Assigned on Briefs March 7, 2017
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 09-04562 Chris
Hudson ("the Defendant") appeals the trial
court's denial of his motion for reduction of sentence
under Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure,
asserting that he was entitled to relief because the trial
court acted without jurisdiction when it revoked the
Defendant's probation. Discerning no error, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Hudson, Memphis, Tennessee, pro se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Zachary T. Hinkle, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P.
Weirich, District Attorney General; and Reggie Henderson,
Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State
L. Holloway, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and James Curwood Witt, Jr.,
L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE
23, 2009, the Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant
for theft over $10, 000 and burglary. Pursuant to a plea
agreement, the Defendant pleaded guilty, as a Range I
standard offender, to theft over $10, 000 on October 27,
2010, and was sentenced to five years'
probation. On November 12, 2014, the trial court
issued a probation violation warrant based on allegations
that the Defendant was arrested for theft over $10, 000 on
October 7, 2014, in Brownsville and that the Defendant
traveled outside the county without permission. On October
29, 2015, the trial court entered an order revoking the
Defendant's probation. On April 5, 2016, the Defendant
filed a pro se Motion for Rule 35 Correction, Modification,
and/or Reduction on Currently Imposed Sentence. The trial
court denied the Defendant's motion without a hearing.
The trial court found that:
The [D]efendant, while on probation for a [five] year
sentence for [t]heft over $10, 000, committed the same crime
again while on probation, and it took the Shelby County
fugitive squad ten months to serve him with the warrant for
violation. His probation was revoked October 29, 2015. This
court feels he is undeserving of having his sentence reduced.
appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court did not
have jurisdiction to revoke his probation because he had
successfully completed probation before the filing of the
violation warrant. As such, the Defendant argues, the trial
court should have granted his Rule 35 motion "in the
interest of justice." The State responds that the
Defendant waived any challenge to the initial probation
revocation because he did not appeal the trial court's
order and that the ...