IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 24, 2018

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LARRY SYLVESTER WOODS

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County

No. 293419 Barry A. Steelman, Judge

No. E2017-00999-CCA-R3-CD

The Defendant, Larry Sylvester Woods, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal 

Court’s revocation of probation for his Range I, two-year sentence for burglary of a 

business, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. § 39-14-402 (2014). He contends that the trial 

court erred in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence, rather than 

ordering him to participate in a drug treatment program. We affirm the judgment of the 

trial court.

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

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES 

CURWOOD WITT, JR., and D. KELLY THOMAS,JR., JJ., joined.

Steven E. Smith, District Public Defender; Joseph Barlett (Jay) Underwood, Jr., Assistant

District Public Defender, for the appellant, Larry Sylvester Woods.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Leslie E. Price, Senior Counsel; 

M. Neal Pinkston, District Attorney General; Jason Demastus, Assistant District Attorney

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

Pursuant to a guilty plea agreement, the Defendant was sentenced to probation on 

December 16, 2014. On September 18, 2015, a violation warrant was issued and alleged 

that the Defendant violated two rules of probation related to his having moved without 

notifying his probation officer and to his failure to report to his probation officer. On 

January 21, 2016, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to 

serve six months in the workhouse before being returned to probation for the balance of 

his sentence. A second violation warrant was issued on May 9, 2016. It alleged that after 

the Defendant’s determinate release from confinement, he failed to report to his probation 

02/09/2018
-2-

officer. On July 11, 2016, the Defendant acknowledged he had violated the terms of 

probation, and the court ordered a “Full Revocation,” although the record reflects that the 

Defendant was returned to probation on August 20, 2016. On December 15, 2016, a third 

violation warrant was issued, which is the subject of the present appeal. The warrant 

alleged that the Defendant had not reported to his probation officer since attending an 

orientation on August 31, 2016, and that the officer had been unable to locate the 

Defendant at the Defendant’s reported residence. An addendum to the third violation 

warrant was filed on March 10, 2017, which alleged additional violations in that the 

Defendant had been convicted of criminal impersonation and evading arrest on January 5, 

2017, and that he had failed to report his arrest. After the Defendant was taken into 

custody and pursuant to the Defendant’s request, the court ordered an evaluation to 

determine his eligibility for treatment at a Council for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services 

(CADAS) facility. 

At the April 17, 2017 revocation hearing, Christina Barnes, an employee of the 

Department of Probation and Parole, testified that the Defendant reported to the probation 

office twice after his determinate release in August 2016. Ms. Barnes said that a person 

who was no longer employed by her office attempted a home visit for the Defendant at 

the Defendant’s mother’s house after the Defendant’s August 26 and 31, 2016 reports to 

the office. Ms. Barnes said that the Defendant’s mother had stated that she was unaware 

of the Defendant’s whereabouts and that on this basis, a violation warrant was filed. Ms. 

Barnes stated that the Defendant was charged in December with criminal impersonation 

and evading arrest and that he pleaded guilty to these offenses on January 5, 2017.

The thirty-nine-year-old Defendant testified that he had been incarcerated in the 

Department of Correction for thirty-three days relative to the present case. He agreed 

with Ms. Barnes’s account of his history of reporting since his release from the 

Department of Correction. He said that he had no criminal history prior to 2010, when he 

had been thirty-four or thirty-five years old. He said that his criminal history began when 

he started to “hang out with the wrong crowd and partying” and that he began using 

methamphetamine. He said that he had issues with methamphetamine but not with other 

drugs and that he had never done anything to address his drug problem. He said that he 

asked his attorney to help him obtain drug treatment and that he had undergone a 

CADAS evaluation. A letter from a CADAS admissions counselor recommending the 

Defendant for the adult intensive outpatient program was received as an exhibit. The 

Defendant expressed his desire to participate in the CADAS program and said he thought 

it would help him “get back on track.” The Defendant stated that before 2010, he had 

been employed as a welder for two years and as a maintenance worker for fourteen years. 

He said that he had been married for approximately twenty-two years. He said his wife 

had tried to help him address his drug problem. He attributed his failure to report to his 
-3-

probation officer to his methamphetamine problem. He said he absconded after he 

resumed using methamphetamine.

Regarding his recent charges and convictions, the Defendant stated that a police 

officer stopped him when the Defendant was riding a bicycle on the wrong side of the 

road. The Defendant stated that because he knew he had outstanding warrants, he gave

the officer the Defendant’s brother’s name as his own and that he ran when the officer 

searched and found the Defendant’s identification. The Defendant stated that the officer 

used a Taser on him and hit the Defendant’s face with a flashlight.

The Defendant testified that he sincerely wanted to address his drug habit. He said 

he wanted to be a good father to his four daughters, who ranged in age from four months 

to thirteen years. He stated that he “won’t let them down this round” if he were allowed 

to remain on probation.

The Defendant’s wife testified that she and the Defendant had been married for 

nineteen years. She stated that the Defendant did not use drugs before 2010. She said 

that before he began using drugs, the Defendant had been a dedicated and loving father 

and husband. She said that she had tried to help the Defendant with his drug problem by 

giving him ultimatums and by refusing to allow him to move in with her and their infant 

unless he stopped using drugs but that he had never participated in a “formal program.” 

She said that the Defendant had good family support and that his mother and uncle were 

present in court. The Defendant’s wife stated that the Defendant had attempted to stop 

using drugs and to stay away from “certain people” but that he had trouble because “[t]he 

area that he stayed in was really a major problem.” She stated that their three older 

children lived with her cousin. She said she had not had a home and a way to provide for 

them but that she now had a home. She said the Defendant had no relationship with the 

children in the past few years.

The court found that the Defendant violated the terms of probation by absconding 

and by committing new offenses. The trial court noted that the Defendant had received 

multiple opportunities to serve his sentence on probation and that he had two prior

probation violations. The court noted that the original offense had been related to 

methamphetamine. The court characterized as “debatable” whether the Defendant’s 

daughters needed him, given the “condition that he has been in . . . since 2010.” The 

court found that the Defendant had been aware of his problem but had not dealt with it. 

The court found that the best interests of the Defendant, his family, and society were 

served by the Defendant’s serving his sentence. The court stated that if the Defendant 

wanted to participate in CADAS, he could do so after serving the sentence. The court 

expressed its skepticism that the Defendant would be successful if afforded another 
-4-

opportunity to complete his sentence on probation. Thus, the court ordered the 

Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence. This appeal followed.

Our supreme court has concluded that a trial court’s decision to revoke a 

defendant’s probation “will not be disturbed on appeal unless . . . there has been an abuse 

of discretion.” State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991) (citing State v. 

Williamson, 619 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981)). An abuse of discretion has 

been established when the “record contains no substantial evidence to support the 

conclusion of the trial judge that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” 

State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980); see State v. Shaffer, 45 

S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978). When 

a trial court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant has violated the 

conditions of probation, the court “shall have the right . . . to revoke the probation.” 

T.C.A. § 40-35-311(e)(1) (2014). After revoking a defendant’s probation, the trial court 

may return a defendant to probation with modified conditions as necessary, extend the 

period of probation by no more than two years, order a period of confinement, or order 

the defendant’s sentence into execution as originally entered. Id. §§ 40-35-308(a), (c), -

310 (2014). “In probation revocation hearings, the credibility of witnesses is for the 

determination of the trial judge.” Carver v. State, 570 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Tenn. Crim. 

App. 1978) (citing Bledsoe v. State, 387 S.W.2d 811, 814 (Tenn. 1965)).

The record reflects that the Defendant acknowledged his failure to report to his 

probation officer, as well as the facts surrounding his recent convictions. Although he 

professed a motivation to participate in drug treatment and to be a responsible parent to 

his children, his criminal behavior spanned a period of years, and he had been afforded 

two prior opportunities to serve the present sentence on probation. 

We conclude that the record supports the trial court’s finding that the Defendant 

violated the conditions of his probation and that the court did not abuse its discretion by 

revoking the Defendant’s probation. See T.C.A. § 40-35-311(e)(1). Once the court 

revoked the Defendant’s probation, it had the authority to order the Defendant to serve 

his sentence in confinement. See id. §§ 40-35-310. The Defendant is not entitled to 

relief.

In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, the judgment of the 

trial court is affirmed.

 _____________________________________

 ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE