### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs Jun e 5, 200 7
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . RAYMOND MAYS, JR.

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty

No. 93-1036 Donald H. Allen, Ju dge

No. W2006-02241-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Augu st 3, 2007

Th e de fe nd ant, Ray

mon d M ay s, Jr., a

pp e a ls f ro m th e jud g me nt o f t

he Ma dis on

County C i r c u i t Co ur

t, re vo kin g his pr ob a tio n a

nd imp os ingse rv ic e of

the re ma ind e r of his se nte nc e in c on fi ne me nt. In th is appea l, the defe ndant ar g ues that the c ourt err ed in revokinghis probation. Followingour re view of the re cord, pa

rties’ brie fs, and the a

pplicab l e l aw , we de termine no e rror exis ts in the court’s
re vo c a tio n o f p ro batio n, and thu s a ff ir m th e c ourt ’s jud g me nt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.
Gre g ory D. Gookin, Assistant Publ i c Defender , J ackson, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Ray

mond May s, J r.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Pr e sto n Sh ipp , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Jer ry Woo da ll, Di str ic t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; a

nd Sha un A. B ro wn , A ssi sta

nt D istri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION
The rec ord ref

lects that in January 1994, the defe ndant pled guilty to possession of coca ine with intent to sell and driving on a revoke d license. In exchang e for his ple as, he r ece ived a total eff ective se ntence of twelve y ear s as a Rang e I , standard of fende r with six ty

day s in confinement a

nd the ba lanc e to be se rv e d in c omm un ity c or re c tio ns . A ft e r s e rv inga

pp ro ximate ly

tw o y e ars of

his sentenc e in community

corr ections, the de fenda

nt was plac ed on probation on Ma rch 29, 1996. On Marc h 24, 2006, a probat i o n v i o lation warr ant was issued, a lleg ing the defe ndant had violated a condition of his probation by being arr ested for the unlawf

ul possession of a fire arm a nd discharg ing a fire arm in the city

limit s. Subsequently , on J uly 25, 2006, another

probation violation warr ant was issued, alleg ing that the defe ndant had be en ar rested f or posses s i on of marijuana and drug para pherna lia.-2-

On Se pte mbe r 18, 20 06 , th e c ir c uit c ourt c on du c te d a

he ari ng . A t th e he ari ng , th e de fe nd ant, throug h counsel, a dmitted that he had re cently pled guilty in fede ral c ourt to felon in possession of
a handgun. Howeve r, the defe ndant, throug h counsel, did not conc ede guilt to t he re cent c harg e of possession of marijuana and drug paraphe rnalia. At the conclusion of t he hearing , the cour t found t h e f o l l o wi n g: [Th e de fe nd ant] d id a dmi t th a t he ha d dis c ha rg e d thi s fi re arm
. Ibe lie ve he tol d me that he had be en shooting at a c oon up in a tree is what he told me and ba sed upon his admission . . . . I think there wa s a coon up in a tree and he w as trying to sc are it off as be st Ireme mber, a nd he did ha

ve a wea pon and discharg ed a fire arm whic h obviously he could not do since he is a c onvicted fe lon. So, it d oe s a

pp e ar h e ha s p le d guil ty

to that c ha

rg e in F e de ra l Co ur

t and he is
awa iting sente ncingin Fede ral Court, so ce rtainly he has violate d his pr obation in a substantial way

by beingin posse ssion of a firea rm and a lso by

discharg ing a

firea rm as a c onvicted fe lon.
The c ourt then revoke d the defe ndant’s probation and order ed him to serve his orig inal twelve- y ear se nte nc e in c on fi ne me nt l e ss t he tim e the de fe nd ant h a d s e rv e d in ja il a nd on c omm un ity c or re c tio ns
. On appe al, the defe ndant challeng es the revoc ation of his probation. Specific ally , he ar g ues that he “ha d been on state probation from 1996 to 2006 with no major problems, and his sentenc e was due to expi re on January 20, 2007.” The ref

ore, the “cour

t’s full revoc ation of [his] probation vio late d th e g oa ls a

nd purp os e s o f s e nte ncing, e sp e c ia lly fo r a pr ob a tio ne r who wa s so c los e to termination of his sentenc e.” We beg in our revie w by noting that the de cision to revoke pr o b at i o n l i es i n the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Leach , 914 S.W .2d 104, 106 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) . The trial court may revoke probation upon findingby a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that the de fenda nt has violated the conditions of his or her probation. SeeTe nn . Co de Ann. §§ 40 -3 5- 31 0, 31 1( e ); Sta te v. Hark ins , 811 S.W .2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991) . The judg ment o f t h e t rial cour t to revoke pr obation will be upheld on appea l unless there has been an abuse of di scre tion. Harkins , 811 S.W .2d at 82. I f the trial c ourt has exerc ised “c onscientious judgme nt in making the de cision rather than ac ting arbitra rily ,” then there is no abuse of discr etion. Leach , 914 S.W .2d at 107. Discre tion is abused
on ly if the re c or d c on ta ins no su bsta nt ial evi den c e to s up po rt the tr ia l c ourt ’s c on c lus ion that a violation has occur

red. Harkins , 8 11 S.W. 2d a t 82 ; Sta te v . G re

go ry , 946 S.W .2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).

I n th e ins tant c a se , th e re c or d r e fl e c ts t hat th e defend ant v iol a te d th e c on dit ion s o f h is pr ob a tio n b y

po sse ssi nga

ha nd g un and dis c ha rg ingit. Th e re fo re , th e c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n to re vo ke the de fend ant ’s p rob ati on was supp ort ed b y subs tan ti al e vi den ce. A ccor di ngly , we are una ble to conclude that the court a bused its discretion. The judg ment of the c ircuit court if a ffirme d.-3- ___________________________________ J .C. McL I

N, J UDGE