IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs November 3, 2021

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JERMAINE ELVEY CRAWFORD

Appeal from the Circuit Courts for Carroll County and Henry County

Nos. 15793, 14-CR-115 Donald E. Parish, Judge

___________________________________

No. W2020-01203-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

Defendant, Jermaine Elvey Crawford, appeals from the revocation of his probationary 

sentences in Carroll County Circuit Court case 14-CR-115 and Henry County Circuit Court

case 15793. By agreement between the parties, a combined hearing was held on the 

probation violation warrants in both cases. Defendant asserts that there was no substantial 

evidence that he violated his probation. Based on the record and the parties’ briefs, we 

affirm the judgments of the trial courts. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Trial Courts Affirmed

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT 

WILLIAMS, P.J., and NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., joined.

Kaylee N. Houston, Paris, Tennessee (on appeal); Stephanie J. Hale, Trenton, Tennessee 

(at trial), for the appellant, Jermaine Elvey Crawford.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Assistant Attorney 

General; Matthew Stowe, District Attorney General; and Rebecca D. Griffey, Assistant 

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

OPINION

Procedural Background

Defendant was indicted by the Carroll County Grand Jury in case number 14-CR115 for one count each of first degree premeditated murder, aggravated assault in concert 

with two or more other persons, and reckless endangerment. On March 8, 2016, Defendant

pleaded guilty to facilitation of second degree murder and was sentenced to ten years, 

suspended upon time served. The remaining charges were dismissed.

01/11/2022
- 2 -

On October 17, 2016, a probation violation warrant was issued alleging that 

Defendant violated the terms of his probation by testing positive for marijuana and for 

owing $135.00 in supervision fees. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order 

partially revoking Defendant’s probation and reinstating supervised probation after time 

served. 

On July 5, 2017, a second probation violation warrant was issued alleging that 

Defendant violated the terms of his probation by committing the offenses of possession of 

drug paraphernalia and possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with intent to 

manufacture, sell or deliver and for owing $198.00 in supervision fees. 

On November 6, 2017, Defendant was indicted by the Henry County Grand Jury in 

case number 15793 for one count of possession of half a gram or more of marijuana with 

intent to deliver. On November 13, 2017, Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense as 

charged and was sentenced to two years on supervised probation, to be served 

consecutively to Defendant’s sentence in Carroll County case 14-CR-115. 

Following a hearing on November 20, 2017, Defendant’s probation in the Carroll 

County case was revoked and Defendant was returned to supervised probation after serving 

one year in custody. A written order was entered on December 13, 2017. 

On November 18, 2019, a probation violation report was filed in the Henry County 

Circuit Court, alleging that Defendant violated the terms of his probation by failing to 

report to his probation officer in October and November, 2019, and by moving to New 

York. The report also alleged that Defendant owed $1,114.50 in fines and costs and 

$558.00 in supervision fees. A probation violation warrant was issued on November 25, 

2019. On December 16, 2019, a probation violation report was filed in the Carroll County 

Circuit Court, alleging the same violations alleged in the Henry County report, and a 

warrant was issued. 

On June 10, 2020, by agreement between the parties, a joint probation violation 

hearing was held in Henry County on both warrants. A written order revoking Defendant’s 

probation in the Carroll County Circuit Court was entered on June 23, 2020. A written 

order revoking Defendant’s probation in the Henry County Circuit Court was entered on 

August 6, 2020. It is from these orders that Defendant appeals. 

Revocation Hearing
- 3 -

At the June 10, 2020 hearing, the trial court noted that, by agreement, it was 

combining two proceedings into one hearing in Carroll County case number 14-CR-115 

and Henry County case number 15793. 

Probation officer Michelle Wade was assigned to supervise Defendant’s probation 

in both cases. Ms. Wade testified that Defendant’s probation in the Carroll County case 

was revoked in 2016 for testing positive for marijuana and for “being behind on his 

[s]upervision [f]ees.” She testified that during that time period, Defendant’s employment 

history was “a little sketchy,” but “[h]e later moved to Henry County where it got better.” 

She recalled that Defendant worked at McDonald’s for “a very long time, over a year,” and 

later went to work at Taco Bell. Ms. Wade testified that a second revocation warrant was 

filed in Carroll County after Defendant was arrested on charges in Henry County. 

Defendant’s probation was partially revoked, and Defendant was ordered to serve one year 

incarcerated. Ms. Wade testified that after his one-year revocation, Defendant had “no 

other violation[s].” She testified that Defendant “ha[d] not done real well on payment 

history, as far as fines and costs, and supervision fees. Other than that, he[] reported as he

[wa]s supposed to. He[] passed all his drug screens. He[] kept employment, pretty well.” 

Ms. Wade testified, however, that Defendant “absconded from probation around 

October” of 2019. She testified that Defendant wanted to move to New York and had 

requested a transfer of probation, but his request was denied. Ms. Wade’s last contact with 

Defendant was around September, 2019. She testified that before Defendant absconded, 

she “could always count on him” to report consistently. Ms. Wade described Defendant as 

“a likeable guy.” 

Regarding Defendant’s attempt to have his probation supervision transferred to New 

York, Ms. Wade testified, “[d]ue to the distance, I knew it was going to be a difficult task 

for the powers above me to agree to that. . . .” She explained that “the first thing they will 

look at is his payments toward the court and his payments toward supervision fees. . . . 

“[w]hich ha[d] been behind.” She advised Defendant to establish “a steady pattern” of 

payments before making the request. Defendant wanted to move to New York “[t]o see 

his children.” 

Ms. Wade did not know how much Defendant was getting paid for working at 

McDonald’s and Taco Bell, but she assumed “probably, minimum wage.” She testified 

that Defendant’s payments were “sporadic” but agreed that Defendant “was making some 

type of payments.” 

Ms. Wade affirmed that the policy of the Department of Probation and Parole was 

to prohibit probationers from traveling out of state. She also affirmed that this was 

Defendant’s first probation violation in the Henry County case and that since his positive 
- 4 -

marijuana screen in 2016 and his 2017 guilty plea in the Henry County case, Defendant 

had reported consistently and passed all his drug screens.

Defendant testified that he “went to New York to visit [his] kids.” He testified that 

he had three children, ages seven, eight, and thirteen, and that they lived in Olene and 

Buffalo. Defendant testified that when he first came to Tennessee, he did not know anyone 

and had no family here. He testified, “I pretty much built my life here in Paris. I met a 

woman. Fell in love. Got married.” Defendant testified that he had “worked [his] way 

up” at McDonald’s and at Taco Bell, and he had also worked at Hamilton and Ryker, at 

Briggs and Stratton, and at ICI. He explained, “I obtained a travel permit from Ms. Wade 

in order to go to Kentucky to work at Briggs and Stratton, and they transferred me from 

Briggs and Stratton to ICI, here in Paris. That was before McDonald’s and Taco Bell. 

[Ever] since I’ve lived in Paris, I’ve been employed.”

Defendant admitted that his fee payments were sporadic, but explained, “I did the 

best I could.” He testified that he lost his job at ICI and started selling marijuana in 2017. 

Defendant was paying $650 per month in rent and had six stepchildren. He testified, “It 

was hard. So, I was just trying – just trying to take care of my family. I made the wrong 

decision. I made a bad decision and I got convicted for it. You know, I owned up to my

responsibility for it.” As a result of his marijuana conviction in Henry County, Defendant 

served an additional nine months on the Carroll County case. After his release, he returned 

to work at McDonald’s and “tried to work it out with Probation to where [he] could get a 

permit to go see [his] children. [Defendant] hadn’t seen [his] children since 2013 and it 

was 2018.” He testified:

And like, I mean it’s hard when you’ve got your kids on the phone, and they 

feel like you don’t love them, because you won’t come to see them. You 

know, it’s hard as a father that’s used to doing for his children. That’s used 

to being in his children’s life, and – and it’s hard on their mothers when they 

know that you’re living with a woman, and helping her take care of her six 

(6) kids, but you ain’t – you can’t – you can’t do for your own.

So I tried to do it the right way, and I, you know, like I said, I had a lot of 

kids to deal with. You know, that’s ten (10) kids. You know, we’ve got 

bills, rent. I’m working making minimum wage.

Defendant testified that he asked Ms. Wade for permission to go to New York on 

six or seven occasions, but she told him that he had to “catch [his] fees up.” Defendant 

was paying child support for two of his children in New York, and he did not want to “catch 

a violation for [his] child support, because that’s going to a whole other charge, too.” 

Defendant testified, 
- 5 -

When I was coming home with two-fifty ($250.00), my rent was six-fifty 

($650.00). I have bills. I have rent. I’ve got four (4) kids in New York. I’ve 

got six (6) kids in the house. You know, I mean, it’s hard in the house. So

like I said, I got frustrated after a while and I just left. I wanted to see my 

kids.

Defendant testified that he left Tennessee “right before Christmas,” and he was 

arrested in Pennsylvania in April. He testified that while he was in New York, he 

maintained employment. Defendant testified that he had “cooked professionally for over 

twenty (20) years.” He testified, “I always try to keep a job. Like, you know, I’m not . . . 

a person that won’t work.” 

The trial court noted that Defendant testified that he went to New York in December, 

but Ms. Wade testified that she last saw Defendant in September. When the trial court 

asked Defendant what happened in October and November, Defendant testified that he 

“ended up homeless.” He testified, “I ended up losing . . . my place to stay, because I was 

staying with a female, and you know, that didn’t work out. She put me out. And I didn’t 

have anywhere to stay.” Defendant testified that he stopped reporting because he “just got 

frustrated.” 

Defendant explained that if the trial court reinstated his probation, he had already 

lined up employment at McDonald’s and Taco Bell, and he had a friend he could live with. 

He also said that his children’s mothers had agreed to bring his children to visit him in 

Tennessee. Defendant admitted that he “did something stupid,” but, he testified, it was 

“just about [his] kids.” 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court first stated that its decision was not 

based on Defendant’s failure to consistently make payments, clarifying, “while in a perfect 

world, . . . you should have made all those payments. That’s not coming into my decision 

making process here today[.]” The court found that Defendant did not intentionally fail to 

make payments. 

The trial court stated that the “more troubling issue” was Defendant’s failure to 

report and absconding to New York. The court stated that it appreciated Defendant’s 

candor and his admission of wrongdoing. The trial court explained its reasoning as follows:

I appreciate you being candid with me about, essentially, leaving Tennessee 

and going to be closer to your family in New York and in Pennsylvania. If 

your underlying conviction was only the conviction that I was considering in 

the Henry County matter, that being the drug conviction, I would accept your 
- 6 -

explanation today, and there would be some sort of an additional partial 

revocation, but the bigger problem is the Carroll County [f]acilitation of 

[s]econd-[d]egree [m]urder, extremely serious.

And, of course, you’ll – you’ll remember that I was involved, in terms of being 

the judge presiding over that. So, I remember portions of that matter, and I 

just understand how serious it was. So, this being a third (3rd) violation, I just 

am compelled to find that you – that you violated your probation, and that the 

appropriate response is a revocation.

If that seems unduly harsh to you, I can appreciate your feeling that way, but 

I have to look at the bigger picture, in terms of what’s not only fair to you, but 

what’s fair to the community itself as well, and I’m coming down in that – in 

that way today. So, please prepare an order then, revoking his probation.

The trial court revoked Defendant’s probation in the Carroll County case and 

ordered him to serve his ten-year sentence in confinement. The trial court also revoked 

Defendant’s probation in the Henry County case and ordered him to served his two-year 

sentence in confinement. 

Analysis

On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion “by fully 

revoking his effective 12-year sentence in his Carroll County and Henry County cases.” 

Defendant argues that “[t]he evidence presented at the probation violation hearing was not 

substantial enough to support the trial court’s full revocation of the Defendant’s sentences.” 

The State responds that the trial court properly revoked Defendant’s probation. 

A trial court has the discretion to revoke probation if it finds by a preponderance of 

the evidence that a defendant violated the conditions of probation. See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-

310, -311(e); State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001). An abuse of discretion in 

revoking a defendant’s probation occurs only where there is “no substantial evidence to 

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

occurred.” Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d at 554. The trial court determines the credibility of 

witnesses in probation revocation hearings. State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. 

Crim. App. 1991) (citing Carver v. State, 570 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978)). 

Additionally, the trial court’s factual findings carry the weight of a jury verdict on appeal. 

State v. Beard, 189 S.W.3d 730, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005) (citations omitted).

Upon finding that a defendant has violated the conditions of probation, the trial court

is statutorily authorized to: “(1) order confinement; (2) order execution of the sentence as 
- 7 -

originally entered; (3) return the Defendant to probation on appropriate modified 

conditions; or (4) extend the defendant’s probationary period by up to two years.” State v. 

Brandon L. Brawner, No. W2013-01144-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 465743, at *2 (Tenn. 

Crim. App. Feb. 4, 2014), no perm. app. filed (citing T.C.A. §§ 40-35-308(a), (c), -310, -

311(e)(1); State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643, 648 (Tenn. 1999)). In exercising its authority, a 

trial court has no obligation to provide a defendant already on probation “‘a second grant 

of probation or another form of alternative sentencing.’” State v. Tracy Arnold, No. 

W2018-00307-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 6266279, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2018), 

perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 30, 2018) (citation omitted).

The record shows that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering 

Defendant to serve his sentences in confinement. Defendant was alleged to have violated 

his probation by failing to report to his probation officer and absconding to New York. He 

conceded at the hearing that he stopped reporting in October, 2019 and moved to New 

York in December of that year. He asserts, however, that “the reason for his absconding . 

. . was for the purpose of visiting with his children” and that his numerous requests to 

transfer “were denied based on seemingly financial reasons[.]” 

The trial court had previously given Defendant the opportunity to continue on 

probation following his first two revocations, but Defendant admittedly violated the terms 

of his probation by failing to report and by absconding to New York. The court’s decision 

to sentence Defendant to confinement after finding that he violated his probation was 

within its statutory authority. See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-308(a), (c); -310; -311(e)(1). We 

conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that Defendant is not entitled 

to relief.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing authorities and reasoning, the judgments of the trial court 

are affirmed.

________________________________

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE