IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs April 24, 2018

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ELIJAJUAN SMITH

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County

No. 295465 Tom Greenholtz, Judge

 

No. E2017-01086-CCA-R3-CD

The Defendant, Elijajuan Smith, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s order 

revoking his probation for his burglary of a business and vandalism convictions and ordering

him to serve his effective four-year sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that 

the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. 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 ALAN E.

GLENN and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.

Julie Moya, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Elijajuan Smith. 

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

Neal Pinkston, District Attorney General; and Bates Bryan, Jr., Assistant District Attorney 

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On August 25, 2015, the Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary of a business and to 

vandalism, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective four years’ probation. 

The court ordered this sentence be served consecutively to a ten-year probationary sentence 

for an aggravated burglary conviction in an unrelated case.1 On August 23, 2016, a 

 

1 On August 30, 2009, the Defendant pleaded guilty in case number 272276 to aggravated burglary and 

received a ten-year sentence on probation. The four-year sentence in case number 295465 was ordered to be 

served consecutively to the ten-year sentence in case number 272276. Although the probation violation report 

at issue in this appeal included case number 272276, the parties agreed at the revocation hearing that the tenyear sentence had expired. The probation violation allegation relative to case number 272276 was dismissed. 

05/04/2018
-2-

probation violation report was filed with the trial court, alleging that the Defendant had 

committed technical violations, including failure to show proof of employment, failure to 

report to his probation officer, and failure to pay court costs, supervision fees, and restitution. 

An amended probation report was filed with the court on August 25, 2016, alleging that on 

March 10, 2016, the Defendant had been arrested for criminal trespass, that he failed to 

report his arrest to his probation officer, that he failed to provide proof of employment, that 

he failed to report to his probation officer, and that he failed to pay court costs, supervision 

fees, and restitution. On August 26, 2016, a probation violation warrant was issued. 

At the revocation hearing, probation officer Alex Finlay testified that although the 

Defendant’s probation expired in case number 272276 on September 30, 2015, the 

Defendant’s supervision involved probation revocations. Ms. Finlay said that the Defendant 

was placed on supervised probation, that the probation was revoked on November 5, 2012, 

that the Defendant was confined in the jail until February 1, 2013, and that the Defendant 

was released to supervised probation. Ms. Finlay said that on September 10, 2013, the 

Defendant’s probation was revoked and that the court placed him on community corrections.

Ms. Finlay said that on July 9, 2014, the Defendant was removed from community 

corrections and placed on unsupervised probation, which was later revoked on August 25, 

2015. Ms. Finlay said, though, that the Defendant was placed on enhanced probation until 

the expiration of the ten-year sentence. 

Ms. Finlay testified that the Defendant’s probation at the time of the revocation 

hearing applied only to case number 295465 and that the Defendant had violated the 

conditions of his release. Ms. Finlay said that on March 10, 2016, the Defendant was 

arrested for criminal trespass and that the Defendant did not report the arrest. Ms. Finlay

said that the Defendant failed to provide employment verification for July and August 2016 

and had failed to report to the probation office since April 14, 2016. Ms. Finlay noted that 

although the Defendant appeared at the probation office on June 30, 2016, the Defendant 

submitted his employment verification and left without speaking to her. Ms. Finlay said that 

June 30, 2016, was her last contact with the Defendant. Ms. Finlay said that the arrest 

warrant was issued on August 26, 2016, and that the Defendant was arrested on February 15, 

2017. Ms. Finlay said that the Defendant had failed to pay toward court costs and 

supervision fees and that on December 28, 2015, the Defendant submitted his only payment 

for $18.75 toward restitution, leaving a balance of $781.25. 

Ms. Finlay testified that she last spoke with the Defendant on April 14, 2016, that she 

attempted to contact the Defendant to schedule meetings, and that the Defendant reported 

having transportation issues. Ms. Finlay said that the Defendant reported to her for his initial 

orientation, three days after orientation, and one additional time to discuss a positive drug 

screen and to obtain drug treatment. Ms. Finlay said that between January and June 2016, 

she was on leave, that the Defendant had another probation officer during that time, and that 
-3-

the officer conducted home visits and attempted to schedule meetings at the probation office. 

Ms. Finlay said that the Defendant met with this probation officer on April 15, 2016, and that 

the Defendant should have reported to this officer until June 2016, when Ms. Finlay returned 

to work. Ms. Finlay said that June 2016 was the last time the Defendant came to the 

probation office, although she unsuccessfully attempted to contact the Defendant by 

telephone and in person at the Defendant’s home. 

On cross-examination, Ms. Finlay testified that the Defendant’s primary problem was 

the failure to report to the probation office and that the Defendant’s failure to report 

prevented her from placing the Defendant into a drug treatment program to bring him into

compliance with the rules of probation. Ms. Finlay agreed that she did not plan to file a 

probation violation report simply because the Defendant did not report but said that she

planned to file the violation report if the Defendant did not comply with the rules of 

probation. Ms. Finlay said that she never immediately filed a violation report because she 

wanted to do what she could to “keep him compliant.” Ms. Finlay did not have any drug 

screen reports or documentation of her attempts to contact the Defendant.

