W e n ot e t h a t po r t i on s of t h i s r e c or d, i n c l u di n g t h e or i g i n a l j u dg me n t of c on v i c t i on , l i s t t h e Def e n da n t ’ s n a me 1

a s P e g g y H a ll. T h e v io la tio n o f p ro b a tio n w a rr a n t an d the tec h n ic a l re c o rd b o th list t h e D e fen d a n t’s na m e a s P e g g y D a le H al l , an d we wi l l , t her efore, r ef er t o t he D ef

endan t by t hat na me. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jul y 26, 200 6
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. PE GGY DA LE HA LL

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for P ickett C ounty

No. 593 John D. Wooten, Jr., Judge

No. M2005- 02782-CCA -R3-C D - F iled on S eptem ber 19, 2006

The De fenda nt, Pegg y Dale Hall, was c onvicted of f our counts of statutory

rape , and the tria l court 1

s e n te n c e d h e r to a n e ig h t- y e ar p r o b a ti o n ar y s e n te n c e

. A v io lati o n o f p r o b a ti o n w arra nt was subsequently

issued, and the De fenda nt admitted violating the rules of her probation. On a

ppeal, the De fe nd a nt c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d when , a ft e r r e vo kin g he r p ro ba tio n, it o rd e re d h e r t o serve the balanc e of her eight-y ear sentenc e in prison. Finding that there exis ts no rever sible err or, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J . C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

Da v i d Br ad y , J o h n B. Ni s b et , I I I , an d Ap ri l C ra v en , C o o k ev i l l e, T en n es s ee , fo r t h e a p p el l an t , P eggy Da le Ha ll.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge n e r a l an d

R e po rt e r; El iza

be th B . M arn e y , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam E. Gibson, D istrict A ttorney Gene ral; Da le Potter, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION I. F acts

I n October

of 2000, the De fenda nt pled nolo contender e to four counts of st atutory rape , and the trial court sentence d her to two y ear s for e ach c ount and orde red t h at t h e s en tence s run consec utively

. The De fenda nt was orde red to ser ve her sentenc e on probation. On Aug ust 24, 2005,
a wa rr a nt w a s is su e d all e g ing that the De fe nd a nt ha d v iol a te d h e r p ro ba tio n b y : ( 1) le a vin g the state-2-

without permission on August 18, 2005; (2) not pay ing $75.00 of fees; and (3) not pay ing $240.50 in c ou rt c os ts.

At a hea ring on the proba tion violation warrant, the D efe ndant’s probation officer testified about the thre e violat i o n s l i s t ed in the wa rra nt. The off

icer then told the trial court that the Def endant ha d provided her wit h a rece ipt that morning that showed that the Def endant ha d paid the outstanding $240.50 in c ourt costs. The pr obation office r told the court that the D ef endant ha d previously

violated her probation by leaving the State without permission. The Def endant’ s attorney told the trial court that the r emaining money would be paid late r on the da y of the he aring

. Upon questioning by

the trial court, th e De fe n d an t admitted that she had lef t Tennesse e without permission and travele d to Bowling Gre en, Ke ntu ck y

. S h e ex presse d her de sire to plead g uiltyto violating this term of he r probation, but she wanted to e x plain. By way of explanation, the De fe nd a nt’ s a tto rn e y

tol d th e tr ia l c ourt that

the De fe nd a nt h a d tr a ve le d to B ow lin g Gr e e n to purcha se a pet turtle from a flea marke t f or her little g irl. She said that the Def endant’ s daug hter ha d ha d a ha rdlif e , a ndsh e wa nte d to make he r h app y . T he De fe nd a nt a po log ize d to the c ou rt

. The State a sserted tha t this wa s the second time that the D efe ndant had violated the terms of her pr obation. The fir st tim e, the De fenda nt was inca rce rate d for nine months and the n place d back on probation, but she still viol ated the te rms of her probation a second tim e. The S tate also noted that the Def

endant told the court that she could not pay court costs but a lso tha t she had the money to buy a pet turtle. The State asked the trial court to re voke the De fenda nt’s probation and or der he r to serve the balanc e of he r sentenc e in prison.

Th e tr ia l ju dg e the n r e min de d th e De fe nd a nt that he ha d told he r tha t sh e mus t a bid e by a ll of the rule s of her probation and tha t she had violated the m the first time by leaving the State. He reminded he r that he sentenc ed her to nine m onths. The trial c ourt noted that whe n the Def endant
was back on probation she “dec ide[d] on y our own to do something, in a wa ys i l l y , i n a way frivo lou s a nd

. . . le a ve the Sta te a g a in.

