You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State of Tennessee v. Steven Chance

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2010-02283-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; July 29, 2011; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Steven Chance pleaded guilty to driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, in Dickson County Circuit Court, resulting in a sentence of 11 months and 29 days of probation following 48 hours of incarceration. The court waived fines and community service requirements but retained the obligation for costs and probation fees. A probation violation warrant was issued due to non-payment of these costs, totaling $817.50. The trial court revoked Chance's probation and extended it by one year to allow for payment. On appeal, Chance argued the court lacked authority to extend his probation, asserting it altered the original plea agreement. The court found no error, noting the defendant failed to provide a sufficient record for review, including the necessary transcripts from relevant hearings. It referenced Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-308(c), which allows for extending probation up to two years after a revocation hearing. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Authority to Extend Probation under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-35-308(c)

Application: The court has the authority to extend probation by up to two years following a probation revocation hearing, as applied in Steven Chance's case where his probation was extended by one year to allow for payment of outstanding costs.

Reasoning: It referenced Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-308(c), which allows for extending probation up to two years after a revocation hearing.

Requirement for Complete Record on Appeal

Application: The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision due to the appellant's failure to provide a sufficient record for review, including necessary transcripts from relevant hearings.

Reasoning: The court found no error, noting the defendant failed to provide a sufficient record for review, including the necessary transcripts from relevant hearings.