M2022-00873-CCA-R3-CD
Tenn. Crim. App.Aug 21, 2025Background
- The case concerns the revocation of Shenessa L. Sokolosky's probation in Smith County, Tennessee.
- The trial court revoked probation based on findings of absconsion (intentional avoidance of supervision) and failure to pay mandatory court fines/costs.
- The dissenting opinion by Judge Greenholtz challenges whether the State produced sufficient evidence to establish either violation.
- The probation officer who testified had no direct knowledge of Sokolosky’s reporting obligations or of any direct outreach efforts and relied on an inherited, incomplete file.
- The State’s only substantive evidence was the probation violation warrant and file entries; no new independent proof or direct notice to the defendant was presented.
- The majority remanded for further findings on hearsay evidence, but the dissent asserts that remand would be futile due to lack of proof, not just procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Dissent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absconsion (avoiding probation supervision) | Defendant intentionally avoided supervision | No proof of reporting obligation, notice, or intent to avoid supervision | Insufficient evidence of absconsion |
| Nonpayment of fines/costs | Defendant failed to pay when due | No evidence of willful nonpayment or ability to pay | Nonpayment not sufficient for revocation |
| Admitting hearsay evidence | Probation warrant supports violation | Hearsay (warrant) is not substantive proof; need independent evidence | Hearsay admission doesn't cure lack of proof |
| Remedy: Whether remand is warranted | Remand appropriate to address hearsay finding | Remand would only repeat lack of proof; should vacate revocation | No remand; reverse and vacate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2022) (sets framework for probation revocation: prove violation, then determine consequence)
- State v. Rand, 696 S.W.3d 98 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024) (defines absconsion and factors for determining willful avoidance of supervision)
- State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (revocation must be supported by substantial evidence; abuse of discretion if not)
- State v. Dye, 715 S.W.2d 36 (Tenn. 1986) (ability to pay required for revocation based on nonpayment)