IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs March 7, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN HUDSON

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 09-04562 Chris Craft, Judge

___________________________________

No. W2016-00913-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

John Hudson (“the Defendant”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for 

reduction of sentence under Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, 

asserting that he was entitled to relief because the trial court acted without jurisdiction 

when it revoked the Defendant’s probation. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment 

of the trial court. 

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

ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T.

WOODALL, P.J., and JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., joined.

John Hudson, Memphis, Tennessee, pro se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Zachary T. Hinkle, Assistant 

Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Reggie Henderson, 

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

OPINION

On July 23, 2009, the Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for theft 

over $10,000 and burglary. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant pleaded guilty, 

as a Range I standard offender, to theft over $10,000 on October 27, 2010, and was 

sentenced to five years’ probation.1 On November 12, 2014, the trial court issued a 

probation violation warrant based on allegations that the Defendant was arrested for theft 

over $10,000 on October 7, 2014, in Brownsville and that the Defendant traveled outside 

 

1 The State dismissed the burglary charge as part of the plea agreement. 

03/23/2017
- 2 -

the county without permission. On October 29, 2015, the trial court entered an order 

revoking the Defendant’s probation. On April 5, 2016, the Defendant filed a pro se 

Motion for Rule 35 Correction, Modification, and/or Reduction on Currently Imposed 

Sentence. The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion without a hearing. The trial 

court found that:

The [D]efendant, while on probation for a [five] year sentence for [t]heft 

over $10,000, committed the same crime again while on probation, and it 

took the Shelby County fugitive squad ten months to serve him with the 

warrant for violation. His probation was revoked October 29, 2015. This 

court feels he is undeserving of having his sentence reduced.

This appeal follows.

Analysis

On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to 

revoke his probation because he had successfully completed probation before the filing of 

the violation warrant. As such, the Defendant argues, the trial court should have granted 

his Rule 35 motion “in the interest of justice.” The State responds that the Defendant 

waived any challenge to the initial probation revocation because he did not appeal the 

trial court’s order and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to deny the 

Defendant’s untimely Rule 35 motion. We agree with the State. 

Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, as follows: 

(a) Timing of Motion. The trial court may reduce a sentence upon motion 

filed within 120 days after the date the sentence is imposed or probation is 

revoked. No extensions shall be allowed on the time limitation. No other 

actions toll the running of this time limitation.

(b) Limits of Sentence Modification. The court may reduce a sentence only 

to one the court could have originally imposed.

(c) Hearing Unnecessary. The trial court may deny a motion for reduction 

of sentence under this rule without a hearing.

(d) Appeal. The defendant may appeal the denial of a motion for reduction 

of sentence but shall not be entitled to release on bond unless already under 

bond. If the court modifies the sentence, the state may appeal as otherwise 

provided by law.
- 3 -

Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35. According to the Advisory Commission Comments to Rule 35, 

“[t]he intent of this rule is to allow modification only in circumstances where an 

alteration of the sentence may be proper in the interests of justice.” 

This court reviews a trial court’s denial of a Rule 35 motion under an abuse of 

discretion standard. State v. Ruiz, 204 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tenn. 2006); State v. Edenfield, 

299 S.W.3d 344, 346 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “[A]n appellate court should find that a 

trial court has abused its discretion only when the trial court has applied an incorrect legal 

standard, or has reached a decision which is illogical or unreasonable and causes an 

injustice to the party complaining.” Ruiz, 204 S.W.3d 778 (citing Howell v. State, 185 

S.W.3d 319, 337 (Tenn. 2006)). 

As noted by the State, the Defendant’s Rule 35 motion was untimely filed. The 

record reflects that the trial court revoked probation on October 29, 2015, but the 

Defendant did not file his Rule 35 motion until April 5, 2016, more than 120 days later. 

Rule 35 clearly provides that no extension shall be allowed and no action may toll the 

running of the 120-day limitation period. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35(a). Accordingly, the 

denial of the Defendant’s Rule 35 motion was proper.

Moreover, the Defendant’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to 

revoke his probation has been waived and, in any event, lacks merit. Following the trial 

court’s entry of the order revoking the Defendant’s probation, the Defendant failed to 

appeal the decision, thereby waiving this issue. An appeal as of right is available to 

criminal defendants from an order denying or revoking probation. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b). 

In this case, the trial court entered an order revoking the Defendant’s probation on 

October 29, 2015. To seek review of that decision, the Defendant had to file a notice of 

appeal within thirty days of the entry of that order. Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a). Because the 

Defendant chose not to file a notice of appeal, the trial court’s order of revocation became 

final on November 30, 2015. Therefore, any challenge to the probation revocation is not 

properly before this court. 

Regardless, the record clearly establishes that the trial court had jurisdiction to 

revoke the Defendant’s probation. If a probation violation warrant is issued within the 

term of a defendant’s probationary sentence, “the issuance of the warrant commences the 

revocation proceedings and thereby interrupts the running of the probationary period 

‘until such time as the trial court [may] hear and determine the issue raised by the 

[warrant].’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting McGuire v. 

State, 292 S.W.2d 190, 193 (Tenn. 1956)). It is the issuance of the probation violation

warrant that triggers the interruption of the probationary period, not the service of the 

warrant on the defendant. Id. (citing Allen v. State, 505 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tenn. 1974)). 
- 4 -

Here, the trial court issued the violation warrant on November 12, 2014, within the five 

years’ probation ordered by the court in October 2010. Because the probation violation 

warrant was issued within the probationary period, the trial court had jurisdiction to 

revoke probation. The Defendant is not entitled to relief. 

Conclusion

For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

_________________________________

 ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE