IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs December 20, 2016

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TOMMY LEE BALDWIN

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County

Nos. 288216 & 293019 Barry A. Steelman, Judge

No. E2016-00930-CCA-R3-CD

The defendant, Tommy Lee Baldwin, appeals the revocation of the probationary sentence 

imposed for his Hamilton County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded convictions of violating 

his community supervision requirement and of violating the sexual offender registry act. 

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 THOMAS T.

WOODALL, P.J., and JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., joined.

Blake F. Murchison, Assistant District Public Defender, for the appellant, Tommy Lee 

Baldwin.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Robert W. Wilson, Assistant 

Attorney General; Neal Pinkston, District Attorney General; and Amanda Morrison, 

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

OPINION

On November 19, 2014, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of 

violating the sexual offender registry act in case number 293019 in exchange for a twoyear sentence to be served as 90 days’ incarceration followed by supervised probation for 

the balance of the sentence. On that same date, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count 

of violating his lifetime community supervision requirement in case number 288216 in 

exchange for an 11-month-and-29-day sentence suspended to supervised probation 

following the service of 60 days’ incarceration and to be served consecutively to the prior 

sentence. In addition, as part of the defendant’s supervised probation in both cases, he 

was required to submit to global positioning system (“GPS”) monitoring.

01/05/2017
- 2 -

On January 13, 2015, the defendant’s probation supervisor filed a probation 

violation report, alleging that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation by 

failing to report within 48 hours of his release from incarceration on December 22, 2014, 

to update his sexual offender registry status and to receive his GPS monitoring device. 

At the April 5, 2016 revocation hearing, William Ford, the defendant’s 

probation supervisor, testified that, upon the defendant’s release from split confinement, 

he failed to report as required. Mr. Ford stated that his last contact with the defendant 

occurred in March 2013, when the defendant had informed Mr. Ford “that he was 

smoking marijuana, was not going to pass a drug screen, he was behind in his fees, and 

had not reported for sex offender treatment.” Those revelations prompted Mr. Ford to 

file for a violation of lifetime community supervision in case number 288216. Shortly 

thereafter, the defendant was charged in case number 293019 with violating the sexual 

offender registry act for moving his residence without permission. Mr. Ford explained 

that his supervision of the defendant began in December 2012 and that the defendant’s 

prior probation officer had reviewed the sexual offender registry rules with the defendant. 

Mr. Ford added that, after he had filed the 2015 community supervision violation report, 

he learned from the defendant’s sexual offender treatment provider that the defendant had 

been dismissed from the program due to nonattendance.

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

findings:

I think with sex offenders and the sex offender registry, the 

purpose of that is so that we know where the sex offenders 

are. [The defendant] got out in December of 2014 and was to 

be on GPS monitoring and he knew that. The purpose of that 

is so that somebody with responsibility for him knows where 

he is at all times, and we didn’t know where he was because 

he chose not to comply.

And then he also has shown a history of not going for 

sex offender treatment. That’s a key part of the program.

Drug use for a sex offender ceratinly would not be 

appropriate for anyone, much less someone who has the 

capacity to commit sex crimes against other people.

He moved also without providing notification.
- 3 -

I just find that there is abundant cause to find that he 

has been willingly noncompliant. If he’s going to be 

noncompliant, he can’t, he can’t be found to be without 

violation.

So I do find that there has – it has been established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that he’s violated, and I’m 

going to sustain the revocation on 288216, order the sentence 

into execution for whatever balance. And 293019, revoctaion 

is sustained and the sentence ordered into execution.

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 proof adduced at the revocation hearing showed that 

the defendant violated the terms of his probation by failing to report within 48 hours of 

his release from incarceration to update the sexual offender registry and to receive his 

GPS monitoring device. The record supports these determinations, and, therefore, 

revocation 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.
- 4 -

_________________________________ 

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE