 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Proffitt10/11/1999
S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (citing State v. Milton, 673 S.W.2d 555, 557 (Tenn. Crim. App.1984)).
In the case sub judice, two violation affidavits were filed, one for felony theft and one for DUI. Crossville Police Officer Phillip Seiber testified that he charged the defendant with DUI and violation of implied consent. Officer Seiber stated that he stopped the defendant because the defendant was driving with an expired tag. When the defendant got out of the car, the officer smelled a strong odor of alcohol. The defendant failed to pass several field sobriety tests. When taken into custody, the defendant refused to take a blood alcohol test and told the officer he had been drinking at a bar. At the time of the revocation hearing, the defendant had been convicted on the DUI charge.
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Agent Tommy Callahan testified the defendant was in possession of a stolen 1996 dump truck valued at $84,000. According to Agent Callahan the stolen truck's vehicle identification number (VIN) had been altered. The stolen 1996 truck was identified by its secondary identification numbers. The VIN plate had been removed and replaced with a VIN plate for a 1977 model Ford L 90 purchased by the defendant. The defendant obtained a title for the 1977 truck and then sold the truck to a salvage yard. At the time of the revocation hearing, the defendant was scheduled to go to trial on the truck theft.
Based on the testimony presented, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his six-year sentence in jail.
Compliance with state laws is an automatic condition of probation. State v. Stubblefield, 953 S.W.2d 223, 225 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Pending charges can also be the basis for a revocation of probation. See State v. Adams, 650 S.W.2d 382, 383 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) (allowing revocation based, in part, on pending forgery charge). Further, the trial court can consider conduct inconsistent with good citizenship even when the defendant has been acquitted of a criminal charge arising from the conduct. State v. Delp, 614 S.W.2d 395 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980).
The defendant was convicted on a DUI charge. He was indicted for theft over $60,000. Evidence was also presented that the defendant violated the no consumption of alcohol term of his probation. Based upon our review of the record, we find the trial court's decision to revoke the defendant's probation was supported by substantial evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
CONCUR:
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|