Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State of Tennesse v. Sonny Dean Farrow
Citation: Not availableDocket: E2008-00961-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; November 29, 2009; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Sonny Dean Farrow pled guilty to aggravated burglary and theft in Jefferson County, receiving a six-year sentence on supervised probation, which was to run consecutively to another incarceration sentence. After several probation violations, including arrests for domestic assault, criminal trespassing, and public intoxication, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in custody. Farrow appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the decision. The record indicates that Farrow repeatedly violated probation terms, including failing to report arrests and adhere to curfews, leading to the revocation. The Defendant, having been incarcerated for most of his life since age fifteen, acknowledged an 'institutionalized mentality' and admitted to alcohol issues, expressing a willingness to engage in treatment if permitted probation. He provided no explanations for his curfew violations, which led the trial court to find him in violation of probation and order his incarceration. The court emphasized that it had previously offered him opportunities to address his addiction but found he failed to take reasonable steps to improve his situation. The trial court's decision to revoke probation is supported by Tennessee law, which allows for revocation upon a preponderance of evidence of violations. The standard of review on appeal assesses whether the trial court abused its discretion, requiring a lack of substantial evidence for such a finding. The Defendant contended that the court abused its discretion and should have mandated inpatient treatment instead of incarceration. However, the State argued that the record substantiates the revocation due to multiple curfew violations occurring even after prior probation was reinstated. The Defendant’s suggestion for additional treatment was deemed unconvincing, given his prior failure to pursue treatment when it was already a condition of probation. Ultimately, the trial court's judgment to revoke probation and mandate confinement was affirmed, indicating conscientious judgment without abuse of discretion.