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. Susan Marie Taylor
Citation: Not availableDocket: M2017-01526-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; April 12, 2018; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Susan Marie Taylor appeals the revocation of her probation by the Circuit Court for Bedford County, which ordered her to serve her original four-year sentence following her guilty plea for possession of a Schedule II controlled substance for resale. The trial court found that Taylor violated probation terms, which included reporting to her probation officer, notifying of residence or employment changes, submitting to searches, and undergoing random drug testing. A probation violation warrant was issued after Taylor failed to report and was unlocatable following a home visit. During the revocation hearing, Taylor admitted to the violations, citing vehicle trouble and oversleeping as reasons for missing appointments. She expressed a desire for a second chance at probation, stating she could secure employment and housing. Despite acknowledging the need for rehabilitation, she claimed she could pass a drug test. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in the revocation and that the sentence was appropriate. The opinion was delivered by Judge J. Ross Dyer, with Judges John Everett Williams and Robert L. Holloway, Jr. concurring. Lance Fulks, a probation officer, testified regarding the defendant's failure to attend scheduled appointments. After the defendant missed her first appointment, Fulks contacted her and instructed her to report the following week. He was unaware of any voicemails left after her second missed appointment. On May 10, 2017, Fulks conducted a home visit as part of the absconder procedure and spoke to a male at the defendant's address, who informed him that she had moved out and was untraceable. The State did not present further evidence. The trial court revoked the defendant's probation, noting she failed to comply within the first week, and ordered her to serve her original four-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to justify the revocation and that the imposed sentence was excessive, suggesting a split confinement followed by mandatory drug rehabilitation instead. The State countered that the trial court acted within its discretion, citing ample evidence of probation violations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that the trial court has the authority to revoke a suspended sentence upon finding a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant had admitted to missing two reporting requirements, and Fulks’ testimony confirmed these violations. Thus, the court found substantial evidence supporting the revocation, concluding the trial court acted appropriately in ordering the defendant to serve her original sentence. The defendant was denied relief.