Elonda Black, the Defendant’s grandmother, testified for the defense that the 

Defendant had three young children. Ms. Black said that the Defendant had been without 

transportation for a while and that the Defendant had used the bus. She said that she had 

driven the Defendant to find employment “plenty of times.” She thought the Defendant was 

“waiting to go back to the chicken house,” although she did not know if management was 

holding a position for the Defendant until the resolution of the revocation hearing. Ms. 

Black said that she had retired in January 2017 and that she would ensure the Defendant 

maintained his appointments with his probation officer. On cross-examination, Ms. Black 

testified that the Defendant lived with her periodically but that he had also stayed with his 

mother and his fiancée. Ms. Black agreed that the Defendant listed her address as his 

residence. 

The Defendant testified that he had three children under the age of five, all of whom 

attended daycare and that he had not always been able to pay the childcare expenses. He 

said that when he could not pay the fees, the children could not attend daycare until 

arrangements were made. He said he cared for the children or found a babysitter. He said 

that Ms. Black now assisted with childcare costs. 

The Defendant testified that before the present probation violation, he worked at 

Goodwill and that meeting with his probation officer was difficult because of his work 

schedule, the hours the probation office was open, and the distance between the locations. 

He said that his lunch break was thirty minutes and that it took about forty minutes to get to 

the probation office by bus and twenty minutes on foot. He said that he was terminated from 

his job at Goodwill as a result of the time it took to go to the probation office. He said that if 
-4-

he were returned to probation, he had a job waiting for him at Pilgrim’s Pride chicken house

and that he now had access to his grandmother’s car to drive to work and to the probation 

office. He said that his work schedule would allow for meeting with his probation officer in 

the morning before his 3:30 p.m. shift. 

On cross-examination, the Defendant testified that he would live with his 

grandmother if released to probation, although he admitted he had been living with his 

fiancée at the time of his arrest. The record reflects that before June 2016, the probation 

office was at another location, and the Defendant said that he had less difficulty getting to 

this previous location in order to meet with his probation officer. The Defendant said that

after the probation office moved to its current location, he had difficulty getting to the office 

before it closed because he worked from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. He said he worked at 

Goodwill from May 2016 to July 2016 and from August 2016 to September 2016. 

The Defendant testified that on two occasions, he dropped off his employment 

verification at the probation office without meeting with his probation officer because he had 

to return to work. He said that his first employment verification was from Goodwill and that 

his second was from “Koch’s chicken.” He said, though, that he worked at Koch’s chicken 

before Goodwill and that he lost his job at Koch’s chicken after he came to the probation 

office in June 2016. He said that he left his probation officer a note stating he had to return 

to work, that the probation officer called him later, and that he thought he spoke to her, but 

he admitted he did not report to the probation office because of transportation problems. He 

said that when he was not home, his probation officer left notes when she came to perform a 

home visit. He agreed he had not been to the probation office since June 2016. 

The Defendant testified that he was responsible for paying $800 restitution and agreed 

he had only paid $18.75. He said that financial difficulties prevented him from paying and 

noted that he had assisted his fiancée with finding a home, paying for childcare, and paying 

routine monthly expenses. He said that he thought he was required to pay $45 per month for 

supervision fees but that he never told his probation officer about his financial difficulties. 

The Defendant testified that he received probation in two previous cases for 

convictions for aggravated burglary and aggravated assault and agreed that he violated the 

conditions of his probation twice, that he was placed on community corrections, and that the 

court granted his request to be returned to supervised probation. He also agreed that while 

he was on supervised probation, he was arrested for the present offenses and that he received 

probation. 

On redirect examination, the Defendant testified that the primary reason for his failure 

to report to his probation officer was a lack of transportation and work constraints. The trial 
-5-

court noted that the Defendant did not report to the probation office for eight months. The 

Defendant explained,

I could have made – honestly I could have made a change. It was just lack of 

communication and . . . not just putting more effort into it. I could have put 

more effort into it now that I see . . . that I’m on the other side I could have put 

more effort into it, into handling the business that I needed to . . . at the time. 

The trial court asked why the Defendant did not put forth more effort when his previous 

probation had been revoked for failure to report to his probation officer. The Defendant 

explained that he wanted “to do everything on [his] own and just didn’t want to ask for any 

help.” The Defendant stated that he now understood he needed help. When the court asked 

why he did not report the criminal trespass arrest to his probation officer, the Defendant said 

“[b]ecause I knew the consequence behind it.” The Defendant thought he would have been 

returned to jail and said he knew his probation officer would have been disappointed. He 

said that he knew he had broken one of the rules of probation by being arrested. The 

Defendant’s criminal history received as an exhibit showed that the Defendant pleaded guilty 

to criminal trespass on March 26, 2016. 

The trial court determined that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation 

by committing a new criminal offense of criminal trespass and pleading guilty in March 

2016. The court also determined that the Defendant failed to report the arrest, which violated 

the conditions of probation. The court found that the Defendant had failed to report to his 

probation officer since June 2016, violating the conditions of his release. Relative to 

restitution, the court found that the Defendant had paid only $18.75 toward the $800 owed 

since December 2015, although the Defendant had been employed, at times, since 2015. The 

court found that no proof showed the Defendant had the inability to pay some money and 

that the Defendant would have had some income when he worked at Goodwill. The court 

found that the Defendant’s failure to pay toward restitution violated the conditions of his 

probation. The court declined to render any findings relative to supervision fees. 

The trial court determined that the Defendant had not been successful on probation 

and stated that the most serious violation was failing to report to a probation officer. The 

court stated that probation was a form of punishment and that the Defendant’s failure to 

report to his probation officer and the failure to report his arrest showed that he was “done 

being punished” and was “no longer going to comply with the terms of [the] punishment.” 

The court noted that it understood transportation issues but stated that transportation issues

did not excuse the failure to report. The court found that during the eight months the 

Defendant failed to report, the Defendant could have found a way to report in spite of the 

transportation issues. 
-6-

The trial court noted that the present probation violation was the Defendant’s fourth 

and ordered his sentence into execution. The court stated that its decision was based upon 

the failure to report to his probation officer and the failure to report his new arrest. The court 

found that repeated criminal behavior while on probation was not something that could be 

tolerated. This appeal followed. 

The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation and 

ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. He argues that it was “illogical” for the 

court to rely upon Ms. Finlay’s testimony because she did not produce any documentation of 

his failure to report for scheduled meetings, her telephone calls to him, and laboratory results 

of drug screens. He also asserts the court improperly disregarded his transportation difficulty 

in getting to the probation office. The State responds that the trial court properly revoked the 

Defendant’s probation and ordered his sentence into execution. We agree with the State.

 

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. 

T.C.A. §§ 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, 378 S.W.2d 811, 814 (Tenn. 1965)). 

The record reflects that the probation violation report and warrant alleged that the 

Defendant had violated multiple conditions of his probation. The trial court found that the 

Defendant violated the conditions of his release by failing to report to his probation officer, 

engaging in criminal conduct based upon the criminal trespass arrest and conviction, failing 

to report the criminal trespass arrest to his probation officer, and failing to make payments

toward restitution. However, the trial court relied primarily upon the failure to report to his 

probation officer and the failure to report his criminal trespass arrest to his probation officer

in determining to revoke the Defendant’s probation. Although the Defendant argues it was 

“illogical” to rely on Ms. Finlay’s testimony because she did not present the trial court with 

documentation regarding her attempts to contact the Defendant and the dates the Defendant 
-7-

failed to report to the probation office, the Defendant’s testimony alone supports the court’s 

determinations. 

The Defendant testified that he had not reported to the probation office since June 

2016. Although the Defendant attributed his failure to report to his work schedule and 

transportation difficulties, the Defendant conceded he had not been employed since 

September 2016. When asked why he did not report to his probation officer between 

September 2016 and his February 15, 2017 arrest, the Defendant said he could have put more 

effort into meeting with his probation officer regardless of his transportation difficulties. We 

note that although a trial court must determine that a defendant willfully failed to pay 

restitution before revoking probation on this basis, a trial court is not required to find that a 

defendant willfully failed to comply with other conditions of his release, including the failure 

to report to his probation officer. See State v. Bobby Ray Graves, Jr., No. M2015-00619-

CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 6560642, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 30, 2015); see also State v. 

Rudolph Miller Brooks, Jr., No. E2006-02070-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 3353418, at *3 

(Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 13, 2017). The record supports the trial court’s finding that the 

Defendant violated the conditions of his probation by failing to report to his probation 

officer. 

Likewise, the record reflects that on March 10, 2016, while serving his sentence on 

probation in the present case, the Defendant was arrested for criminal trespass, and he 

pleaded guilty on March 26, 2016. The Defendant acknowledged the offense at the hearing 

and testified that he did not report the arrest to his probation officer because he “knew the 

consequences.” He thought he would have been returned to jail and knew he had violated 

one of the rules of his release. We conclude that the record supports the trial court’s finding 

that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation by engaging in criminal conduct

and by failing to report his arrest to his probation officer. 

Because we have concluded that the record supports the trial court’s findingsthat the 

Defendant violated multiple conditions of his probation, we likewise conclude 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. §§ 40-35-308(a), (c), -310. The 

Defendant is not entitled to relief. 

Based on the foregoing and the record as a whole, we affirm the judgment of the trial 

court. 
-8-

_____________________________________

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE