IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs May 13, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TIMOTHY LEWAYNE MORTON

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sumner County

Nos. CR771-2013, CR500-2014 Dee David Gay, Judge

No. M2014-02029-CCA-R3-CD – Filed May 15, 2015

The defendant, Timothy Lewayne Morton, appeals the revocation of the probationary 

sentence imposed for his Sumner County Criminal Court convictions of disorderly 

conduct, public intoxication, repetitive telephone harrassment, and solicitation to bribe a 

witness. Discerning no error, we affirm.

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

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT L.

HOLLOWAY,JR., and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JJ., joined.

David A. Doyle, Assistant District Public Defender, for the appellant, Timothy Lewayne 

Morton.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Meredith DeVault, Assistant 

Attorney General; Lawrence Ray Whitley, District Attorney General; and Sidney Preston, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On August 13, 2014, the defendant, originally charged in case CR771-2013 

with one count of repetitive telephone harrassment and one count of bribing a witness, 

pleaded guilty to one count of repetitve telephone harassment and one count of 

solicitation to bribe a witness. In addition, in case CR500-2014, the defendant pleaded 

guilty as charged to one count each of disorderly conduct and public intoxication. The 

trial court ordered all four sentences to be served concurrently and imposed an effective 

two-year sentence to be served on supervised probation.

On August 19, 2014, the defendant’s probation officer, Brian Stanley, filed 

a probation violation report alleging that the defendant had violated the terms of his 
- 2 -

probation by arriving for his initial appointment while intoxicated, resulting in his arrest 

for public intoxication. On September 12, the defendant’s probation supervisor, Scott 

Little, filed an amended probation violation report alleging that the defendant had called 

the probation offices from the Sumner County jail and threatened Mr. Little and his staff.

At the September 12, 2014 revocation hearing, Mr. Little testified that, 

when the defendant reported to the probation offices on the morning of August 19, “he 

stumbled through the office” and had “a heavy odor of alcohol about him.” Mr. Little 

inquired whether the defendant had been drinking, and the defendant responded that “he 

had been drinking the night before and that that was his right as a citizen to be able to 

drink.” The defendant also admitted that he had smoked marijuana. The defendant 

became “extremely loud and disruptive” and was “verbally abusive” to other probation 

officers. Mr. Little repeatedly asked the defendant to calm down, at which point the 

defendant turned his verbal abuse on Mr. Little.

Mr. Little instructed Officer Stanley to take the defendant to the drug 

screening room to administer a drug screen for marijuana usage, and Mr. Little then 

contacted the Gallatin Police Department (“GPD”). GPD officers arrived shortly 

thereafter, and the defendant was arrested and charged with public intoxication. The 

defendant pleaded guilty to public intoxication on September 3.

Later that same day, the defendant called Mr. Little from jail, and in a 15-

minute, profanity-laced tirade, the defendant “was extremely abusive and threatening,” 

made multiple “racist” comments, and threatened to “physically assault[] or kill[] the 

staff.” An audio recording of the telephone call was admitted into evidence.

The defendant testified that the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri 

involving “the boy getting shot in the abdomen and twice in the head” were the impetus 

for his outburst at the probation office and his subsequent profane and threatening 

telephone call. The defendant explained that the Ferguson events had really upset him 

and that he had “some rage” and “some hard feelings about white folks at the time.” The 

defendant also explained that the healing process from his gastric bypass surgery was 

taking much longer than he had anticipated, impacting his ability to work and earn 

money, and he believed that, due to the surgery, the small amount of liquor he had 

consumed on the evening of August 18 affected his “system” more than it would have 

prior to the surgery. The defendant denied smoking marijuana on August 18, explaining 

that he mentioned the marijuana to Mr. Little on August 19 because he believed that his 

drug usage in late July would prevent him from passing a drug screen.

The defendant apologized to Mr. Little for his behavior on August 19, 

explaining that he “was upset because the boy got shot” and because he could no longer 
- 3 -

work. The defendant admitted that he had pleaded guilty to the public intoxication 

charge stemming from the August 19 incident and that the conviction was a violation of 

his probation. The defendant also acknowledged that, when he was sentenced on August 

13, the trial court had informed him that it was his “last chance on probation.”

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court made the following 

findings:

Mr. Morton, it’s really a sad commentary here. I 

remember the day that you came in to plead guilty . . . and 

everybody was here working to help you out; releasing you. 

Like you said, things were looking good.

And then I hear proof today that when you come in for 

an intake you’re intoxicated. I hear proof today that you are 

slandering, bad-mouthing, the probation officers. And it’s so 

bad that they have to call the police and you are arrested.

And subsequent to that, you are charged with public 

drunk and you were convicted of public drunk from coming 

into the probation office on your intake.

But another thing that really disturbs me is why in the 

world you would call Mr. Scott Little and have that profane, 

vile, vulgar, abusive type of a conversation with any human 

being regardless of the circumstances. He was just there 

answering the phone. He was there doing his job.

And, Mr. Morton, we absolutely cannot have that kind 

of attitude or conduct toward our probation officers and have 

any effective method of probation or supervision. That is 

about as bad as it gets. That phone conversation is scary. It 

is scary, Mr. Morton. And then, by doing that, you also 

violated another rule of probation. So you have violated two 

rules of probation the first day that you reported to probation.

It’s very clear that the rules of probation have been 

violated. And I find that you have violated the rules of 

probation. I also find, based on history and the nature and the 

circumstances of these violations, that this sentence will be 
- 4 -

served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. That will 

be the order of the Court.

The trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered his sentence into execution, 

with credit for time served.

In this timely appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court abused its 

discretion by revoking his probation. We disagree.

The accepted appellate standard of review of a probation revocation is 

abuse of discretion. See State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); see also State 

v. Reams, 265 S.W.3d 423, 430 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). Generally, “[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). The 1989 Sentencing Act expresses a burden of proof for 

revocation cases: “If the trial judge finds that the defendant has violated the conditions of 

probation and suspension by a preponderance of the evidence, the trial judge shall have 

the right by order duly entered upon the minutes of the court to revoke the probation and 

suspension of sentence. . . .” T.C.A. § 40-35-311(e)(1).

Upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has 

violated the conditions of probation, the trial court may revoke the defendant’s probation 

and “[c]ause the defendant to commence the execution of the judgment as originally 

entered, or otherwise in accordance with § 40-35-310.” Id.; see also Stamps v. State, 614 

S.W.2d 71, 73 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). Following a revocation, “the original judgment 

so rendered by the trial judge shall be in full force and effect from the date of the 

revocation of such suspension.” Id. § 40-35-310.

In the present case, the defendant admitted violating his probation by 

pleading guilty to public intoxication on September 3. Thus, the defendant conceded an 

adequate basis for a finding that he had violated the terms of his probation. See State v. 

Neal Levone Armour, No. E2003-02907-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 2 (Tenn. Crim. App., 

Knoxville, Sept. 9, 2004) (citations omitted). Moreover, the trial court determined that 

the State established by a preponderance of the evidence two violations of the terms of 

probation, to wit: failure to obey the law and failure to refrain from engaging in 

assaultive, abusive, threatening or intimidating behavior. The record supports these 

determinations, and, therefore, revocation of probation was unquestionably justified.

We hold that the trial court acted within its discretion, and we affirm the 

order of revocation and the imposition of the original sentence.
- 5 -

 _________________________________ 

 JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE