Cecil Hughes, Jr. was sentenced to six years for aggravated assault in 2001, with one year in county jail and five years on supervised probation. A probation violation warrant was issued in September 2007 due to Hughes failing to report, moving without permission, and other technical violations. The trial court revoked his probation on May 30, 2008, leading to Hughes serving the remainder of his sentence in prison. On appeal, Hughes contended that the trial court erred in revoking his probation because his sentence had expired before the violation warrant was issued.
During the evidentiary hearing, Haydee Perez-Parra from the Board of Probation and Parole testified about supervising Hughes since August 2006, noting he moved without approval and had stopped reporting to her. Additionally, she mentioned his arrest for driving on a revoked license and a failure to appear warrant. On cross-examination, she acknowledged that Hughes had previously obtained approval for a different residence and experienced transportation issues.
Hughes claimed he had communicated his moves to Perez-Parra and registered as a sex offender, albeit late due to transportation problems. He also attributed his failure to report to health issues. His counsel moved to dismiss the probation warrant based on the argument that Hughes' sentence had expired prior to its issuance. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Defendant, after purchasing a construction company and stating his willingness to take a drug test, testified he had previously tested positive due to his ex-wife's actions. He claimed he could report weekly to his probation officer, Ms. Perez-Parra, due to his proximity. During cross-examination, he acknowledged being on probation for eleven years and having issues with reporting, despite knowing he was required to report monthly. He admitted to driving on a revoked license, justifying it by a child's distress, and failing to appear in court due to surgery.
Defendant did not contest the violation of his probation but argued that his sentence for aggravated assault expired before the violation warrant was issued. According to T.C.A. 40-35-310, the trial judge retains the authority to revoke probation within the maximum time ordered by the court. The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that if a probationary sentence is successfully completed, the trial court cannot revoke probation.
Defendant claimed entitlement to good behavior credits, suggesting his sentence expired prior to the warrant. However, he failed to provide adequate evidence for this, as the record indicated a six-year sentence with specific terms. Although he was discharged from jail in 2002 with a noted "bonus" credit status, the details were vague and unproven. Additionally, the record showed two prior probation violations, each leading to further incarceration. The issuance of a revocation warrant halts the probationary period until resolved. The court concluded that Defendant did not prove his sentence expired by the time of the third violation warrant in 2007, affirming the trial court's decision to revoke his probation.
