IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs December 18, 2018

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOE T. BROOKS

Appeal from the Hamilton County Criminal Court 

No. 301045 Don W. Poole, Judge

No. E2018-00445-CCA-R3-CD

The Defendant, Joe T. Brooks, appeals as of right, from the Hamilton County Criminal 

Court’s revocation of his probationary sentence and order of nine months’ incarceration

for his conviction of reckless endangerment. The Defendant contends that the trial court 

abused its discretion by ordering him to serve nine months of confinement before being 

returned to supervised probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the 

trial court.

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

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which NORMA MCGEE 

OGLE and ALAN E. GLENN, JJ., joined.

Steven E. Smith, District Public Defender; and Jay A. Perry, Assistant District Public 

Defender, for the appellant, Joe T. Brooks.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General; Neal Pinkston, District Attorney General; and Andrew Coyle, 

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

OPINION

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On May 25, 2017, the Defendant pled guilty to possession of a deadly weapon in 

count one, reckless endangerment in count two, and simple possession of marijuana in 

count three. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-10, -17-418, -17-1307. The trial court sentenced 

the Defendant to a term of two years’ confinement for count one and eleven months and 

twenty-nine days’ confinement for count three, to be served concurrently. The trial court 

ordered the Defendant to two years of supervised probation for count two, to be served 

03/01/2019
-2-

consecutively to the sentences for counts one and three. The Defendant was granted 

determinate release on August 10, 2017, and began probation on August 14, 2017. 

On October 6, 2017, a probation violation warrant was issued for the Defendant 

based upon multiple alleged violations. On February 18, 2018, a probation revocation 

hearing was held.

At the hearing, David Sharrett testified that he worked as a probation and parole 

officer for the Tennessee Department of Correction and that he was assigned to the 

“Chattanooga Community Impact Program.” According to Mr. Sharrett, the program 

supervised eighteen to twenty-four-year-old offenders who must have had a “charge with 

an aggravated component, a drug charge[,] or a history of drug charges” to be eligible for 

the program. Mr. Sharrett said that the Defendant participated in this program and that he 

was the Defendant’s supervisor. Mr. Sharrett’s supervision of the Defendant began on 

approximately September 20, 2017. 

Mr. Sharrett explained that the Defendant was released from custody on 

determinate release in August 2017 and that the Defendant would have signed paperwork 

that discussed the rules of determinate release. At the Defendant’s initial intake 

following his release, he tested positive for marijuana. Mr. Sharrett testified that the 

Defendant also failed a drug screen by testing positive for marijuana in September and 

that he failed to report to the probation office on October 5, 2017. 

On October 6, 2017, Mr. Sharrett and his partner went to the Defendant’s 

residence and placed a GPS monitor on his ankle, as required by the Chattanooga 

Community Impact Program. Mr. Sharrett said that when he placed the monitor on the 

Defendant, he explained how to charge and take care of the device. Mr. Sharrett also 

explained to the Defendant that tampering with the device would result in a new 

misdemeanor charge and that if the device could not be recovered, the Defendant would 

receive a theft charge. Mr. Sharrett testified that the Defendant wore his GPS monitor for 

only four hours before removing it. Mr. Sharrett explained that he received a call around 

noon on October 6, 2017, from the Defendant, who asked “why the cops were looking 

for” him. Mr. Sharrett did not know, but he attempted to calm the Defendant and 

encouraged him not to remove the GPS monitor. However, he received information that 

the Defendant had tampered with the GPS monitor at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Sharrett and his 

partner began looking for the Defendant, but they were unable to locate him. Mr. 

Sharrett did find the GPS monitor, with the band clearly cut, in a vehicle located in the 

front yard of the Defendant’s residence. Mr. Sharrett took out a vandalism warrant for 

the Defendant’s cutting off the monitor and “submitted the violation of probation.” 

Approximately five days later, the Defendant was located through the efforts of “a group 

of special agents” whose “job is to hunt down people who have absconded supervision.” 

The Defendant was taken into custody.
-3-

Furthermore, Mr. Sharrett explained that the Chattanooga Police Department kept 

a record of all known gang members in the area and that the Defendant was a “validated 

member of the Rollin 100 Crips” gang. 

The Defendant testified that he began probation following his determinate release 

from incarceration. He stated that he knew he was prohibited from using marijuana but 

admitted to failing drug screens because he used the drug. The Defendant failed to meet 

with Mr. Sharrett on October 5, 2017, but he explained that this was because he had to 

take his son to the hospital. The Defendant told Mr. Sharrett this when Mr. Sharrett

arrived and placed the GPS monitor on the Defendant on October 6. When asked what 

happened next, the Defendant explained that shortly after Mr. Sharrett put the monitor on 

him, a police officer arrived at the Defendant’s house with a warrant for his arrest. The 

Defendant stated that he “didn’t stick around to find out” what the warrant was regarding, 

and he cut off the GPS monitor. The Defendant confirmed that officers eventually found 

him at the home of his then pregnant girlfriend. 

The Defendant explained that he wished to be placed on probation so that he could 

take care of his girlfriend and their newborn baby. He testified that his girlfriend was 

assaulted in January 2018 and that this resulted in her delivering the baby early. The 

Defendant said that their “child was at the hospital in an incubator[.]” He testified that 

his child had undergone “at least three to four surgeries” since birth and that he needed to 

be able to care for the baby. 

The Defendant also testified that he suffered from mental health issues. He 

explained that he had been diagnosed and prescribed medication “since the second 

grade[.]” The Defendant asserted that he was no longer a member of a gang. The 

Defendant also affirmed that he would “do what [he] need[ed] to do as far as being on 

probation[.]” 

On cross-examination, the Defendant admitted that on October 6, 2017, he fled 

from the police and a few hours later removed his GPS monitor. The Defendant testified 

that he went to his girlfriend’s home, where he remained until October 10, 2017. That 

night, he took his girlfriend to the emergency room, and he was arrested the following 

day. The Defendant also admitted to smoking marijuana every day while incarcerated 

and confirmed that he had used marijuana while released on probation. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant violated 

the terms of his probation by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court found that 

the Defendant violated the terms by testing positive for marijuana on September 25, 

2017, and by cutting off the GPS monitor on October 6, 2017. The trial court found the 

Defendant’s temporary disappearance a violation as well. The trial court reasoned that 

the Defendant “was on determinate release” and that he “should know what to do and not 

to do” on determinate release and ordered the Defendant’s two-year sentence for counts 
-4-

one and three into execution. Regarding count two’s two-year sentence, the trial court 

ordered the Defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in the workhouse 

consecutively to the remaining time on the determinate release sentence. The trial court 

later reduced this to nine months to serve in the workhouse following the remainder of 

the determinate release sentence. The Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. 

ANALYSIS 

On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in 

ordering the Defendant to serve nine months’ incarceration before being placed on 

supervised probation. Specifically, the Defendant argues that this was his first probation 

violation and serving “the balance of the sentence that he had been released on 

determinate release was sufficient punishment given his age, mental health issues, and 

lack of any other criminal convictions.” The Defendant posited that an alternative to 

incarceration should have been given regarding the conviction for count two. The State 

responds that the trial court exercised proper discretion in ordering the Defendant to serve 

nine months in custody. We agree with the State. 

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

conditions of his release, the trial court “shall have the right . . . to revoke the probation 

and suspension of sentence” and either “commence the execution of the judgment as 

originally entered” or “[r]esentence the defendant for the remainder of the unexpired term 

to any community-based alternative to incarceration.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(e). 

In a probation revocation hearing, the credibility of the witnesses is determined by the 

trial court. State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

Furthermore, the decision to revoke probation is in the sound discretion of the trial 

judge. State v. Kendrick, 178 S.W.3d 734, 738 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005); Mitchell, 810 

S.W.2d at 735. The judgment of the trial court to revoke probation will be upheld on 

appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 

(Tenn. 1991). To find an abuse of discretion in a probation revocation case, “it must be 

established that the record contains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of 

the trial judge that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” Id. (citing 

State v. Gear, 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1980)); see also State v. Farrar, 355 S.W.3d 582, 586 (Tenn. Crim. 

App. 2011). Such a finding “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was 

improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles 

involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) 

(quoting State v. Moore, 6. S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).

Here, the trial court reasoned that there was “overwhelming evidence” the 

Defendant violated the terms of his probation. The trial court found that the Defendant 

had drug use violations and cut off his GPS monitor. This court has repeatedly held that 
-5-

“an accused, already on probation, is not entitled to a second grant of probation or 

another form of alternative sentencing.” State v. Jeffrey A. Warfield, No. 01C01-9711-

CC-00504, 1999 WL 61065, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 10, 1999); see also State v.

Timothy A. Johnson, No. M2001-01362-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 242351, at *2 (Tenn. 

Crim. App. Feb. 11, 2002). The trial court properly considered the evidence presented 

at the revocation hearing and the facts of the case before ordering the Defendant to serve 

a portion of his sentence. Accordingly, the Defendant is not entitled to relief regarding 

this issue. 

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, the judgments of 

the trial court are affirmed.

_____________________________

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE