IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs July 19, 2022

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM LESTER STRICKLAND

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County

No. C-26638 David Reed Duggan, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2021-01280-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The Defendant-Appellant, William Lester Strickland, appeals from the revocation of his 

probationary sentence for aggravated burglary. The sole issue presented for review is 

whether the trial court erred in fully revoking the Defendant’s probation and ordering him 

to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. Upon review, we affirm. 

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

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W.

WEDEMEYER, J., joined, and JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, P.J., (not participating).1

J. Liddell Kirk, Madisonville, Tennessee, for the Defendant-Appellant, William Lester 

Strickland.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Garrett D. Ward, Assistant Attorney 

General; Mike L. Flynn, District Attorney General; and Tracy Jenkins, Assistant District 

Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On May 20, 2019, the Defendant, a Range III persistent offender, entered a guilty 

plea to aggravated burglary and received a nine-year sentence of split confinement, with 

one year to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction and the remaining eight 

years to be served under supervised probation. The record does not contain a violation 

warrant; however, the October 18, 2021 revocation hearing reflects that the Defendant 

stipulated to violations of his probation stemming from a positive drug screen for 

amphetamine, methamphetamine, buprenorphine, and norbuprenorphine. At the top of the 

hearing, the Defendant also stipulated to an affidavit from Mark Wuest, Director for Alere 

 

1 The Honorable John Everett Williams passed away on September 2, 2022, and did not participate 

in this opinion. We acknowledge his faithful service to this Court.

11/02/2022
- 2 -

Toxicology Services, attesting to the positive results of the Defendant’s drug screen, and 

the drug test report, both of which were offered into evidence as exhibits to the hearing. 

The Defendant testified and explained that he was released from custody on the 

aggravated burglary conviction sometime around Christmas of 2019. A few months later, 

he violated the terms of his probation for the first time and was ordered to serve 300 days 

in confinement. After being released from custody in early 2021, the Defendant violated 

his probation for the second time by failing a drug screen—the violation giving rise to the 

instant appeal. He stated the root cause of his criminal history was his addiction to drugs, 

which started when he was a teenager. When asked if he had ever sought treatment for his 

addiction, the Defendant stated that he had tried an outpatient treatment program in his 

twenties but that it was unsuccessful. The Defendant also explained that he was not eligible 

for drug recovery court or “DC4,” a treatment program run by the Davidson County Drug 

Court, because he had previously been convicted of a violent crime. The Defendant agreed 

that he had previously been convicted of felony theft, identity theft, attempt to initiate the 

process of manufacturing methamphetamine, and two auto burglaries. The Defendant also 

agreed that he had not attempted to enter any other drug treatment programs. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation 

after finding that he had materially violated the terms of his probation in failing a drug 

screen, failing to pay his court costs and supervision fees, and given the fact he had 

previously violated the terms of his probation. The trial court further noted that it believed 

the Defendant had an addiction problem but that he was not eligible for any alternative 

sentencing programs. The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve the remainder of his 

sentence in confinement, stating that it did not “have any options.” The Defendant filed a 

timely notice of appeal on October 29, 2021. 

ANALYSIS

On appeal, the Defendant argues that “even though he violated his probation 

conditions, he should not have been required to serve the remainder of his sentence in 

custody.” He asserts he should have been allowed to serve his sentence in an alternative 

treatment facility. The State responds that the trial court properly acted within its authority 

when it revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his 

sentence in confinement after finding that he had materially violated the conditions of his 

probation. We agree with the State. 

The Tennessee Supreme Court clarified that a probation revocation proceeding 

involves a two-step inquiry, both of which are distinct discretionary decisions that must be 

reviewed and addressed on appeal. State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 753, 757-58 (Tenn. 

2022). “If the trial judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has 
- 3 -

violated the conditions of probation and suspension of sentence, then the court may revoke 

the defendant’s probation and suspension of sentence, in full or in part, pursuant to § 40-

35-310.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311. Upon finding that a defendant violated the terms 

of his or her probation, a trial court “must determine (1) whether to revoke probation, and 

(2) the appropriate consequence to impose upon revocation.” Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 753. 

Once the trial court decides to revoke a defendant’s probation, it may (1) order 

confinement; (2) order the sentence into execution as initially entered; (3) return the 

defendant to probation on modified conditions as necessary; or (4) extend the probationary 

period by up to two years. See State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643, 646-47 (Tenn. 1999); Tenn. 

Code Ann. §§ 40-35-308, -310, -311.

If the trial court “places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the 

revocation and the consequence on the record,” the standard of review on appeal is abuse 

of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759. “It is not 

necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only 

sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation 

decision.” Id. (citing State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 705-06 (Tenn. 2012)). To establish 

an abuse of discretion, “there must be no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of 

the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” State v. Shaffer, 

45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001) (citing State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 

1991)). 

Here, the Defendant stipulated to the drug-based probation violation. The record is 

also sufficient to support the trial court’s consequence determination. The trial court 

ordered the Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence in custody, explaining that it 

was the only option since the Defendant was not eligible, by his own admission, for an 

alternative treatment program. Moreover, it is well-established that once the trial court 

determined that the Defendant had violated the terms of his probation, it was authorized to 

order him to confinement for the remainder of his sentence. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d at 648. This 

court has repeatedly held that “an accused, already on probation, is not entitled to a second 

grant of probation or another form of alternative sentencing.” State v. Jeffrey A. Warfield,

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

perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 28, 1999). The trial court’s order of revocation was proper. 

Accordingly, he is not entitled to relief.

CONCLUSION

Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 
- 4 -

____________________________________

 CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JUDGE