Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Baldwin

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

January 5, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
TOMMY LEE BALDWIN

          Assigned on Briefs December 20, 2016

         Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County Nos. 288216 & 293019 Barry A. Steelman, Judge

         The defendant, Tommy Lee Baldwin, appeals the revocation of the probationary sentence imposed for his Hamilton County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded convictions of violating his community supervision requirement and of violating the sexual offender registry act. Discerning no error, we affirm.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

          Blake F. Murchison, Assistant District Public Defender, for the appellant, Tommy Lee Baldwin.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Robert W. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General; Neal Pinkston, District Attorney General; and Amanda Morrison, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          James Curwood Witt, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and John Everett Williams, J., joined.

          OPINION

          JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE.

         On November 19, 2014, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of violating the sexual offender registry act in case number 293019 in exchange for a two-year sentence to be served as 90 days' incarceration followed by supervised probation for the balance of the sentence. On that same date, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of violating his lifetime community supervision requirement in case number 288216 in exchange for an 11-month-and-29-day sentence suspended to supervised probation following the service of 60 days' incarceration and to be served consecutively to the prior sentence. In addition, as part of the defendant's supervised probation in both cases, he was required to submit to global positioning system ("GPS") monitoring.

         On January 13, 2015, the defendant's probation supervisor filed a probation violation report, alleging that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation by failing to report within 48 hours of his release from incarceration on December 22, 2014, to update his sexual offender registry status and to receive his GPS monitoring device.

         At the April 5, 2016 revocation hearing, William Ford, the defendant's probation supervisor, testified that, upon the defendant's release from split confinement, he failed to report as required. Mr. Ford stated that his last contact with the defendant occurred in March 2013, when the defendant had informed Mr. Ford "that he was smoking marijuana, was not going to pass a drug screen, he was behind in his fees, and had not reported for sex offender treatment." Those revelations prompted Mr. Ford to file for a violation of lifetime community supervision in case number 288216. Shortly thereafter, the defendant was charged in case number 293019 with violating the sexual offender registry act for moving his residence without permission. Mr. Ford explained that his supervision of the defendant began in December 2012 and that the defendant's prior probation officer had reviewed the sexual offender registry rules with the defendant. Mr. Ford added that, after he had filed the 2015 community supervision violation report, he learned from the defendant's sexual offender treatment provider that the defendant had been dismissed from the program due to nonattendance.

         At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court made the following findings:

I think with sex offenders and the sex offender registry, the purpose of that is so that we know where the sex offenders are. [The defendant] got out in December of 2014 and was to be on GPS monitoring and he knew that. The purpose of that is so that somebody with responsibility for him knows where he is at all times, and we didn't know where he was because he chose not to comply.
And then he also has shown a history of not going for sex offender treatment. That's a ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.