Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs May 13, 2015
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lawrence County Nos. 30857, 31527, 31539, 31540 Jim T. Hamilton, Judge
Claudia S. Jack, District Public Defender, and R.H. Stovall, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, for the appellant, Adam Todd Tucker.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Meredith DeVault, Senior Counsel; Brent Cooper, District Attorney General; and Gary M. Howell, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Robert H. Montgomery, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which James Curwood Witt, Jr., and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.
ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE
On September 27, 2012, the Defendant pleaded guilty in case number 30857 to theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10, 000 and was sentenced to four years' probation after serving ninety days in confinement. On April 25, 2013, a probation violation report was filed, alleging that the Defendant failed to obtain employment or to provide documentation of an employment search, failed to report to his probation officer as scheduled during March 2013, failed to comply with the "ACRC and FSW" recommendation of inpatient treatment, had a positive drug screen for morphine on January 24, 2013, had a positive drug screen for amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine, and morphine on April 4, 2013, and failed to pay supervision fees and court costs. On May 30, 2013, the trial court ordered a partial probation revocation and returned the Defendant to probation after he served ninety days in the county jail.
Also on May 30, 2013, the Defendant pleaded guilty to multiple offenses. In case number 31539, he pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10, 000, and he received a four-year sentence to be served on probation. The trial court also ordered the sentence be served consecutively to the four-year sentence in case number 30857. In case number 31540, he pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1000, and he received two years' probation. In case number 31527, he also pleaded guilty to promotion of methamphetamine manufacture and received four years' probation. As a result, the Defendant received an effective eight years' probation after serving ninety days in confinement for the probation violation and new charges.
On September 12, 2013, a probation violation report was filed relative to all four case numbers, alleging that the Defendant failed to obtain employment or to provide documentation of an employment search, failed to report to his probation officer as scheduled on June 25, 2013, failed to report during August 2013, and failed to pay fees and court costs. The report also alleged that on August 21, 2013, the Defendant was not home when a probation officer attempted to conduct a home visit and that the officer was told the Defendant was living with a girlfriend. On November 14, 2013, the probation violation report was amended and alleged that on August 2, 2013, the Defendant was indicted for burglary, felony theft of property, and criminal trespass. On November 27, 2013, the trial court found that the Defendant had violated his probation. It ordered the Defendant to serve six months in jail before being reinstated to probation. The Defendant did not appeal.
On April 24, 2014, another probation violation report was filed with the trial court, alleging that the Defendant failed to obtain employment or to provide documentation of an employment search, failed to report to his probation officer after serving six months in confinement for the previous probation revocation, and failed to pay fees and court costs. The report also alleged that the Defendant's residence could not be verified when a home visit was attempted on April 8, 2014. This probation violation report is the subject of the present appeal.
At the revocation hearing, Probation Officer Ladner testified that on September 27, 2012, the Defendant was placed on probation and that Probation Officer Nicely supervised the Defendant. On April 24, 2014, Officer Nicely filed a probation revocation report after the Defendant failed to report to her office and failed to provide a current address. Officer Ladner said that two home visits were attempted and that the first visit was attempted approximately two months after the Defendant's release from serving time in confinement pursuant to a partial probation revocation. Her records reflected that the Defendant was released on February 13, 2014, and that the Defendant had not reported to the probation office since his release. The first home visit at the Defendant's reported residence was attempted because of his failure to report. She said that on April 16, 2014, the Defendant was located at a different address with his grandmother and girlfriend. She said April 16, 2014, was the Defendant's first contact with his probation officer since his release in February. She said Officer Nicely also had difficulty locating the Defendant in 2013.
Officer Ladner testified that the Defendant owed court costs and restitution and that the Defendant had never made a payment. She noted her records showed that in one of his cases, the Defendant owed $31, 150. The Defendant had not provided receipts reflecting any payments, and he was required to provide his receipts. Office Ladner stated that this was the third probation violation allegation against the Defendant.
Officer Ladner testified that on February 16, 2013, the Defendant participated in an "ACRC" hearing to prevent another probation violation allegation. She said that as a result of the ACRC hearing, the Defendant was required to seek substance abuse treatment but that the Defendant did not comply. She said the Defendant had previously failed drug screens.
On cross-examination, Officer Ladner testified that the Defendant had not received any new criminal charges since his release from confinement on February 13, 2014. She agreed the violation report alleged technical violations but stressed the significance of the Defendant's failure to report to the probation office. She said that the Defendant would have been released after midnight on February 13 and that no one from the probation office would have talked to him at the jail. She said, though, the Defendant would ...