Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville
Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2017
from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 293124 Barry
A. Steelman, Judge
Gregory Lamar Gillespie, Jr., pled guilty in the Hamilton
County Criminal Court to the offenses of robbery, aggravated
assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Defendant received an effective six-year sentence to be
served on probation (effective February 1, 2016) with GPA
monitoring for the first year. On April 22, 2016, a probation
violation report was filed. On April 27, 2016, a capias for
Defendant's arrest was issued. An addendum to the report
was filed on August 17, 2016. Following a probation violation
hearing, the trial court revoked probation and ordered
Defendant to serve his six-year sentence in confinement. On
appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court "erred by
not considering additional means - more restrictive than the
probation Defendant was alleged to have violated, but less
restrictive than incarceration - that were available."
He further contends that the trial court "erred by
ordering the Defendant's sentence into execution."
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Lodato, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Gregory
Lamar Gillespie, Jr.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Ruth
Anne Thompson, Senior Counsel; M. Neal Pinkston, District
Attorney General; and Lance W. Pope, Assistant District
Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
T. Woodall, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which John Everett Williams and Robert W. Wedemeyer, JJ.,
T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Mitchell is employed by the Department of Correction and
began supervising Defendant on his probation on February 16,
2016. When asked how Defendant performed on probation, Mr.
In my opinion, it was very poor. Didn't stick to his
curfew, constantly complained about the curfew that the
judge gave him. Gave him an opportunity to get his GED
through the Father to the Fatherless program, also job
assistance. He failed to complete that as far as getting his
GED or any job assistance program.
Mitchell testified that he filed the original probation
violation report after Defendant was arrested on April 21,
2016, for possession of marijuana for resale. At that time,
he instructed Defendant to continue reporting for his
supervised probation but Defendant failed to do so. Mr.
Mitchell testified that Defendant last reported to him on
April 12, 2016, and he was supposed to report again on Aril
26, 2016, five days after his arrest. Defendant did not
contact Mr. Mitchell between the time that he was supposed to
report on April 26, 2016, and the time that the capias
warrant was "executed" against Defendant on June
14, 2016. The capias had been issued on April 27, 2016.
Mitchell testified that he arranged for Defendant to obtain
his GED by attending classes through the "Father to the
Fatherless program." Defendant attended some of the
classes but he stopped going at some point and did not obtain
his GED. Mr. Mitchell noted that one condition of
Defendant's probation was that he not use drugs. He said
that Defendant admitted to using hydrocodone. Mr. Mitchell
testified that Defendant was supposed to wear a GPS
monitoring device as a condition of his orders for enhanced
probation to primarily monitor his curfew, which was 8:00
p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Mr. Mitchell noted that Defendant violated
his curfew thirty-four times between March 3, 2016, and April
20, 2016. While on probation, Defendant was also convicted of
possession of a controlled substance and for giving a false
report to police. Mr. Mitchell noted that Defendant had
previously been placed on probation for an aggravated
burglary in another case.
cross-examination, Mr. Mitchell testified that
Defendant's charge for possession of marijuana for resale
was eventually "pled down" to a misdemeanor
conviction. Mr. Mitchell said that he did not administer a
drug test to Defendant and that Defendant admitted to using
hydrocodone while on probation. He testified that Defendant
voiced concerns and had difficulties with his curfew but he
did not recall the reasoning for Defendant's concerns.
Mr. Mitchell said that Defendant did not like having a curfew
because it "kind of restricted him from his