IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs May 26, 2021

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHAD M. VARNELL

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County

No. 107283 Steven Wayne Sword, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2020-01352-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The defendant, Chad M. Varnell, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation 

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

of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand 

for a new hearing. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Reversed 

and Remanded

J. ROSS DYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER

and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

Robin Vargas, Blaine, Tennessee, for the appellant, Chad M. Varnell.

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

Attorney General; Charme Allen, District Attorney General; and Hector Sanchez, Assistant 

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

OPINION

Facts and Procedural History

On February 18, 2016, the defendant, Chad M. Varnell, pleaded guilty to robbery

and received an eight-year sentence, suspended to supervised probation after serving one 

year in confinement. The terms of probation required, in part, the defendant to report any 

changes in residence to his probation officer, to not use or possess any illegal drugs, and to 

follow all instructions given by his probation officer. 

07/01/2021
- 2 -

On January 13, 2017, a violation warrant was issued, alleging the defendant was 

discharged from the Steps program due to non-compliance, failed to inform his probation 

officer of his new address, and failed to report to his probation officer on January 10-11, 

2017. The warrant was amended on August 3, 2017 to include the defendant’s recent arrest 

for felony escape. Following a hearing, the defendant was ordered to receive treatment at 

the Day Reporting Center beginning on October 6, 2017.

On March 5, 2018, the defendant tested positive for methamphetamine. 

Additionally, he stopped reporting to both his probation officer and the Day Reporting 

Center, and a violation warrant was issued on April 27, 2018. A revocation hearing was 

held, and the defendant was ordered to complete the EM Jellinek residential program and 

resume treatment at the Day Reporting Center. However, the defendant absconded from 

the Jellinek halfway house following a positive drug screen, and a violation warrant was 

issued on November 30, 2018. According to an amended violation warrant, the defendant 

had also been arrested in Sevier County on September 5, 2019, and charged with evading 

arrest, possession of a Schedule I controlled substance, and possession of drug 

paraphernalia. A revocation hearing was held on August 14, 2020.

At the revocation hearing, no evidence was presented. While defense counsel 

indicated the defendant was willing to stipulate to the probation violations if he received 

permission to apply to the Community Alternative to Prison Program (“CAPP”), the 

defendant did not testify, and no stipulation was actually entered because it was determined 

by the trial court and parties that the defendant did not qualify for CAPP. Defense counsel 

acknowledged the defendant was arrested in Sevier County but stated the defendant had 

“settle[d] those cases.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked the 

defendant’s probation and reinstated his original eight-year sentence in the Tennessee 

Department of Correction. On October 7, 2020, this Court granted the defendant’s motion 

to late-file his notice of appeal.

Analysis

Initially, although not raised by the defendant, we find the trial court failed to 

conduct a full and proper hearing, and therefore, remand the matter for a new hearing. At 

the revocation hearing, the State failed to present any evidence that the defendant violated 

his probation, and the defendant did not personally plead guilty to any probation violations. 

The State had an opportunity to present proof of the grounds alleged in the probation 

violation warrant, but failed to do so. It appears from the transcript of the hearing that the 

parties had previously discussed the defendant stipulating to the violations in exchange for 

permission to apply to CAPP. However, because such a stipulation was not actually 

entered, the State was required to present sufficient proof supporting the alleged violations 

to “allow[] the trial court to make a conscientious and intelligent judgment.” Harkins, 811 
- 3 -

S.W.2d at 82 (citing State v. Milton, 673 S.W.2d 555, 557 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984)). 

However, the hearing consisted of nothing more than a discussion among the attorneys and 

the trial court as to whether the defendant was eligible for CAPP and a general discussion 

concerning the bases of the violation warrant. Accordingly, the record before us does not 

support revocation of the defendant’s probation, and we remand the case to the trial court 

for a new revocation hearing. 

Because the issue on appeal relates to an evidentiary issue and what can or should 

be considered by the trial court during the hearing on remand, we will address the 

defendant’s claim. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in ordering him to 

serve his original sentence in confinement. Specifically, the defendant argues the trial court 

failed to “seek an updated validated risk and needs assessment to assist the trial court in 

making its determination.” The State contends the trial court properly exercised its 

discretion in revoking the defendant’s probation and ordering him to serve his original 

sentence in confinement. 

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 contends that after he provided information to the trial court 

regarding his issues with substance abuse, the trial court was required to obtain an updated 

risk and needs assessment to evaluate whether the defendant was eligible to participate in 

CAPP or another alternative to prison. Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-311(f) 

provides that “[t]he court may consider the results of an offender’s validated risk and needs 

assessment in determining the appropriate disposition of the probation violation charge and 

may request an updated validated risk and needs assessment be performed” (emphasis 

added). “[T]he decision to consider the validated risk and needs assessment, as well as the 

decision to request an updated assessment, is discretionary.” State v. Charles E. Mason, 
- 4 -

Jr., No. E2018-01310-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 3992473, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 23, 

2019), no perm. app. filed. Additionally, at the revocation hearing, the defendant never 

requested the trial court to order an updated assessment or to rely on such an assessment. 

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order an updated risk 

and needs assessment.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case 

is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

____________________________________

 J. ROSS DYER, JUDGE