State of Tennessee v. Teena Marie Bright, M2016-01873-CCA-R3-CD

Teena Marie Bright pled guilty to possession of ≥ .5 gram methamphetamine with intent; received an 8-year Range I sentence, suspended to supervised probation after 158 days.
Probation required Community Corrections supervision and participation in Drug Court; Bright signed the Drug Court Participant Waiver/Agreement.
Bright was terminated from Drug Court for lying, repeated curfew violations, driving without a license, and failing to comply with reporting/assigned duties.
A probation violation warrant was filed; at the revocation hearing the Drug Court director testified Bright repeatedly violated program rules and was unlikely to comply with alternatives.
The trial court found Bright violated probation by a preponderance of the evidence and revoked suspension, ordering execution of the remainder of the 8-year sentence in confinement.
Bright appealed, arguing the violations were technical and that the trial court abused its discretion by incarcerating her rather than imposing an alternative sanction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court abused discretion in revoking probation	State: revocation proper because Bright violated Drug Court terms (lying, curfew, new charge, failing duties)	Bright: violations were only technical; court should have considered alternatives	Held: No abuse; substantial evidence supports revocation
Whether incarceration for remaining term was proper sanction	State: court within discretion to order execution after violation	Bright: should have been given another alternative sentence or continued probation	Held: Court acted within statutory discretion to order incarceration
Whether evidence met standard for revocation (preponderance)	State: testimony and Drug Court records satisfied standard	Bright: compliance otherwise; violations minor	Held: Preponderance met; trial judge credited witness testimony
Whether defendant entitled to second grant of probation	State: precedent disfavors second grant after violation	Bright: requested alternative to incarceration	Held: Defendant not entitled to a second grant; court may impose original sentence

State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (trial judge determines witness credibility in revocation hearings)
State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 1999) (decision to revoke and appropriate sanction are discretionary)
State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate review of revocation is for abuse of discretion; revocation requires substantial evidence)
State v. Smith, 909 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (standards for appellate review of revocation)
State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 1999) (abuse of discretion explained)