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 Tennessee v. Roger Alan Lawson
Citation: Not availableDocket: E2005-01388-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; March 21, 2006; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Roger Alan Lawson appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's decision to revoke his suspended sentences, resulting in the reinstatement of an effective eight-year sentence to the Department of Correction. Lawson was on supervised probation after pleading guilty to violations of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act and sexual battery, which carried consecutive four-year sentences. A violation warrant was issued following his arrest for driving on a revoked license on July 17, 2004. During a revocation hearing on May 27, 2005, Lawson pled "no contest" to the probation violation, arguing against confinement due to his substantial compliance with probation terms, including completing sex offender counseling and maintaining employment. At the hearing, Lawson testified about the circumstances of his offense, stating he took control of a van from a passenger who was driving impaired. He admitted to lying about his identity to law enforcement. Ultimately, the trial court denied his request to remain on probation and ordered him to serve his sentence. On appeal, Lawson contends the trial court abused its discretion in this decision. However, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the revocation of probation and the order for confinement. The Appellant claimed his actions on July 17, 2004, were justified as he prevented an impaired driver from operating a vehicle. However, the State argued that the trial court correctly mandated the Appellant to serve his sentences in confinement due to his admission of driving without a license, in violation of a court order, and providing false information to an officer. The court reviews probation revocation under an abuse of discretion standard, requiring evidence that the trial judge exercised conscientious judgment rather than acting arbitrarily. If the trial court finds that the defendant violated probation conditions by a preponderance of the evidence, it can revoke probation and reinstate the original judgment. The Appellant acknowledged breaching his probation conditions, and despite arguments for mitigation and claims of compliance, he failed to uphold his legal obligations. Therefore, the trial court's decision to revoke probation was affirmed, with no abuse of discretion found. The judgment of the Sullivan County Criminal Court was upheld.