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. Haynes

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

May 4, 2018

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
LARRY EUGENE HAYNES

          Assigned on Briefs April 24, 2018

          Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County No. 2014-CR-19723 Rex Henry Ogle, Judge No. E2017-01849-CCA-R3-CD

         The Defendant, Larry Eugene Haynes, appeals the Sevier County Circuit Court's order revoking his probation for his forgery and misdemeanor theft convictions and ordering him to serve the remainder of his effective six-year sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering his sentence into execution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

          Edward Cantrell Miller, District Public Defender, and Aaron M. Kimsey, Assistant District Public Defender, for the appellant, Larry Eugene Haynes.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Garrett D. Ward, Assistant Attorney General; James B. Dunn, District Attorney General; and Timothy C. Norris, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Robert H. Montgomery, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Alan E. Glenn and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE.

         On June 25, 2015, the Defendant pleaded guilty to forgery and misdemeanor theft. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant received six years as a Range I, standard offender, with 210 days to serve in confinement and the remainder to be served on probation. The Defendant was ordered to pay $14, 000 restitution, to undergo and follow the recommendations of an alcohol and drug assessment, and to pay court costs. On February 11, 2016, a probation violation report was filed, alleging that the Defendant had been arrested in another county, had pleaded guilty to criminal trespass, and had absconded from supervision. The report also alleged that the Defendant failed to report the arrest to his probation officer, failed to provide an accurate address, failed to make himself available for searches, tested positive for oxycodone on November 30, 2015, admitted consuming "Roxie, " failed to provide verification of completing the drug and alcohol assessment, and failed to make payments toward court costs and supervision fees. O n July 19, 2016, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation based upon his absconding from supervision. The court sentenced the Defendant to time served, extended the period of probation by one year, and returned the Defendant to supervision.

         On April 4, 2017, a probation violation report was filed, alleging that the Defendant had been charged in another county with three counts of failure to appear, had failed to provide employment verification since his release from confinement, had moved to a new residence without permission, had failed to provide his probation officer with an accurate address, had failed to report to his probation officer since "his transfer to Hamblen County was denied, " had failed to make himself available for searches, had tested positive for morphine on November 2, 2016, had admitted consuming morphine because of stomach pain, had tested positive for "[o]xycodone and [o]piates" on November 30, 2016, had failed to make himself available for drug screens since November 2016, had failed to make payments toward supervision fees, court costs, and restitution, and had failed to provide verification of completing the drug and alcohol assessment. On April 4, 2017, a probation violation warrant was issued, and the Defendant was arrested on June 11, 2017.

         At the revocation hearing, probation officer Keith Vincent testified that on March 27, 2016, the Defendant was charged in Jefferson County with three counts of failure to appear. Mr. Vincent said that the Defendant had not provided employment verification since beginning probation, had moved without permission, had not provided a valid address, had failed to report to his probation officer, and had failed to make himself available for searches. Mr. Vincent stated that the Defendant tested positive for morphine at the November 2, 2016 intake meeting and that the November 7, 2016 laboratory analysis confirmed the presence of morphine and oxymorphone. Mr. Vincent said that the Defendant admitted taking "it" to relieve stomach pain. Mr. Vincent stated that on November 30, 2016, a drug screen was administered by Hamblen County officers and that the Defendant tested positive for "[o]xycodone and opiates." Mr. Vincent said that the Defendant had not made himself available for drug screens since November 2016. Mr. Vincent said that the Defendant had failed to make any payments toward supervision fees, had failed to provide verification of payments toward restitution and court costs, and had failed to provide verification that he completed the drug and alcohol assessment.

         The trial court interjected and asked the Defendant if Mr. Vincent's testimony was true, and the Defendant responded, "Yes, Your Honor."

         On cross-examination, Mr. Vincent did not recall whether he asked the Defendant if he had a valid prescription for morphine but said that the Defendant did not mention having a prescription on the admission form. The admission form is not included in the record. Mr. Vincent said that he requested information from Hamblen County about the drug screens and that he could not verify the laboratory results of the screens or what the Defendant may have admitted.

         The trial court interjected stating, "[The Defendant] just admitted to it." Defense counsel stated that the Defendant admitted Hamblen County officers administered a drug screen that was "ostensibly hot for opiates" but that nobody could establish whether the test was properly conducted. Mr. Vincent agreed that the Hamblen County officers ...


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.