State v. Carla Smith

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: December 30, 1997
• Docket: 01C01-9701-CC-00033
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED DECEMBER 1997 SESSION December 30, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9701-CC-00033 Appellee, ) ) Montgomery County V. ) ) Honorable John H. Gasaway, III, Judge ) CARLA SMITH, ) (Assault & Driving on a Revoked License) ) Appellant. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Michael R. Jones John Knox Walkup District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter

Collier W. Goodlett, Jr. Daryl J. Brand Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General 109 S. Second Street Criminal Justice Division Clarksville, TN 37040 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

John W. Carney, Jr. District Attorney General

Steven L. Garrett Assistant District Attorney General 204 Franklin Street, Suite 200 ` Clarksville, TN 37040

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED

PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

OPINION The appellant, Carla Smith, pled guilty to assault and driving on a

revoked license. She received an effective sentence of eleven months and

twenty-nine days probation. A probation violation warrant issued alleging that

the appellant failed to report, did not fulfill educational requirements, and did not

pay various fees and fines. The hearing court found the allegations and the

warrant to be valid and revoked the appellant’s probation. She appeals to this

Court. We affirm the court’s disposition.

The appellant is no neophyte to the system. She has previously been

on post-trial diversion and probation prior to this revocation. The court found

sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations made in the revocation warrant.

We agree with the hearing court’s findings.

Appointed counsel for the appellant cites Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1976); and we duly note his position. Counsel also moves in his brief to be

allowed to withdraw. We respectfully deny the request for withdrawal at this

time. Counsel may resubmit the motion pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 14 at the

appropriate time.

This Court finds that the evidence does not preponderate against the

findings of the trial court. Furthermore, there is no error of law which would

mandate a reversal. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in revoking

probation. See State v. Harkins, 811 S.W .2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). Hence, we

affirm the judgment of the trial court revoking probation pursuant to Tenn. Ct. of

Crim. App. Rule 20.

______________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

-2- CONCUR:

______________________________ JOSEPH B. JONES, Presiding Judge

______________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge

-3-