Search

State v. Jones - Probation Revocation Affirmed on Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's revocation of Jarvis Jones's probation. Jones had received an eight-year sentence on supervised probation after pleading guilty to multiple offenses including aggravated burglary, possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, and theft of property. The State alleged probation violations based on new criminal charges including especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, domestic assault, evading arrest, and escape. After a revocation hearing where testimony established the underlying conduct, the trial court ordered Jones to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. Jones appealed arguing the trial court failed to apply the proper two-step probation revocation analysis.

Wayne Morris Flood Probation Revocation Reversed

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the Hickman County Circuit Court's probation revocation for defendant Wayne Morris Flood. The trial court had revoked his eight-year sentence for possession with intent to sell methamphetamine and ordered him to serve the remainder in confinement. The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion and remanded for reinstatement to probation.

State of Tennessee v. Patrick Gardner Ford - Unlawful Firearm Possession Appeal Affirmed

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment sentencing Patrick Gardner Ford to twelve years in confinement as a Range II, multiple offender for unlawful possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony crime of violence. The defendant appealed the denial of his request for alternative sentencing through the community corrections program, arguing the trial court abused its discretion.

State v. Ellis - Probation Revocation Affirmed

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's revocation of Corey Ellis's probation. The defendant challenged the revocation, arguing the trial court failed to consider his amenability to future rehabilitation, whether he posed a danger to others, and an updated risk and needs assessment. The appellate court rejected these arguments and upheld the probation revocation.