IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs February 3, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DENNIE LOUIS PRICE, JR.

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

No. 06-623 Donald H. Allen, Judge

No. W2014-01331-CCA-R3-CD - Filed March 27, 2015

The defendant, Dennie Louis Price, Jr., appeals the trial court‟s revocation of his 

probation and reinstatement of his sentence of twelve years in the Department of 

Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation. 

Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

ALAN E. GLENN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT 

WILLIAMS and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

Gregory D. Gookin, Assistant Public Defender, for the Defendant-Appellant, Dennie 

Louis Price, Jr.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Caitlin Smith, Assistant Attorney 

General; James G. Woodall, District Attorney General; and Shaun A. Brown, Assistant 

District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTS

The defendant pled guilty on April 16, 2007, to possession of .5 grams or more of 

cocaine with intent to sell, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and 

violation of the light law. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twelve 

years for the possession of cocaine conviction, suspended to community corrections after 

serving eleven months and twenty-nine days; to concurrent terms of eleven months, 

twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor marijuana and drug paraphernalia convictions, and 

to thirty days for the light law conviction. A probation violation warrant was issued on 

April 24, 2014, based on the defendant‟s April 19, 2014 arrest for possession of Schedule 
2

II and Schedule IV controlled substances and public intoxication. An amended warrant 

was issued on June 13, 2014, after the defendant pled guilty to possession of a Schedule 

IV controlled substance and the remaining charges were dismissed. 

At the June 30, 2014 revocation hearing, Denita Cox testified that she was the 

defendant‟s probation officer and had supervised him since July 2012. She said that the 

first probation violation warrant was filed due to the defendant‟s arrest for possession of 

Schedule II and Schedule IV drugs and public intoxication. An amended warrant was 

filed after the defendant was convicted of possession of a Schedule IV drug and 

sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with six months to serve. She said that the 

defendant had reported as scheduled and provided verification that he worked two jobs. 

The thirty-two-year-old defendant testified that he was arrested for possession of 

Hydrocodone, possession of Xanax, and public intoxication. He pled guilty to possession 

of Xanax, a Schedule IV controlled substance, based upon “advice from [his] lawyer” 

although his lawyer did not meet with him about the case or discuss the facts. He 

claimed that his lawyer “never told [him] that regardless if the pills [were his] girlfriend‟s 

or anybody else‟s as long as they were in the car then they would find [him] guilty and 

[counsel] basically came with the plea and said it was in [the defendant‟s] best 

judgment.” He denied that the Xanax pills belonged to him and identified a prescription 

for Hydrocodone dated April 10, 2014, which was prescribed to him after he suffered a 

work-related injury. The defendant said that he worked two jobs and paid $350 monthly 

for child support for his three children. 

Amber Copeland, the defendant‟s girlfriend, testified that the Xanax pills found in 

the defendant‟s car belonged to her. She identified a list of her prescriptions from her 

pharmacy, one of which was for Xanax dated April 10, 2014. She denied that she gave 

her Xanax pills to the defendant and explained that the pills were found in his car because 

she had borrowed it the day before and the pills must have fallen out of her purse. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant‟s probation 

and ordered him to serve his twelve-year sentence in confinement.

ANALYSIS

The defendant argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation and, 

instead, should have ordered that he serve a period of “shock incarceration” and then be

allowed to remain on probation. 
3

A trial court is granted broad authority to revoke a suspended sentence and to 

reinstate the original sentence if it finds by the preponderance of the evidence that the 

defendant has violated the terms of his or her probation and suspension of sentence. 

Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-310, -311 (2010). The revocation of probation lies within the 

sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); 

State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991); State v. Stubblefield, 953 S.W.2d 223, 

226 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 

1991). To show an abuse of discretion in a probation revocation case, “a defendant must 

demonstrate „that 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. 

Wall, 909 S.W.2d 8, 10 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (quoting State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 

395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980)). “The proof of a probation violation need not be 

established beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is sufficient if it allows the trial court to 

make a conscientious and intelligent judgment.” Harkins, 811 S.W.2d at 82 (citing State 

v. Milton, 673 S.W.2d 555, 557 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984)).

A defendant at a probation revocation proceeding is not entitled to the full array of 

procedural protections associated with a criminal trial. See Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 

606, 613 (1985); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786-90 (1973). However, such a 

defendant is entitled to the “minimum requirements of due process,” including: (1) 

written notice of the claimed violation(s) of probation; (2) disclosure to the probationer of 

evidence against him or her; (3) the opportunity to be heard in person and to present 

witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse 

witnesses (unless good cause is shown for not allowing confrontation); (5) a neutral and 

detached hearing body, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and 

(6) a written statement by the fact-finder regarding the evidence relied upon and the 

reasons for revoking probation. Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 786; Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 

471, 489 (1972).

 In revoking the defendant‟s probation, the trial court made the following 

findings:

Apparently [the defendant] entered into a plea agreement with the 

State of Tennessee whereby he pled guilty and accepted responsibility and 

admitted to having illegally possessed a Schedule IV controlled substance 

which my understanding is perhaps Xanax drugs. . . . Apparently other 

charges were dismissed as part of the plea agreement which apparently 

that‟s what he entered into. It says that he received an 11 months and 29 

day sentence. It says six months to serve. It wasn‟t like he was getting 
4

ready to get out of jail, so he just accepted a deal to get out of jail. He 

agreed to serve six months on an offense of Possession of Schedule IV 

drugs. . . .

. . . .

. . . [B]ased upon [the defendant‟s] admission I do find that he has 

been convicted of a Class A misdemeanor offense while on probation in 

this court.

Based upon that conviction, I am going to revoke his probation in 

this case. I‟m going to order that he serve this 12 year sentence in the 

Tennessee Department of Correction[]. Of course, he‟ll get credit for any 

jail time that he‟s already served. I notice this is really not the first time his 

probation has been revoked. He‟s been revoked previously. He‟s been sent 

to prison previously and apparently got placed in the boot camp program 

and then got released I believe back in March of 2012. You know, he‟s 

been given chances before at probation and unfortunately he has continued 

to violate the law. His probation will be revoked and [he will] serve his 12 

year sentence. 

The defendant‟s girlfriend testified at the revocation hearing that the Xanax found

in the defendant‟s car belonged to her. However, the defendant pled guilty to possession 

of the Xanax, and the remaining charges against him were dismissed as part of the plea 

agreement. Additionally, the trial court noted that the defendant had previously violated 

his probation and had been placed in the boot camp program. We cannot conclude that 

the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the defendant‟s entire sentence placed into 

effect as such action was within the court‟s authority. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-

310, -311(e). 

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court revoking the defendant‟s probation and ordering him to serve his original 

sentence in confinement. 

_________________________________ 

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE