IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned On Briefs March 11, 2014

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JUSTIN SHELTON

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lincoln County

No. S0900063 Forest A. Durard, Jr., Judge

No. M2013-01812-CCA-R3-CD - Filed April 24, 2014

Appellant, Justin Shelton, was indicted by the Lincoln County Grand Jury on two counts of

reckless endangerment and two counts of vandalism. Appellant pled guilty and was

sentenced to two years on each count for a total effective sentence of eight years. The trial

courtsuspended the sentences and ordered Appellant to probation. Subsequently, a probation

violation warrant was filed which alleged that Appellant had not reported to his probation

officer; failed to pay fines; and failed to provide proof of employment. Petitioner also pled

guilty to another offense. At a hearing, Petitioner pled guilty to the probation violation. The

trial court ordered Appellant to serve the balance of his sentence in incarceration. Appellant

appeals. After a review of the record and authorities, we determine that the trial court did

not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant’s probation as there was evidence to support

the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation occurred.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

JERRY L. SMITH, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS,

and NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JJ., joined.

William J. Harold, Assistant Public Defender, Lewisburg, Tennessee, for the appellant,Justin

Shelton.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Assistant Attorney

General; Robert J. Carter, District Attorney General; and Ann L. Filer, Assistant District

Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION

Factual Background

In August of 2009, Appellant was indicted by the Lincoln County Grand Jury for two

counts of reckless endangerment and two counts of vandalism. Appellant pled guilty to the

offenses in the indictment. As a result, the trial court sentenced Appellant to two years on

each count and ordered the sentences to run consecutively to each other, for a total effective

sentence of eight years. The trial court suspended the sentences and ordered Appellant to

serve his sentence on probation.

In May of 2011, probation officer Angela Smith filed a probation violation report. In

the report, Ms. Smith alleged that Appellant had failed to provide proof of employment;

failed to pay fees and restitution; and failed to report to his probation officer.

In May of 2013, Appellant pled guilty to criminal impersonation, a class B

misdemeanor, and was sentenced to thirty days in jail. Based on the arrest, two probation

violation warrants were filed.

In July of 2013, Appellant pled guilty to the probation violation. At a hearing, the trial

court heard testimony from Appellant. He explained that he was released from jail in 2009,

lived with his parents for about three months, then moved in with a friend. He lived with the

friend for about nine months before becoming homeless for a time. Appellant explained that

he did not “want to be a burden” and “felt . . . out of place.” Appellant explained that he

“gave up” and quit reporting to his probation officer during this time period.

Appellant then met a woman, Jaclyn Corder. She helped him get his life back on

track. They started dating, and Appellant got a job at a manufacturing plant. He moved in

with Ms. Corder, and the two were engaged to be married. Appellant insisted that throughout

the past few years he had learned the “value of life” and to “never take [anything] for

granted.” Appellant assured the court that he would report, be a good role model and father,

and wanted “another shot.” Appellant acknowledged that he had failed to pay any fines or

restitution and conceded that he was arrested for criminal impersonation in Davidson County.

Appellant’s mother, Flossie Campbell, also testified. She praised her son, claiming

that he came with her to doctor’s appointments and helped her clean her house. Ms.

Campbell noted that Appellant was “more serious” now than he used to be and was a regular

church attendee.

-2-
Ms. Corder testified that she and Appellant had been together for “[t]wo years, one

month, and nine days” at the time of the hearing. She explained that Appellant was a good

role model for her children and is “my completion of our family.”

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court noted that Appellant pled guilty but

that “it probably really wouldn’t matter because the evidence certainly preponderatesin favor

of the violation.” The trial court pointed out the Appellant failed to help himself and made

“no effort whatsoever to contact the authorities and get this probation situation straightened

out.” The trial court commented that “sometimes [the court] tr[ies] to help people who help

themselves. [Appellant] has not helped himself and has left me with no choice but to commit

him to the Tennessee Department of Corrections.” In other words, the trial court determined

that Appellant violated the terms of his probation and ordered that he serve the balance of

his sentence in incarceration. Appellant appeals.

Analysis

On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion and erred in

revoking his probation. The State disagrees.

A trial court may revoke probation and order the imposition of the original sentence

upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated a condition

of probation. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-310 & -311. After finding a violation of probation and

determining that probation should be revoked, a trial judge can: (1) order the defendant to

serve the sentence in incarceration; (2) cause execution of the judgment as it was originally

entered; or (3) extend the probationary period for up to two years. See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-

308(c) & -311(e); See also State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643, 647-48 (Tenn. 1999). The

decision to revoke probation rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v.

Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). Revocation of probation and a

community correctionssentence issubject to an abuse of discretion standard of review, rather

than a de novo standard. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). An abuse of

discretion is shown if the record is devoid of substantial evidence to support the conclusion

that a violation of probation has occurred. Id.

The evidence at the revocation hearing need only show that the trial court exercised

a conscientious and intelligent judgment in making its decision. State v. Leach, 914 S.W.2d

104, 106 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies

incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly

erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the

complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010).

-3-
We have reviewed the record on appeal and find ample evidence to support the trial

court’s conclusion that a violation of probation occurred. Evidence was presented that

Appellant was convicted of additional chargesin Davidson County, failed to make restitution

payments, failed to pay court costs and fines, and failed to report to his probation officer.

Appellant admitted to the violations in his testimony, including the fact that he pled guilty

to new charges in Davidson County. Despite Appellant’s admirable attempts to get his life

on the right track and under control, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in concluding that Appellant violated the terms of his probation and should be

incarcerated.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the revocation of Appellant’s probation is affirmed.

___________________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

-4-