IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs October 29, 2019

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GREGORY COOK

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County

No. C25464 Tammy M. Harrington, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2019-00257-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The defendant, Gregory Cook, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation 

and ordering him to serve his original four-year sentence in confinement. Upon review 

of the record, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the 

defendant violated the terms of his probation, and the imposed sentence is proper. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

J. ROSS DYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS,

P.J. and D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., joined.

J. Liddell Kirk, Knoxville, Tennessee (on appeal) and Mack Garner, District Public 

Defender (at trial) for the appellant, Gregory Larue Cook.

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

Attorney General; Mike Flynn, District Attorney General; and Tiffany Smith, Assistant 

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

OPINION

Facts and Procedural History

On November 6, 2017, the defendant, Gregory Cook, pleaded guilty to aggravated 

assault for threatening to behead his stepfather and his stepfather’s dog with a hatchet. 

As a result of his plea, the defendant received a four-year sentence with the Department 

of Correction, suspended to supervised probation after serving fifty days in confinement. 

As conditions of his probation, the defendant was required “to take the Batterer’s 

02/07/2020
- 2 -

Intervention Program, complete an a[lcohol] and d[rug] assessment, [complete] 100 hours 

of community service, and have no contact with the victim.”

 

A probation violation warrant was issued for the defendant’s arrest on November 

16, 2018. According to the violation report, the defendant violated the terms of his 

probation by: 1) failing to report as instructed for an alcohol and drug assessment on July 

25, 2018, August 22, 2018, and September 19, 2018; 2) testing positive for amphetamine 

and methamphetamine and admitting to the use of the same; 3) failing to make “a single 

payment towards his court costs or supervision fees;” 4) failing to obtain an alcohol and 

drug assessment as order by the court. A revocation hearing was held on January 7, 

2019. 

At the revocation hearing, Ms. Sylvia Popova, a probation officer with the 

Department of Correction, testified the defendant was assigned to her in November 2017. 

While the defendant reported as instructed and was employed, the defendant failed to 

report on three separate occasions for an alcohol and drug assessment. Ms. Popova also 

stated this was the defendant’s second probation violation. On April 3, 2018, the 

defendant’s probation was violated and revoked for a failed drug test, testing positive for 

methamphetamine and amphetamine. As a result, he was sentenced to serve an 

additional 100 days in confinement and return to probation with the same conditions. 

According to Ms. Popova, the defendant has yet to undergo an alcohol and drug 

assessment as a condition of his probation. While the defendant sought treatment for his 

drug and alcohol issues at Comprehensive Community Services (“CCS”), he was 

discharged prior to completion of the program. The defendant also entered two different 

half-way houses but was discharged from them as well. 

According to Ms. Popova, she scheduled an alcohol and drug assessment for the 

defendant on three separate occasions, yet the defendant never completed the assessment. 

The defendant did show for one appointment but left before the assessment could be 

completed. Ms. Popova also testified that the defendant has not made any payments 

towards his supervision fees or court costs despite being employed.

The defendant also testified during the revocation hearing. The defendant 

admitted he first violated his probation in the spring of 2018, for testing positive for 

methamphetamine and amphetamine. As a result of violating the terms of his probation, 

the defendant was ordered to serve 100 days in jail and then returned to supervised 

probation for the remainder of his sentence. Upon being released, the defendant lived 

with his mother and was working at Denso and Waffle House. 
- 3 -

The defendant also admitted he missed three separate appointments for his alcohol 

and drug assessment despite knowing that such an assessment was a term of his probation 

and that the failure to complete the assessment would constitute a violation of his 

probation. According to the defendant, he “messed around” with drugs about two weeks 

prior to his first assessment appointment. He then used drugs on two more occasions 

prior to being arrested on the November 16, 2018 violation warrant.

The defendant admitted to having a drug problem but stated he knew “how 

important it is for me to stop doing it, I do know that now.” The defendant then asked the 

trial court to give him “one more chance, you know, to actually do what I’m supposed to 

do. . . .” 

When asked by the trial court if he had a place to live and a job if released on 

probation, the defendant informed the trial court he did not have either arranged as of the 

time of the hearing. The defendant also admitted he had “been using” methamphetamine 

for “about two years.” On cross-examination, the defendant admitted he violated the nocontact order by living with his mother and the victim upon release after his first 

violation.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the State had established 

each alleged violation, even noting that the proof was uncontroverted, and therefore, the 

defendant “has materially violated the terms and conditions of probation.” Based on its 

finding, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation. In determining the appropriate 

remedy for the defendant, the trial court expressed concern that the defendant had “no 

plan. Where’s he going to live, what’s he going to do?” The trial court also expressed 

concerned with the fact that previous attempts at rehabilitation had been unsuccessful and 

that the defendant had failed to complete an alcohol and drug assessment. In determining 

confinement was necessary, the trial court stated:

There are so many things that work in his favor as far as that he was 

reporting, that he did turn himself in. But then trying to balance that with 

the fact that when probably the thing that was the most important he didn’t 

go to, was the alcohol and drug assessment. And then he’s testing positive 

for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and getting kicked out of treatment 

facilities for conflict, with an aggravated assault charge and an attempted 

robbery in his past. So this would be the third – he served 50 days, then 

served 100 days.

And in balancing all of that and trying to predict whether or not he 

can be rehabilitated at this point, there has not been a plan submitted to the 

[c]ourt of where he’s going to live, a program he could be in, or any 
- 4 -

assessment of any type of alternative. So the [c]ourt is going to revoke him 

to serve the balance of his sentence.

 

In its written revocation order, the trial court noted the defendant was entitled to jail 

credit for the 50 day sentence that began September 9, 2017, the 100 day sentence that 

began April 28, 2018, and for the time he spent incarcerated between his arrest and 

hearing – November 22, 2018 through January 7, 2019. This timely appeal followed.

Analysis

On appeal, the defendant does not contest the trial court’s revocation order, but 

rather argues the trial court erred in ordering him to serve the original sentence in 

confinement. He states the trial court’s order “was perhaps an abuse of discretion when 

the lesser remedy of split confinement was available.” The State contends the trial court 

did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendant’s probation or in ordering him to 

serve the original sentence in confinement. After our review, we affirm the judgment of 

the trial court.

A trial court has statutory authority to revoke a suspended sentence upon finding 

that the defendant violated the conditions of the sentence by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-310, -311; see State v. Clyde Turner, No. M2012-

02405-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 5436718, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 27, 2013). “The 

trial judge has a duty at probation revocation hearings to adduce sufficient evidence to 

allow him to make an intelligent decision.” State v. Leach, 914 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tenn. 

Crim. App. 1995) (citing State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 

1991)). If a violation is found by the trial court during the probationary period, the time 

within which it must act is tolled and the court can order the defendant to serve the 

original sentence in full. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-310; see State v. Lewis, 917 S.W.2d 

251, 256 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). To overturn the trial court’s revocation, the defendant 

must show the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 

(Tenn. 2001). “In order to find such an abuse, there must be no substantial evidence to 

support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation has 

occurred.” Id. (citing State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991)).

The defendant admits that he violated his probation. This Court has repeatedly 

cautioned 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); see 

State v. Timothy A. Johnson, No. M2001-01362-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 242351, at *2 
- 5 -

(Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 11, 2002). This was the defendant’s second probation violation. 

In our view, the trial court was more than patient with the defendant considering his 

violations both times were for using methamphetamine and amphetamine and refusing to 

complete an alcohol and drug assessment. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in 

concluding the trial court did not err by ordering the defendant to serve the balance of his 

sentence in confinement.

In addition to the defendant’s admissions, the record contains sufficient evidence 

to support the trial court’s decision to revoke probation and order the defendant to serve 

the original sentence in confinement. The uncontroverted proof presented during the 

revocation hearing revealed the defendant, on three separate occasions, failed to complete 

a scheduled alcohol and drug assessment; the defendant had yet to pay anything towards 

his supervision fees or court costs; the defendant, for the second time while on probation, 

tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine; and the defendant had no “plan” 

should the trial court have decided to release him.

As noted above, once a violation of probation is found, the trial court can order the 

defendant to serve the original sentence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-310; see Lewis, 917 

S.W.2d at 256. Though the defendant testified at the revocation hearing and asked the 

trial court for another second chance on probation, the trial court was not persuaded and 

was under no obligation to comply with the defendant’s request. The record contains 

sufficient evidence the defendant violated the terms of his probation as he stipulated to 

and testified to the same. Leach, 914 S.W.2d at 106. Accordingly, the trial court acted 

within its discretion in ordering the defendant to serve the original sentence of four years 

in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-310; Clyde 

Turner, 2013 WL 5436718, at *2; Lewis, 917 S.W.2d at 256. The defendant is not 

entitled to relief. 

Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court revoking the defendant’s probation and ordering him to serve the original 

sentence in confinement.

____________________________________

 J. ROSS DYER, JUDGE