State of Tennessee v. Travis Pallaria, E2016-00748-CCA-R3-CD

Travis Pallaria pleaded guilty in Dec. 2013 to two theft felonies and received a four-year sentence with judicial diversion; diversion was later revoked after new Virginia charges and he served a one-year split confinement before placement on community corrections.
Community corrections supervisor issued a March 2016 violation warrant alleging curfew violation, failure to timely pay supervision fees, and being untruthful to the officer about employment and whereabouts.
Supervisor testified he found Pallaria absent from home after an 8:00 p.m. curfew, observed no blue Honda at the girlfriend’s workplace parking lot when he waited, and that Pallaria owed fees despite a recent partial payment and had misrepresented his employment status.
Pallaria admitted the curfew violation but claimed it was accidental (helping a friend), insisted he did pick up his girlfriend that night, had arranged a payment plan, and would start a new job upon release.
The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Pallaria violated community corrections (curfew, failure to notify about employment change, late/unpaid fees), credited the supervisor’s testimony, noted this was a second violation, and revoked community corrections, ordering confinement for the balance of the four-year sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Pallaria)	Held
Whether Pallaria violated community corrections conditions	Sufficient evidence showed curfew breach, fee delinquency, and false statements	Violation was accidental/misremembered; supervisor may have missed vehicle; fees nearly paid	Court: Violation proved by preponderance; credited supervisor; revoke affirmed
Whether trial court abused discretion in revocation	Revocation appropriate given violations and prior revocation	Revocation and full confinement is unduly harsh; requested short punitive jail term then return to program	Court: No abuse of discretion; revocation and confinement within court’s authority
Whether witness credibility supported revocation	Officer credible; his observations disproved defendant’s timeline	Defendant argued officer could have been mistaken about seeing the vehicle/time	Court: Trial court’s credibility determinations control on appeal; officer credited
Whether confinement sentence was excessive given compliance in other areas	State: discretionary resentencing allowed up to statutory maximum after revocation	Defendant: compliance with some conditions (MRT), first violation in program merits leniency	Court: Considered mitigating facts but concluded prior history and noncompliance justified confinement

State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (probation revocation principles apply to community corrections)
State v. Beard, 189 S.W.3d 730 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005) (appellate review of revocation is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Webb, 130 S.W.3d 799 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (same standard and review principles for revocation)
State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (trial court determines witness credibility at revocation hearings)
State v. Estep, 854 S.W.2d 124 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) (community corrections is an alternative to incarceration with specific remedies for noncompliance)