 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cline10/30/2001
The appellant, Stephen E. Cline, pled guilty in the Overton County Criminal Court to four counts of obtaining a controlled substance by forgery, and the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court granted the appellant judicial diversion and placed him on probation for four years. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) and failing to comply with the implied consent law. A warrant for revocation of probation and judicial diversion was issued alleging the foregoing offenses and contending that the appellant had fraudulently obtained a controlled substance. Pursuant to a hearing, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation and entered judgments of conviction for all four counts of obtaining a controlled substance by forgery. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that the appellant violated his probation and judicial diversion; (2) whether the trial court violated the appellant's right to confrontation in admitting hearsay statements during the hearing; (3) whether the trial court violated the appellant's due process rights by failing to bifurcate the probation revocation proceedings; and (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to consider all of the proof before forming an opinion on the case. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court is Affirmed.
Norma McGee Ogle, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Jerry L. Smith and John Everett Williams, JJ., joined.
OPINION
I. Factual Background
Following the appellant's February 24, 1999 guilty pleas to three counts of obtaining a schedule III controlled substance by forgery and one count of obtaining a schedule V drug by forgery, the trial court granted the appellant judicial diversion, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(A) (1997), and placed him on probation for four years. The trial court specified that the first two years would be spent on supervised probation and the remaining two years on unsupervised probation.
On March 21, 2000, Officer Bill Randolph received two separate complaints regarding a brown Ford pickup truck with the tag number 515 TRW. The first call, received at 11:25 a.m., alleged that a truck was seen driving erratically and running vehicles off the road. The second call, which was placed by an Arby's restaurant employee at 1:30 p.m., alleged that an individual sitting in a brown truck in the Arby's parking lot appeared to be smoking a marijuana cigarette. After patrolling the area, Officer Randolph located the vehicle in the parking lot of Dr. Steve Ellis' dental office. The appellant was sitting on the driver's side of the truck. Officer Randolph approached the vehicle and asked the appellant to step outside the truck in order to perform field sobriety tests. Officer Randolph contended that the appellant performed poorly on all of the tests given; therefore, he concluded that the appellant was under the influence of an intoxicating substance. Officer Randolph then asked the appellant to take a test to determine the appellant's level of intoxication, but the appellant refused to comply with the request. As a result, Officer Randolph placed the appellant under arrest for violating the implied consent law and driving under the influence. Subsequently, Officer Randolph searched the appellant and found a cut-off straw in the appellant's shirt pocket. Additionally, he found pills of an unknown type in the appellant's
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|