State of Tennessee v. Darius J. Hunt

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2011-01238-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; March 20, 2012; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Darius J. Hunt appeals the Knox County Criminal Court's decision to revoke his probation following a guilty plea for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, resulting in an eight-year suspended sentence after one year of confinement. The revocation was based on new allegations including driving on a suspended license, reckless endangerment, and failing to meet probation obligations such as securing employment and paying fines. During the revocation hearing, Officer William Thompson testified about Hunt's reckless driving and subsequent flight from law enforcement, which endangered bystanders. Although Hunt claimed he was seeking employment, his probation officer was unable to verify this, and he had been unemployed since December 2010. The court found sufficient evidence to revoke probation, stating Hunt had violated both the law and probation conditions, and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Hunt contends that the trial court improperly revoked his probation and mandated his incarceration, arguing the State did not provide sufficient evidence of new offenses—driving on a suspended license and reckless endangerment. The State asserts that the trial court's decision was justified and within its discretion. A trial court can revoke probation if there is a preponderance of evidence indicating a violation, as outlined in T.C.A. 40-35-310. The court’s discretion in such matters is upheld unless there is clear evidence of an abuse of that discretion. To demonstrate an abuse, Hunt must show a lack of substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings.

Upon review, the trial court's determination of a probation violation was upheld, as the State need only demonstrate that Hunt violated the law, not necessarily secure a conviction. Sufficient evidence presented, including Officer Thompson’s testimony of Hunt driving with a suspended license, justified the revocation. This testimony met legal requirements and supports the trial court's conclusion that Hunt failed to comply with state laws. Additional observations by the officer, such as Hunt’s actions of leaving the vehicle unattended and evading arrest, further validated the decision to revoke probation. The court retains the discretion to choose the consequences of such violations, including incarceration or adjustments to the probation terms.

The trial court's decision to revoke Hunt’s probation for failing to obtain employment was upheld, with Hunt not entitled to relief. Despite Hunt's claims of error regarding reliance on reckless endangerment and failure to pay, any potential errors were deemed harmless. The court properly cited new offenses, including driving on a suspended license, evading arrest, and leaving a vehicle unattended as grounds for revocation. Under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36(b), a final judgment is not to be set aside unless a substantial error likely affected the judgment. The existence of alternate grounds for revocation supported the trial court's decision, referencing State v. Brandon Scott Watson. The court's decision to order incarceration was within its discretion, as it was an available option after finding a violation. Hunt's argument that the evidence for driving on a revoked license was insufficient due to hearsay was waived, as he failed to raise this issue at the trial level. Hunt did not contest the evidence during the hearing and acknowledged his violation, stating he needed to stop driving until his license was reinstated.