### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 27, 2022 Session **QUINCY SCOTT v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Bradley County**  **No. 20 -**  **CR -** **301 Andrew M. Freiberg, Judge** 

**___________________________________ No.**  **E2021 -**  **00400 -**  **CCA -** **R3 -** **PC**

**___________________________________** Quincy Scott (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for post- conviction relief claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his probation revocation hearing. The postconviction court dismissed the petition based on the holding of Young v. State , 101 S.W.3d 430, 433 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002), that the Post- Conviction Procedure Act “does not permit the filing of a petition . . . to attack collaterally the validity of a proceeding to revoke the suspension of sentence and/or probation.” We affirm. **Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right ; Judgment of the**  **Criminal Court Affirmed**  ROBERT L. H OLLOWAY , JR ., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS , P.J. , and T IM OTHY L. EASTER, J., joined. Austin B. Hayes , Athens , Tennessee, for the appellant , Quincy Scott. Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Garrett D. Ward, Assistant Attorney General ; Stephen D . Crump , District Attorney General; and Paul O. Moyle , IV, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. **OPINION Procedural History**  Petitioner pleaded guilty to sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine , and the trial court imposed an eight-year sentence to be served on supervised probation . State v. Quincy D. Scott, No. E2018 - 02271 - CCA- R3 - CD, 2019 WL 3819851, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 15, 2019), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 4, 2019). A probation violation report was issued, alleging in part that Petitioner had been arrested and convicted of aggravated robbery in McMinn County . Id. . Following a hearing, the trial court fully revoked Petitioner’s- 2 -

probation . Id. Petitioner timely appealed, and this c ourt affirmed the trial court ’s decision . Id. at *2. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post- conviction relief , claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his probation revocation hearing because counsel “failed to raise the only defense [P]etitioner had available against the State’s abridge ment of his due process rights to a speedy trial , i.e . , file [a] Motion to dismiss violation warrant.” After appointment of counsel , an amended petition was filed reasserting the claim raised in the pro se petition . The State subsequently filed an amended response asking the trial court to summarily dismiss the petition on the grounds that Tennessee law did not provide for post- conviction relief following a probation revocation. The trial court entered an order dismi ssing the petition. Petitioner timely appeal s . **Analysis** Petitioner claims that the post- conviction court erred in dismissing his petition without a hearing. The State argues that the court properly dismissed the petition because the Post- Conviction Pro cedure Act does not permit the filing of a petition to collaterally attack the validity of a proceeding to revoke probation. We agree with the State. As stated by the post- conviction court in its order dismiss ing the petition , this court has held that the Post- Conviction Procedure Act “does not permit the filing of a petition under its provisions to attack collaterally the validity of a proceeding to revoke the suspension of sentence and/or probation. ” Young, 101 S.W.3d at 433 . Over the past twenty years , this court has consistently reaffirmed the reasoning of Young in the context of probation revocation hearings . See e.g., Thomas McLaughlin v. State , No. M2019 - 02306 - CCA- R3 - PC, 2020 WL 7074197, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 3, 2020), perm. app. denied ( Tenn. Mar. 17, 2021) ; Ricky L. Hill v. State , No. W2017 - 02380 - CCA- R3 - PC, 2018 WL 4610763, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 25, 2018) (memorandum opinion) ; Daniel David Eden v. State, No. M2014 - 00862 - CCA- R3 - PC, 2015 WL 3612983, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 10, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct . 15, 2015); Christopher Johnson v. State , No. E2011 - 00562 - CCA- R3 - PC, 2012 WL 1066502, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 2 8 , 2012) , perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 15, 2012); Charles J. Miller v. State , No. M2008 - 01861 - CCA- R3 - PC, 2010 WL5 65666, at * 3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 18, 2010) ; Michael Joseph Grant v. State , No. E2008 - 02161 - CCA- R3 - PC, 2009 WL 4282032, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 1, 2009) ; Sherman Clark v. State , No. W2008 - 02557 - CCA- R3 - PC, 2009 WL 4039083, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 23, 2009) (memorandum opinion) ; Thomas Dew ey Perry, Jr. v. State , No. E2008 - 02324 - CCA- R3 - PC, 2009 WL 2590050, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 24, 2009) (memorandum opinion); Gregory D. McDaniel v. State , No. M2008 - 01534 - CCA- R3 - PC, 2009 WL 1684598, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 12, 2009) .- 3 -

Although the supreme court has held “that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in a revocation of a community corrections sentence may be raised in a postconviction proceeding , ” Carpenter v. State , 136 S.W.3d 608, 612 (Tenn. 2004) (noting that “revocation of a community corrections sentence, unlike the revocation of probation, presents the additional issue of resentencing”), the supreme court ha s consistently denied permission to appeal in cases where this court , following the holding of Young, has affirmed the dismiss al of post- conviction petitions challenging probation revocation proceedings . In light of this well - established precedent, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

___ _________________________________ ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE