.W.2d 82 (Tenn. 1996) (outlines rehabilitation as primary purpose of probation)
- State v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1999) (discusses operation and termination of probation sentences)