 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hwang10/13/2003
FACTS
On November 29, 2000, the defendant, Jeremy Christopher Hwang, pled guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to aggravated burglary, theft of property, DUI first offense, possession of burglary tools, and underage possession of alcohol. He received an effective sentence of six years in the Department of Correction, suspended, with the trial court placing him on intensive supervised probation. Among the conditions of the defendant's probation were that he obey all laws of the United States, as well as any municipal ordinances, and immediately report all arrests, regardless of outcome, to his probation officer.
On May 25, 2001, the defendant's probation officer filed a probation violation report alleging that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation by violating curfew, being arrested for underage drinking and theft of property, and failing to report his arrests to his probation officer. From what we have been able to glean from the record, these violations resulted in the trial court's revoking the defendant's probation and ordering a period of "shock incarceration" in the Department of Correction, before again suspending the defendant's sentence and returning him to intensive probation. At that time, the trial court also apparently warned the defendant that his next violation of probation would result in his having to serve his entire sentence in prison.
On May 23, 2002, the defendant's probation officer filed another probation violation report, alleging the defendant had violated the terms of his probation, inter alia, by being arrested on May 12, 2002, for an April 18, 2002, theft of compact discs from Turtle Records in East Ridge, and by failing to report the arrest to his probation officer. At the defendant's December 13, 2002, probation revocation hearing, the State moved to amend the allegations to include the additional grounds of the defendant's June 6, 2002, pleas of guilty in the Hamilton County General Sessions Court to theft and criminal impersonation. Both of these convictions arose out of offenses that occurred at a Wal-Mart on June 1, 2002.
Defense counsel objected to the amendment on the grounds that the defendant had not been given written notice of the additional violations. The trial court overruled the objection but offered to continue the hearing to a later date. However, defense counsel refused, informing the trial court that the State had already told him about the convictions and that the defendant was willing to proceed with the hearing. After the State introduced the defendant's judgments as exhibits to the hearing, defense counsel additionally informed the court that the defendant could not dispute the convictions. Based on the evidence of the defendant's convictions, the trial court found that the State had made out a prima facie case for revocation. Accordingly, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation and ordered that he serve his sentence as originally imposed.
ANALYSIS
The defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and violated his due process rights by allowing the State to amend the revocation petition without providing written notice of the additional charges and by failing to make findings of fact in support of its decision to revoke the defendant's probation. The State asserts that the defendant received ample notice that the State intended to use his arrests and convictions as grounds to support the revocation of his probation, and that the trial court's findings were sufficient to show the grounds upon which it relied for its decision.
A defendant who has been granted a suspended sentence and placed on prob
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|