IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
)
Appellee, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9810-CC-00320
)
vs. ) HARDIN COUNTY
PAMELA JEAN HOLLOWAY,
)
) No. 7488
FILED
)
Appellant. ) July 7, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the trial
court judgment by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The appellant is appealing the trial court’s revocation of her probation. On February 12,
1997, the appellant pled guilty to manufacturing a controlled substance and possession
of drug paraphernalia and received an effective one year sentence. The trial court
ordered supervised probation after the appellant served ninety days confinement. On
September 17, 1998, the appellant’s supervised probation was revoked.
After a hearing, the trial court found that the appellant violated the terms
and conditions of her probation by “new conviction [shoplifting]; positive drug screen
[marijuana]; non-payment of costs, fines and probation fees.” The appellant and her
probation officer testified at the hearing.
A trial court may revoke probation and order the imposition of the original
sentence upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has
violated a condition of probation. T.C.A. § 40-35-311(e). The decision to revoke
probation rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Mitchell, 810
S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). Revocation of probation is subject to an
abuse of discretion standard of review, rather than a de novo standard. State v.
Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991). Discretion is abused only if the record contains
no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of
probation has occurred. Id.; State v. Gregory, 946 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1997). Proof of a violation need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and
the evidence need only show that the trial judge exercised a conscientious and
intelligent judgment, rather than acting arbitrarily. Gregory, 946 S.W.2d at 832; State v.
Leach, 914 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
On appeal, the appellant contends only that the trial court abused its
discretion in revoking her probation. She argues that “the revocation of her probation
will not subserve the ends of justice in the best interest of both the public and the
defendant“ and that “she still shows a potential for rehabilitation and was receiving
therapy to help her recover.” Having reviewed the record in light of the appellant’s
argument, we find that the evidence fully supports the trial court’s action. The appellant
has simply failed to show how the trial court abused its discretion.
Accordingly, the state’s motion is granted. It is hereby ORDERED that the
judgement of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of
Criminal Appeals. Costs of this appeal shall be assessed to the state.
______________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
______________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
______________________________
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
2