IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs June 26, 2018

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MICHAEL ANTHONY SKETTINI

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County

No. C18827, C20859 Tammy M. Harrington, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2017-02468-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The Defendant-Appellant, Michael Anthony Skettini, appeals from the revocation of 

supervised probation by the Blount County Circuit Court. On appeal, the Defendant 

argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in 

confinement. Upon review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

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

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT 

WILLIAMS, and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY,JR., JJ., joined.

J. Lindell Kirk (on appeal), Knoxville, Tennessee, and Matthew Elrod, District Public 

Defender, and Mack Garner (at hearing), Assistant District Public Defender, for the

appellant, Michael Anthony Skettini.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; James E. Gaylord, Senior 

Counsel; Mike L. Flynn, District Attorney General; and Ryan Desmond, Assistant 

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

OPINION

The judgment in this appeal shows that on July 22, 2011, the Defendant entered 

guilty pleas to reckless endangerment and aggravated assault and received an effective 

five-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. At the December 5, 2017 

revocation hearing, the probation violation report, entered into evidence without 

objection, further showed that on May 21, 2012, the Defendant pleaded guilty to simple 

possession of a schedule III substance, and received a sentence of eleven months and 

twenty-nine days, to be served consecutively to his prior case. The Defendant’s 

supervised probation was reinstated and also ordered to be served on supervised 

probation. The violation report details approximately twenty-five violations of probation 

07/18/2018
- 2 -

for the period between December 2013 and August 2017, for which the probation officer

ultimately requested a warrant for the Defendant’s arrest on August 1, 2017. The 

grounds cited in the warrant included (1) failure to follow a Forensic Social Worker’s 

recommendation of attending Relapse Prevention Group; (2) failure to report to his 

probation officer on July 20, 2017 and July 26, 2017; (3) testing positive for cocaine 

(May 18, 2017 and July 27, 2017) and marijuana (August 1, 2017); and (4) failure to 

“consistently” pay court costs ($1,841.75) and supervision fees ($935). 

At the hearing, the Defendant’s probation officer, Ashley Watson, testified and 

confirmed the allegations in the report. The Defendant had multiple positive drugs 

screens, which prompted her to send him to a forensic social worker, who recommended 

attendance at a relapse prevention group. As reflected in her report, the Defendant was 

not immediately violated when he failed to attend the class. On July 27, 2017, the 

Defendant reported to her as required, but the probation officer observed that “he just 

seemed like he didn’t care about anything that we were trying to do. He just continued to 

test positive.” She further testified that he did not seem to want any sort of drug 

addiction help or treatment. Although the Defendant had successfully completed a court 

ordered SAFE class, this was his fourth probation violation. 

The Defendant testified that since his recent incarceration, he had been involved 

with the CRC Program, Financial Peace, and the Celebrate Recovery Program and had 

only been written-up once due to a “misunderstanding.” He explained the failed drug 

screens on “a lot of stuff going on in [his] life” and “resorted to using drugs because [he] 

was having to stay up late and then work on stuff.” He failed to report because he 

“panicked” when he found out that he was going to be violated. He did not attend the 

relapse prevention class because he had gotten the dates mixed up. If given split 

confinement, he would “stay away from all of the people that [he] thought were [his] 

friends,” start going to church, and find gainful employment fixing cars or doing tree 

work. He was encouraged because he reported without incident for almost twenty-two 

months prior to the instant, fourth violation of probation. 

On cross-examination, the Defendant admitted that he had previously been on 

probation for a three-year sentence for aggravated assault, which was revoked. He had 

pleaded guilty to aggravated assault the same day he pleaded guilty to reckless 

endangerment. Initially, for the three-year sentence, he received six-months’ split 

confinement. He said the reckless endangerment charge at issue carried a two-year 

sentence of straight probation consecutive to the three-year sentence for aggravated 

assault. He said his first probation violation was for simple possession of a schedule III 

substance. His probation was not revoked, but instead he received a ninety-day split 

confinement and eleven months and twenty-nine days on top of the five-year sentence.

He received another violation for a DUI charge in 2013, for which he received one-year’s
- 3 -

split confinement and was released back on probation. On his third violation, the court 

revoked his three-year sentence but dismissed the violation on the two-year sentence and 

the eleven months, twenty-nine days sentence. The Defendant admitted that this was his 

fourth probation violation. He also agreed that everything his probation officer said was 

accurate. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant had four 

probation violations. The court noted that the history of the Defendant’s cases was long 

and complicated. The court said that “it appears, quite frankly, that when in a controlled 

environment, like jail, and with a clear head, [the Defendant did] well.” Acknowledging 

that the Defendant did not qualify for drug court and looking at the history and prior 

violations, the court revoked the Defendant’s sentences and ordered him to serve the 

balance incarcerated. It is from that order that the Defendant now timely appeals. 

ANALYSIS

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

up on further community supervision and ordering confinement for the balance of the 

sentence. The State contends, and we agree, that revocation was proper. 

After determining that a defendant “has violated the conditions of probation and 

suspension by a preponderance of the evidence, the trial judge shall have the right . . . to 

revoke the probation and suspension of sentence and cause the defendant to commence 

the execution of the judgment as originally entered, or otherwise in accordance with § 40-

35-310.” T.C.A. § 40-35-311(e) (2012). Probation revocation rests within the sound 

discretion of the trial court, and this court will not disturb the trial court’s ruling absent an 

abuse of that discretion. State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001) (citing State 

v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991)). To establish an abuse of discretion, the 

defendant must show “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.” 

Harkins, 811 S.W.2d at 82 (citing State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978); 

State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980)). Once the trial court 

decides to revoke a defendant’s probation, it may (1) order confinement; (2) order the 

sentence into execution as initially entered, or, in other words, begin the probationary 

sentence anew; (3) return the defendant to probation on modified conditions as necessary; 

or (4) extend the probationary period by up to two years. See State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 

643, 647 (Tenn. 1999) (citations omitted); State v. Larry Lee Robertson, No. M2012-

02128-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 1136588, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 19, 2013); State 

v. Christopher Burress, No. E2012-00861-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 1097809, at *6 (Tenn.

Crim. App. Mar. 18, 2013); T.C.A. §§ 40-35-308,-310,-311 (2012).
- 4 -

In this case, there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order 

revoking the Defendant’s probation. The Defendant admitted to the facts presented and 

to the probation violation. In addition, the Defendant had three prior probation violations 

for which he received sentences alternative to incarceration. Given the Defendant’s 

history, his testimony, and the testimony of his probation officer, it is evident that the 

Defendant has little regard for the probation conditions imposed. Consequently, we 

conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the Defendant’s 

supervised probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence incarcerated. 

The Defendant is not entitled to relief.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing reasoning and analysis, the judgment of the trial court is 

affirmed.

____________________________________

 CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JUDGE