IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. QUINCY D. SCOTT

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Bradley County

No. 2006-CR-124 Andrew M. Freiberg, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2018-02271-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The Appellant, Quincy D. Scott, appeals as of right from the Bradley County Criminal 

Court’s judgment revoking his probation. The State has filed a motion to affirm by 

memorandum opinion the judgment of the trial court. Following our review, we 

conclude that an opinion in this case would have no precedential value and affirm the 

judgment of the habeas corpus court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee 

Court of Criminal Appeals.

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

Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD 

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

Quincy D. Scott, Pro Se (on appeal); Richard Hughes, District Public Defender; and 

Keith Roberts, Assistant Public Defender (at hearing).

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General; Stephen D. Crump, District Attorney General; and Paul Moyle, 

Assistant District Attorney General.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 11, 2006, the Appellant pleaded guilty in Bradley County Criminal 

Court to one count of sale of .5 gram or more of cocaine and was sentenced to eight 

years’ incarceration to be served on probation. On August 11, 2014, a probation 

violation warrant issued alleging that the Appellant had garnered new arrests in February 

2014 in McMinn County for violation of an order of protection, possession of schedule 

08/15/2019
- 2 -

VI drugs, and resisting arrest. The probation violation warrant also alleged new arrests in 

July 2014 in McMinn County for unlawful possession of a weapon, simple possession, 

and two counts of aggravated robbery.

At the December 14, 2018 revocation hearing, the Appellant requested a sixmonth continuance to allow him to file a petition for post-conviction relief challenging 

the McMinn County aggravated robbery conviction in the hope that the conviction would 

be overturned. The trial court noted that the revocation warrant had been pending for 

over four years and denied the motion for continuance. The State proceeded solely on the 

aggravated robbery conviction as grounds for revocation.

1

 The Appellant admitted his 

arrest and conviction for the aggravated robbery but contended that he would establish 

his innocence of the aggravated robbery offense at post-conviction. The trial court 

considered the Appellant’s lack of amenability to correction, failed attempts at less 

restrictive measures than confinement, and long history of criminal activity and 

concluded that the Appellant’s probation should be revoked and that he should serve the 

remainder of his sentence in incarceration.

The Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s order revoking 

probation. Upon motion of the Appellant, this court permitted the Appellant to proceed 

pro se on appeal. On appeal, the Appellant argues that the trial court committed plain 

error by denying his motion for continuance of the revocation hearing. The State argues 

that the Appellant cannot establish plain error or an abuse of discretion and, therefore, the 

court should affirm by memorandum opinion the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Ct. 

Crim. App. R. 20. In response to the State’s motion, the Appellant filed a motion to 

submit the case for decision without the State’s brief. Tenn. R. App. P. 29(c).

Analysis

Rule 36(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that relief need 

not be granted to “a party responsible for an error or who failed to take whatever action 

was reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of an error.” Tenn. R. 

App. P. 36(a). However, the rule further provides that “[w]hen necessary to do 

substantial justice, an appellate court may consider an error that has affected the 

 

1

 At the revocation hearing, the State presented the November 2, 2016, McMinn County 

Criminal Court’s judgment convicting the Appellant of aggravated robbery and sentencing the Appellant 

to serve seventeen years’ incarceration as a Range II, multiple offender. The judgments also reflect that 

the trial court ordered the seventeen-year sentence to be served consecutively to previously imposed 

sentences in Hamilton County case number 266966 and this case. On direct appeal, this court affirmed 

the judgment of the trial court. State v. Quincy D. Scott, No. E2017-01416-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 

3156979 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 27, 2018), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 11, 2018).
- 3 -

substantial rights of a party at any time, even though the error was not raised in the 

motion for new trial or assigned as error on appeal.” Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b). The 

Appellant requested a continuance at the opening of the revocation hearing. The trial 

court denied the continuance. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court’s 

denial of the continuance was erroneous and should be reviewed via plain error. The 

issue concerning the continuance was properly preserved. Therefore, plain error analysis 

is inapt under these circumstances.

That said, it is well-established that the decision whether to grant a continuance 

rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. See State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503, 

524 (Tenn. 1997). The trial court’s decision may only be reversed if the trial court 

abused its discretion and the appellant was improperly prejudiced. See State v. Morgan, 

825 S.W.2d 113, 117 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). An appellant is improperly prejudiced by 

the denial of a motion for continuance when “a different result might reasonably have 

been reached if the continuance had been granted.” Id.

In denying the motion for continuance, the trial court considered the length of time 

– over four years – that the probation revocation warrant had been pending and that the 

Appellant had not yet filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging the aggravated 

robbery conviction that served as the basis for the revocation warrant. The Appellant has 

not established how he was prejudiced by the trial court’s ruling. We cannot conclude 

that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Appellant’s motion to continue the 

probation revocation hearing.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the 

Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

_____________________________________

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE