State v. Christopher Love ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON FILED
JUNE 1999 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * No. 02C01-9809-CR-00281
October 25, 1999
Appellee * SHELBY COUNTY
V. * Hon. James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
CHRISTOPHER LOVE, * (Probation Revocation)
Appellate Court Clerk
Appellant. *
For Appellant For Appellee
Robert M. Brannon, Jr. Paul G. Summers
295 Washington, Suite 3 Attorney General and Reporter
Memphis, TN 38103 425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Patricia Kussmann
Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Paula Wulff
Assistant District Attorney General
Criminal Justice Complex, Suite 301
201 Poplar Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED - RULE 20
NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE
OPINION
The appellant, Christopher Love, appeals the revocation of his
probationary sentence by the Shelby County Criminal Court. The appellant
contends that the evidence adduced at the probation revocation hearing is
insufficient to support the trial court’s exercise of discretion. Following a thorough
review of the record, we conclude that this is an appropriate case for affirmance
pursuant to Ct. of Crim. App. Rule 20.
On October 5, 1993, the appellant pled guilty to possession of cocaine
with intent to sell. The trial court imposed a sentence of eight years incarceration in
the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court then suspended the
sentence, with the exception of six months confinement in the Shelby County
Correctional Center, placing the appellant on probation for eight years. The
conditions of probation included obeying federal and state laws.
On August 12, 1998, the State submitted a petition to revoke the
appellant’s probationary sentence, alleging that on January 15, 1998, the appellant
was arrested and charged with two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled
substance with intent to sell and further asserting that the appellant in fact violated
the law. The trial court conducted a hearing on September 9, 1998.
At the hearing, Carl Harrison, an undercover officer with the Shelby
County Sheriff’s Department, testified that on January 15, 1998, he purchased three
pounds of marijuana from an Antonio Phillips for two thousand and five hundred
dollars ($2,500.00). He then observed Mr. Phillips deliver the proceeds to another
individual seated in the appellant’s car. The appellant was in the driver’s seat.
Officer D. L. Galloway, also with the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department, further
2
testified that, immediately thereafter, he detained the appellant’s car and arrested
the occupants. Upon stopping the car, he discovered fifty-six point three (56.3)
grams of “powder cocaine” and twenty-six point eight (26.8) grams of “crack
cocaine” on the rear seat of the car. Moreover, an Officer J. E. Blackwell recovered
two thousand and five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) from the driver’s seat of the car.
On the basis of this proof, the trial court revoked the appellant’s probation.
A trial court may revoke a defendant=s probation when it finds that the
probationer has violated the conditions of probation. See Tenn. Code Ann. ' 40-35-
310 (1997). In determining whether or not to order revocation, the trial judge need
not find beyond a reasonable doubt that a violation of the conditions of probation
has occurred. The existence of a violation need only be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. ' 40-35-311(e)(1998 Supp.). On
appeal, the record must demonstrate that the trial judge has not acted arbitrarily and
has exercised conscientious judgment. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn.
1991); State v. Gregory, 946 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). In other
words, this court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court absent an abuse of
discretion, reflected in the record by a lack of substantial evidence to support the
trial judge=s findings. Id. This court=s review of the evidence does not encompass
an evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses at the probation revocation hearing.
The trial judge determines the credibility of witnesses. State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d
733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). In accordance with these principles, we
conclude that substantial evidence in the record supports the trial judge’s finding
that the appellant violated the conditions of his probationary sentence.
3
Pursuant to Ct. of Crim. App. Rule 20, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
Norma McGee Ogle, Judge
CONCUR:
David H. Welles, Judge
David G. Hayes, Judge
4