IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE 

 AT KNOXVILLE 

 Assigned on Briefs November 28, 2023 

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DUANE R. DOXTATER

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sullivan County 

Nos. S67,821; S68,009-011; S73,301-303; S73,562 James F. Goodwin, Jr., Judge 

 No. E2023-00261-CCA-R3-CD 

The Defendant, Duane R. Doxtater, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his effective tenyear probationary sentence for multiple convictions stemming from two separate global 

guilty plea agreements. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by fully revoking his 

probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. 

Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

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

KYLE A. HIXSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD WITT,

JR., and ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JJ., joined. 

Brennan M. Wingerter, Assistant Public Defender – Appellate Director, Tennessee District 

Public Defenders Conference (on appeal), Franklin, Tennessee; and Andrew J. Gibbons, 

District Public Defender, Wesley A. Mink, Assistant District Public Defender, and George 

Todd East (at revocation hearing), Kingsport, Tennessee, for the appellant, Duane R. 

Doxtater. 

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Raymond J. Lepone, Assistant 

Attorney General; Barry P. Staubus, District Attorney General; and P. Michael Filetti, 

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

OPINION 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 The Defendant’s effective ten-year sentence in this probation revocation case stems 

from his multiple convictions in eight cases. The record, which includes uniform judgment 

12/01/2023
- 2 - 

documents and guilty plea paperwork, reflects that the Defendant entered two global guilty 

pleas—the first on February 2, 2018, and the second on April 8, 2021. 

A. February 2, 2018 Guilty Plea 

 On April 25, 2017, in case number S67,821, the Sullivan County grand jury returned 

an indictment against the Defendant, charging him with three counts of statutory rape. See

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-506. On May 9, 2017, in case numbers S68,009 through 

S68,011, the Sullivan County grand jury returned two indictments and one presentment 

against the Defendant, charging him with the following offenses: theft of property valued 

at $2,500 or more but less than $10,000; vandalism of property valued at more than $1,000 

but less than $2,500; evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle; evading arrest; 

speeding; running a red light; operating a vehicle with no valid driver’s license; and escape. 

See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-103, -14-408, -16-603, -16-605; 55-8-104, -8-149, -8-152, 

50-301. Thereafter, on February 2, 2018, the Defendant entered a global guilty plea 

agreement resolving all four cases—two counts of statutory rape were dismissed, and he 

otherwise pleaded guilty as charged to all counts. Per the terms of the agreement, the 

Defendant received an effective six-year sentence to be served at thirty percent as a Range 

I, standard offender for these convictions, and he would “apply” for probation.1 The 

judgment forms reflect that on February 9, 2018, the Defendant’s remaining sentence was 

suspended and that he was given credit for time served.2 

B. April 8, 2021 Guilty Plea 

 Before the expiration of the Defendant’s six-year sentence, the Sullivan County 

grand jury returned a presentment against the Defendant on September 23, 2020, charging 

him in case number S73,562 with aggravated domestic assault, domestic assault, domestic 

vandalism of property valued at $1,000 or less, and two counts of assault. See Tenn. Code 

Ann. §§ 39-13-101, -13-102, -13-111, -14-408. On October 7, 2020, the Sullivan County 

grand jury, in case numbers S73,301 through S73,303, returned three presentments against 

the Defendant, charging him with the following offenses: three counts of failure to provide 

proof of financial responsibility, two counts of driving on a suspended license, one count 

of driving on a revoked license, one count of unlawful removal of a registration decal or 

plate, one count of failing to display a certificate of vehicle registration upon demand, and 

one count of violating the bumper law. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-4-108, -4-129, -9-

 

1

 The plea agreement noted that the escape conviction required mandatory service of sixty days. 

2

 We note that the judgment forms indicate that the Defendant was originally placed in the 

Community Corrections Program relative to this six-year sentence. 
- 3 - 

215, -12-139, -50-504. On April 8, 2021, the Defendant entered a global guilty plea 

agreement resolving all four cases—he pleaded guilty to all counts as charged, with the 

agreement that the conviction for domestic assault would merge with the aggravated 

domestic assault conviction. Per the terms of the agreement, he received an effective fouryear sentence to be served at thirty percent as a Range I, standard offender, which was to 

be suspended to supervised probation. This four-year sentence was to be served 

consecutively to the remainder of the Defendant’s effective six-year sentence in cases 

S67,821 and S68,099 through S68,011. The judgment forms reflect that the Defendant was 

given credit for time served and that as a condition of his probation, he was not to possess 

or use alcohol or illegal drugs. 

C. Probation Revocation Proceedings 

On July 1, 2022, the Defendant’s probation officer, Carlos Payne, filed a probation 

violation affidavit, seeking a warrant for the Defendant’s arrest. The affidavit listed all 

eight case numbers and stated that the Defendant received a total effective sentence of ten 

years and was granted probation on June 10, 2019. The warrant alleged that the Defendant 

violated the rules on his probation on or about June 25, 2022, based upon the following 

behavior: “The offender travelled to Virginia Beach, [Virginia,] without the permission of 

his [p]robation [o]fficer and was arrested by the Virginia Beach [p]olice for driving without 

a license[;] resisting arrest or obstruct[ing] justice-threat or force[;] driving under the 

influence with child[;] and gross, wanton, or reckless care for child.” Specifically, the 

warrant provided that the Defendant violated Rule 1 of his probation by failing to obey the 

law; Rule 5 by failing to get permission from his probation officer to leave the State; Rule 

8 by using intoxicants; Rule 10 by violating the special conditions of his probation, 

specifically, “no alcohol”; and Rule 14 by engaging in assaultive, abusive, threatening, or 

intimidating behavior, as well as in behavior that poses a threat to others. Based upon the 

affidavit, the trial court issued a warrant for the Defendant’s arrest, and the Defendant was 

taken into custody on September 6, 2022. 

The trial court held a probation revocation hearing on February 15, 2023. At the 

outset of the hearing, defense counsel noted that the violation of probation warrant was 

“based upon events out of Virginia which [the Defendant pleaded] guilty to, [pleaded] no 

contest to, was the understanding.” Defense counsel then said that the Defendant would 

“enter a technical plea of guilty to” violating his probation “because of the conviction in 

Virginia.” Upon questioning by the trial court, the Defendant pleaded guilty to the “July 

1, 2022[ v]iolation [w]arrant[.]” Defense counsel also stipulated that the trial court could 

“consider the facts in the warrant as the basis for the plea[.]” The trial court then accepted 

the Defendant’s plea and revoked the Defendant’s probation. 
- 4 - 

The trial court stated that it would proceed with a hearing to determine the 

consequences of the Defendant’s revocation of probation. The trial court next noted that 

it had received a February 14 report “showing that [the Defendant] was evaluated for the 

TN-ROCS Program.”3 The defense then called the Defendant’s sister, Kayla Doxtater, to 

testify. 

Ms. Doxtater stated that the Defendant had three children and was “a wonderful 

dad,” who engaged in lots of activities with his children. According to Ms. Doxtater, the 

Defendant “started trying to do better for his life” after his third child was born and he was 

released from jail. Ms. Doxtater estimated that the Defendant’s third child was about oneyear old. She testified that the Defendant worked “every single day” to support his children 

and that he had considered seeking additional schooling. She also opined that the 

Defendant’s receiving treatment for his alcohol problem “would really help him.” Ms. 

Doxtater explained that when the Defendant drinks alcohol, he becomes “a whole different 

person” and that “every single time that he gets intoxicated, . . . he does have an issue.” 

The Defendant then testified. According to the Defendant, his third child was born 

in December 2021. He said that his children were his “number one priority,” that he spent 

as much time as possible with them, and that he provided financial assistance for them. 

Regarding his employment, the Defendant stated that prior to his arrest, he was working 

“the best job” he had ever had, making twenty-five dollars an hour with a moving company. 

The Defendant’s boss would pick him up for work, so he did not have to drive. He would 

be able to return to work if released into the community. 

The Defendant said that he had an “occasional[]” drinking problem, explaining that 

it was “not as bad as it used to be” and that he now knew “when to stop.” The Defendant 

indicated that he could comply with the conditions of any inpatient treatment program. The 

Defendant acknowledged that he had participated in previous programs, but he said that he 

did not want to participate in those prior programs “as bad as [he does] now.” 

