A t r an s cr i pt of t h i s h ea r i n g i s n ot i n t h e appe l l at e r ec or d. 1 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs Marc h 4, 200 8
STA TE OF TE N N ES SE E v
. KE N N ET H L Y LE D A V IS

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty

No. 03-92 Donald H. Allen, Ju dge

No. W2007-00776-C CA-R 3-CD - Filed Jun e 10, 2008

Th e app e lla nt, Ke nn e th L yle Da vis , a pp e a ls the Ma dis on Cou nty Cir c uit Cou rt ’s or de r r e vo kin g h is pr ob a ti on and rei ns ta tin g h is o ri gin a l tw o- ye ar s e nte nc e . Ba se d u po n th e re c or d a ndthe pa rt ie s’ brie fs , w e a ff

ir m th e jud gme nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Ci r c uitCo ur t i s A ffirm e d.

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL and D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J J ., joined.

Kenne th L yle Davis, Tiptonville, Tenne ssee, Pro se.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Da vid H. F inl e y , Ass ist ant Att or ne y Ge ne ra l; Jame s G

. Woo da ll, Di str ic t Attor ne y Ge ne ra l; a

nd Anna B ank s, As sis tant D istri c t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

The re cord r efle cts that on June 9, 2003, the a ppellant pled guilty to driving under the inf lue nc e (D UI ) andfe lon y r e c kle ss e nd a ng e rm e nt an d re c e ive d an e ff e c tiv e tw o- ye ar s e nte nc e to be ser ved as f

ive days in jail and the r emainder on probation. On Ap ri l 2 7 , 2005, the appe llant’s pr ob a tio n o ff

ic e r f ile d a pro bat ion vio la tio n r e po rt , a lle gin g th a t th e app e lla nt’ s p ro batio n w ou ld
e xp ir e on Ju ne 3, 20 05 , an d tha t he ha d not ye t pai d all of his su pe rv isi on fe e s o r c ou rt c os ts a ndsti ll had sixty-eight and one -half hours of community se rvice work to c omplete. The trial court issued a probation violation warrant, a nd a hea ring occur

red on May 16, 2005. On M ay 20, 2005, the trial 1W e n ot e t h at “ ar g u men t s

. . . a n d t h e r ec i t at i on of f ac t s c on t ai n ed i n a br i ef , or a s i mi l ar pl ea di n g , a r e n ot 2 evi dence

. ” St at e v

. Ro bert s , 755 S. W

. 2d 833 , 836 ( T enn

. Cri m. Ap p. 198 8). Si mi l ar l y , “ do cumen t s at t ach ed t o an appe l l at e br i ef

bu t n ot i n cl u ded i n t h e r ec or d on a ppea l c an n ot be c on s i der ed by t h i s c ou r t a s pa r t of t h e r ec or d on

a p p e a l.” G ro v e r L . D u n iga n v. S ta te , N o . E 2 0 0 5 -0 1 5 7 4 -C C A -R 3 -P C , 2 0 0 6 T e n n . C rim . A p p . L E X IS 1 9 8 , at *8 (K n o x v ill e , F e b . 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 ); se e S ta te v. M a tthe w s, 8 0 5 S .W .2 d 7 7 6 , 7 8 3 -8 4 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ).
-2- court e xtended the a

ppellant’s probation for

one yea r. Ac cording to the trial c ourt’s written or der, the appellant’ s probation would expire if he pa id his fines, court costs, and supe rvision fee s by June 3, 2005.

On Ju ly 2 1, 20 05 , th e app e lla nt’ s p ro batio n o ff ic e r f ile d a se c on d p ro batio n v iol a tio n r e po rt , alleging that the appe llant had violated his probat ion on July 14, 2005, by commit ting felony eva ding
arr est, possession of methampheta mine with i n t en t to sell or deliver, a nd possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. The trial court issued a nother probation violation warrant. Ac cording to a written order filed on August 25, 2005, a hearing was held on August 15, 2005. The trial c ourt fo un d th a t th e app e lla nt h a d v iol a te d h is p ro batio n b y f a ili ng to r e ma in a

rr e st- fr e e , r e vo ke d h is probation, and or dere d him to serve the r emainder of his two-yea

r sentenc e in conf

inement. The appellant a

ppeale d the trial court’s order , and this court a ff i rm ed the tria l court’s judgment. See State v. Kenne th Lyle Davis, No. W2005-02147- CCA-R3-CD, 2006 Tenn. Crim . App. LEXI S 471 (Jac kson, June 22, 2006). Acc ording to the appellant’ s brief a nd a written guilty pl ea f orm attac hed to the brief, he subsequently pled guilty to severa l offense s as a result of his July 14, 2005 arre st and agre ed to a nine- year

sentenc e to be se rved on pr obation. 2
Ap pa re ntl y, the app e lla nt wa s re le a se d fr om pr iso n on Mar c h 1, 200 6, a ndwa s a llo we d to
serve the re mainder of his two- year sentenc e on super vised probation, which w ould expire on June 7, 2007. On Janua

ry 24, 2007, the a

ppellant’s pro b at ion office r filed a third probation violation report, alleging that the appe llant had viol ated his probation on Janua ry 1, 2007, by being a

rre sted fo r r e c kle ss dri vin g, drivi ng on a su sp e nd e d lic e ns e , po sse ssi on of me thamph e ta min e wi th i nte nt t o rese ll, conspiracy to ma nufac ture marijuana , and possession of drug para pherna lia. The trial court iss ue d a thi rdpr ob a tio n v iol a tio n w arr a nt.
At the April 2, 2007 probation revoc ation hearing, Ser geant Shane Barnes of the Madison County S heriff ’s Depa

rtment testified that at 6:45 p.m. on January 21, 2007, he was in his patrol ca r and wa s stopped at the tra ffic light at the inter section of Par kway a nd Highway 70 East. Sergea nt Barnes sa w a gold Ford Ranger pickup t ruck traveling west on Highway 70. The truc k turned right at a high rate of speed and began t rave ling west on Parkwa y. Sergea nt Barnes stated that as the truck made the right turn, it “went completely ove r two lane s of traf fic into the ce nter lane almost into t he opposing l an e t here and came bac k into the lane of tra ffic.” Sergea nt Barnes pulled in behind the truck and stopped it at t he interse ction of Dr. F. E. W right Drive a nd Parkwa y. He a pproac hed the vehicle and explained to the driver, who was the a ppellant, why he ha d stopped the truck. Ser geant Barnes r an a c ompute r check of the a ppellant’s drive r’s lice nse and le arne d that the appe llant’s license ha d been suspe nded for failure t o p ay child support. Sergea nt Barnes planne d to issue a
c itatio n a nda llo w the app e lla nt t o c a ll some on e to pic k him up. He a sk e d the app e lla nt if he c ou ld
sear ch the ve hicle, and the appellant ga v e co n s ent. During the se arc h, Sergea nt Barnes found a Ga me Boy ba g in the truc k’ s ce nte r co ns ole c on ta ini ng 15 .9 gr a ms o f m e thamph e ta min e , 0 .4 gr a ms-3-

of me thamph e ta min e , th re e ba gs of mari juana se e ds we igh ing abo ut thirty o un c e s, six c le ar g la ss pipes , a s ma ll r e d p la s ti c p ip e , s c is s o r s , a w h it e s p o o n , a s ma ll to r c h , mu lt ip le b a g s , s c a le s , and a small composition book containing names and telephone numbers. He al s o fo u n d a small metal chrome container

containing methampheta mine. A fe male had be en riding in t h e t ruck with the appellant, a nd neither of

them claimed owne rship of the ba g.
The a ppellant re prese nted himself at the r evocation he a rin g

. O nc r oss-exa mination, Sergeant Barnes te stified that he conside red a “high rate of spee d” to be any speed that cre ated a rec kless or
e rr a tic e nv ir on me nt. He state d th a t th e app ella nt w a s d ri vin g to o f a st t o ma ke the ri gh t tu rn on to Parkwa y safe ly and that the appe llant drove int o the opposing lane of tr aff ic. Afte r Serge ant Barne s stopped the appe llant and wrote him a citation, he allowed the appellant to use the offic er’ s telephone to call a f riend. He stated t hat i f t he appellant had not consente d to the s ear ch of the truck, the stop

“ wo uldha ve be e n o ve r w ith .” Se rg e a nt B arn e s st a te d th a t he didno t remem ber why he a sk e d to
sear ch the truc k but that it was “common pra ct i ce ” t o sear ch vehic les during traf fic stops. After finding the bag c ontaining the drugs and drug para pherna lia, Sergea nt Barnes a rre sted the appe llant and the a ppellant’s passe nger. He did not seize the appellant’s truck because he did not know at that time that the substances he found in the vehic le wer e contr olled substances.

In a w ritten order

filed on May 2, 2007, the t rial court ruled that the appe llant had violated his pr obation by failing to r emain arr est-fr ee and by failing to r eport the arres t s t o h i s p robation of fi c e r i n a tim e ly m a nn e r. It re vo ke d th e app e lla nt’ s p ro batio n a ga in andor de re d th a t he se rv e his sentenc e in conf

inement with cre dit for time alre ady ser ved.

The a ppellant filed a

timely pr o se notice of

appea l, “appe aling the Circuit Court[’s] de cision on his Revocation Hea

ri ng that was he ld on April 2, 2007.” Howe ver, in his appe llate brief , the appellant de tails the proce dural history of his case and argue s that the trial court erre d on May 20, 2005, by extending his probation for one yea r. He contends that he to l d t h e co u rt that he did not want his probation exte nded and that he “wa s about to pay off his de bt and let the probation expire” as sche duled on June 3, 2005. He argue s that if t h e t ri al co u rt had not extende d his probation
se nte nc e , h e c ou ld h a ve be gu n servin g ea rl ie r the nin e -y e ar s e nte nc e he la te r r e c e ive d f or his gu ilt y pleas.

II. Ana lys is

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-308(c ) provides that “a t the conc lusion of a probation re vocation hea

ring, the court shall have the authority to extend the defe ndant’s period of probation super vision for any pe riod not in exce ss of two (2) years.” A defendant may appea l as of ri gh t f ro m a n o rd e r r e vo kin g p ro batio n. Te nn

. R. Ap p. P. 3( b)

. Un de r T e nn e sse e Rul e of Ap pe llate Pr oc e du re 4( a ), the app e lla nt wa s r e qu ir e d to fi le a no tic e of app e a l w ith in thirty d a ys fr om the date that the judgment revoking his probation was enter ed. The appellant ne ver a ppeal ed t he May 20, 2005 revoc ation and probation extension. Moreove r, eve n if we w ere to treat the appellant’s c urre nt no tic e of app e a l a s a n a

pp e a l of t he tria l c ou rt ’s Ma y 2 0, 20 05 or de r, the no tic e wo uldbe gr os sly untimely. Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedu re 4( a) pr ovides that the notice of appea l is not jurisd ic tio na l a ndthat ti me ly fi lin g may , the re fo re , be wa ive d in the int e re st of jus tic e

. W e c ho os e not to waive the timely filing require ment in this case. Ne verthe less, we will addr ess whethe r the-4-

trial court pr operly re voked his probation on May 2, 2007.

The a ppellant did not te stify at his revoc ation hearing. Howeve r, in his notice of a ppeal, he offe rs seve ral e xplanations for w hy he did not inform his probation offic er a bout the n ew charge s he re ceive d as a r esult of S er g eant Barnes’ tra ffic stop a nd why he should not have to serve the balanc e of his se ntence in c onfinement. He contends that he could not te lephone hi s probation of fi c e r t o in fo rm

he r abo ut the ne w c ha

rg e s un til he wa s r e le a se d f ro m ja il thr e e da ys a ft e r h is a rr e st, that he ha d a

go od re c or d w hil e on pr ob a tio n, a ndtha t he fo llo we d th e pr ob a tio n r ule s. He a lso argue s that he had not be en char ged with any violent of fense , that his r elea se fr om confineme nt was not a threat to the community, and that his release was ve ry important to his young children.

A trial court may revoke a sente nce o f p ro bation upon finding by a pre pondera nce of the evidenc e that the de fenda nt has violated the c onditions of his r el ea s e. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311( e). U pon finding by a pre pondera nce of the evidenc e that the appellant has violated the te rm s o f h is p ro batio n, the tr ia l c ou rt is auth oriz e d to or de r an a pp e lla nt t o s e rv e the ba la nc e of his
origi na l sen te nc e in c on fi ne me nt. Se e Te nn . Co de An n. §§ 40 -3 5- 31 0, -3 11 (e ). On app e a l, this decisi o n w il l n o t b e d is tu r b e d ab s e n t a

f in d in g o f a n ab u s e o f

d is c r e ti o n

. St a te v
. M it c h e ll , 810 S.W.2d 73 3 , 7 3 5 (T enn. C rim. App. 1991). In or der to find suc h an abuse , there must be no substantial evidence to support t he trial c ourt’s conc lusion that a violation of the conditions of pr ob a tio n h a s o c c ur

re d. Sta te v. Ha

rkins , 811 S.W .2 d 79, 82 (T e nn . 1 99 1) . Su c h a fi nd ing “ ‘r e fl e c ts that the trial court’s logic and re asoning was i m proper when view ed in light of the fac tual circ umstances a nd rele vant legal principles involved in a particular c ase.’ ” State v. Shaff er, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (T enn. 1999))

. The e vidence at the hea

ring established that Serge ant Barnes a rre sted the appe llant for
va ri ou s o ff e ns e s o n J a nu ary 21 , 2 00 7. In his app e llate brie f, the app e lla nt a c kn ow le dg e s th a t hi s arr e st w a s a

vio la tio n o f h is p ro batio n. Th e re fo re , th e tr ial cou rt didno t e rr by re vo kin g h is pr ob a tio n a ndor de ri ng him to s e rv e the ba la nc e of his un se rv e d tw o- ye ar s e nte nc e in c on fi ne me nt.
III. Conclusi on
Ba se d u po n th e re c or d a ndthe pa rt ie s’ brie fs , w e a ff

ir m th e jud gme nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, JUD GE