State of Tennessee v. Terry Sherrod, M2016-01112-CCA-R3-CD

Terry Sherrod pled guilty in two cases (domestic assault; possession of diazepam with intent) and received concurrent Community Corrections totaling four years.
As a condition of Community Corrections he was required to remain arrest-free, obey laws, avoid intoxicants, and avoid assaultive behavior.
An affidavit/warrant alleged a January 20, 2016 arrest for aggravated assault and public intoxication after an incident in which a woman sustained a cut; Sherrod was arrested and a knife with blood was found.
Detective testimony at the revocation hearing described on-scene observations (intoxication, fight, knives); the victim did not testify and the grand jury later returned a no true bill on the incident.
The trial court excluded the victim’s out-of-court statements, credited the detective’s observations, found violations of Rules 2 (no intoxicants), 6 (remain arrest-free), and 11 (no assaultive behavior), revoked Community Corrections, and ordered Sherrod to serve the balance of his sentence with credit for time served.
On appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the revocation (preponderance standard satisfied) but remanded to ensure proper judgment forms exist for two dismissed charges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation was supported by sufficient evidence	State: detective’s direct observations and arrest established violation by a preponderance	Sherrod: no conviction/indictment; testimony was largely hearsay and insufficient	Court: evidence (detective’s observations, arrest) satisfied preponderance; revocation not an abuse of discretion
Admissibility of hearsay at revocation hearing	State: hearsay admissible if reliable and good cause; detective’s observations are permissible	Sherrod: relied on inadmissible hearsay (victim statements)	Court: trial excluded victim’s hearsay, relied on detective’s firsthand observations — admissible for revocation
Whether arrest alone can support revocation	State: pending charges/criminal conduct can support revocation if supported by proof	Sherrod: arrest or unindicted conduct insufficient to revoke	Court: arrest alone insufficient, but here additional corroborating observations met preponderance standard
Whether defendant had adequate notice of grounds for revocation	State: original warrant alleged violation of Rule 6 (arrest); other violations arose from hearing facts	Sherrod: due process violated because he lacked written notice of Rules 2 and 11 violations	Court: any error harmless because revocation was properly supported on noticed ground (Rule 6); no reversal required

State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (standard for revocation review and district court discretion)
State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (appellate review requires conscientious, not arbitrary, exercise of discretion)
State v. Wade, 863 S.W.2d 406 (Tenn. 1993) (hearsay admissible at probation revocation hearings with reliability finding)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (minimum due process rights at revocation proceedings)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (right to written notice of claimed violations)