State v. Clyde Edgeston ( 1997 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
OCTOBER 1997 SESSION
FILED
December 31, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9611-CC-00413
Appellee, )
) MADISON COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. FRANKLIN MURCHISON,
CLYDE A. EDGESTON, ) JUDGE
)
Appellant. ) (Probation Revocation)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
GEORGE GOOGE JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
DANIEL J. TAYLOR JANICE L. TURNER
Asst. Public Defender Attorney for the State
327 West Baltimore St. 450 James Robertson Pkwy.
Jackson, TN 38301 Nashville, TN 37243-0493
JERRY WOODALL
District Attorney General
NICK NICOLA
Asst. District Attorney General
P. O. Box 2825
Jackson, TN 38301
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED
JOHN H. PEAY,
Judge
OPINION
The defendant was convicted on April 12, 1993, on six counts of reckless
endangerment, vandalism over one thousand dollars ($1000), evading arrest, reckless
driving, leaving the scene, driving while his license was in a revoked status, and violation
of the motor vehicle registration law. For these convictions he received an effective
sentence of eight years and was placed on intensive probation. On August 1, 1994, the
defendant was transferred to regular probation.
On April 1, 1996, a warrant was issued alleging that the defendant had
violated the terms of his probation by failing to report and by failing to pay costs and
restitution. A hearing was held on June 25, 1996, and the trial court revoked probation
and ordered the defendant to serve the entire sentence in the Department of Correction.
It is from this order that the defendant now appeals, contending that the trial court erred
in revoking his probation and in ordering him to serve the entire eight year sentence. We
do not agree and, therefore, affirm the judgment below.
When a trial judge finds that a probationer has violated the conditions of his
or her probation, the trial judge has the authority to revoke probation. See T.C.A.
§ 40-35-310. In determining whether or not to do so, the trial judge need not find beyond
a reasonable doubt that a violation of the terms of probation has occurred. The existence
of a violation need only be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. T.C.A. § 40-
35-311(d).
In probation revocation hearings, the credibility of the witnesses is for the
determination of the trial judge. Bledsoe v. State, 215 Tenn. 553, 387 S.W.2d 811, 814
2
(1965); State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). On review the
findings of the trial judge have the weight of a jury verdict. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 398; Carver
v. State, 570 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978). We will not disturb the judgment
of the trial judge in the absence of an abuse of discretion. For this Court to find an abuse
of the trial court’s discretion, the defendant must demonstrate “that the record contains
no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge that a violation of the
conditions of probation has occurred.” State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991).
At the hearing, the defendant admitted violating his probation by failing to
report since May of 1995 and by failing to make payments of costs and restitution in two
cases. The defendant explained this failure by testifying that he had stopped reporting
because of his work hours. He explained that he was employed digging graves, had
therefore been frequently out of town, and did not return until after his probation officer
had completed his work day. He further testified that he had not had transportation to
facilitate reporting. Although somewhat contradictory, the defendant explained his failure
to pay court costs and restitution by explaining that he had been out of work for months
at a time.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge found that the defendant had
violated his probation in a substantial way, that the defendant had “elected not to be on
probation from about May of ‘95 on, . . . .” The trial court further found that the
defendant’s explanations were not plausible nor reasonable. The trial judge concluded
that the defendant had not made a good faith effort to make his restitution payments.
The trial judge revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered him to the custody of the
Department of Correction and recommended Boot Camp.
3
The trial judge, in his discretion, determined that the defendant had violated
the terms and conditions of his probation and that the defendant should serve his full
sentence. The evidence adduced at the hearing supports the trial judge’s findings and
supports a finding that the defendant is not a good candidate for further probation.
Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment of the court below.
_______________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
CONCUR:
______________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
______________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
4