 

3

 This report is not a part of the record on appeal. According to the State’s website, the Tennessee 

Recovery Oriented Compliance Strategy (“TN-ROCS”) Program “is a court diversion strategy that serves 

justice-involved adults who have mental illness, co-occurring disorders, or substance abuse disorders and 

who have low to medium risk factors for re-offending and medium to high needs for substance abuse and 

mental health services.” Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, TNRecovery Oriented Compliance Strategy, https://www.tn.gov/behavioral-health/substance-abuseservices/criminal-justice-services/tn-rocs.html (last visited Nov. 27, 2023). The TN-ROCS model 

“provides an option for judges to address the needs of defendants who do not meet criteria for recovery 

court.” Id. 
- 5 - 

The Defendant was then asked about the details of the June 25, 2022 incident in 

Virginia Beach that precipitated the filing of the violation warrant. The Defendant said 

that his boss was initially driving the vehicle, but because it was nighttime and his boss 

“only [had] vision in one eye[,]” he took over driving. The Defendant stated that he initially 

thought he was pleading no contest to the charges in Virginia, but when he entered the 

courtroom, his lawyer informed him that he could no longer plead no contest and that he 

would have to plead outright “to get out that day[.]” The Defendant indicated that he 

pleaded guilty that day in order to be released. According to the Defendant, none of his 

convictions for those offenses in Virginia were felonies, and he did not have any 

probationary sentence in Virginia after service of forty-eight hours for the DUI conviction. 

On cross-examination, the Defendant was asked if he was “sanctioned by probation” 

for “picking up a misdemeanor offense” in 2019, though his probation officer did not seek 

a violation. The Defendant acknowledged that he was sanctioned in 2019 for a driving on 

a suspended license charge. In addition, he admitted that he was sanctioned by probation 

for failing a drug test in September 2021 by testing positive for buprenorphine and 

marijuana. 

Regarding the Virginia Beach incident, the Defendant indicated that it was his 

boss’s five-year-old child that was in the vehicle at the time of arrest. The Defendant said 

that while he was trying to find a parking spot, he attempted to avoid the headlights from 

the vehicle behind him by mistakenly turning down a one-way street before being pulled 

over by the police. According to the Defendant, the police did not have him perform any 

field sobriety tests or require him to submit to a blood test. The Defendant said that after 

being pulled over, he “started looking for [his] vape,” and the officers “thought [he] must 

be trying to reach for a weapon.” The Defendant denied that he was resisting arrest or that 

he was under the influence of anything, despite his having pleaded guilty to those offenses. 

The Defendant explained that he took his prescribed buprenorphine that day and was not 

using alcohol. 

At the conclusion of the proof, the Defendant requested community release that 

included an “inpatient opportunity for professional treatment.” Defense counsel noted that 

the Defendant had started “accepting responsibility” and that he was “a young man” with 

three children to raise. The State did not present any additional proof or make any 

argument. 

 

In issuing its ruling, the trial court found that this was the Defendant’s third 

probation violation and “each time he has picked up new charges[] while on probation.” 
- 6 - 

The trial court stated that it was “looking at this third violation warrant.”4 The trial court 

noted that despite the Defendant’s denial of his guilt for the Virginia offenses, he, 

nonetheless, pleaded guilty to those offenses. The trial court observed that the Defendant’s 

third child was six months old in June 2022 at the time of the Virginia offenses and stated, 

So, I have to wonder if all this talk about him turning his life around and 

wanting to be there and straightening up because of this child, is because he 

wants to get out of jail. Because for the first six months of her life, he sure 

hadn’t straightened up and done the right thing. 

The trial court further noted that the Defendant had left the jurisdiction without permission. 

In addition, the trial court remarked that while the Defendant had a “pretty good job,” he 

had not taken any initiative to seek treatment or change his ways, stating, “He’s still out 

here drinking, ripping and running, committing a DUI with . . . a child in the car[.]” 

The trial court said it had “considered the TN-ROCS Program” but did not think the 

Defendant was “ready for that” “at this time” as it was not “in his best interest.” The trial 

court also said that it “would consider Community Corrections” but that it did not “have 

that option available” because the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) “hasn’t 

seen fit to provide a county, the size of Sullivan County, with a Community Corrections 

Program since 2019.” The trial court then commented, “We’ve tried straight probation, 

we’ve effectively tried split confinement because he’s had to, on previous violations, he’s 

had to serve some time in jail and then be placed back on probation and none of it has 

worked.” The trial court revoked the Defendant’s effective ten-year sentence in full and 

ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the TDOC. 

 The trial court entered an order to that effect, fulling revoking the Defendant’s 

probation and giving him credit for time served. The Defendant filed a timely, albeit 

premature, notice of appeal. The case is now before us for our review. 

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve 

the remainder of his effective ten-year sentence in confinement. Specifically, the 

Defendant contends that (1) the trial court failed to consider whether execution of the 

 

4

 At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the trial court stated that it was going to file a 

document with the clerk so that it would be a part of the technical record on appeal, presumably referring 

to this warrant. However, the record on appeal does not include this warrant or any other prior probation 

violation warrants or revocation orders. 
- 7 - 

original sentence would serve the ends of justice and be in the best interests of the 

Defendant, his three children, or the public; and (2) the trial court reached an illogical 

conclusion when it said it “would consider Community Corrections” if that were still an 

option in Sullivan County, but at the same time, said that the Defendant was not “ready” 

 for the TN-ROCS Program. The Defendant requests we reverse the revocation order and 

allow him to enter the TN-ROCS Program at a suitable inpatient treatment facility with 

intensive community-based supervision. 

