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. Sharp

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

December 22, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
DANIEL S. SHARP

          Assigned on Briefs December 20, 2017

         Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County No. C-21230 Tammy Harrington, Judge

         The Defendant, Daniel S. Sharp, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court's order revoking his community corrections sentence for his convictions for three counts of aggravated assault and one count of robbery. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community corrections sentence and by ordering him to serve the remainder of his effective ten-year sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

          J. Liddell Kirk (on appeal), Knoxville, Tennessee; Raymond Mack Garner, District Public Defender; and Matthew Elrod (at revocation hearing), Assistant District Public Defender, for the appellant, Daniel S. Sharp.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Senior Counsel; Michael L. Flynn, District Attorney General; and Ryan Desmond, 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 D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE.

         The Defendant was indicted on November 5, 2012, for three counts of aggravated assault and one count of robbery. On March 11, 2013, he pleaded guilty and received six years for robbery and four years for each aggravated assault conviction. The trial court ordered partial consecutive service, for an effective ten-year sentence to be served on community corrections after one year in confinement. A community corrections violation report was filed with the court on December 2, 2013, alleging that the Defendant had failed to report to his community corrections officer and to participate in various mandatory programs. The community corrections violation report was filed with the court after the Defendant had received a September 20, 2013 warning from his community corrections officer. On December 13, 2013, the Defendant submitted to the community corrections violation, and by agreement of the parties, the court revoked his community corrections sentence, ordered him to serve one year in confinement, and reinstated his community corrections sentence.

         On August 13, 2015, a community corrections violation report was filed with the trial court, alleging that the Defendant had failed a drug screen by testing positive for oxycodone and Suboxone, that the Defendant had obtained illegal narcotics from "someone known to traffic or sell narcotics, " and that the Defendant was $30 in arrears in supervision fees. An arrest warrant for the violation was issued on the same day.

         At the revocation hearing, community corrections officer Hilary Storie testified that the Defendant began reporting to her office after his July 2014 release from confinement. She said that the present violation allegation was the result of the Defendant's positive drug test for oxycodone and Suboxone on August 12, 2015. Ms. Storie stated that the Defendant admitted using Percocet and signed an in-house drug screen report admitting the drug use. The report was received as an exhibit, which reflects that the Defendant checked the box stating that he agreed with the findings of the drug screen and did not want further analysis of his urine sample. T he report also reflects that the Defendant tested positive for oxycodone and Suboxone and that the box stating the Defendant disagreed with the results was unchecked. Ms. Storie did not know whether the drug screen results were verified by a third-party laboratory but said Brian Hensley administered the drug screen.

         Ms. Storie testified that at the time the community corrections violation warrant was issued on August 13, 2015, the Defendant owed $30 in supervision fees. She said that the warrant was served on the Defendant around December 16, 2016. She said her file did not reflect that the Defendant reported to any community corrections officer between August 13, 2015, and December 16, 2016.

         Community corrections officer Brian Hensley testified that he was not the Defendant's supervising officer but that as the district supervisor, he oversaw the community corrections supervision for all males assigned to his office. M r. Hensley said that he was the Defendant's initial supervising officer and that during this time, the Defendant's community corrections sentence was revoked for failure to follow the rules of his release and for failing a drug screen.

         Mr. Hensley testified that he administered the Defendant's August 12, 2015 drug screen. Mr. Hensley said that after receiving the results, he questioned the Defendant about whether the results were accurate. M r. Hensley said that the Defendant agreed with the drug screen results, checked the box on the in-house drug screen report reflecting his agreement, and signed the document. Mr. Hensley said that after the Defendant signed the document, the Defendant admitted consuming two, five-milligram Percocet tablets within three days of the drug screen. The Defendant signed a drug use admission form, which was received as an exhibit. The form stated that the Defendant had undergone a drug screen, that he admitted consuming two, five-milligram Percocet tablets, and that the drug screen was positive for oxycodone and Suboxone. Mr. Hensley agreed ...


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.