### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 16, 200 4

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . GREGO RY MULLINS

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty No. S42, 253-256 R. Jer ry Bec k, Jud ge

No. E2004-00628-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Fe bruary 3, 2005

The Appe llant, Greg ory

Mullins, appeals the dec ision of the Sulli van County Criminal Court

r e v o k i n g h i s p r o b a t i o n a n d o r d e r i n g h i mt o s e r v e t h e r e m a i n d e r o f h i s s e n t e n c e i n c o n f

i n e m e n t

. In Marc h 2003, Mullins pl ed g uiltyto three counts of burglary , three counts of t heft under $500, two counts of thef

t over $1000, evading arr est, and speeding

. Mullins’ effe ctive eig ht-y ear sentenc e wa s suspended, a nd he was place d on supervised probation. On October 1, 2003, and O ctober 10, 2003, probation violation warr ants wer e filed a g ainst Mullins . After a re vocation hea

ring was he ld on the Oc tob e r 1 0 wa

rr a nt, he wa s f

ou ndto b e in vio la tio n o f h is p ro batio n, a ndhis orig ina l se nte nc e s to th the Depa rtment of Corre ction wer e re instated. On appe al, Mullins does not contest t he trial court’s fi nd ing s th a t he vio la te d the te rm s of h is p ro batio n. Ra the r, he arg ue s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt abu se d it s discretion by

ordering c onfinement rather than r einstating his probation with m o re restric tive conditions. After r eview, w e find no e rror and af firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D G. H AYES , J.
, d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

J oseph F

. Har

rison, Assistant Public Def ender
, Blountville, Tenne ssee, for the Appellant, Gr eg ory Mu lli ns

.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A ttor ne y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Mic ha e l Mo or e , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; Se th P

. Kestner , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; H. Gr eele y

Wells, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and Joseph E. Perrin, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.-2- OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

On Marc h 10, 2003, the Appellant pled g uiltyto three c ounts of burg lary , th re e co unts of theft under

$500, two counts of thef

t over $1000, evading arr est, and speeding . He wa s sentence d as a Rang e I I I

persistent off

ender to concur rent sente nces, r esulting in a n eff ective se ntence of eig ht y ear s. The Appe llant’s sentenc es we re suspe nded, and he was plac ed on super vised probation.

On Octobe r 1, 2003, a violation wa rra nt w as filed a g ainst the Appellant a lleg ing that he had violated the terms of his probation by committing domestic assault, failing to report his ar rest in a timely manner , failing to display his probation identification ca rd whe n he wa s arr ested, a nd eng ag ing in a ssaultive, abusive, thre atening
, or i ntimidating behavior. A s econd violation wa rra nt

wa s fi le d a g a ins t the Ap pe lla nt on Oc tob e r 10
, 20 03
, a lle g ing that he ha d a g a in v iol a te d th e te rm s of h i s p robation. S pecif ically , the war

rant c harg ed that he violate d the rules of probation by committing t wo counts of vi olation of vehicle reg istration, speeding , evading arr est, felony evading

arr e st, dr ivi ng on a

su sp e nd e d li c e ns e , tw o c ou nts of no drive r’ s li c e ns e in p os se ssi on , a ndide nti ty the ft . A dd iti on a lly , th e wa rr a nt a lleged that

the Ap pe lla nt h a d f

a ile d to re po rt

his arr e st f

or the se offe nses and f

ailed to display

his probation identification ca rd.

During the Fe bruary

26, 2004 revoc ation hearing, the State, by ag ree ment, proce eded upon the Octobe r 10 violation warra nt. Office r Ke vin H ite testified that in the ear ly morning hours of th Se pte mbe r 2 8, 20 03 , h e sto pp e d th e Ap pe lla nt’ s v e hic le in a hig h c ri me are a

be c a us e the licen se “tag ” on the truc k did not match the vehicle. The Appellant identified hi mself as B randon L ee Wood bu t w a s u na

ble to p ro du c e a ny

ide nti fi c a tio n. Hi te wa s u na ble to f in d a d ri ve r’ s li c e ns e iss ue d to

“ B ra nd on L e e Woo d, ” a nd he iss ue d mis de me a no r c itatio ns to the Ap pe lla nt fo r drivi ng wi tho ut a lic e ns e a nd vio la tio n of re g ist ratio n. B e fo re le a vin g the sc e ne , Hite ins truc te d the Ap pe lla nt n ot t o drive the ve hicle ag ain. The A ppellant ag ree d to have the ve hicle towed.

Ap pr oximate ly tw e nty min ute s la te r, Hi te ob se rv e d th e Ap pe lla nt d ri vin g do wn the str e e t in the same ve hicle. He attempted to stop the vehicle a second time, but, upon seeing the police c ar, the Ap pe lla nt a c c e le rate d to a sp e e d o f a

pp ro xima te ly

sixty mil e s p e r h ou r. Hi te pu rs ue d th e ve hic le until the Appellant parke d the vehicle behind a business, exit ed the vehicle , and fle d on foot. The Appellant wa s eventu al l y ap p re hended and arr ested. The Appellant still maintained that he wa s B ra nd on L e e Woo d a nd , a t no tim e , did he inf orm the of

fi c e r that he wa s on pr ob a tio n o r s ho w h im his identification car d. Hite eventua lly asce rtained the Appellant’s true identity and dete rmined that his driver’s lice nse wa s suspended.

The Appe llant’s probation off icer , Trac i Arnold, also testified at the hearing . She stated that she had r eviewe d the rules of probation with the Appe llant, including the r ule re quiring the Appellant to show his probation card when he came int o contac t with law enforce ment office rs. She also testified that the Appe llant had failed to report his September 28, 2003 arr est within seventy -two hours as re qui re d by

the rules of

probation. She further testified that the Appellant had attendedW e no t e t hat t he t ri al co urt d i d no t f i nd t hat t he Stat e had est ab l i shed i d ent i t y t hef t b y a p repo nd erance o f t he 1

e v id e n c e

.
-3- require d meeting s with her, that he was c urre nt with his pay ment of fe es, and tha t he was e mploy ed when she last spoke with him.

At the conclusion of t he revoca tion hearing, the trial court found that severa l violations had been established bya pre pondera nce of the evidenc e. F irst, the court found a violation of rule 1, that the Appellant would obe y the laws of the State, based upon his September 28, 2003 arr est for two
counts of violation of reg istration, two counts of no drive r’s lice nse in possession, speeding , evading

arr est, felony

evading arr est, and driving on a suspende d license. Further, the c ourt found that the 1 A p p e ll a n t h a d c o mm it te d v io lati o n s o f ru le 5 b y f a il in g to c arr y a n d p r e s e n t h is probation ide nti fi c a tio n c ardto a

uth or iti e s whe n he was arr e ste d a ndof ru le 2 b y faili ng to r e po rt

his arr e st within seventy -two hours. F inding the A ppellant g uiltyof these violation and “finding no mitigation

a t a ll i n th e c a se ,” the tr ia l c ou rt re vo ke d the Ap pe lla nt’ s pr ob a tio n a nd or de re d the re ma ind e r o f h is eig ht-y ear sentenc e be se rved in c onfinement. This appe al followed.

Ana lys is

The Appe llant arg ues that the trial c ourt abused its discre tion by re v o k i n g his probation wit h o u t co n s idering mitigating evidenc e esta blished at the re vocation hea ring . Specifica lly , the Appellant asse rts that the t rial court err ed “by not reinstating his probation wit h the possible addition of more r estrictive c onditi o n s o f probation such as place ment in the community corr ections prog ram.”

This court reviews a revoc ation of probation under an a buse of discr etion standard. State v. Stu bb le fie ld , 953 S.W .2d 223, 226 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (cit i n g State v. Hark ins , 811 S.W .2d 79 , 8 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 1) ; Sta te v . D e lp , 614 S.W .2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) ). This means that the evidenc e nee d only show that the trial judge has exercised c onscientious and intellige nt judgment in ma k in g th e d e c is io n r a th e r th a n a c ti n g ar b it r ar ily

. S tate v. Leach , 914 S.W .2d 104, 106 (Tenn. C ri m

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 5 ) ( ci t i n g Sta mp s v . S tat e , 61 4 S.W. 2d 71 , 7 3 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 80 )) . T hu s, in revie wing the trial court’s action, it is our obligation to examine the rec ord and dete rmine whe ther the trial court has exercised a conscie ntious judg ment. I f the trial court finds, by a pre pondera nce of the e vidence , that the def endant h as v i olated a c ondition of his probation, the court has the authority to revoke the probation and r einstate the judg ment as orig inally enter ed. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311( e) ( 2003).

I n the pre sent ca se, the Appe llant does not challeng e the tria l court’s finding s that he violated the conditions of his probation but rathe r arg ues t hat t he dec ision to reinstate the orig inal sentenc e is too harsh bec ause the trial court f ailed to consider

mitigation evidenc e. Whil e it is true that the Appellant did follow ce rtain rules o f probation, including attending reg ular mee tings, pe rforming community

service , and timely

pay ing his fe es, the re cord a lso amply establishe s , b y

a preponde ranc e of the e vid e nc e , that nu me ro us vio la tio ns oc c ur re d. I n a dd iti on to c omm itt ing the va ri ou s c ri me s,-4-

the Appellant lied to police about his identityand committed the off enses of violation of reg istration and driving without a driver’ s license a second time after specific ally

being told by

Offic er H ite not to do so.

Th e pr ima

ry g oa l of no n- ins tituti on a l puni sh me nt is to pro vid e a pe ri od of g ra c e in o rd e r t o assist the reha

bilitation of a penitent offe nder. Burns v. United States , 2 87 U. S. 21 6, 22 0, 53 S. Ct

. 154, 155 (1932). The Appellant’s c onduct demonstrate s that he is unr epenta nt. The re cord indicates that the Appellant ha s previously been g rante d probation on seve ral oc casion s

. His continued flag rant a buse of his judicially

g rante d liberty

is indefensible. In the case befor e us, the trial c ourt was statutorily

authorized to r einstate the Appellant’s orig inal eig ht-y ear Depa rtment of Corre ction
sentenc e.

CO NC LU SION

B a se d u po n th e fo re g oin g , w e c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt didno t ab us e it s disc re tio n in ordering r evocation of the Appellant’s probation and orde ring him to serve the ba lance of his orig inal

se nte nc e s in c on fi ne men t. Acco rdin g ly , th e jud g me nt o f the Sul liv a n Co un ty Cr imi na l Co urt is aff irmed.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE