IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs March 24, 2021

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BLAZE VALENTINO BURKETT

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wayne County

No. 16191 J. Russell Parkes, Judge 

No. M2019-02143-CCA-R3-CD

The Defendant, Blaze Valentino Burkett, appeals as of right from the Wayne County 

Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation and his being ordered to serve the remainder of 

his ten-year sentence for possession of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine with the 

intent to sell. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by fully 

revoking his probationary sentence and that an alternative to full incarceration should have 

been imposed to allow him to seek treatment for his methamphetamine addiction. 

Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which NORMA MCGEE 

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

Brandon E. White, Columbia, Tennessee (on appeal), and Travis B. Jones, District Public

Defender, and Robert H. Stovall, Jr., Assistant District Public Defender (at revocation

hearing), for the appellant, Blaze Valentino Burkett.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General; Brent A. Cooper, District Attorney General; and Patrick Butler, 

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

OPINION

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On July 31, 2017, a Wayne County grand jury indicted the Defendant for two counts 

of possession of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to sell, unlawful 

possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting arrest. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16-602, 

-17-417, -17-425, -17-434. He, thereafter, on January 14, 2019, pled guilty to one count 

of possession of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine, a Class B felony, with a ten-year 

06/14/2021
- 2 -

sentence to be suspended after service of one year in confinement, a $2,000 fine, and court 

costs; the remaining charges were dismissed. 

The Defendant, who had been in custody from March 13, 2017, to January 14, 2019, 

was released following his guilty plea. Following his release in January 2019, he reported 

to his probation officer, Bethany Sisseck. According to Ms. Sisseck, the rules of probation 

were explained to the Defendant at the initial intake visit, and the Defendant was provided 

with an opportunity to ask any questions. The Defendant was also given a drug test at that 

time, and he was negative for “all substances.” Ms. Sisseck stated that the Defendant 

complied with the rules of his supervision until May 2019, when he incurred new charges. 

Prior to that time, the Defendant reported as instructed, passed his drug screens, provided 

verification of employment, and was compliant when home visits were performed. 

On May 7, 2019, the Defendant was arrested in Henderson County for two counts 

of aggravated assault, two counts of assault against a police officer, aggravated burglary, 

possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell, and introduction of contraband into 

a penal facility. Thereafter, on May 14, 2019, Ms. Sisseck filed a probation violation report 

against the Defendant based upon the new criminal charges, as well as the Defendant’s

leaving his county of residence without permission. Ms. Sisseck’s violation report 

indicated that the Defendant struck two officers with a tire iron during the confrontation. 

The trial court issued a warrant that same day.

The warrant was amended on June 3, 2019, to add an additional violation based 

upon the Defendant’s being arrested on May 28, 2019, for escaping from custody. The

allegation involved the Defendant’s escape from the holding area beside the courtroom at 

the Henderson County Criminal Justice Complex. 

At a probation violation hearing held on November 14, 2019, Ms. Sisseck testified

about the Defendant’s probation supervision history, which began on January 14, 2019; 

their last meeting occurring on April 18, 2019. Ms. Sisseck stated that while she supervised 

the Defendant, he reported as instructed, provided employment verification from a local 

body shop, and complied with home visits. According to Ms. Sisseck, the Defendant was 

also administered several drug tests during this time, all of which produced negative results. 

Ms. Sisseck agreed that the Defendant made regular $100 payments towards his court costs. 

Ms. Sisseck stated that she did not have any issues with the Defendant until his arrest on 

the new charges and agreed that he was “an exceptional probationer” prior to that time. 

Ms. Sisseck confirmed that she filed a probation violation warrant against the 

Defendant because of the charges he incurred in Henderson County on May 7, 2019. She 

further confirmed that she later amended the warrant to include the escape charge.
- 3 -

Henderson County Sheriff’s Deputy Jason McCallister testified regarding the events 

leading to the May 7, 2019 charges against the Defendant. Deputy McCallister testified 

that around 2:44 p.m. that day, he was on routine patrol when he was dispatched to a house 

belonging to Tim Burkett, the Defendant’s father. According to Deputy McCallister, the 

Defendant’s father had requested police assistance because the Defendant, who was not 

supposed to be present, was at the house trying to get inside. The dispatcher informed 

Deputy McCallister that deputies had gone to the same house the night before, but when

the deputies arrived, the Defendant, who appeared to be armed, ran into the woods. 

Upon arriving at the Defendant’s father’s house, Deputy McCallister saw a male 

who matched the description that dispatch had given him, later identified as the Defendant. 

The Defendant “was going around the end of the house on the carport end” and had an 

object in his hand, though Deputy McCallister could not identify the object at that time. 

Deputy McCallister exited his vehicle, followed the Defendant around the carport end of 

the residence, and heard a “loud pop” that he initially believed was a gunshot. Deputy 

McCallister retrieved his service weapon from his holster before peering around the corner

to see the Defendant holding a tire iron. After seeing what was taking place, Deputy 

McCallister realized that what he thought was a gunshot was in fact the Defendant’s 

striking the second panel of a sliding door trying to break the glass and that the Defendant 

had already broken the first panel. 

Deputy McCallister, “probably” with his service weapon in “a low ready position,” 

yelled at the Defendant and asked him what he was doing. The Defendant then left the 

back-porch area and walked towards Deputy McCallister while using expletives and 

threatening to “whoop [Deputy McCallister’s] a-s” and beat him with the tire iron. 

According to Deputy McCallister, the Defendant wielded the tire iron up and down in a 

striking or throwing motion, and the Defendant was acting erratically. Deputy McCallister 

took a few steps back from the Defendant in order to create a gap so that he could talk to 

the Defendant until backup arrived. Deputy McCallister told the Defendant, who was about 

twenty to twenty-five feet away, to put the tire iron down, but the Defendant refused. 

Deputy McCallister testified that he was afraid that the Defendant would assault him with 

the tire iron and that if the Defendant had thrown the tire iron from that distance, it could 

have hit Deputy McCallister in the head.

During the initial foray, the Defendant said to Deputy McCallister that he “had 

better be glad [the Defendant] didn’t get in the house and get his gun, because [the 

Defendant] was wanting to have a shootout with” police. The Defendant was also yelling 

at his father, who was inside the house. The Defendant said to his father that the police 

were going to have to kill him because he was not going back to jail.

Possibly a minute and one-half to two minutes after Deputy McCallister’s arrival, a 

backup unit arrived, causing the Defendant to throw the tire iron out into the yard, and he 
- 4 -

said that he did not need it because he could “whoop [the officers’] a-s[es] without it.” 

When Sergeant Mark Wood came around the corner, Deputy McCallister told the 

Defendant that he was under arrest and ordered him to put his hands behind his back. 

Though the Defendant put his hands behind his back “for a split second,” the Defendant 

only did so to lure the officers closer, in Deputy McCallister’s opinion. When the 

Defendant took “another fighting stance,” Deputy McCallister sprayed the Defendant with 

a chemical spray in the face and eyes. According to Deputy McCallister, the chemical 

spray initially had little to no effect on the Defendant, and therefore, Deputy McCallister 

had to strike the erratic Defendant with his baton on the outside of the Defendant’s shin 

between his hip and his knee. The Defendant still did not go down to the ground, which 

was abnormal in Deputy McCallister’s experience. As Deputy McCallister approached the 

Defendant to place handcuffs on him, the Defendant started swinging and elbowed Deputy 

McCallister in the right side of his head and face. Deputy McCallister also saw the 

Defendant hit Sergeant Wood. 

Though the Defendant broke free from the initial scuffle, the chemical spray started 

to have an impact, making the Defendant unable to see where he was going. Ultimately, 

Deputy McCallister and Sergeant Wood were able to regain control of the situation and get 

the Defendant to the ground, where they handcuffed him. Deputy McCallister charged the 

Defendant with “domestic assault on his father, aggravated domestic on his father, 

aggravated burglary for breaking into the house to commit a felony theft or assault,” 

aggravated assault of Deputy McCallister based upon the Defendant’s use of the tire iron, 

and simple assault of Sergeant Wood. Though both officers were sore from their 

altercation with the Defendant, neither suffered any serious injuries.

After being handcuffed, the Defendant told Deputy McCallister that he did not care 

what they did to him and that he had been taking methamphetamine and had been up for 

five days. Deputy McCallister testified that when the Defendant was later booked into the 

jail, officers found eight to nine grams of methamphetamine on his person. Though Deputy 

McCallister was not present for booking, Deputy McCallister stated that the general 

practice was to give a defendant an opportunity to turn over any drugs on his person before 

being booked. According to Deputy McCallister, the Defendant admitted to the officers at 

the jail that the substance they found was methamphetamine. As a result, the Defendant 

was charged with introduction of drugs into a penal facility.

Henderson County Sheriff’s Investigator Danny Crownover testified that on May 

28, 2019, he was in the Henderson County General Sessions Court on an unrelated matter. 

Investigator Crownover explained that he was standing against the courtroom wall after 

the Defendant “had already had his court proceedings.” When Investigator Crownover 

observed the Defendant that day, the Defendant, who was in custody, suddenly bolted out 

of the holding area after someone left the door unlocked. The Defendant’s restraints had 
- 5 -

already been removed at that time because the jailers were preparing to take the Defendant 

“back to his pod.” According to Investigator Crownover, the Defendant “hopped over a 

rail[,] . . . made his way down the aisle[,] and went out the back door and out through the 

lobby.” Three or four officers, including Investigator Crownover, chased after the 

Defendant, and the Defendant was ultimately detained just outside the exterior door of the 

Henderson County Criminal Justice Complex. Based on the Defendant’s actions, he was 

charged with escape. 

The Defendant, twenty-four years old at the time of the hearing, testified that he had 

been doing well on probation when “all of a sudden one day things just seemed to go bad.” 

The Defendant, who claimed he suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, said that he 

“just lost [his] mind” because he was scared. 

The Defendant stated his belief that people whom he did not know, sometimes five 

or six cars and ten to twelve people at a time, had been following him during the last month 

he was on probation and were trying to kill him. The Defendant said that based upon this 

belief, he went to see his father the night before May 7, 2019, so he could ask to borrow a 

firearm; however, the Defendant’s father was afraid of the Defendant and called the police

on that occasion. 

Relative to the incident that occurred the next day involving Deputy McCallister, 

the Defendant explained that he was trying to break into his father’s house because his 

father did not answer the door and would not come outside, so he was worried. The 

Defendant admitted that he had a tire iron and displayed it an “offensive manner” towards 

Deputy McCallister, but asserted that he put the tire iron down at Deputy McCallister’s 

request. The Defendant explained that he had been in jail his whole life and did not want 

to go back, so when Deputy McCallister arrived, he tried to provoke Deputy McCallister

into shooting him by calling Deputy McCallister names and threatening to “[w]hip [his] as.” The Defendant acknowledged that he called Deputy McCallister “bad names” in an 

effort to get him to shoot. In addition, the Defendant said that he only hit Sergeant Woods 

after Sergeant Woods first struck him with a baton. The Defendant averred that he had a 

right to defend himself, which was what he was trying to do, and that the officers who came 

there just did not understand the situation, though the Defendant did not disobey the 

officers’ commands. The Defendant denied that he had ever been prescribed any 

psychiatric medication and further denied that he had ever taken any such medication. 

On cross-examination, the Defendant refused to admit that the officers found 

methamphetamine on his person when they booked him into the jail or that he admitted to 

the booking officers that it was methamphetamine, though the Defendant acknowledged 

that he had started using methamphetamine again by that time. The Defendant indicated 

that he had started “eating” methamphetamine because he was afraid to go to sleep. 

Relative to the escape charge, the Defendant admitted that he escaped from the holding 
- 6 -

area, jumped the rail, and ran from the courtroom thorough the lobby to the outside before 

being captured in front of the building. 

Following the conclusion of the proof, the trial court fully revoked the Defendant’s 

probation. The trial court acknowledged that the Defendant appeared to initially do well 

on probation, though noting that the Defendant had only served about four months of his 

supervised release. With respect to the allegations in the first violation warrant, the trial 

court found that the State had met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence 

that the Defendant committed two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of assault on 

an officer, aggravated burglary, possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell, and 

introduction of contraband into a penal institution. The trial court determined that the State 

had failed to prove that the Defendant struck the two officers with a tire iron, as stated in 

the probation violation warrant. Relative to the amended warrant, the trial court concluded 

that the State had likewise established by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

Defendant was in lawful custody when he escaped from the holding area inside the 

courtroom at the Henderson County Criminal Justice Complex. In addition, the trial court 

found that Deputy McCallister, Investigator Crownover, and Ms. Sisseck were credible in 

all respects and that any testimony offered by the Defendant to the contrary was resolved

against the Defendant.

The trial court found that the Defendant had violated the conditions of his probation

and that after “considering all sanctions available to the [c]ourt including [the] potential 

split confinement and/or reinstatement of probation,” none were appropriate in this case. 

Accordingly, the Defendant was ordered to serve the balance of his ten-year sentence in 

confinement. The Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. 

ANALYSIS

The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by fully revoking 

his probationary sentence and that instead, the trial court should have imposed an 

alternative to full revocation, such as split confinement, with the condition that the 

Defendant complete an inpatient substance abuse rehabilitation program upon his release 

from custody. The Defendant notes Ms. Sisseck’s testimony that he initially did well on 

probation before he started using methamphetamine again. He asserts that he suffered 

“from methamphetamine-induced delusions when he encountered Deputy McCallister and 

that he was still suffering from the horrible effects of methamphetamine use leading up to 

the probation revocation hearing based on his delusional belief that people were still 

following him.” Accordingly, he concludes that an alternative to full revocation should 

have been imposed to allow him “to be rehabilitated from his severe addiction to 

methamphetamine.” 
- 7 -

The State responds that the trial court properly exercised its discretion by ordering 

the Defendant to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement after finding that the 

Defendant violated his probation by incurring new criminal charges. The State further 

avers that the Defendant’s admissions at the probation revocation hearing that he was using 

methamphetamine again and had escaped from lawful custody were sufficient to justify the 

revocation. 

A trial court may revoke a sentence of probation upon finding by a preponderance 

of the evidence that the defendant has violated the conditions of his release. Tenn. Code 

Ann. § 40-35-311(e). If the trial court revokes the probation, it has the right to “extend the 

defendant’s period of probation supervision for any period not in excess of two (2) years,” 

“commence the execution of the judgment as originally entered,” or “[r]esentence the 

defendant for the remainder of the unexpired term to any community-based alternative to 

incarceration.” Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-308(c), -35-311(e). In a probation revocation

hearing, the credibility of the witnesses is determined by the trial court. State v. Mitchell, 

810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

Furthermore, the decision to revoke probation is in the sound discretion of the trial 

judge. State v. Kendrick, 178 S.W.3d 734, 738 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005); Mitchell, 810 

S.W.2d at 735. The judgment of the trial court to revoke probation will be upheld on appeal 

unless there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 

1991). To find 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.” Id. (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)); see also State v. Farrar, 355 S.W.3d 582, 586 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). Such a 

finding “reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in 

light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular 

case.” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 

S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).

The trial court found that the Defendant violated his probation by incurring new 

charges and that the State had established such violation by a preponderance of the 

evidence. In order to establish a violation of a suspended sentence based on the 

commission of a new offense, the State must offer proof by a preponderance of the evidence 

showing that a defendant violated the law. See State v. Catherin Vaughn, No. M2009-

01166-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 2432008, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 14, 2010) (noting 

that proof of a conviction is not necessary). However, the State “must present sufficient 

facts at the revocation hearing to enable the trial court to ‘make a conscientious and 

intelligent judgment as to whether the conduct in question violated the law.’” State v. Jason 
- 8 -

L. Holley, No. M2003-01429-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 2874659, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. 

Oct. 25, 2005) (quoting Harkins, 811 S.W.2d at 83 n.3).

Here, Ms. Sisseck testified that the rules of probation were explained to the 

Defendant at his initial intake visit, which included not violating the law. Deputy 

McCallister testified regarding the events that took place on May 7, 2019, leading to the 

new charges against the Defendant of two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of 

assault against a police officer, aggravated burglary, possession of methamphetamine with 

the intent to sell, and introduction of contraband into a penal facility. Investigator 

Crownover testified about the events leading to the escape charge. The trial court found 

their testimony credible. This court has previously concluded that “a police officer’s 

testimony about the facts surrounding the arrest used as the basis for the violation 

‘constituted substantial evidence’ and was ‘sufficient to support the trial court’s [revocation 

of a suspended sentence].’” State v. Jeremy Bo Eaker, No. M2013-01639-CCA-R3-CD, 

2014 WL 546348, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 11, 2014) (quoting State v. Chris Allen 

Dodson, M2005-01776-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 1097497, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 

31, 2006)) (concluding that officer’s testimony “was straight-forward: upon executing a 

traffic stop, he found [the defendant] in possession of drug paraphernalia and a white 

powder, which he stated, based upon his experience as a law enforcement officer and as a 

drug task force agent, appeared to be methamphetamine[,]” and provided a sufficient basis 

for revoking probation).

Moreover, the Defendant admitted to escaping from lawful custody. This alone is 

substantial evidence of record to support the trial court’s revocation order. See State v.

Michael Emler, No. 01C01-9512-CC-00424, 1996 WL 691018, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. 

Nov. 27, 1996) (holding that when the defendant admits violating the terms of probation, 

revocation by the trial court is not arbitrary or capricious).

Furthermore, this court has repeatedly held that “‘an accused, already on [a 

suspended sentence], is not entitled to a second grant of probation or another form of 

alternative sentencing.’” State v. Dannie Brumfield, No. M2015-01940-CCA-R3-CD, 

2016 WL 4251178, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 10, 2016) (quoting State v. Jeffrey A.

Warfield, No. 01C01-9711-CC-00504, 1999 WL 61065, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 10, 

1999)); see also State v. Timothy A. Johnson, No. M2001-01362-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 

242351, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 11, 2002). Here, the Defendant admitted that he 

started “eating” methamphetamine within four months of his release. He proceeded to 

engage in erratic and violent behavior. Relative to any methamphetamine-induced 

hallucinations, the Defendant denied that he had ever been prescribed any psychiatric 

medication and further denied that he had ever taken any such medication. We cannot say 

that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that the Defendant’s drug issues 

would best be treated in a correctional facility rather than in the community.
- 9 -

The trial court determined that the Defendant violated the conditions of his 

probation by a preponderance of the evidence. Thereafter, it was within the trial court’s 

authority to order the Defendant to serve the balance of his previously imposed ten-year 

sentence in confinement upon revoking the Defendant’s probation. See Tenn. Code Ann. 

§§ 40-35-310, -311(e); see also Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d at 735.

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court.

_

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE