State of Tennessee v. Richie P. Hawkins

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2012-02093-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; July 11, 2013; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Richie P. Hawkins was convicted in May 2010 for promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine, receiving a twelve-year community corrections sentence as a Range III offender. His community corrections officer later filed an affidavit stating Hawkins violated his sentence due to convictions for auto burglary and domestic assault. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked Hawkins' community corrections sentence and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, Hawkins argued that the trial court should have reinstated his community corrections sentence instead of ordering confinement. However, upon review, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision. The background included Hawkins' initial plea, subsequent violations, including failure to appear in court and failure to check in with his officer, and evidence presented at the revocation hearing, including certified copies of his convictions and testimony from his community corrections supervisor.

Officer Vitek stated she could no longer supervise the Defendant due to his failure to report and make court payments, noting that he “did not cooperate very well.” The Defendant also failed to complete a required alcohol and drug assessment. During cross-examination, Vitek confirmed that the Defendant had never failed a drug test but missed one test after indicating he would not pass. Without the assessment, she could not assess his drug issues under supervision. 

The Defendant, aged 33, a GED holder and father of two children living with their mothers, described himself as an addict introduced to methamphetamine and explained his initial arrest for purchasing Sudafed, which led to a conviction for promoting meth manufacture. He claimed he attempted to report as required but missed two reports due to work, notifying Vitek the next day. He lost a job because of his criminal history but was later placed in another position as a paver until his arrest for another manufacturing charge, which was dismissed, leading to Vitek withdrawing a violation warrant she had filed.

The Defendant admitted to using methamphetamine while under community corrections and acknowledged needing treatment, stating he would have failed any drug test during probation. He recounted the circumstances of a conviction in Campbell County, detailing his involvement with his brother and ex-girlfriend in a theft incident, for which he pled guilty despite neither being charged. He received a two-year sentence on probation and did not disclose this conviction to his community corrections officer, partly due to an ongoing custody dispute with DCS over his son. He recognized that the conviction could adversely affect his custody situation.

The Defendant acknowledged his past conviction in Anderson County, which involved domestic issues related to his ex-girlfriend, the mother of his daughter, who struggled with drug addiction. He admitted to being unable to overcome his own methamphetamine addiction, which hindered his ability to seek help. Following a probation sentence for the Anderson County conviction, he violated probation by testing positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. While incarcerated, he participated in a drug treatment program, completed it, and provided documentation of the classes he attended.

The Defendant's wife, Tracy Hawkins, testified about their ten-year marriage, their separation, and her adoption of their son, who had been taken from them due to their drug issues. She regained custody of their son and reported that the Defendant had requested assistance with his drug problem. Despite applying for rehabilitation programs, he had not received treatment prior to this point. Hawkins noted that the Defendant's recent willingness to seek help for his addiction was a new development.

The trial court determined that the Defendant had materially violated his Community Corrections sentence due to new convictions and failure to pay court costs and fees. The court expressed concern about the impact of drugs on lives and mentioned uncertainty about the Defendant’s eligibility for the Drug Court Program, given his criminal history. Ultimately, the court revoked the Defendant's Community Corrections sentence, ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence. The Defendant has since appealed this judgment.

The Defendant argued that his sincere attempts to seek help for drug addiction warranted not serving the remainder of his sentence in confinement, claiming the trial court abused its discretion. The State countered that the evidence supported the trial court's decision. Under Tennessee law (T.C.A. 40-36-106(e)(3, 4, 2010), T.C.A. 40-35-311(d, 2010)), a trial court can revoke a community corrections sentence for non-compliance, provided a proper revocation hearing is held. The standard for such a revocation requires proof of a violation by a preponderance of evidence, allowing the court to either enforce the original judgment or resentence the defendant to an alternative. Notably, only one basis for revocation is necessary, including a defendant's admission to a violation. In this case, the trial court found sufficient evidence of the Defendant's violations—two certified convictions and admissions regarding drug use—supporting the conclusion that he could not comply with his release terms. Therefore, the court's decision to revoke the Defendant's community corrections sentence and order confinement was upheld as not being an abuse of discretion. The Defendant is not entitled to relief.