The State responds that the trial court made adequate findings for the record and did 

not abuse its discretion by ordering the Defendant to serve his original sentence as an 

appropriate consequence of revocation after finding that this was the Defendant’s third 

violation of probation, that the Defendant had committed new crimes with a child in the 

car, and that the Defendant had previous opportunities for alternative relief that did not 

work. Relative to the trial court’s statements regarding the TN-ROCS and Community 

Corrections Programs, the State contends that the trial court did not reach an illogical 

conclusion by refusing, after consideration, to place the Defendant in one program simply 

because another potentially more suitable program was unavailable. 

Appellate courts review a trial court’s revocation of probation decision for an abuse 

of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness “so long as the trial court places 

sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the 

consequences on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). “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). If a trial court fails to state its findings and reasoning for the 

revocation on the record, appellate courts may conduct a de novo review if the record is 

sufficiently developed, or the appellate court may remand the case for the trial court to 

make such findings. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759 (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 

324 (Tenn. 2014)). 

Probation revocation is a two-step consideration requiring trial courts to make two 

distinct determinations as to (1) whether to revoke probation and (2) what consequences 

will apply upon revocation. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 757. No additional hearing is required 

for trial courts to determine the proper consequences for a revocation. Id. The trial court’s 

findings do not need to be “particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the 

appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” Id. at 759 

(citing State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 705-06 (Tenn. 2021)). 
- 8 - 

“The trial judge may enter judgment upon the question of the charges as the trial 

judge may deem right and proper under the evidence adduced before the trial judge.” Tenn. 

Code Ann. § 40-35-311(d)(1). “If the trial judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence 

that the defendant has violated the conditions of probation and suspension of sentence, then 

the court may revoke the defendant’s probation and suspension of sentence, in full or in 

part, pursuant to § 40-35-310.” Id. Notwithstanding subdivision (d)(1), the probation 

statute provides for two categories of probation violations, technical and non-technical, 

with differing penalties for both. State v. Walden, No. M2022-00255-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 

WL 17730431, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 16, 2022). 

The following are classified as non-technical violations: a defendant’s commission 

of a new felony or a new Class A misdemeanor, a zero tolerance violation as defined by 

the department of correction community supervision matrix, absconding, or contacting the 

defendant’s victim in violation of a condition of probation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-

311(e)(2). Once a trial court determines that a defendant has committed a non-technical 

violation of probation, the trial court may: (1) order confinement for some period of time; 

(2) cause execution of the sentence as it was originally entered; (3) extend the defendant’s 

probationary period not exceeding one year; (4) return the defendant to probation on 

appropriate modified conditions; or (5) resentence the defendant for the remainder of the 

unexpired term to a sentence of probation. See id. §§ 40-35-308(c); -310; -311(e)(2). 

Here, the trial court’s application of the first step of Dagnan is not in dispute. At 

the revocation hearing, the Defendant pleaded guilty after questioning by the trial court to 

the allegations contained in the July 1, 2022 probation violation warrant as they pertained 

to the Defendant’s behavior in Virginia on June 25, 2022. Defense counsel also stipulated 

that the trial court could “consider the facts in the warrant as the basis for the plea[.]” The 

Defendant admitted at the revocation hearing that he had pleaded guilty outright to the 

offenses in Virginia. Although the Defendant denied his underlying guilt for those offenses 

and claimed he initially thought he was entering a no contest plea, the Defendant’s 

stipulation to the allegations contained in the probation violation warrant alone supports 

revocation. See State v. Brewster, No. E2021-00793-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 2665951, at 

*4 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 11, 2022) (citing cases), no perm. app. filed. 

Turning our attention to the trial court’s reasoning for ordering incarceration as a 

consequence of revocation, the second step of Dagnan, the Defendant argues that the trial 

court failed to consider whether execution of the original sentence would serve the ends of 

justice and be in the best interests of the Defendant, his three children, or the public. In 

issuing its ruling, the trial court noted that this was the Defendant’s third violation of 
- 9 - 

probation warrant5 and that the Defendant continued to “pick up new charges[] while on 

probation.” The Defendant first violated his six-year sentence by picking up numerous 

new charges that resulted in his April 8, 2021 guilty plea and an extension of his suspended 

sentence by an additional four years. At the revocation hearing, the Defendant also 

admitted that he was sanctioned in 2019 for a driving on a suspended license charge and in 

September 2021 for failing a drug test. The trial court commented that despite the 

Defendant’s claims of turning his life around and wanting to be a good father and provider, 

the Defendant’s third child was six months old at the time of the Virginia offenses, which 

involved the presence of a five-year-old child in the vehicle. The trial court observed that 

the Defendant left the state without the permission of his probation officer. In addition, 

the trial court remarked that though the Defendant had a “pretty good job,” he had not taken 

any initiative to seek treatment or change his ways, stating, “He’s still out here drinking, 

ripping and running, committing a DUI with . . . a child in the car[.]” The trial court further 

specifically stated that placement in the TN-ROCS Program would not be in the 

Defendant’s best interest. 

As noted above, the trial court’s findings do not need to be “particularly lengthy or 

detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the 

revocation decision.” Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d. at 759 (citing Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705-06). 

To impose the Defendant’s proposed standards would go beyond the requirements of 

Dagnan and necessitate a trial court include specific phraseology in its ruling, which we 

will not do. The record in the present case reflects that the trial court appropriately 

analyzed the evidence and made findings regarding the facts and circumstances as they 

informed its decision regarding the appropriate consequence for the violation. 

Moreover, a trial court may, in determining the appropriate consequence for a 

probation violation, consider “the number of revocations, the seriousness of the violation, 

the defendant’s criminal history, and the defendant’s character.” Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d. at 

759 n.5. In rendering its decision to revoke the Defendant’s probation in full, the trial court 

considered the Defendant’s past criminal history, including his multiple violations of his 

past probationary sentences, and noted that the Defendant’s previous opportunities for 

alternative relief did not work. These facts indicate that measures less restrictive than 

confinement were unsuccessful for the Defendant and reflect poorly on the Defendant’s 

potential for rehabilitation. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(C) and (5). 

 

5

 Though the violation warrant was not made a part of the record as the trial court indicated it would 

be, it is the Defendant’s responsibility to make sure there is an adequate record on appeal. See Tenn. R. 

App. P. 24(b). 
- 10 - 

The Defendant also argues that the trial court reached an illogical conclusion when 

it said it “would consider Community Corrections” if that were still an option in Sullivan 

County but that the Defendant was not “ready” for the TN-ROCS Program. According to 

the Defendant, given these statements by the trial court, there was no logical reason why 

the trial court refused to send the Defendant to the available option of TN-ROCS. First, 

we note that the February 14 TN-ROCS Program report is not a part of the record on appeal. 

It is an appellant’s responsibility to provide a full and fair record of what transpired in the 

trial court, including the components relied upon by the trial court in determining the 

sentence; this burden clearly rests upon the appellant. See Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b). 

Moreover, the trial court merely mentioned that it would consider placement in the 

Community Corrections Program if such were available. And we agree with the State that 

the Defendant is not entitled to placement in one program, which the trial court considered 

and found the Defendant unsuitable, simply because another potentially more appropriate 

program was unavailable. 

Finally, we observe that though the Defendant requests placement in TN-ROCS 

Program to receive inpatient treatment for substance abuse, the Defendant denied having a 

significant drinking problem at the revocation hearing, describing any problem as 

occasional, and saying that it was “not as bad as it used to be” and that he now knew “when 

to stop.” The Defendant also acknowledged that he had participated in previous programs 

and that he failed a drug test in September 2021 for buprenorphine and marijuana. Despite 

the purported occasional nature of this problem, the Defendant said that he did not want to 

participate in those prior programs “as bad as [he does] now.” The record shows that either 

the Defendant’s substance abuse problem is not as serious as his record suggests or he is 

downplaying the seriousness of his problem. Either conclusion supports the trial court’s 

determination regarding the Defendant’s unsuitability for placement in the TN-ROCS 

Program. 

Due to the non-technical nature of the violation given the Defendant’s commission 

of new Class A misdemeanor offenses in Virginia, the trial court was statutorily authorized 

to order the Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence in incarceration. See Tenn. 

Code Ann. § 40-35-311(e)(2). Accordingly, the trial court acted within its discretion when 

it ruled that the Defendant was no longer a good candidate for probation and should serve 

the remainder of his effective ten-year sentence in the TDOC. 
- 11 - 

III. CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, the Defendant is not entitled to relief, and the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

______________________________ 

KYLE A. HIXSON, JUDGE