. . .” the tr ia l ju dg e sa id:
You know, the shoc king thing about this is, Ithought that y ou would’ve le arne d from the other nine months that y ou did and indeed the other 30 da y s that y ou did. You and y our c o

- d e f

e n d a n t t o o k

a d v a n ta g e o f

a y o u n g g ir l, a n d y o u h a d a n e ig h t y e ar se nte nc e to do , a nd I me a nt wh a t I sa id ba c k the n do n’ t me ss wi th me or do n’ t t e st
me

. So the way I us ua lly do it, ma ’a m, I g ive pe op le - I ’v e g ive n y ou on e e xtra bit e at the apple here by just allowing y ou to do some split confine ment the last time, but when y ou g o and do the e x act sa me thing, I would not be doing my

job if I did not revoke y our probation. Probation revoked.

I t is fr om this or de r tha t th e De fe nd a nt n ow app e a ls.-3- II. Ana lys is

On ap p ea l , the Def

endant c ontends that the trial court erre d when, a fter r evoking her probation, it order ed her to serve the balance of her eig ht-y ear sentenc e in prison. When a trial court de te rm ine s b y

a pr e po nd e ra nc e of

the e vid e nc e that a

pr ob a tio ne r h a s v iol a te d the c on dit ion s o f h is or her probation, the tr i al co u rt has the authority to revoke probation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 311(e) (2003). Upon f

i nding that the defe ndant has violated the conditions of probation, the trial court may revoke the proba tion and either: (1) orde r inca rce ration; (2) or der the orig inal probationary period to commenc e ane w; or (3) extend the remaining probationary period for

up to two additional y ear s. State v. Hunter, 1 S.W .3d 643, 644 (Tenn. 1999) ; see Te nn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35- 310,-311(e ), and 308(c ) (2003) . The de fenda nt has the rig ht to a ppeal the revoc ation of his probation and e ntry of his origina l se ntence

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311( e). Upon a finding of a violation, the trial court is vested w ith the statutory authority to “re voke the probation and suspe nsion of sentenc e and
cause the def

endant to c ommence the execution of the judg ment as orig inally enter ed . . . .” T enn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 311(e) ; Hunter, 1 S

. W.3d at 646 (holding that the tria l court re tains the discretionary

authority to order the defendant to serve his or her orig inal sentenc e in conf inement). F urthe rm or e , w he n p ro ba tio n is re vo ke d, “ the or ig ina l jud g me nt so re nd e re d by the tr ia l jud g e sh a ll be in f ull f orce and eff

ect from the date of the revoc ation of such suspension

. . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-310.
The decision to revoke pr obation is in the sound discretion of the trial judg e. State v. Kendrick, 178 S.W.3d 734, 738 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991); State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) . The judg ment of the trial c ourt to revoke probation will be upheld on appea l unless there ha s been a n abuse of discretion. State v. Ha

rkins, 8 1 1 S

. W

. 2 d 7 9 , 8 2 (Tenn. 1991). To find an a

buse of discr etion in a proba tion revoca tion case, the rec ord must be void of any substantial evidence that would support the trial court’s decision that a violation of the c onditions of probation occurr ed. I d; State v. Grea r, 5 6 8 S.W .2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978) ; State v. Delp, 614 S.W .2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). Proof of a probation violation is sufficient if it allows the trial court to make a c onscientious and intelligent judgme nt. State v. Milton, 673 S.W .2d 555, 557 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984) . I n revie wing the trial court’s f inding, it is our obligation to ex amine the re cord a nd determine whether the trial court has exercised a conscie ntious judgment ra ther than
an ar bitrary one. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d at 735. I n our view, a ft er ex er ci s i n g a consc ientious judgme nt as to whether

or not a De fenda nt has violated the terms of a prob ated sentence , the trial
c ou rt mus t a lso e xer c ise a

c on sc ie ntiou s rat her

tha n a rb itr ary jud g me nt a s to a n a

pp ro pr ia te dispositi on. State v. Steven Kelly Fr aze, No. M2005-01213-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 618300, at *9 (Tenn. Crim. App., a t Nashville, Mar. 13, 2006) , no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed

.
I n the ca se under

submissi on, the Def

endant admitted a violation of the terms of probation. Th is a lon e is su bs ta nti a l e vid e nc e of re c or d to su pp ort th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s re vo c a tio n o rd e r. Se e Sta te v. Michae l Emler, No. 01C01-9512-CC-00424, 1996 WL 691018, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 27, 1996) ( holding whe re the defe ndant admits a violation of the ter ms of probation,
revoc ation by

the t rial court is neither ar bitrary nor ca pricious), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed

. Further, we respe ctfully disag ree with the Defenda nt’s assertion on appea l that the trial court-4-

acte d “too harshly ” in this case

. The recor d indicates that the t rial court had dealt with at least one prior violation of proba tion by this Defenda nt in this case , and had r ef ra i n ed fr om ordering the De fe nd a nt t o s e rve he r s e nte nc e . T he re fo re , in ou r v ie w, the tr ia l c ou rt c e rt a inl y didno t a bu se its discretion when it or dere d the Def endant to se rve her orig inal sentenc e in prison a fter f inding that the Def endant ha d ag ain fa iled to abide by the terms and c onditions of probation.

III. Conclusi on

I n acc ordanc e with the for eg oing a uthorities and re asoning , we aff irm the trial court’s jud g me nt.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE