### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE O ct ober 27, 200 9 S es sio n STATE OF TENNESS EE v . MARK ALAN DEAKINS
A p p ea l f ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r H a m il ton C o u n ty N o. 223635 D on W
. P ool e, Judge

N o. E 2008- 02761- C C A
- R 3- C D - F i l ed January 11, 2010

T he def endant , M ar k A lan D ea k i ns , appea l s t he r evoca t i on of hi s pr obat i on, cl ai m i ng t hat the S tat e fa il ed to es tablish a p rob ati o n v iolati o n b y su b stan ti al ev iden ce
. B ec au se th e re co rd
es t abl i s hes t hatt he def

endantvi ol at ed t he t er m s of hi s pr obat i onar y s ent ence , w e af f i r m t he ju d g m e n t o f th e trial c o u rt.

T enn. R
. A pp. P
. 3; Judgm ent of t he C ri m i nal C ourt A f f i rm ed
J A M ES C UR WOOD W I TT , J R ., J ., del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch J OS EP H M. T I PT ON , P .J ., and J OH N E VER ETT W I LLI AMS , J

. , j oi ned.

B enjam i n L

. M cG ow an, C hatt ano og a, T enn essee, fort he ap pell ant, M ark A l an D eakins.

R ober t E

. C ooper , J r
. , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; Sophi a S. L ee, A s s i s t ant A tt or ney G ener al ; W i l l i am H

. C ox I I I , D i s t r i ctA t t or ney G ener al ; and Lesl i e Longshor e and Lance Pope, A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t or neys G ener al , fort he appe l l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. OP I NI ON
O n Ju ly 8 , 2 0 0 2 , the d e fe n d a n t, or ig in a lly c h a rg e d w ith 2 3 c o u n ts o f e sp e c ially ag g rav ated sex u al ex p loit ati o n o f a m ino r, sev en co u n ts of sex u al e x p loit ati o n o f a m ino r, four count s of s exual bat t er y, and t w o count s of s t at ut or y r ape, ent er ed pl eas of gui l t y t o one countof es peci al l y aggr avat ed s exual expl oi t at i on of a m ino r , one countof s exual
e x p lo itatio n o f a m in o r, a n d o n e c o u n t o f sta tu to ry ra p e . P u rsu a n t to a p lea a g re e m e n t w ith t he St at e, t he def

endantr ece i ved an ef

fect i ve sent ence of ni ne year s t o be ser ved as one yea r i n jai l fol l ow ed b y sup ervi sed prob at i on
. T he rem ai ning cha rges w ere d ism iss e d

. A s a condi t i on of

hi s pr obat i on, t he def

endantw as r equi r ed t o r egi s t eras a s ex of fenderand fol l ow th e se x o ffe n d e r g u id e lin e s. T h e ju d g m e n ts sp e c ifica lly p ro v id e d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w a s to h a v e “ n o u n s u p e rv is e d c o n ta c t w ith m in o rs .”The defenda nt ’ s one
- yea r s ent enc e for s t at ut or y r ape a nd t w o- yea r s ent enc e for s exua l e xpl oi t at i on of a m i nor 1 h a d e x p ire d b y th e filin g o f th e p ro b a tio n v io la tio n w a rr a n t.

I t i s t he pol i cy of

t hi s c our t t o r efer t o t he m i nor vi ct i m s of s exua l c r i m es by i ni t i al s onl y. 2
-2- I n A ugus t2004 and Jul y 2007, t he def endantt r i ed uns ucce s s f ul l y t o have the t er m s of hi s pr obat i onar y s ent ence m odi f i ed. T hen, i n A pr i l 2008, t he defendantagai n f i l ed
a m ot i on t o “m odi f

y, r em ove orr el eas e f

r om condi t i ons of pr obat i on. ” O n t he day t hatt he d e fe n d a n t ap p e a re d to a rg u e h is m o tio n , h e w a s ar re ste d o n n e w c h a rg e s o f ra p e o f a c h ild and aggr avat ed s exual bat t er y. H i s m ot i on t o m odi f y t he condi t i ons of

hi s pr obat i on w as “s t r i cken” and hi s cas e cont i nued.

O n M ay 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , a pro b ati o n v iolati o n w arran t issue d for th e d e fe n d a n t’ s re m a in in g e ig h t y e a r se n ten c e a lleg in g th a t th e d e fe n d a n t h a d v io late d th e ter m s o f h is 1 pr obat i on by i ncur r i ng new ar r es t s forr ape of a chil d an d aggr avat ed s exual bat t er y, by h a v in g u n su p e rv ise d c o n tac t w ith th e m in o r v ictim o f th e n e w c h a rg e s, a n d b y e n g a g in g in “as s aul ti v e, a b u s i ve, t hr eat eni ng ori nt i m i dat i ng behavi or
. ” A n addendum t o t he or i gi nal vi ol at i on w ar r ant ad d ed all egat i ons t hatt he def endanthad obt ai ned i nt er netacc es s and
m ai nt ai ned a r es i dence not appr oved by hi s pr obat i on of f i ceri n vi ol at i on of

t he s ex of

fender gu i deli nes.
A t the r evoca t i on hear i ng, t he St at e ac know l edged thati thad di s m i s s ed t he i ndi ct m entchar gi ng t he defen d an t w i t h t w o count s of r ape of a chi l d and one c ountof
a g g ra v a ted se x u a l b a ttery b e c a u se it “ d id n o t b e liev e th a t [th e re w a s] s u ffic ien t ev id e n c e to prove to a j ury beyon d a reas on able do ub t t hat [the defendan t ] had i n factcom m i t t ed these
cr i m es
. ” N ever t hel es s, the St at e m ai nt ai ned t hatundert he l es s s t r i ngentbur den of pr oof
re q u ire d fo r p ro b a tio n re v o c a tio n , su b sta n tial e v id e n c e e x iste d fro m w h ich th e c o u rt c o u ld
c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e d e fe n d a n th a d r a p e d a n d s e x u a l l y a s s a u l t e d t h e mi n o rv i c t i m, B. A. 2

T hi r t een- year
- ol d B

. A

. t es t i f i ed t hathe m et t he def

endant i n 2006 w hen he and h is siste r offe re d to h e lp th e d e fe n d a n t re m o d e l th e h o u se n e x t to th e o n e w h e re th e v ictim li v e d w ith h is m o th e r a n d s is te r. T h e re a ft e r, t h e v ic tim w o rk e d fo r t h e d e fe n d a n t “ a lo t,” hel pi ng hi m t o r em odel atl eas ts even hous es overa per i od of “[ a] coupl e of

m ont hs

. ” The vi ct i m t es t i f

i ed t hathe w oul d ei t hert el ephone th e d efe n d ant ors end hi m a t extm es s age i ndi ca t i n g h i s a v a i l a b i l i t y t o wor k

. Th e d e fe n d a n twou l d t h e n p i c k t h e v i c t i m u p a tt he vi ct i m ’ s hous e and dr i ve hi m t o t he w or k l ocat i on. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hatw hen he w or ked fort he def

endantt hey w er e gene r al l y al one t oget her

. T he vi ct i m s t at ed t hat he s om et i m es w e nt t o t he de fe nd a nt ’ s ho us e s o t ha t t he de fe nd a nt c ou l d pi c k up t oo l s or c ha ng e cl othes. H e r eca l l ed t hat t he def

endantl i ved i n a hous e on C ul verSt r eeti n R ed B ank, w her e he ke pt “[ c] ouches , T V , com put er s
. . . . [ a] l otof f ur ni t ur e, ent er t ai nm entcent er , hi s cl ot hes

. ” T he-3-

vi ct i m t es t i f

i ed t hatt he def

endantus ed t he fi ve com put er s l ocat ed i n t hi s R ed B ank r es i dence to a c c e s s th e in te rn e t to p la y g a m e s a n d g e t o n “ M y S p a c e .”

T he vi ct i m s t at ed t hatdur i ng one of hi s vi s i t s t o t he defendant ’ s C ul verSt r eet r esidenc e, t he def

endantpl ace d pi l l ow s on t he f l oorand di r ect ed t he vi ct i m t o l i e on the pi l l ow s
. T he def

endantt hen r etr i eved s om e l ot i on f r om hi s bedr oom and us ed i t t o gi ve t he vi ct i m a m as s age. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hat t he defendant pul l ed t he vi ct i m ’ s pant s dow n and tried to p lac e h is p e n is in sid e th e v ictim ’s a n u s. W h e n h e c o u ld n o t su c c e ss fu lly p e n e tra te t he vi ct i m , t he def

endant“w enti n t he ba thr oom and he t ol d [ t he vi ct i m ] t o com e i n t he bat hr oom , t hen he put[ t he vi ct i m ] i n t he bathr oom and got t he w at er hos e hea d and he s t uck t hatup [ t he vi ct i m ] , he s ai d this o u g h t t o l oos en you up. ” The vi ct i m s t at ed t hatt he def endantneverachi eved s ucce s s f ul peni l e- anal penetr at i on on t hatocca s i on.
O n a s econd oc cas i on att he def endant ’ s C ul ver St r eet addr es s , t he vi ct i m w as pl ayi ng a gam e on t he def endant ’ s com put er w hen t he def endantas ked t he vi ct i m t o s i ton hi s l ap w hi l e t he def

endantvi ew ed a por nogr aphi c w ebs i t e. A f t ert he def

endantf i ni s hed
v iew in g th e site , h e to ld th e v ictim to sta n d u p a n d p u ll h is p a n ts d o w n . W h e n th e v ictim
r ef us ed, t he def

endantr ubbed hi s back, pul l ed hi s pant s dow n , an d t ol d hi m t o “j us tr el ax, you’ l l l i ke i t

. ” The vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hatt he def

endant“puts om e l ot i on on” bot h hi m s el f and t he vi ct i m and agai n at t em pt ed t o penetr at e t he vi ct i m ’ s anus w i t h hi s peni s
. W hen he w as uns ucce s s f

ul , t he def

endantpul l ed hi s pant s back up a nd t ook t he vi ct i m hom e.
T h e v ictim tes tified th a t h e h e lp e d th e d e fe n d a n t m o v e in to a n a p a rtm e n t in R ed B ank t hatw as l ocat ed onl y a s hor tdi s t ance f r om t he C ul verSt r eetr es i dence

. T he vi ct i m s t at ed t hat he w as pl ayi ng a gam e on t he def endant ’ s com put erw hen t he def endant
cam e t o hel p hi m pl ay t he gam e. T he vi ct i m des cr i bed w hathappene d next : “Then he w ent

. . . i n h i s r o o m , t h e n h e g o t s o m e l o t i o n , t h e n h e s a i d s t a n d u p , t h e n h e p u t m e o n h i s l eg, t hen he pul l ed dow n hi s pant s and sai d l et m e see your m agi c. ” T he vi ct i m r eca l l ed t hatt he def endantal s o t ol d t he vi ct i m t o “s uck hi m
. ” W hen t he vi ct i m r ef us ed, t he def

endant“put
so m e lo tio n in h is h a n d a n d ru b b e d it o n [th e v ictim ], th e n p u t ito n h im [se lf] a n d h e tried to s it [ th e v ic tim ] o n h is la p .”

O n a s econd oc cas i on att he R ed B ank apa r t m ent , t he def endants how ed the
v ictim “ a w e b site w ith b o y s o n it, th e n
. . . g o t h o rn y ” a n d to ld th e v ictim to c o m e in to h is
r oom and l i e on t he bed. T he def endantt hen putl ot i on on hi s peni s and aga i n “tr i ed t o r ape” t he vi ct i m
. T he vi ct i m r eca l l ed t el l i ng t he def endantt hathi s “b u t tw as bl eedi ng, ” and the def endant“s ai d i t w i l l be al l r i ght

. ” The defendantt ol d t he vi ct i m t o t ake a s how erand then dr ove hi m hom e.

O n anot herocca s i on att he def endant ’ s R ed B ank apa r t m ent , t he def endant sh o w e d th e v ictim a p o rn o g ra p h ic m a g a z in e fe a tu rin g “ b o y s” b e fo re tak in g th e v ictim to h isP la y S ta tio n ® P o rta b le , a h a n d h e ld v id e o g a m in g d e v ic e m a n u fa c tu re d b y S o n y
. See Pl ayS t at i on PSP , 3 h t t p : // w w w
. u s. p l ay st at i o n
. co m / PS P (l astvis i t ed on D ec. 10 , 20 0 9 ). -4- r oom , or der i ng t he vi ct i m ont o t he bed, and penetr at i ng t he vi ct i m ’ s anus w i t h hi s peni s
. T he
v ictim tes tified th a t fo llo w in g th e ra p e , h e to o k a sh o w e r, an d th e d e fe n d a n t d r o v e h im to T ar getand boughthi m “a PSP. ” H e s ai d tha ti n addi t i on t o t he gi f t s t hatt he def

endant 3 p u rch ase d for the v ict im , the d efe n d an t l o an ed m o n ey to the v ict im ’s m o ther.

T he vi ct i m s t at ed t hathe eve nt ual l y r epor t ed t he s exual as s aul t s t o hi s s i s t er on Sept em ber21, 2007.

T he vi ct i m adm i t t ed s endi ng a t extm es s age t o t he defendanton Sept em ber17, 2007, dem andi ng a go- car t

. H e al s o adm i t t ed t h at h e sen t anot hert extm es s age t o t he d efe n d an t th rea tenin g to “s n it ch ” if th e d efe n d an t did n o t pro v ide h im w ith a g o -ca rt“[b ]y F rid a y .” T h e v ictim e x p lain e d , “[W ]e w a s g o in g to b u ild a g o -c a rt first, th e n h e sa id th a t w ill tak e to o lo n g , so h e sa id h e w o u ld g e t o n e
. A n d I to ld h im if h e d id n ’t g e t it , I w a s g o in g to tell w h a t h e w a s d o in g .” T h e v ictim a lso a d m itt e d a sk in g th e a ss ista n t d istric t a tto rn e y if h is
case w as “a sui ng case, ” cl ai m i ng t hat he did so only becau se he w as curi ou s. D espi t e t hese
a d m iss io n s, th e v ictim in sis ted th a t h e c h o se to re p o rt th e a b u se o n S e p tem b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 , o n ly becau se he “co uldn’tho l d itno m ore. ” H e speci fi cal l y den i ed m anu facturi ng t he clai m s so th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w o u ld g iv e h im a g o -c a rt.

D u ri ng cr os s
- exam i nat i on, t he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hathe hel ped t he def endant
m o v e to th e C u lv e r S tre e t re sid e n c e d u rin g th e su m m e r o f 2 0 0 7 a n d th a t h e to ld
r epr es ent at i ves f

r om t he C hi l dr en’ s A dvocac y C ent er t he def endant r aped hi m att he C ul ver St r eetr es i dence on J ul y 6, 2007. A f t er f i r s t s ayi ng t hat t he def

endanthad onl y r aped hi m one t i m e and thatt he r ape ha ppened a tt he def endant ’s R ed B an k apar t m ent , t he vi ct i m t hen t es t i f i ed t hatt he def

end an t rap ed h i m t he f

i r s tt i m e att he C ul verSt r eetaddr es s on J ul y 6, 20 07

. T he vi ct i m den i ed t hat t he defendan tsexuall y assaul t ed h i m ata res i den ce on G l ass S tr e e t. H e s a id th a t th e in te rv ie w in g o ffic e r w h o re p o rt e d th a t s im p ly “ g o t it w ro n g .”

T he v i ct i m adm i t t ed sendi ng t ext m essages t o the d efendan tas l at e as A ug ust 31, 2007, as ki ng fort he l oan of a car and for extr a w or k. H e al s o adm i t t ed w or ki ng fort he def enda n t d u ri ng Sept em ber2007. T he vi ct i m conce ded t hathe l i ed t o St acy Cook of the C hi l dr en’ s A dvocac y C ent er w hen he t ol d her t hat he l as t s aw t he def endanton A ugus t10, 2007. T he vi ct i m i ns i s t ed t hathe had he l ped t he def endantm ove f

r om hi s C ul verSt r eet reside n ce in the su m m er o f 2 0 0 7 b u t n e v erthe less stat ed that h e w as n o t surp ri sed to learn t hatt he def

endant ’ s l eas e had e xpi r ed on t he C ul verSt r eetr es i dence i n A pr i l 2007.

T he vi ct i m adm i t t ed t hat t he defendant t ol d hi m t hat t hey coul d not be al one t oget herbeca us e t he def endant w o u ld ge ti nt o t r oubl e and thatt w o ot herem pl oyees , “Lee-5-

and Sunday, ” of

t en w or ked w i t h t he t w o of t hem

. T he vi ct i m al s o acknow l edged thathe had rep ea tedly ask ed the d efe n d an t f o r gift s an d fin a n cial assist an ce for h is m o ther a n d sist er. H e a lso c o n c e d e d th a t h e h a d c o n tem p late d p u rsu in g a law su it ag a in st th e d e fe n d a n t.

O n r edi r ectexam i nat i on, t he vi ct i m adm i t t ed t hat he coul d be m i s t aken a bout t he dat es of

t he s exual as s aul t s , buthe m ai nt ai ned t hat t he def endanthad s exual l y as s aul t ed h im “ [a ] l o t.”

T he vi ct i m ’ s m ot her , Shar on O w ens , t es t i f i ed t hatt h e v i ct i m w or ked fort he def endant“al l t he t i m e” a nd t hatanot herm an w or ked w i t h t hem

. She s t at ed that t he def endantw oul d pi ck t he vi ct i m up and br i ng hi m hom e on eac h of t he days t hatt hey w or ked t oget her

. She s ai d t hatt he vi ct i m w or ked fort he def endantforappr oxi m at el y a yea rand a hal f and t hats he w as unaw ar e dur i ng t hatt i m e t hat th e d efe ndantw as a r egi s t er ed s ex o ffe n d e r. M s. O w e n s s tate d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t o n c e p ro v id e d h e r $ 5 0 to p a y h e r e lec tric b ill
an d $ 1 2 5 to p ay a c o ll eg e fe e fo r he r da u g h ter.

D ur i ng cr os s
- exam i n ati o n , M s
. O w ens adm i t t ed t hats he neve rhad any
conce r ns aboutt he vi ct i m ’ s w or ki ng fort he def endant and conc eded thats he neve robs er ved any i nappr opr i at e cont actbet w een the t w o.

T ennes s ee Boar d of Pr obat i on and Par ol e M anage rFl oyd O w s l ey t es t i f i ed that he s uper vi s ed t he def

endant ’ s pr obat i on f

r om N ovem ber2002 t hr ough J une 2004 and f r om D ec em b er 2006 thr ough M ay 2008. M r
. O w s l ey s t at ed t hatt he def endantr epor t ed as
r equi r ed and thatM r
. O w s l ey conduc t ed s ev era l hom e vi s i t s att hr ee di f fer entr es i dence s l i s t ed by t he def

endant

. T w o w er e l ocat ed i n Soddy D ai s y and one w as i n E as tC hat t anooga. M r
. O w s l ey conf

i r m ed t hat t he defendant had a good e m pl oym enthi s t or y and t hatbegi nni ng i n A ugus t2004 t he def

endantcl ai m ed t o be w or ki ng forhi m s el f “and St arPr oper t i es , and he cl ai m ed 221 C ul verSt r eeti n C hat t anooga” as hi s em pl oym entaddre ss. In A pr i l 2007, t he def endant ch anged hi s em pl oym entaddr es s t o “pos tof f i ce box 17111. ” M r
. O w s l ey t es t i f i ed t hathe neve r vi s i t ed t he C ul verSt r eetaddr es s and conf i r m ed t hati tw oul d have be en a vi ol at i on of

t he def endant ’ s pr obat i on t o m ai nt ai n m or e t han one r es i dence

. M r
. O w s l ey s t at ed t hatt he def

endantneverr egi s t er ed a r es i dence i n R ed B ank.

M r
. O w s l ey t es t i f

i ed t hatt he def

endantr ead a nd s i gned t he “s ex of fender
s peci al co n di t i ons , ” w hi ch he de s cr i bed as “t he s peci al i zed pr obat i on condi t i ons fors ex of fender s
. ” H e s t at ed t hatt he def endantneveras ked per m i s s i on fori nt er netacc es s , w hi ch
w as one of

t he s peci al condi t i ons
. H e r eca l l ed t hathe had se en “w hatappea r ed t o be a
c o m p u ter ” in th e d e fe n d a n t’s E a st C h a ttan o o g a re sid e n c e , b u t th e d e fe n d a n t c laim e d th a t “it
w as an em pt y box, t hat i t w as n’ t r eal l y
. . . a com put er
. ” M r
. O w s l ey s t at ed t hatpos s es s i on of a com put er w oul d not have vi ol at ed t he defendant ’ s pr obat i on butacc es s t o t he i nt er net-6-

w i t houtper m i s s i on w oul d. H e t es t i f i ed t h at th e d efe ndantw as notper m i t t ed t o have p o rno g rap h y o n h is co m p u ter.

M r
. O w s l ey t es t i f

i ed t hat as par t of t he spec i al condi t i ons of hi s pr obat i on, t he def endantw as t o have no uns uper vi s ed cont actw i t h m i nor s
. I n addi t i on, al l s uper vi s ed cont acthad t o be appr oved by ei t herM r
. O w s l ey or t he def endant ’ s t r eat m entpr ovi der , and “t her e has t o be a chape r one appr oved. ” M r
. O w s l ey s t at ed t hat t he def enda n t w as m ade
aw are o f t h is co n d it ion w h en h e re ad an d s ign ed the s ex o ffen d er c o n d it ion s in 2 0 0 6

. M r. O w s l ey t es t i f

i ed t hat t he defendant neverr epor t ed hi s cont actw i t h B

. A

. , neveras ked t o be
a ss ig n e d a c h a p e ro n e , an d n e v e r a sk e d p e rm iss io n to h a v e c o n tac t w ith a n y m in o r. H e sa id t hatt he def

endant ’ s havi ng any cont act w i t h t he vi ct i m w i t houtper m i s s i on and w i t houtan appr oved cha per one w oul d have be en a vi ol at i on of t he def endant ’ s pr obat i on.
D ur i ng cr os s
- exam i nat i on, M r
. O w s l ey ag r e e d th a th e h a d o n l y t he i nfor m at i on f r om B

. A

. upon w hi ch t o bas e the vi ol at i on r epor t

. M r
. O w s l ey ac know l edged thatt he def endanthad s ucce s s f

ul l y com pl et ed s ex of

fender t r eat m ent , had pai d al l of hi s pr obat i on fees , had pas s ed al l hi s dr ug t es t s , and had r epor t ed as s chedul ed. M r
. O w s l ey adm i t t ed t hat i tw oul d notbe a vi ol ati o n o f t he t er m s of

hi s pr obat i on fort he def endantt o pay r enton a reside n ce an d all o w o th e rs to li v e in it so lon g as h e d id n o t spe n d the n igh t th ere h im self. H e adm i t t ed t hat ot her t han t he vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m ony, he had no pr oof t hatt he def

endanthad i nt er netacc es s , had vi ew ed por nogr aphi c w ebs i t es , orhad l i v ed an yw her e ot hert han the addr es s es t he def

endantr epor t ed on hi s s ex of fenderr egi s t r at i on.
T h e d e fe n d a n t tes tified th a t h e h a d c o m p lied w ith th e c o n d it io n s o f h is pr obat i on fort he s even ye ar s befor e he w as i ncar cer at ed on cha r ges for s exual l y as s aul t i ng t he vi ct i m
. H e s ai d t hat he cam e t o know t he vi ct i m w hi l e he w as per for m i ng rem o del i ng w ork on a res i den ce nex tt o the vi ct i m ’s res i den ce. T he d efendan tst at ed thatt he v i ct i m fi rs t appr oache d em pl oyees of t he defendant and t hen event ual l y began w or ki ng fort he def endant doi ng “m ow i ng orw eede at i ng orm aybe pa i nt i ng, j us tm i s cel l aneous , you know , m i nor s t uf f

. ” H e s ai d t hatt he vi ct i m had w or ked for hi m on appr oxi m at el y t en occas i ons “overt he y e a rs .”

T h e d e fe n d a n ta d a ma n t l y d e n i e d h a v i n g s e x u a l c o n t a c twi t h t h e v i c t i m. He adm i t t ed t hathe w as aw ar e he w as t o have no uns uper vi s ed cont actw i t h m i nor s and s t at ed th a t to c o m p ly w ith th is ru le h e w a s n e v e r “ in th e p re se n c e o f a n y o n e u n d e r 1 8 y e a rs o f o ld
w ith o u t, yo u k n o w , so m e b o d y a ro u n d .” H e sta ted th a t h e w a s n e v e r a lo n e w ith th e v ictim and t h at h is e m p l oyees s uper vi s ed any c ont acthe had w i t h t he vi ct i m
. T he def endant t es t i f i ed t hat he t ol d t he vi ct i m t hat t hey coul d not be al one t oget herbeca us e t he def endant
w as on pr obat i on and t hatt he vi ct i m beca m e aw ar e t hatt he def endantw as a r egi s t er ed s ex of fenderw hen t he vi ct i m found hi s r egi s t r at i on car d. H e s t at ed t hathe di d notknow t hathe-7-

w as r equ i red t o g etan ap proved chap erone t o sup ervi se hi s contactw i t h the vi ct i m becau se th e ju d g m e n t in h is c a s e s a id o n ly “ n o u n s u p e rv is e d c o n ta c t w ith m in o rs .”

T he de fe n d a n t d e n i e d h a v i n g i n t e r n e t a c c e s s a n d s t a t e d t h a t h e h a d t he
com put er , w hi ch l acke d a har d dr i ve, t hatM r
. O w s l ey had obs er ved bec aus e he w as hopi ng t o “f unct i on [ hi s ] bus i nes s r el at i vel y eas y outof [ hi s ] r es i dence

. ” H e s t at ed t hathe of fer ed t o al l ow M r
. O w s l ey t o exam i ne t he co m p u ter, butM r
. O w s l ey dec l i ned. T he def endant t est i fi ed thathe d i d n ot actuall y resi de at the C ulverS t reetadd res s but had rent ed the ho use t o s t or e t ool s , extr a vehi cl es , and al l ow em pl oyees t em por ar y hous i ng. H e s tat ed that he i nfor m ed hi s for m erpr obat i on of f i cer , C at hy D i C hi acc hi o, of t he arr angem entand t hats he had appr oved i t

. T he def endantadm i t t ed s pendi ng one ni ghtatt he C ul verSt r eetr es i dence b e c a u s e h e “ g o t h o m e fr o m w o rk , it w a s lik e 3 :0 0 in th e m o rn in g , a n d c ra s h e d o n th e c o u c h .” H e testi fi ed that three d if feren t em p loy ee s reside d in the C u lver S tr ee t add ress o v er the li fe of t he l ease. H e st at ed t hat his l ease exp i red on M arch 30 , 20 07 , and t hat he had no access t o t he pr oper t y af

t ert hatdat e. T he def

endantco u ld o n ly r eca l l t he vi ct i m ’ s goi ng t o t he C u lver S tr ee t add ress o n e ti m e to re tr ieve a law n m o w er.

T he def endant s t at ed t hat t he vi ct i m l as t w or ked forhi m on A ugus t31, 2007, and t hathe had “

j us tdi s appea r ed” f

r om t he w or k s i t e. T h e d efe ndantt es t i f i ed t hatatt hat poi nthe had de ci ded t hat he w oul d no l onger al l ow t he vi ct i m t o w or k forhi m
. H e r eca l l ed t hathe r ece i ved a t extm es s age on t he fol l ow i ng day f r om t he vi ct i m ’ s num bers ayi ng t hat t he vi ct i m w as s or r y and w ant ed t o r et ur n t o w or k. T he def endantr eca l l ed t hathe had no cont actw i t h t he vi ct i m unt i l Sept em ber17, 2007, w hen t h e v ict im sent a t extm es s age dem andi ng a go- car t

. H e s ai d t hat he fel t t hr eat ened w hen t he vi ct i m s ent a m es s age s ayi ng t hat he w oul d “s ni t ch” unl es s t he def endant gave hi m a go- car t

. H e s t at ed t hatatt hatpoi nt he bel i eved thatt he vi ct i m w oul d t el l t he ot her em pl oyees t hathe w as bei ng pai d m or e per h o u r th a n th e y w e re a n d th a t h e h a d n o id e a th e v ictim w o u ld a c c u se h im o f se x u a l as sa u lt.

T h e d e fe n d a n t t e s ti fie d th a t h e d id w h a t h e c o u ld to h e lp th e v ictim a n d h is fam i l y by pr ovi di ng t hem m oney, food, and gi f t s
. H e expl ai ned, “[ I ] t w as a poor fam i l y, t hey
w er e on Sect i on 8, t he chur ch gotm os tof t hei rfood fort hem , t he m ot herw as i n and outof te m p o ra ry jo b s . . . . I’ d g e t p h o n e c a l l s th e y d id n ’t h a v e a n y th in g to e a t . . . . G if ts

. . . us ual l y di dn’ ts t ay t her e l ong, t hey w er e i n t he paw ns hop. ” H e s ai d t hat“a w eek ort w o pr i or t o” t he vi ct i m ’ s l as t day of w or k, t he vi ct i m ’ s m ot herhad as ked t he def endantfor“l i ke 1500 bucks ” t o r epai rhercarand t hat he had “t ur ned her dow n” beca us e “i t w as n’ t feas i bl e and [h e ] b e g a n to fe e l u s e d .”

D ur i ng cr os s
- exam i nat i on, t he defendant adm i t t ed s i gni ng a s etof gui del i nes w hen f i r s tr el eas ed on pr obat i on i n 2002 t hati ncl uded t he fol l ow i ng condi t i on:-8- Y ou s hal l n otbe i n t he com pany of any chi l d undert he age of 1 8 u n less an ad u lt is p rese n t w h o h as k n o w ledg e o f yo u r history of cr i m i nal s exual behavi orand/ orabus i ve beha vi or an d have been a ppr oved i n w r it i ng as a cha per one by yourof f i cer
. Y ou m us tr epor tal l i nci dent al cont actw i t h chi l dr en t o t he tr eat m ent p rov ider a n d y o u r officer as req u ir ed b y y o u r office r’s
su p erv isor.

H e al s o adm i t t ed s i gni ng a s econd s etof g u idelines i n 2006 t hati ncl uded t he fol l ow i ng condi t i on:
I w i l l not ent er i nt o cont act w i t h any chi l d under18 oranyone

w ho i s unabl e t o gi ve co n sen tdue t o m ent al , phys i cal or em ot i onal l i m i t at i ons , unl es s an adul t i s pr es ent w ho m y of f i cer and m y t r eat m entpr ovi derhas appr oved i n advanc e i n w r i t i ng as a cha per one. I w i l l r epor t al l i nci dent al cont actw i t h chi l dr en to th e tr e a tm e n t p ro v id e r a n d m y o ffic e r. . . .
T he def endants t at ed t hathe “quest i oned t he abi l i t y of [ t he no- cont actpr ovi s i on] t o be f unct i onabl e” a nd t hatt he pr ovi s i on “w as cl ar i f i ed t o [ hi m ] t hat t he cont actm eanta di f fer ent t hi ng. ” H e s ai d t hathe di d n o t think, bas ed on hi s under s t andi ng of t he pr ovi s i on, t hathe
w as r equi r ed t o r epor thi s cont actw i t h t he vi ct i m beca use h e w as n ever al one w i t h t he
v ictim . H e sta ted th a t h e b e liev e d th a t th e p re se n c e o f his o th e r em p lo y e e s w a s s u ffic ien t to f ul f i l l t he s uper vi s i on r equi r em entof t he no- cont actpr ovi s i on.
T h e d e fe n d a nt adm i t t ed thata com pu t er l ocated att he C ulverS t reetadd res s di d have i nt er netacc es s , buthe s t at ed t hat onl y hi s em pl oyee, J oe C ul ber t , had ac ces s t o t he
com p u ter a nd t hatt he com put erw as onl y us ed forbus i nes s pur pos es
. H e s ai d t hatt he i nt er netacc ountw as undert he nam e of hi s bus i nes s par t nerSt eve H uggi ns
. T he def endant deni ed eve rus i ng t he com put er t o acc es s t he i nt er net

. T he defendant adm i t t ed r ent i ng “t hr ee orfour ” uni t s att he N or t her n H i l l s A par t m entC om pl ex forhi s em pl oyees t o us e atdi f fer ent po i nts

. T he def

endantadm i t t ed t hat t he vi ct i m s ent hi m t extm es s ages buts t at ed t hat he di d notknow how t he vi ct i m had got t en hi s t el ephone num ber

. H e acknow l edged t hathe program m ed the vi ct i m ’s cel l ulart el eph on e nu m ber int o his ow n cell ulart el eph on e. H e al so conce ded havi ng t el ephone c onver s at i ons w i t h t he vi ct i m t hat m ay nothave be en s uper vi s ed.

D ur ing ex am ina t i on by t he cour t , t he def endantacknow l edged thathe kept
s om e per s onal f

ur ni t ur e att he C ul verSt r eetaddr es s t o “s ave s t or age bi l l s ” and t o be “us ed b y th e p e o p le th a t sta y e d th e re .” H e sta ted th a t h e m o v e d so m e fu rn itu re in to a sto ra g e u n it-9-

a t th e N o rth e rn H ill s A p a rtm e n t C o m p lex

. H e tes tified th a t h e re c e iv e d w o rk o rd e rs v ia
em ai l and t hatone of hi s em pl oyees w oul d pr i nt t he or derand gi ve i tt o hi m beca us e he w as “no tal l ow ed to hav e t he int ernet

. ” T he defendan t st at ed t hat he r epo rt ed the i nter net access to h is pro b ati o n o ffi ce r.

A tt he conc l us i on of

t he hea r i ng, t he tr i al cour tconcl u d ed t hatt he St at e had
es t abl i s hed by “ove r w hel m i ng evi dence ” t hatt he def endant vi ol at ed hi s pr obat i on “by bei ng i n cont act w i t h [ B

. A

. ] for an ext ended pe r i od of t i m e, 2006, 2007, cer t ai nl y i n 2007. ” The
c o u rt a lso c o n c lu d e d th a t th e v ictim w a s “n o t a g o o d w itn e ss ” b u t n e v e rth e les s d e e m e d “ h is al l egat i ons as t o w hathappene d w i t h [ t he def endant ] t o be ver y cr edi bl e. ” I n contr as t , t he
cour tfound t he def

endant ’ s t es t i m ony “nott o be w or t hy of bel i ef

. ” The t r i al cour tfound “by a pr eponder an ce of

t he evi dence t hat[ t he def endant ] di d have a com put erw i t h i nt er net a c c e s s ” a n d th a t “ h e u s e d th a t in te rn e t a c c e s s to s h o w in a p p ro p ri a te im a g e s to th is

. . . y o u n g ster, ” b o th in v iolati o n o f t h e term s o f t h e d efe n d an t’ s p rob ati o n
. In a d d it ion , the c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t u se d th e C u lv e r S tre e t ad d re ss a s a se c o n d a ry re sid e n c e in vi ol at i on of

hi s pr obat i on. Fi nal l y, t he cour t found “by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence ” t hat th e d e fe n d a n t “o n tw o o c c a sio n s .
. . d id in fa c t in a p p ro p ria tely to u c h h im , ina p p ro p ria tely att em p t t o rap e h im

. ” B ase d o n the estab li sh ed v iolati o n s, the c o u rtrev o k ed the d efe n d an t’ s pr obat i on and or der ed hi m t o s er ve hi s s ent ence i n t he D epar t m entof C or r ect i on.
In th is a p p e a l, th e d e fe n d a n t co n ten d s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y re v o k in g h is p ro b a tio n o n th e b a sis o f B .A .’s tes tim o n y , w h ich th e d e fe n d a n t ar g u e s w a s “ so in c re d ib le t hat it ca n n o t r eas onabl y be r el i ed upon. ” H e cl ai m s t hatbeca us e “a l l buta s i ngl e al l eged
v i o l a t i o n
. . . r e s t e d s o l e l y a n d c o mp l e t e l y ” o n t h e u n c o r r o b o r a t e d t e s t i mo n y o f t h e v i c t i m, th e trial co u rt sh o u ld n o t h a v e re v o k e d h is pr o b a tio n
. T h e S tate a ss e rts tha t th e trial c o u rt d id not er r by acc r edi t i ng t he vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m ony and us i ng t hatt es t i m ony t o f i nd vi ol at i ons of t he def endant ’ s pr obat i on.
W e cons i dert he defendant ’ s cl ai m s w i t h a f ew w el l

- s et t l ed pr i nci pl es i n m i nd. U pon a fi n d i n g b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e d e fe n d a n t h a s v i o l a t e d t he condi t i ons of

pr obat i on, t he tr i al cour tm ay r evoke t he def endant ’ s pr obat i on and “c aus e the d e fe n d a n t to c o m m e n c e th e e x e c u tio n o f th e ju d g m e n t a s o rig in a lly e n ter e d , o r o th e rw ise in
a c c o rd a n c e w ith § 4 0 -3 5 -3 1 0 .” T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -3 1 1 (e ) (2 0 0 6 ); see al so St amps v . S ta te , 614 S

. W

. 2d 71 , 73 (Ten n. C ri m
. A pp
. 19 80 ). F oll ow i ng a revocati on , “t he o ri ginal j ud gm ent s o r ender ed by t he tr i al j udge s hal l be i n f ul l for ce a nd ef

fectf r om t he dat e of

t he r evoca t i on of
s uch s us pens i on. ” T. C

. A

. § 40- 35 -31 0

. T he r evoki ng cour tm ay ext end t he per i od of p ro b a tio n s u p e rv is io n fo r a p e ri o d n o t to e x c e e d tw o y e a rs
. I d. § 4 0 -35 -30 8 (c).

T he dec i s i on t o r evoke pr obat i on r es t s w i t hi n t he s ound di s cr et i on of t he tr i al
cour t , and t hi s cour tw i l l not di s t ur b t he tr i al cour t ’ s r ul i ng i n t he abs ence of a s how i ng t hat th e t r i a l c o u rt a b u s e d th a t d is c re tio n
. St at e v. Shaf f er , 45 S. W

. 3d 553, 554 ( T enn. 2001)-10-

( ci t i ng St at e v. H arki ns , 811 S. W

. 2d 79, 82 ( T enn. 1991) )

. T he tr i al cour t , as t he tr i erof fact in a p ro b a tio n re v o c a tio n h e a ri n g , d e te rm in e s th e c re d ib ility o f w itn e s s e s
. S e e g e n e ra lly S ta te v . M itch e ll , 8 1 0 S .W .2 d 7 3 3 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); C a rv e r v . S ta te , 570 S. W

. 2d 872 ( T enn. C r i m
. A pp. 1978)

. T he tr i al cour tal s o r et ai ns t he di s cr et i onar y aut hor i t y t o or dert he d e fe n d a n t to s e rv e th e o ri g in a l se n te n c e
. S ee S tate v. D uke , 902 S. W

. 2d 424, 427 ( T enn. C r i m
. A pp. 1995)

. R el i ef w i l l be gr ant ed onl y w hen “‘ t he tr i al cour t ’ s l ogi c and r eas oni ng w as i m pr operw hen vi ew ed i n l i ght of t he fa ct ual ci r cum s t ance s and r el evantl egal pr i nci pl es i nvol ved. ’ ” Shaf

f er , 45 S. W

. 3d at555 ( quot i ng Stat e v. M oo re , 6 S. W

. 3d 235, 242 ( T enn. 1 9 9 9 )).

I n this c ase, t he tr i al cour tfound t he vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m ony cr edi bl e and the d efe n d a n t’ s test im o n y “n o t t o b e w o rt h y o f be li ef.” T h e d efe n d an t po ints t o the v ict im ’s
s eeki ng w or k f

r om t he def

endant fol l ow i ng t he as s aul t s , hi s at t em pt s t o ext or ta go- car tf r om t he def endant , and hi s conf

us i on r egar di ng t he dat es and l ocat i ons of t he as s aul t s as r ender i ng hi s t est im o n y incr edi bl e. T he tr i al cour tacknow l edged e ach of t hes e pr obl em s w i t h t he vi ct i m ’ s t e s t i m o n y a n d n e v e r t h e l e s s d e c l a r e d t h e v i c t i m t o b e a c r e d i b l e wi t n e s s
. T he def endant ’s a rgu m ent on appea l i s s i m pl y a r etr eadi ng of gr ound al r eady tr od by t he tr i al
cour t , w ho s aw and hea r d t he w i t nes s es f i r s thand. I n s hor t , he has pr es ent ed no r eas on for t hi s cour tt o go behi nd t he t r i al cour t ’ s cr edi bi l i t y det er m i nat i on i n t hi s cas e, and w e dec l i ne t o do s o.
B as ed upon t he ac cr edi t ed t es t i m ony of t he vi ct i m , t he defendant s pentm any u n su p e rv ise d h o u rs in th e c o m p a n y o f th e m in o r vic tim , d isp lay e d p o rn o g ra p h ic w e b site s to t he vi ct i m f

r om a com put eratt he C ul verSt r eetaddr es s , and at t em pt ed t o r ape the vi ct i m on t w o occa s i ons
. I n addi t i on, t he t es t i m ony of t he vi ct i m and t he def endantes t abl i s hed t hatt he d e fe n d a n t m a in tain e d m o re th a n o n e re sid e n c e in R e d B a n k w h ile re p o rtin g a sin g le
r es i dence i n Soddy D ai s y on hi s s ex of fenderr eg is t r at i on. T he def endant ’ s t es t i m ony es t abl i s hed t hata com put er l ocat ed at t he C ul ver St r eet r es i dence had i nt er netacc es s t hr ough
an ac count r egi s t er ed i n t he nam e of hi s for m erbus i nes s par t ner
. T he def endant ’ s r ent al of vari ou s r esi den ces and ob t ai ning i nter net access un der a no t her person’s nam e bespe aks a
c e r t a i n l e v e l o f

s u b t e r f u g e o n h i s p a r t

. T h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s u n s u p e r v i s e d c o n t a c twi t h t h e v i c t i m, h is in ter n e t ac c e ss , a n d h is m a in ten a n c e o f m u lti p le r e sid e n c e s s u p p o rt th e re v o c a tio n o f h is pr obat i on.
A ccor di ngl y, t he j udgm entof t he tr i al cour ti s af

f i r m ed.

J AM E S CU RW OOD W I T T , J R. , J UDGE