David Harris, Jr. appealed the revocation of his probation by the Circuit Court for Blount County, which resulted from violations including failure to make court cost payments and non-compliance with probation rules. After entering a guilty plea for promoting methamphetamine manufacturing in March 2008, Harris was sentenced to two years probation. A probation violation warrant was issued in March 2010 due to missed payments, leading to a revocation and extension of probation. In February 2011, his probation officer reported further violations, such as inconsistent reporting, non-payment of child support (over $18,000 in arrears), and failed drug screenings, including an admission to marijuana use. At a hearing, Harris claimed he was told he would no longer need to pay child support due to his disability status. The trial court ultimately affirmed the revocation and confinement sentence, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The appellate court's ruling was delivered by Judge Norma McGee Ogle, with concurrence from Judges Jerry L. Smith and D. Kelly Thomas Jr.
The appellant receives a monthly disability payment of $604 and previously violated probation for failing to pay court costs. After a revocation, his probation was reinstated and extended to allow him to make payments, which he began in January. He changed his address that month and did not receive his check, which hindered further payments. The appellant expressed that if granted probation again, he could pay $100 monthly toward his court costs. He intended to notify his probation officer, Salyers, of his address change in February but was arrested for probation violation during their meeting. He asserted that a drug-related incident occurred at the trailer he rented out and mentioned that Salyers would inform the court of his compliance with probation terms. For the last four months of his probation, he was only required to meet with Salyers every three months. The appellant claimed he did not recall missing a December meeting and reported his car theft as the reason for not having transportation. In January, he admitted to Salyers that he had smoked marijuana twice, signing a drug assessment form. He believed a drug test at court would yield a negative result.
The trial court concluded that the appellant violated probation by failing to report, make payments, notify about his address change, and by using marijuana, ordering him to serve his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering full confinement, suggesting that a 45-day jail sentence followed by probation would have sufficed. He concedes to some violations, specifically marijuana use and possibly failing to report in December, but claims no intentional failure to report and cites his financial difficulties as a barrier to paying court costs. He advocates for a split confinement sentence instead of full incarceration. The trial court's authority to revoke probation is backed by Tennessee law, and such decisions are generally upheld unless there is no substantial evidence supporting the violation claim.
The appellant violated probation terms by failing to report, pay court costs, and using illegal drugs, justifying the trial court's decision to revoke probation. The court had authority under Tenn. Code Ann. 40-35-310 and -311(e) to mandate the appellant serve the original sentence upon revocation. The record indicates prior violations, where the court had previously allowed the appellant to remain on probation. Despite this leniency, the appellant continued to breach probation conditions. Legal precedent establishes that an individual on probation is not entitled to another grant of probation or alternative sentencing after violations. Therefore, the court did not err in ordering confinement, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
