State of Tennessee v. Terry Maples

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2011-01441-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; February 16, 2012; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A Blount County jury convicted Terry Maples of theft valued between $1,000 and $10,000, leading to a three-year supervised probation sentence. Following a probation violation warrant, the court determined he had violated probation by committing new offenses, resulting in a 90-day jail sentence before reinstating probation. Maples subsequently pled guilty to forgery and identity theft, receiving another probation sentence as part of a plea agreement. His probation officer later filed a second violation warrant, alleging he committed theft, prompting a hearing where the court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve his sentences in confinement. Maples appealed the revocation, claiming the trial court erred, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

The trial court mandated that the Defendant's two-year sentence for theft be served consecutively to the remaining three years of a prior theft probation. A probation violation report was filed on April 21, 2011, alleging multiple violations including a new theft charge, failure to report to the probation officer, non-compliance with an alcohol and drug assessment, and failure to pay court costs, restitution, and fees.

During the violation hearing, Nicholas Isgrigg, an assistant store manager, testified that he observed the Defendant concealing steaks valued at approximately $86.00 in his clothing. He intervened before the Defendant could leave the store. Probation officer Gregory Scott Dunkel testified about his supervision of the Defendant since September 2008, noting prior violations for identity theft and forgery, and acknowledged the Defendant's failures to report on thirteen occasions, although he had not filed a violation report to allow for the Defendant's success. Dunkel also indicated that the Defendant had not followed treatment recommendations and had not made significant payments toward his financial obligations.

The Defendant, aged fifty-two at the time of the hearing, claimed to have not tested positive for drugs for over a year and attributed his theft attempt to hunger and lack of support from friends and family. He described a history of medical issues, including a recent fall that resulted in broken bones, for which he was prescribed pain medication. He requested to be returned to probation, asserting that he had learned from his mistakes and was too old for criminal behavior. He clarified during cross-examination that he had only taken three packs of meat and that his co-defendant was unaware of his intent to steal.

The Defendant admitted to writing a worthless check to Walmart in 2005 and being convicted of theft in 2007 for stealing a lawnmower. He acknowledged failing to pay significant restitution or court costs, citing personal burdens. On June 20, 2011, the trial court found that he had materially violated his probation, revoked it, and mandated that he serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. The Defendant appealed, admitting the violation but arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in its sentencing decision. The State maintained that the trial court's findings were supported by the record and that its actions were within discretion.

Under Tennessee law (T.C.A. 40-35-311(e)), a trial court can revoke probation upon finding a violation by a preponderance of evidence and may order incarceration, restart the probationary period, or extend it. The Defendant has the right to appeal such revocations. The trial court’s decision to revoke probation is discretionary and will be upheld unless there is a lack of substantial evidence for the violation. While pending charges may lead to revocation, an arrest alone is insufficient; there must be factual support for the violation.

In this case, the Defendant admitted to stealing food due to hunger and acknowledged missing appointments and failing to pay court-ordered restitution. The trial court found sufficient evidence of probation violation and did not abuse its discretion in ordering confinement. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision to revoke probation and mandate confinement.