IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
JULY 1998 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9707-CC-00292
Appellee, )
) COFFEE COUNTY
VS. ) (No. 27,487 Below)
)
DEBORAH JO ROVSEK, ) The Hon. John W. Rollins
)
Appellant. ) (Probation Revocation)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
B. CAMPBELL SMOOT JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
14th Judicial District
605 East Carroll Street CLINTON J. MORGAN
P.O. Box 260 Assistant Attorney General
Tullahoma, TN 37388 Cordell Hull Building, Second Floor
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
C. MICHAEL LAYNE
District Attorney General
KENNETH J. SHELTON, JR.
Assistant District Attorney General
14th Judicial District
307 South Woodland
P.O. Box 147
Manchester, TN 37349
OPINION FILED _______________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
OPINION
The appellant, Deborah Jo Rovsek, appeals as of right from the trial court’s
revocation of her probation sentence. She contends that the trial court abused its
discretion by revoking her probation and ordering her to serve the entire sentence
previously imposed. The appellant contends that the trial court should have considered
“a period of shock incarceration followed by Community Corrections.” Based on our review
of the briefs and of the entire record in this cause, we conclude that this is an appropriate
case for affirmance under Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules.
In March of 1996, the appellant pled guilty to eight counts of obtaining a
controlled substance by fraud. She was sentenced as a Range I, Standard Offender, to
an effective sentence of four years to be served on probation. The appellant was given
credit for 74 days served in jail. As a condition of probation, the appellant was ordered to
complete 300 hours of public service work.
Subsequently, on February 11, 1997, a probation violation report was filed,
alleging that the appellant failed to report to her probation officer when instructed to do so,
failed to pay required probation fees when due, and failed to report to her public service
work site as scheduled. The trial court issued a probation revocation warrant the same
day, and a hearing was held on June 17, 1997. At the revocation hearing, the appellant
pled guilty and was allowed to make a statement in which she asked the trial court to give
her a second chance. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated “I think I have
given you every break I can possibly give you. Time is up. I’m sorry. You are going to
jail.” The appellant was ordered to serve her four-year sentence in the Department of
Correction.
The re vocatio n of pro bation is committed to the sound discretion of the trial
court. State v. Mitch ell, 810 S .W .2d 73 3, 735 (Tenn . Crim . App. 1 991). If the trial court
finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a probation violation has occurred, it has the
right to revoke probation and cause the probationer to commence the execution of judgment
-1-
as originally entered. T.C.A. § 40-35-310, -311(d). This Court will not find that a trial court
has abused its discretion unless the record contains no substantial evidence to support the
trial court's conclusion that the probation should be revok ed. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d
79, 82 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981). The evidence at the revocation hearing need only show
that the trial court exercised a conscientious and intelligent judgment in making the decision
to revoke probation . State v. Leach, 914 S.W .2d 104, 106 (T enn. Crim. A pp. 1995).
Based on the record before us, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in revoking the appellant’s probation and ordering her to serve the origin al
sentence in custody. Accordingly, based upon a reading of the entire record, the briefs of
the parties, and the applicable law, this Court finds that the judgment o f the trial court
should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the judgmen t of the trial court is affirmed
pursuant to Ru le 20.
________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
________________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
-2-