Probation Revocation
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
State of Tennessee v. Dagnan, No. M2020-00152-SC-R11-CD, 641 S.W.3d 751, 758-59 (Tenn. 2022).
With these considerations in mind, we turn our attention to the standard of appellate review that this Court has, in prior opinions, articulated to be applied in appeals of a trial court’s sentencing order. In the context of sentencing decisions, this Court has determined that it is appropriate for appellate courts to review trial court determinations for abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness. See State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012) (adopting “an abuse of discretion standard of review, granting a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act”); State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278 (Tenn. 2012) (extending the same standard to review of alternative sentencing determinations); State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 860 (Tenn. 2013) (extending the same standard to review of consecutive sentencing determinations); State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014) (extending the same standard to review of judicial diversion decisions).
As for factual findings, the Bise Court noted that “appellate courts cannot properly review a sentence if the trial court fails to articulate in the record its reasons for imposing the sentence.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705 n.41. It described such findings as “critical” to ensuring fair and consistent sentencing as “the trial court is in a superior position to impose an appropriate sentence and articulate the reasons for doing so.” Id.; see also Amonette, 2002 WL 1987956 at *4 (“[T]he lower court is the proper entity to make appropriate factual findings regarding the believability and reliability of the witnesses’ testimony, and ultimately, to rule upon the defendant’s bid for further probation.”). The Pollard case further emphasized that, in order for the presumption of reasonableness to apply on appeal, the trial court must place its reasoning on the record. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 862 (“So long as a trial court properly articulates reasons for ordering consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the sentences will be presumed reasonable and, absent an abuse of discretion, upheld on appeal.”). Explaining the Bise decision, the Pollard Court noted: “The underlying principle, of course, is that the trial court must be afforded broad discretion in its sentencing deci- sions and the presumption of reasonableness will apply unless the trial court fails to address on the record the principles and purposes of our Sentencing Act.” Id. at 861 (citing Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709-10).
We expressly extend the same principles to appellate review of a trial court’s decision to revoke probation and the consequence of that revocation. On appeal from a trial court’s decision revoking a defendant’s probation, the standard of review is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record. It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision. FN5 See Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705-06. “This serves to promote meaningful appellate review and public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our judiciary.” King, 432 S.W.3d at 322. When presented with a case in which the trial court failed to place its reasoning for a revocation decision on the record, the appellate court may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so, or the appellate court may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings. See King, 432 S.W.3d at 327-28.
FN5 Relevant considerations might be, but are certainly not limited to, the types of things the trial court considered in this case: the number of revocations, the seriousness of the violation, the defendant’s criminal history, and the defendant’s character. We recognize, however, that consideration of past criminal history is only appropriate in the second part of the two-step analysis. See State v. Fleming, No. E2017-02352- CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 6787580, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 26, 2018) (“A trial court may not revoke probation based on past criminal acts that were known to the trial court at the time probation was originally granted.”).
Editor’s Note: emphasis supplied by Court.
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
State v. Miller, No. M2023-00138-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2023).
Appellate courts review a trial court’s revocation of probation decision for an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness “so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequences on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010). If a trial court fails to state its findings and reasoning for the revocation on the record, appellate courts may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed, or the appellate court may remand the case for the trial court to make such findings. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759 (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014)).
State v. Milton, No. W2023-00341-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 18, 2023).
“On appeal from a trial court’s decision revoking a defendant’s probation, the standard of review is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record. It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” See id. at 759. “In reviewing the trial court’s findings, it is the [appellate court’s] obligation to examine the record and determine whether the trial court has exercised a conscientious judgment rather than an arbitrary one.” State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
State v. Nelson, No. M2023-00311-CCA-R3-CD, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 17, 2023).
Appellate courts review a trial court’s revocation of probation decision for an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness “so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequences on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010). If a trial court fails to state its findings and reasoning for the revocation on the record, appellate courts may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed, or the appellate court may remand the case for the trial court to make such findings. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759 (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014)).
State v. Littrell, No. W2022-01433-CCA-R3-CD, p 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 9, 2023).
Appellate courts review a trial court’s revocation of a defendant’s probationary sentence under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness, “so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010). If the trial court fails to place sufficient reasoning on the record, the appellate court may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings, or, if the record is sufficient to do so, conduct a de novo review. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759 (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 327-28 (Tenn. 2014)).
State v. McGuiggan, No. M2022-01504-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 4, 2023).
The standard of review on appeal from the trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s probation is “abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” Id. at 759. The trial court’s findings need not be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” Id. (citing State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 705-06 (Tenn. 2012)). If the trial court fails to place its reasoning for a revocation decision on the record, this court may either “conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so” or “remand the case to the trial court to make such findings.” Id. (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 327-28 (Tenn. 2014)). Generally, “[a] trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010).
State v. Jones, No. E2023-00155-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 29, 2023).
We review the trial court’s decision to revoke probation for abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness “so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). “In order for a reviewing court to be warranted in finding an abuse of discretion in a probation revocation case, it must be established that the record contains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” State v. Farrar, 355 S.W.3d 582 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011) (quoting Harkins, 811 S.W.2d at 82); see State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980); see also State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010) (“A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” (citing State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1, 38-40 (Tenn. 2010))).
State v. Mitchell, No. M2022-00948-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 22, 2023).
Appellate courts review a trial court’s revocation of probation decision for an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness “so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequences on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010). If a trial court fails to state its findings and reasoning for the revocation on the record, appellate courts may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed, or the appellate court may remand the case for the trial court to make such findings. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759 (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014)).
State v. Hoffman, No. M2022-00357-CCA-R3-CD, p. 13-14 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 19, 2023).
Appellate courts review a trial court’s revocation of a defendant’s probationary sentence under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness, “so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). “It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” Id. (citing State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 705-06 (Tenn. 2012)). If the trial court failed to place its reasoning for a revocation decision on the record, the appellate court may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings, or, if the record is sufficient to do so, conduct a de novo review. Id. at 759 (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 327-28 (Tenn. 2014)).
State v. Dickerson, No. W2022-00431-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 19, 2023).
Upon our review of a trial court’s revocation of a defendant’s probationary sentence, we apply an “abuse of discretion standard of review with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). An abuse of discretion has been established when the “record contains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980); see State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d at 555 (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)). A probation revocation determination involves a two-step analysis in which the trial court must determine whether a defendant violated the conditions of probation and must then determine the appropriate consequences for a violation. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 757. A trial court may revoke probation upon its finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred. T.C.A. § 40-35-311(e) (2019). If the trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, the statutory provisions regarding probation at the time
-4-
of the Appellant’s hearing authorized the trial court to return a defendant to probation with modified conditions as necessary, extend the period of probation by no more than two years, order a period of confinement, or order the defendant’s sentence into execution as originally entered. Id. §§ 40-35-308(a), (c) (2019) (subsequently amended), -310 (2019) (subsequently amended).
State v. Harris, No. E2023-00078-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 7, 2023).
The supreme court explained the standard of review in a decision revoking probation as follows:
abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record. It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision. See [State v.] Bise, 380 S.W.3d [682,] 705-06 [(Tenn. 2014)]. “This serves to promote meaningful appellate review and public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our judiciary.” [State v.] King, 432 S.W.3d [316,] 322 (Tenn. 2014)]. When presented with a case in which the trial court failed to place its reasoning for a revocation decision on the record, the appellate court may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so, or the appellate court may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings. See King, 432 S.W.3d at 327-28.
Id. at 759.
State v. Ward, No. M2022-01264-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2023).
“On appeal from a trial court’s decision revoking a defendant’s probation, the standard of review is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022).
State v. McDonnell, No. E2022-00898-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2023).
The standard of review on appeal from the trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s probation is “abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” Id. at 759. The trial court’s findings need not be “particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” Id. (citing State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 705-06 (Tenn. 2012)). If the trial court fails to place its reasoning for a revocation decision on the record, this court may either “conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so” or “remand the case to the trial court to make such findings.” Id. (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 327-28 (Tenn. 2014). Generally, “[a] trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010).
State v. Tharpe, No. E2022-01304-CCA-R3-CD, p 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 9, 2023).
“On appeal from a trial court’s decision revoking a defendant’s probation, the standard of review is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). An abuse of discretion has been established when the “record contains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980); see State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d at 555 (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).
State v. Collier, No. E2022-00146-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 7, 2023).
Four months after the Defendant’s revocation hearing, our supreme court clarified that “probation revocation is a two-step consideration on the part of the trial court.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 757 (Tenn. 2022). “The first [step] is to determine whether to revoke probation, and the second [step] is to determine the appropriate consequence upon revocation.” Id. Each step is a separate and distinct decision, although there is no requirement that two separate hearings be held. Id. at 757. This court must review and address both decisions on appeal. Id. at 757-58. As long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequences on the record, this court’s standard of review is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness. Id. at 759.
State v. Cobble, No. M2022-00598-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 19, 2023).
The judgment of the trial court in a revocation proceeding, including the consequences of the revocation, is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness unless there has been an abuse of discretion. See State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022); see also State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smith, 909 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). The credibility of the witnesses is for the determination of the trial judge. Bledsoe v. State, 387 S.W.2d 811, 814 (Tenn. 1965); State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). On review, the findings of the trial judge have the weight of a jury verdict. Carver v. State, 570 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978). For this Court to find an abuse of discretion by the trial court in a probation revocation case, a defendant must demonstrate “that the record contains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” Delp, 614 S.W.2d at 398.
State v. Moore, No. E2022-01364-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 11, 2023).
The court announced that, if the trial court properly stated on the record its findings for revoking a defendant’s probation and its findings for imposing the consequences for the violation, then an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard of appellate review applied to both steps of the two-step consideration. Id. at 759. The trial court’s findings in both steps have to be sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision. Id.
When a trial court fails to place on the record its reasoning for revoking probation, unless the defendant admits to the violation, or fails to place on the record its reasoning for imposing the sentence, we may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so, or we may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings. Id. The trial court in this case found that a violation occurred, but other than a general statement of the court’s reluctance to order Defendant to serve four years in confinement for the violation, the court did not articulate at the revocation hearing or in its written order its reasoning for revoking Defendant’s probation or its decision to reinstate the probation. We find, though, that the record is sufficiently developed for us to conduct a de novo review.
State v. Williams, No. M2022-01123-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3-4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 26, 2023).
We will consider the trial court’s determination to award or deny credit for time served on probation under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 758 (Tenn. 2022) (“Concerning the standard of appellate review, . . . the case law is clear that probation revocation decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.”) (citations omitted). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Davis, 466 S.W.3d 49, 61 (Tenn. 2015) (citations omitted).
State v. Wright, No. M2022-01616-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7-8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 7, 2023).
A trial court’s decisions regarding the revocation of probation are reviewed for an “abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequences on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). The trial court’s findings need not “be particularly lengthy or detailed,” but they must be “sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” Id. at 757-59. If the trial court does not make sufficient findings, this court “may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so, or [we] may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings.” Id. at 759.
“A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Davis, 466 S.W.3d 49, 61 (Tenn. 2015) (citations omitted). “[A] trial court’s decision to grant or deny probation will not be invalidated unless the trial court wholly departed from the relevant statutory considerations in reaching its determination.” State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Tenn. 2014) (order) (per curiam). The defendant bears the burden for establishing suitability for probation; the defendant must show that probation will “‘subserve the ends of justice and the best interest of both the public and the defendant.’”State v. Souder, 105 S.W.3d 602, 607 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (quoting State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250, 259 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-303(b); State v. Russell, 773 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tenn. 1989); State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 347 (Tenn. 2008).
State v. Bailes, No. E2022-00741-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 6, 2023).
“On appeal from a trial court’s decision revoking a defendant’s probation, the standard of review is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). An abuse of discretion has been established when the “record contains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980); see State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d at 555 (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).
If the trial court failed to memorialize its reasons for the revocation decision on the record, the appellate court may either conduct a de novo review, provided the record is developed sufficiently for such review, or it may remand the case to the trial court with instructions to make appropriate findings. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759.
State v. Jenkins, No. M2022-01093-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3-4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 17, 2023).
The judgment of the trial court in a revocation proceeding, including the consequences of the revocation, is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness unless there has been an abuse of discretion. See State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022); see also State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smith, 909 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). This is true “so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record. It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” See Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759. Further, a finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d at 555 (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).
State v. Sweet, No. E2022-00761-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 12, 2023).
Appellate courts review a trial court’s revocation of probation decision for an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness “so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequences on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010). If a trial court fails to state its findings and reasoning for the revocation on the record, appellate courts may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed, or the appellate court may remand the case for the trial court to make such findings. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759 (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014)).
Probation revocation is a two-step consideration requiring trial courts to make two distinct determinations as to (1) whether to revoke probation and (2) what consequences will apply upon revocation. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 757. A trial court may revoke a defendant’s probation upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant has violated the conditions of probation. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-310, -311(e) (2021) (subsequently amended). No additional hearing is required for trial courts to determine the proper consequences for a revocation. Id. The trial court’s findings do not need to be “particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” Id. at 759 (citing State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 705-06 (Tenn. 2021)).
State v. Wojnarek, No. M2022-00326-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5-6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 10, 2023).
A trial court has the discretionary authority to revoke probation upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated the conditions of his or her probation. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-310; -311(e); State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001). “The proof of a probation violation need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is sufficient if it allows the trial judge to make a conscientious and intelligent judgment.” State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). The trial court is also vested with the discretionary authority to determine the consequences of a defendant’s violation of his or her probation, among which is the full revocation and execution of the sentence as originally entered. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-310 (a); – 311(e)(1)(A).
Our supreme court has clarified that “probation revocation is a two-step consideration on the part of the trial court.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 757 (Tenn. 2022). “The first [step] is to determine whether to revoke probation, the second [step] is to determine the appropriate consequence upon revocation.” Id. Each of these is a separate and distinct decision, although there is no requirement that two separate hearings be held. Id. at 757-8. However, “[s]imply recognizing that sufficient evidence exist[s] to find that a violation occurred does not satisfy [the two-step consideration].” Id.at 758. The standard of review for a probation revocation case is
abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequences on the record. It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision. This serves to promote meaningful appellate review and public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our judiciary. When presented with a case in which the trial court failed to place its reasoning for a revocation decision on the record, the appellate court may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so, or the appellate court may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings.
Id. at 759 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
State v. Brooks, No. E2022-00564-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 3, 2023).
The standard of review on appeal from the trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s probation is “abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” Id. at 759. The trial court’s findings need not be “particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” Id. (citing State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 705-06 (Tenn. 2012)). If the trial court fails to place its reasoning for a revocation decision on the record, this court may either “conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so” or “remand the case to the trial court to make such findings.” Id. (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 327-28 (Tenn. 2014). Generally, “[a] trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010).
State v. Huskey, No. E2022-00713-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 4, 2023).
The supreme court explained the standard of review in a decision revoking probation as follows:
abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record. It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision. See [State v.] Bise, 380 S.W.3d [682,] 705-06 [(Tenn. 2014)]. “This serves to promote meaningful appellate review and public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our judiciary.” [State v.] King, 432 S.W.3d [316,] 322 (Tenn. 2014)]. When presented with a case in which the trial court failed to place its reasoning for a revocation decision on the record, the appellate court may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so, or the appellate court may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings. See King, 432 S.W.3d at 327-28.
Id. at 759.
State v. Jackson, No. W2022-01288-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 23, 2023).
The judgment of the trial court in a revocation proceeding, including the consequences of the revocation, is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness unless there has been an abuse of discretion. See State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022); see also State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smith, 909 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). The credibility of the witnesses is for the determination of the trial judge. Bledsoe v. State, 387 S.W.2d 811, 814 (Tenn. 1965); State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). On review, the findings of the trial judge have the weight of a jury verdict. Carver v. State, 570 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978). For this Court to find an abuse of discretion by the trial court in a probation revocation case, a defendant must demonstrate “that the record contains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” Delp, 614 S.W.2d at 398.
State v. Munn, No. W2022-00675-CCA-R3-CD, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 23, 2023).
In State v. Dagnan, an opinion filed a little over a month before the violation hearing in this matter, the Tennessee Supreme Court clarified that a probation revocation proceeding involves a two-step inquiry, both of which are distinct discretionary decisions that must be reviewed and addressed on appeal. 641 S.W.3d 751, 757-58 (Tenn. 2022). “If the trial judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated the conditions of probation and suspension of sentence, then the court may revoke the defendant’s probation and suspension of sentence, in full or in part, pursuant to § 40-35- 310.” T.C.A. § 40-35-311. Upon finding that a defendant violated the terms of his or her probation, a trial court “must determine (1) whether to revoke probation, and (2) the appropriate consequence to impose upon revocation.” Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 753. Once the trial court decides to revoke a defendant’s probation, it may (1) order confinement; (2) order the sentence into execution as initially entered; (3) return the defendant to probation on modified conditions as necessary; or (4) extend the probationary period by up to two years. See State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643, 646-47 (Tenn. 1999); T.C.A. §§ 40-35-308, – 310, -311.
If the trial court “places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record,” the standard of review on appeal is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759. As it relates to factual findings, “‘appellate courts cannot properly review a sentence if the trial court fails to articulate in the record its reasons for imposing the sentence.’” Id. at 758 (quoting State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 705 n. 41 (Tenn. 2012)). “It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” Id. (citing Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705-06). The appellate court may conduct a de novo review if a trial court fails to place sufficient reasoning for the probation revocation on the record and the record is sufficient for the court to do so. Id. at 759 (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 327-28 (Tenn. 2014)). To establish an abuse of discretion, “there must be no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001) (citing State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991)).
State v. Shelton, No. E2022-00875-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 28, 2023).
The judgment of the trial court in a revocation proceeding, including the consequences of the revocation, is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness unless there has been an abuse of discretion. See State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022); see also State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smith, 909 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). This is true “so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record. It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” See Dagnan, at 759. Further, a finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” Id. at 555 (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).
State v. Walden, No. M2022-00386-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 11, 2023).
The supreme court went on to explain the standard of review of a decision revoking probation as follows:
abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record. It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision. See [State v.] Bise, 380 S.W.3d [682,] 705-06 [(Tenn. 2012)]. “This serves to promote meaningful appellate review and public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our judiciary.” [State v.] King, 432 S.W.3d [316,] 322 [(Tenn. 2014)]. When presented with a case in which the trial court failed to place its reasoning for a revocation decision on the record, the appellate court may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so, or the appellate court may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings. See King, 432 S.W.3d at 327-28.
Id. at 759.
State v. Walden, No. M2022-00255-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 16, 2022).
“On appeal from a trial court’s decision revoking a defendant’s probation, the standard of review is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759. When the trial court fails to place its reasons on the record, unless the defendant admits to the violation, the reviewing court may either conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so, or remand the case to the trial court to make findings. Id. (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 327-28 (Tenn. 2014)); see also State v. Arthur M. Stewart, No. M2021-00595-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 1236982, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 27, 2022) no perm. app. filed.
State v. Digma, No. E2022-00309-CCA-R3-CD, p. 2 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2022).
The appellate standard of review of a probation revocation is “abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022); see also State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Reams, 265 S.W.3d 423, 430 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” Id. (citations omitted). Generally, “[a] trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010).
State v. Sarkissian, No. E2022-00059-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 2, 2022).
When a trial court revokes a defendant’s probationary sentence, “the standard of review is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022).
State v. Johnson, No. E2022-00098-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Cr. Crim. App. Nov. 16, 2022).
In Dagnan, the Tennessee Supreme Court clarified that a probation revocation proceeding involves a two-step inquiry, both of which are distinct discretionary decisions that must be reviewed and addressed on appeal. State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 753, 757-58 (Tenn. 2022). “If the trial judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated the conditions of probation and suspension of sentence, then the court may revoke the defendant’s probation and suspension of sentence, in full or in part, pursuant to § 40-35-310.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311. Upon finding that a defendant violated the terms of his or her probation, a trial court “must determine (1) whether to revoke probation, and (2) the appropriate consequence to impose upon revocation.” Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 753. Once the trial court decides to revoke a defendant’s probation, it may (1) order confinement; (2) order the sentence into execution as initially entered; (3) return the defendant to probation on modified conditions as necessary; or (4) extend the probationary period by up to two years. See State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643, 646-47 (Tenn. 1999); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-308, -310, -311.
If the trial court “places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record,” the standard of review on appeal is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759. As it relates to factual findings, ‘“appellate courts cannot properly review a sentence if the trial court fails to articulate in the record its reasons for imposing the sentence.”’ Id. at 758 (quoting State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 705 n.41 (Tenn. 2012)). “It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” Id. (citing Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705-06). The appellate court may conduct a de novo review if a trial court fails to place sufficient reasoning for the probation revocation on the record and the record is sufficient for the court to do so. Id. at 759 (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 327-28 (Tenn. 2014)). To establish an abuse of discretion, “there must be no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001) (citing State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991)).
State v. Strickland, No. E2021-01280-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 2, 2022).
If the trial court “places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record,” the standard of review on appeal is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759. “It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” Id. (citing State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 705-06 (Tenn. 2012)). To establish an abuse of discretion, “there must be no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001) (citing State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991)).
State v. Daniel, No. M2021-01122-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 11, 2022).
When a trial court fails to place on the record its reasoning for revoking probation, unless the defendant admits to the violation, or fails to place on the record its reasoning for imposing the sentence, we may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so, or we may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings. Id. The trial court in this case failed to state on the record its reasons for causing execution of the sentence as it was originally entered.
State v. Bean, No. E2021-01492-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5-6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 3, 2022).
Probation revocation rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and this court will not disturb the trial court’s ruling absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001) (citing State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991)). To establish an abuse of discretion, “there must be no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” Id. (citing Harkins, 811 S.W.2d at 82).
State v. Lawson, No. E2021-00664-CCA-R3-CD, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 23, 2022).
When a trial court revokes a defendant’s probationary sentence, “the standard of review is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022).
State v. Lankey, No. E2021-01161-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 12, 2022).
The judgment of the trial court in a revocation proceeding, including the consequences of the revocation, is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness unless there has been an abuse of discretion. See State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022); see also State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smith, 909 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). This is true “so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record. It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” See Dagnan, at 759. Further, a finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” Id. at 555 (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).
State v. Smith, No. W2021-01075-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 11, 2022).
The judgment of the trial court in a revocation proceeding will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion. See State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smith, 909 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). In order for this Court to find an abuse of discretion, “there must be no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d at 554. Further, a finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” Id. at 555 (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).
State v. Brewster, No. E2021-00793-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 11, 2022).
“On appeal from a trial court’s decision revoking a defendant’s probation, the standard of review is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). When the trial court fails to place its reasons on the record, the reviewing court may either conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so, or remand the case to the trial court to make findings. Id. (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 327-28 (Tenn. 2014)); see also State v. Arthur M. Stewart, No. M2021-00595-CCA- R3-CD, 2022 WL 1236982, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 27, 2022) no perm. app. filed.
State v. Owens, No. E2021-00814-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 1, 2022).
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently clarified that probation revocation is a “two-step consideration” that requires a trial court to (1) determine whether to revoke probation and (2) determine the appropriate consequence upon revocation. State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 757 (Tenn. 2022). In making its findings, the trial court resolves questions concerning the credibility of witnesses. State v. Estevenico Chandler, Jr., No. E2020-01409-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 5119167, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 4, 2021) (citing Bledsoe v. State, 387 S.W.2d 811, 814 (Tenn. 1965)), no perm. app. filed; see Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 757 (citing State v. Jess R. Amonette, No. M2001-02952-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1987956, at *3-4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 29, 2002)). On appeal, we review the trial court’s determinations for an “abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decision as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759. “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010); see Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 758. “It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759. If, however, the trial court fails to place sufficient reasoning for its revocation decision on the record, “the appellate court may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so, or the appellate court may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings.” Id.
State v. Cobb, No. E2021-00903-CCA-R3-CD, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 24, 2022).
“On appeal from a trial court’s decision revoking a defendant’s probation, the standard of review is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2022). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)); see Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 758 (“‘A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.’”) (quoting State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010)).
If the trial court failed to memorialize its reasons for the revocation decision on the record, the appellate court may either conduct a de novo review, provided the record is developed sufficiently for such review, or it may remand the case to the trial court with instructions to make appropriate findings. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759.
State of Tennessee v. McCaig, No. W2021-00736-CCA-R3-CD, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 10, 2022).
Thus, a trial court is required to make two separate decisions: (1) whether to revoke probation; and (2) if probation is revoked, what consequence will apply. Id. The supreme court went on to explain the standard of review of a decision revoking probation as follows:
abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record. It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision. See Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705-06. “This serves to promote meaningful appellate review and public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our judiciary.” [State v.] King, 432 S.W.3d [316,] 322 [(Tenn. 2014)]. When presented with a case in which the trial court failed to place its reasoning for a revocation decision on the record, the appellate court may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so, or the appellate court may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings. See King, 432 S.W.3d at 327-28.
State of Tennessee v Taylor, No. M2021-00954-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 4, 2022).
The trial court has the authority to revoke a defendant’s probation. T.C.A. § 40-35- 310, -311. The Tennessee Supreme Court recently held that a trial court’s probation revocation decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness “so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decision as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” State v. Dagnan, No. M2020-00152-SC-R11-CD, — S.W.3d —, 2022 WL 627247, at *6 (Tenn. Mar. 4, 2022). Probation revocation is a “two-step consideration” that requires the trial court to (1) determine whether to revoke probation; and (2) determine the appropriate consequence for a revocation. Id. at *5. A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party. State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010). If the trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, the trial court may (1) order incarceration; (2) order the sentence into execution as initially entered, or, in other words, begin the probationary sentence anew; (3) return the defendant to probation on modified conditions as necessary; or (4) extend the remaining probationary period for a period not to exceed two years. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-308(a), -308(c), -310, 311(e)(1); see State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643, 648 (Tenn. 1999).
State of Tennessee v. Stewart, No. M2021-00595-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 27, 2022).
To overturn the trial court’s revocation, the defendant must show the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001). “In order to find such an abuse, there must be no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” Id. (citing State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991)). “Once a trial court has determined that a violation of probation has occurred, the court has the discretionary authority to: ‘(1) order confinement; (2) order execution of the sentence as originally entered; (3) return the defendant to probation on appropriate modified conditions; or (4) extend the defendant’s probationary period by up to two years.’”2 State v. Kennedy Fleming, No. E2017-02352- CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 6787580, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 26, 2018) (quoting State v. Brandon L. Brawner, No. W2013-01144-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 465743, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 4, 2014)) (citations omitted). “The determination of the proper consequences of the probation violation embodies a separate exercise of discretion.” Id. (citing State v. Reams, 265 S.W.3d 423, 430 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007)).
State of Tennessee v. Hogan, No. E2020-01496-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 22, 2022).
Furthermore, the decision to revoke probation is in the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Kendrick, 178 S.W.3d 734, 738 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005); Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d at 735. The judgment of the trial court to revoke probation will be upheld on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). To find an abuse of discretion in a probation revocation case, “it must be established that the record contains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” Id. (citing State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980)); see also State v. Farrar, 355 S.W.3d 582, 586 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). Such a finding “reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).
State of Tennessee v. Crawford, No. W2020-01203-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 11, 2022).
A trial court has the discretion to revoke probation if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant violated the conditions of probation. See T.C.A. §§ 40-35- 310, -311(e); State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001). An abuse of discretion in revoking a defendant’s probation occurs only where there is “no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d at 554. The trial court determines the credibility of witnesses in probation revocation hearings. State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (citing Carver v. State, 570 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978)). Additionally, the trial court’s factual findings carry the weight of a jury verdict on appeal. State v. Beard, 189 S.W.3d 730, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005) (citations omitted).
Upon finding that a defendant has violated the conditions of probation, the trial court is statutorily authorized to: “(1) order confinement; (2) order execution of the sentence as originally entered; (3) return the Defendant to probation on appropriate modified conditions; or (4) extend the defendant’s probationary period by up to two years.” State v. Brandon L. Brawner, No. W2013-01144-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 465743, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 4, 2014), no perm. app. filed (citing T.C.A. §§ 40-35-308(a), (c), -310, – 311(e)(1); State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643, 648 (Tenn. 1999)). In exercising its authority, a trial court has no obligation to provide a defendant already on probation “‘a second grant of probation or another form of alternative sentencing.’” State v. Tracy Arnold, No. W2018-00307-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 6266279, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2018), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 30, 2018) (citation omitted).
State v. Bowen, No. M2020-01311-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2022).
Our supreme court has concluded that a trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s probation “will not be disturbed on appeal unless . . . there has been an abuse of discretion.” -3- State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991) (citing State v. Williamson, 619 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981)). An abuse of discretion has been established when the “record contains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred.” State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980); see State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d at 555 (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).
