IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs in Knoxville November 28, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BARBARA PINNIX

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County

No. 9823HV.4 Thomas W. Graham, Judge

No. M2017-00822-CCA-R3-CD

_____________________________

The Defendant, Barbara Pinnix, pleaded guilty to attempted conspiracy to manufacture 

methamphetamine, and the trial court imposed an eight-year sentence, with the Defendant 

to serve twenty-seven days followed by the remainder of her sentence on probation. The 

Defendant’s probation officer filed an affidavit for a probation violation warrant, alleging 

that the Defendant had brought contraband into jail. The Defendant pleaded guilty to the 

revocation but later filed a motion to set aside the revocation order, claiming that her 

decision was hastily made. The trial court denied the motion, and the Defendant appeals. 

On appeal, she contends that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to withdraw 

her admission to a probation violation and that it should have reviewed her motion 

pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f). After review, we affirm the 

trial court’s judgment.

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

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T.

WOODALL, P.J., and J. Ross Dyer, J. joined.

Paul D. Cross, Monteagle, Tennessee, for the appellant, Barbara Pinnix.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Alexander C. Vey, Assistant 

Attorney General; James Michael Taylor, District Attorney General; and Sherry Durham 

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

OPINION

I. Facts

A. Guilty Plea Hearing

This case arises from the Defendant’s plea of guilty to attempted conspiracy to 

02/06/2018
2

manufacture methamphetamine, after which the trial court sentenced her to eight years, 

twenty-seven days of which were to be served in incarceration and the remainder to be 

served on probation. The trial court entered the judgment of conviction on December 9, 

2014.

On February 2, 2017, the trial court found that the Defendant had violated the 

terms and conditions of the drug court program by not complying with the drug court 

requirements and by not successfully completing the program by being terminated from it

on January 30, 2017 for bringing contraband into the jail. 

On March 20, 2017, the Defendant pleaded guilty to full revocation of her 

probation and agreed to serve the remainder of her original sentence. At the hearing on

the probation revocation, the trial court informed the Defendant that she had an absolute 

right to a separate hearing before a judge to determine whether she violated the terms of 

her probation. The Defendant stated that she wanted to waive her right to a hearing and 

proceed in agreement with the State. 

The State informed the trial court that the Defendant had originally pleaded guilty

in December 2014 and that she had violated her probation on several occasions. She, 

however, did not complete the punishment for her third violation, which included serving 

jail time with the drug court program, resulting in her fourth violation. The trial court 

noted that the Defendant had served between a year and a half and two years of her 

sentence. The trial court informed the Defendant “it’s very unfortunate that you . . . have 

gone all the way from a probation to flattening your eight year sentence, but with the 

difficulties you’ve had with the probation I guess it makes some sense.” The trial court 

asked the Defendant “Is that what you want to do basically is just flatten your sentence?” 

The Defendant responded, “Yes, sir.” 

The trial court asked the Defendant’s attorney whether he had discussed with the 

Defendant his estimation for the Defendant’s likely release date. The trial court informed 

the Defendant that she would be eligible for release after service of thirty percent of her 

sentence but that due to her past violations she may not be released at that time. The 

Defendant admitted to the trial court that she was caught bringing tobacco into the jail but 

pointed out that she had passed her drug test. The trial court asked the Defendant if this 

was a high price to pay for tobacco being concealed within her person, and the Defendant 

said “yes.” The Defendant informed the trial court that her rights to two of her children 

had been terminated and that her two other children were being raised by their respective 

fathers. The trial court asked the Defendant’s attorney if he believed that this was in his 

client’s best interest, and he said that he did not think that there was any alternative.

On April 10, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to set aside her revocation, stating 
3

that her decision to plead guilty was “hastily made, without sufficient reflection and 

judgment, and with an “unsure heart.” 

On April 18, 2017, the trial court held a hearing on the motion. At the hearing, the 

Defendant’s attorney testified that he did not review the case with the Defendant as he 

should have before she entered her guilty plea. He reminded the trial court that the 

Defendant was dismissed from drug court for bringing tobacco into the jail. 

The State responded that this was the Defendant’s fourth violation. It noted that 

the Defendant’s first violation in March 2015 was for failing a drug screen, and she 

received ninety days of incarceration and the trial court encouraged her to enroll in an 

impatient drug treatment program. The second violation was in November 2015 and 

based upon another failed drug screen. The trial court again encouraged the Defendant to

seek rehabilitation. The third violation, in January 2017, was based on a failed drug 

screen. She received 133 days in jail plus an additional thirty days in the Franklin 

County Jail with the Drug Court Program. Officers then found that the Defendant had 

“secreted within her person” tobacco, so she was terminated from the Drug Court 

Program. 

The trial court confirmed with the parties that the facts were not in dispute but that 

the Defendant sought to have a different punishment for her violation. The trial court 

then found:

I could give you a hearing right now and based on all the past handlings of 

probation violations and so forth, this is one of those cases where the only 

thing left is just serve your time. You’ve shown that you are not mature 

enough to follow rules. You’ve got to follow some rules if you’re going to 

get probation, so . . . she . . . didn’t really lo[]se anything. She was in a fix 

that she had created over the course of a couple of years which was going to 

guarantee she was going to get fully revoked. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s motion. The 

judgment shows that the Defendant was granted jail credit for her three previous 

violations. It is from this judgment that the Defendant now appeals. 

II. Analysis

On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied her 

motion to set aside her plea to the probation violation. The Defendant asserts that her 

decision was unwise because she could have done no worse at a hearing, and her 

underlying infraction was only possession of tobacco. She asserts that her sentence is 
4

“harsh.” The State counters that the rule governing the withdrawal of a guilty plea, 

Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f), does not apply here and that the 

Defendant’s motion simply sought a second opportunity to challenge her probation 

violation after she entered her plea. The State asserts that, nevertheless, the trial court 

complied with the rule regarding revocation hearings and exercised proper discretion in 

denying the Defendant’s motion. 

The Defendant would have us review her “plea” to the probation violation 

pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f). Tennessee Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 32(f) provides a pre-sentencing and a post-sentencing standard for evaluating 

motions to withdraw guilty pleas.

A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty may be made upon a showing 

by the defendant of any fair and just reason only before sentence is 

imposed; but to correct manifest injustice, the court after sentence, but 

before the judgment becomes final, may set aside the judgment of 

conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea.

The standard of proof required of the State to support a probation violation is wholly 

different than one necessary to support a conviction. The State is only required to prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant violated the terms of her 

probation. A trial judge may revoke a sentence of probation or a suspended sentence 

upon a finding that the defendant has violated the conditions of her probation or 

suspended sentence by a preponderance of the evidence. T.C.A. § 40-35-311. The 

judgment of the trial court in a revocation proceeding will not be disturbed on appeal 

unless it appears that there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Williamson, 619 

S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981). In order for a reviewing court to be 

warranted in finding an abuse of discretion in a probation revocation case, it must be 

established 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. State v. Grear, 

568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim.

App. 1980). The proof of a probation violation need not be established beyond a 

reasonable doubt, but it is sufficient if it allows the trial judge to make a conscientious 

and intelligent judgment. State v. Milton, 673 S.W.2d 555, 557 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984).

Conversely, the standard of review for a conviction of a criminal offense requires 

the State to prove the relevant statutory elements beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. 

Stephens, 521 S.W.3d 718, 723-24 (Tenn. 2017) (citing State v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751, 

761-65 (Tenn. 2014)). Further, our review of a plea of guilty to an offense contemplates 

that a defendant must show that he or she did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his or 

her plea. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b); State v. Watson, 31 S.W.3d
5

189, 194 (Tenn. 2000). A motion to withdraw his or her guilty plea is, as stated above, 

governed by Rule 32(f).

In State v. Crowe, 168 S.W.3d 731, 41-42 (Tenn. 2005), our supreme court held 

that Rule 32(f) applied to a plea of nolo contendre. Such a plea, however, serves as a 

guilty plea and is followed by a sentencing. Differently, at the conclusion of a finding of 

a probation violation, the trial court does not impose a new sentence but, rather

determines the manner of service of an existing sentence, including whether the sentence 

should be served in confinement or whether to extend the existing probation. 

Accordingly, we conclude that Rule 32(f) does not govern or allow for a motion to 

withdraw an admission to a violation of a defendant’s probation. The Defendant is not

entitled to relief on this issue.

As further support for our affirming the trial court’s judgment, we recognize, as 

did the trial court, that this was the Defendant’s fourth violation of her probation. She 

had repeatedly failed to meet the terms of her probation, was incarcerated for varying 

periods of time, and then failed to follow the rules of drug court by secreting tobacco 

“within” her person. She admitted to violating the terms of her probation on this fourth 

occasion, and the trial court at that time repeatedly ensured that she understood the 

ramifications of her admission before accepting her admission. The trial court questioned

the Defendant about whether she wanted to “flatten” her sentence by serving it in 

incarceration, and the Defendant stated that that was her desire. Accordingly, were there 

to be any error in not allowing the motion to withdraw the admission, it would be 

harmless in light of the Defendant’s previous violations and the failure to comply with 

the terms of drug court. 

III. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing reasoning and authorities, we affirm the trial

court’s judgment. 

_________________________________

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE