State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Christopher Hwang

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2002-03034-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; October 13, 2003; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jeremy Christopher Hwang appeals the revocation of his probation by the Hamilton County Criminal Court, claiming violations of his due process rights. He contends that the trial court improperly allowed the State to amend the revocation petition to include subsequent convictions for theft and criminal impersonation without prior written notice. Additionally, he argues that the court failed to provide adequate findings of fact to support its revocation decision. 

Hwang had previously pled guilty to multiple offenses, receiving a six-year suspended sentence with conditions of intensive supervised probation, including obeying laws and reporting arrests. Following a probation violation report in May 2001, he faced consequences including a period of "shock incarceration." Subsequent violations led to another probation violation report in May 2002, including a new arrest for theft. 

At his December 2002 hearing, the State sought to amend the revocation petition to incorporate Hwang's June 2002 guilty pleas to theft and criminal impersonation. Despite defense objections regarding lack of written notice, the trial court allowed the amendment after confirming that Hwang was aware of the convictions and willing to proceed. The court found sufficient evidence for revocation based on the new convictions and revoked Hwang's probation, ordering him to serve his original sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

The defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation and violated due process by allowing the State to amend its revocation petition without written notice of new charges and by not providing findings of fact for the revocation. The State contends the defendant was adequately notified of the basis for revocation through his prior convictions and arrests, asserting that the trial court's oral findings were sufficient. Due process in probation revocation requires written notice of violations, disclosure of evidence against the probationer, and a written statement of the findings and reasons for the revocation (Gagnon v. Scarpelli). Tennessee law allows for actual notice to satisfy these due process requirements, as established in previous cases. The trial court has broad authority to revoke probation if a preponderance of evidence indicates a violation, and the revocation decision is generally at the court's discretion. To prove an abuse of discretion, the defendant must show a lack of substantial evidence supporting the violation's conclusion. At the hearing, defense counsel acknowledged prior notification from the State regarding the convictions and opted to proceed without a continuance despite objecting to the amendment of the petition.

The court acknowledged the defense's right to prepare for the State's amendment but allowed the proceedings to continue with the defense's objection. The defense counsel noted reliance on the defendant's June 6, 2002, convictions as the basis for probation revocation. The prosecutor introduced the defendant's judgment sheets, confirming representation by counsel and a waiver of the right to a jury trial. The defense counsel conceded the validity of the convictions and requested leniency in sentencing, suggesting probation instead of incarceration. The State reminded the court of prior warnings to the defendant regarding the consequences of probation violations. The court concluded that the defendant had violated probation conditions, referring specifically to the June 2002 convictions, which had been admitted into evidence. It determined that due process rights were upheld and that there was no abuse of discretion in revoking probation.