State of Tennessee v. Gary Wayne Bunch - Concurring Opinion

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

State of Tennessee v. Gary Wayne Bunch - Concurring Opinion

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

DecidedMarch 3, 2021

DocketE2019-00300-CCA-R3-CD

StatusPublished

This text of State of Tennessee v. Gary Wayne Bunch - Concurring Opinion (State of Tennessee v. Gary Wayne Bunch - Concurring Opinion) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of Tennessee v. Gary Wayne Bunch - Concurring Opinion, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

03/03/2021 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 29, 2020 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GARY WAYNE BUNCH

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Campbell County No. 17356 E. Shayne Sexton, Judge ___________________________________

No. E2019-00300-CCA-R3-CD ___________________________________

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J, concurring.

I concur fully with the conclusion reached by the majority that there was evidence to support the trial court’s decision to revoke Defendant’s probation and to order Defendant to serve the balance of his original sentence in incarceration. I write separately to affirm my belief expressed in my concurring opinion in State v. Craig Dagnan, No. M2020- 00152-CCA-R3-CD, 2021WL 289010, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2021), perm. app. filed, that once a determination is made that a defendant has violated the conditions of his or her probation, neither an additional hearing nor any additional findings are statutorily mandated of a trial court to determine the manner in which the original sentence should be served. Thus, there is no opportunity for an abuse of discretion when a “second exercise of discretion” is not required by either sections 40-35-310 or 40-35-311 of Tennessee Code Annotated.

As stated in Craig Dagnan, I do not mean to suggest that a trial court has unfettered discretion to do as he or she pleases after a probation violation is found. Furthermore, I am aware that the practice of having an additional hearing to assist the trial court in reaching the ends of justice is commonplace in Tennessee trial courts. I do not believe such inquisition is wrong or ill-advised. Every circumstance is different and every defendant’s achievements and failures are noteworthy. I simply just do not see that the statutes mandate such an additional hearing.

____________________________________ TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

03/03/2021 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 29, 2020 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GARY WAYNE BUNCH

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Campbell County No. 17356 E. Shayne Sexton, Judge ___________________________________

No. E2019-00300-CCA-R3-CD ___________________________________

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J, concurring.

I concur fully with the conclusion reached by the majority that there was evidence to support the trial court’s decision to revoke Defendant’s probation and to order Defendant to serve the balance of his original sentence in incarceration. I write separately to affirm my belief expressed in my concurring opinion in State v. Craig Dagnan, No. M2020- 00152-CCA-R3-CD, 2021WL 289010, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2021), perm. app. filed, that once a determination is made that a defendant has violated the conditions of his or her probation, neither an additional hearing nor any additional findings are statutorily mandated of a trial court to determine the manner in which the original sentence should be served. Thus, there is no opportunity for an abuse of discretion when a “second exercise of discretion” is not required by either sections 40-35-310 or 40-35-311 of Tennessee Code Annotated.

As stated in Craig Dagnan, I do not mean to suggest that a trial court has unfettered discretion to do as he or she pleases after a probation violation is found. Furthermore, I am aware that the practice of having an additional hearing to assist the trial court in reaching the ends of justice is commonplace in Tennessee trial courts. I do not believe such inquisition is wrong or ill-advised. Every circumstance is different and every defendant’s achievements and failures are noteworthy. I simply just do not see that the statutes mandate such an additional hearing.

____________________________________ TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of Tennessee v. Gary Wayne Bunch - Concurring Opinion, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-gary-wayne-bunch-concurring-opinion-tenncrimapp-2021.