IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs April 15, 2020

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BRYAN JAMES NICHOLAS MILAM

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lawrence County

Nos. 31081, 31082, 31083, 31150, 31151, 31152, 31153, 31154, 31155, 31260, 31605, 

34071, 34072, 34191, 34192

Stella L. Hargrove, Judge

No. M2019-00656-CCA-R3-CD

_____________________________

The Defendant, Bryan James Nicholas Milam, pleaded guilty to multiple offenses over 

the course of three years, and in each case the trial court sentenced him to alternative 

sentences, including Community Corrections. Following multiple violations of the terms 

of his release, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s Community Corrections sentence 

and ordered him to serve the remainder of his total effective fifteen-year sentence. On 

appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked 

his Community Corrections sentence and ordered him to serve the remainder of his 

sentence in confinement. 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 JOHN EVERETT 

WILLIAMS, P.J., and ALAN E. GLENN, J., joined.

R.H. Stovall, Jr., Pulaski, Tennessee (at hearing) and Jennifer Fiola, Columbia, 

Tennessee (on appeal), for the appellant, Bryan James Nicholas Milam.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Sophia S. Lee, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General; Brent A. Cooper, District Attorney General; and Gary M. Howell, 

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

OPINION

I. Facts and Background

 

05/12/2020
2

This case arises from the Defendant’s underlying 2016 convictions for multiple 

counts of theft and burglary, as well as aggravated assault. For those convictions, the 

Defendant pleaded guilty in 2016 and received a total effective sentence of twelve years,

suspended to probation after service of six months of confinement. Later in 2016, 

following the Defendant’s release from service of his six-month sentence, a trial court 

issued a probation violation warrant based on the Defendant committing new offenses. In 

July 2016, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation, ordering him 

to serve two years of confinement and then be returned to probation. 

In 2017, following his release from his second term of confinement, the Defendant 

violated his probation a second time by committing new offenses, which resulted in him 

pleading guilty to domestic assault, possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance 

with intent to sell, burglary of a building, and burglary of an automobile. For these 

offenses, the trial court imposed a three-year sentence to be served consecutively to the 

Defendant’s prior twelve-year sentence. Later in 2017, following the partial service of 

his prison term, the Defendant was transferred to Community Corrections. In 2018, the 

trial court issued a third violation warrant, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the 

Defendant’s Community Corrections sentence and ordered him to serve one year of 

confinement and then be returned to Community Corrections.

Following his release, in 2019, the trial court issued a warrant for the Defendant’s 

arrest after he violated his Community Corrections sentence, based on a positive drug test 

and an arrest. It is this warrant that is the subject of this appeal. The trial court held a

revocation hearing on April 3, 2019, at which the following evidence was presented:

Jason Jantke, an officer employed by the Lawrenceburg Police Department, testified that, 

on January 17, 2019, he conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle that had broken “tag lights.” 

The Defendant was a passenger in the vehicle; the driver was Sterling Davis. During 

Officer Jantke’s conversation with the vehicle’s occupants, Officer Jantke detected the 

odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. He asked Mr. Davis to exit the vehicle, and 

Mr. Davis stated that there was no marijuana inside. Officer Jantke told Mr. Davis he 

was going to search the vehicle based on probable cause; he asked the Defendant to exit 

the vehicle. 

During his search of the vehicle, Officer Jantke found five syringes, a metal spoon 

with burn marks, a digital scale, and numerous plastic baggies. He found one plastic 

baggie containing what was later determined to be 1.5 grams of crystal 

methamphetamine. Offier Jantke detained both men and informed the men of their 

Miranda rights. The Defendant told Officer Jantke that the aforementioned items 

belonged to him. 

Stephanie DeMay testified that she worked as the Justice Services Director at the 
3

South Central Human Resource Agency and that as part of her work she occasionally 

audited the Community Corrections program. She obtained the Defendant’s records and 

testified that the records indicated that the Defendant had tested positive for 

amphetamines and THC on January 15, 2019. The trial court admitted the toxicology 

report as an exhibit. 

On cross-examination, Ms. DeMay testified that the Defendant’s records indicated 

that he had participated in two rehabilitation programs in the past, neither of which he 

successfully completed. The records also indicated that he had failed multiple drug tests 

by testing positive for methamphetamines. She stated that the Defendant had passed two 

drug tests and appeared to be making an effort to stay clean. She testified that he had 

reported on time to his supervisor on multiple dates and had only missed reporting one 

time. 

The State clarified that the Defendant had received two Community Corrections 

violations: one for a failed drug screen on January 15, 2019, and one for his arrest on 

January 17, 2019, for possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of 

methamphetamine.

The Defendant testified that he was twenty-five years old and that he had 

committed the offenses for which he was on Community Corrections in 2012, when he 

was eighteen years old. He received a fifteen-year sentence for those convictions. He 

agreed that he began service of his sentence on probation and was moved to the 

Community Corrections program after he violated his probation once. He testified that 

his current violation was his third. 

The Defendant stated that he had been asked to leave two rehabilitation programs

before completing them, the first for having a cell phone and the second for leaving the 

facility to buy tobacco. He agreed that the methamphetamine found in Mr. Davis’s car 

belonged to him and was for his personal use. The Defendant stated that, if released, he 

would go to a rehabilitation facility in Mobile, Alabama called Mission of Hope where 

there was “a bed” for him. 

He stated that his hometown, Lawrenceburg, was “ate up with meth” and that 

everyone he knew was either using or selling methamphetamine. He stated that he had 

“dabbled” with drugs while on probation. The Defendant agreed that he had been 

admitted to the rehabilitation program in Mobile once before in 2018 and had stayed 

forty-five days before getting kicked out.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court summarized the Defendant’s 

criminal history, including his history on probation and the number of violations. Based 
4

on this history and repeated failed opportunities with probation and rehabilitation, the 

trial court revoked the Defendant’s Community Corrections sentence and ordered him to 

serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. It is from this judgment that the

Defendant now appeals. 

II. Analysis

On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it 

revoked his Community Corrections sentence because the Defendant’s record indicates a

severe methamphetamine addiction that needs to be addressed. The State responds that 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked the Defendant’s Community 

Corrections sentence. We agree with the State.

The decision to revoke a community corrections sentence rests within the sound 

discretion of the trial court. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82-83 (Tenn. 1991) 

(applying the probation revocation procedures and principles contained in Tennessee 

Code Annotated section 40-35-311 to the revocation of a community corrections 

placement based upon “the similar nature of a community corrections sentence and a 

sentence of probation”); see also State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 864 (Tenn. 2013) 

(holding that an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness 

applies to all sentencing decisions). To establish an abuse of discretion, the defendant 

must show that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s 

determination regarding the violation. State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2000) 

(citing Harkins, 811 S.W.2d at 82). A violation of probation or community corrections 

need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-

311(e)(1) (2019); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(3)(B) (2019). If the evidence 

is sufficient to show a violation of the terms of supervision, the trial court may, within its 

discretionary authority, revoke the community corrections sentence and require the 

defendant to serve his sentence in confinement “less any time actually served in any 

community-based alternative to incarceration.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(4) 

(2019).

There was overwhelming evidence presented during the revocation hearing to 

prove that the Defendant violated the conditions of his Community Corrections sentence. 

The Defendant tested positive for numerous drugs numerous times and was arrested for 

possession of crystal methamphetamine. The Defendant has been given alternative 

sentences and has been admitted to a rehabilitation facility numerous times. By his own 

admission, the Defendant has been unable to comply with multiple opportunities to 

complete an alternative sentence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking 

Defendant’s Community Corrections sentence and ordering him to serve the remainder of 

his sentence in confinement. The Defendant is not entitled to relief.
5

III. Conclusion

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

court’s judgment. 

_________________________________

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE