IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER LEE STEWART

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Jefferson County

No. 12484 O. Duane Slone, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2018-00262-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The Defendant, Christopher Lee Stewart, appeals the Jefferson County Circuit Court’s 

order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. The 

State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s order pursuant to Tennessee Court of 

Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is 

well-taken and affirm the order of the trial court.

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

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

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which NORMA 

MCGEE OGLE and D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JJ., joined.

Edward C. Miller, District Public Defender; and Rebecca V. Lee, Assistant Public 

Defender, Dandridge, Tennessee, for the appellant, Christopher Lee Stewart.

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

James B. Dunn, District Attorney General; and Charles L. Murphy, Assistant District 

Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 14, 2014, a Jefferson County grand jury charged the Defendant with one 

count of burglary and one count of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more. On April 

24, 2014, the Defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 

four years’ incarceration suspended to probation after the service of sixty days.

07/09/2018
- 2 -

On September 4, 2014, a probation violation warrant issued alleging that the 

Defendant had violated the terms of his release by failing to provide a home address, 

failing to complete drug and alcohol treatment, testing positive four times for illegal drug 

use, and admitted drug use. The trial court found that the Defendant had violated the 

terms of his probation and ordered him to serve seventy-five days’ incarceration before 

returning to probation.

On March 2, 2015, a second probation violation warrant issued alleging that the 

Defendant had violated the terms of his release by testing positive for cocaine. The trial 

court found that the Defendant had violated the terms of his release and ordered him to 

serve ninety days’ incarceration before returning to probation.

On March 21, 2016, a third probation violation warrant issued alleging that the 

Defendant had violated the terms of his release by changing his residence and 

employment without notifying the probation office and failing to report. The trial court 

found that the Defendant had violated the terms of his release and sentenced the 

Defendant to “time served” before returning him to probation.

On September 12, 2016, a fourth probation violation warrant issued alleging that 

the Defendant has failed to provide proof of employment, failed to complete drug and 

alcohol treatment, and failed to report. On January 30, 2018, the Defendant entered an 

open plea to the probation violation allegations. The trial court found that the Defendant 

had violated the terms of his release and ordered the Defendant to serve the remainder of 

his sentence in confinement. 

The Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s revocation 

order. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by 

revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. The State 

has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s judgment by memorandum opinion arguing 

that the trial court properly ordered execution of the sentence as originally imposed based 

upon the Defendant’s open plea to allegations and refusal to comply with the conditions 

of release. The Defendant has not responded to the State’s motion.

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 
- 3 -

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. Id. §§ 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, 387 S.W.2d 811, 814 (Tenn. 1965)).

We conclude that the record supports the trial court’s finding that the Defendant 

violated the conditions of his probation based upon the Defendant’s open plea to the 

probation violation allegations and 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. §§ 40-35-310. The Defendant is not entitled to relief.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Tennessee 

Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

____________________________________

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR, JUDGE