State v. Clifford Jackson

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedAugust 13, 1999
Docket02C01-9802-CR-00041
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Clifford Jackson (State v. Clifford Jackson) 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 v. Clifford Jackson, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

MARCH 1999 SESSION FILED August 13, 1999 STATE OF TENNESSEE, * No. 02C01-9802-CR-00041 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellee, * SHELBY COUNTY Appellate Court Clerk

VS. * Hon. Joseph B. Dailey, Judge

CLIFFORD W. JACKSON, * (Probation Revocation)

Appellant. *

For Appellant: For Appellee:

Marvin E. Ballin, Esq. John Knox Walkup Mark A. Mesler, Esq. Attorney General and Reporter Ballin, Ballin & Fishman, P.C. 200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 1250 J. Ross Dyer Memphis, TN 38103 Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Division 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Lee V. Coffee Assistant District Attorney General Criminal Justice Center, Third Floor 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED:__________________________

AFFIRMED

GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE OPINION

The defendant, Clifford W. Jackson, pled guilty to unlawful possession

of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class D felony. The trial court

imposed a Range I sentence of two years. The sentence was suspended and the

defendant was granted a probationary term of three years. Approximately six

months later, the trial court revoked probation.

In this appeal of right, the defendant presents the following issues for

review:

(I) whether lack of proper notice of probation revocation deprived the defendant of due process; and

(II) whether the trial court erred by revoking probation based solely on the defendant's lack of candor.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

At the initial sentencing hearing, the defendant testified that he and his

co-defendant, Terry Lewis, decided to visit friends at Kentucky State University. The

defendant, who drove his vehicle, stated that he was aware that Lewis had packed

"something" in the car but claimed that he did not learn the substance was

marijuana until well into the trip. Lewis was driving when a Memphis police officer

stopped them for speeding. When the officer noticed that the Lewis was nervous

and did not make eye contact, he asked to search the vehicle. Lewis refused the

officer's request but a trained police dog alerted the officer to the presence of illegal

drugs. Subsequently, the officers discovered over twelve pounds of marijuana. At

the sentencing hearing, the defendant testified that he was embarrassed about the

incident, that he had used poor judgment, and that a felony conviction would be

detrimental to his career in social work. On cross-examination, the defendant

2 denied telling the investigating officers that he and Lewis had purchased the

marijuana for $500.00 per pound and planned to sell it in Kentucky for a profit. The

defendant contended that he had not actually discussed with Lewis how much profit

he might realize but had estimated some $2,000.00.

The defendant, a Texas resident, had attended Rice University on an

athletic scholarship and, after graduating in 1993, had obtained work as a mental

health, mental retardation aide for the State of Texas. He lived alone and supported

himself. He admitted that he had been previously charged with credit card fraud but

claimed that the charge had been dismissed.

Although the co-defendant Lewis failed to appear at the sentencing

hearing, the trial court chose to sentence the defendant at that time:

I have some real concerns with [the defendant's] testimony today. I don't think he's been as forthcoming with the truth as he could have been. When you were first questioning him he seemed to indicate ... that he had no idea what was in the car, when it got in there, where he was going, anything at all about this activity. And only during cross-examination did it slowly begin to come out that, well, yes, he did know what was in there, he did know it was marijuana, he did have some general idea of how much money he was going to make on it. *** But as far as actually admitting to participating in this enterprise, he did as much as he could to deny it. ... He denied everything. So he only admitted to as much as he had to given the factual circumstances under which he was arrested. So I'm not really impressed with his testimony today. *** I will, reluctantly and against my better judgment, but because of your employment, educational background, lack of criminal history, grant the request for probation....

In September 1997, the trial court conducted the sentencing hearing

for Lewis. After Lewis testified, the proceedings were continued due to the trial

3 judge's concern over discrepancies in the testimony of the two men regarding the

extent of the defendant's involvement in the offense. At that point, the attorney who

had represented both the defendant and Lewis filed a motion to withdraw due to the

likely conflict of interest. The trial court ordered the defendant and Lewis to appear

for a second hearing, each with substitute counsel.

While the pleadings are not in the record, the state apparently filed a

petition to revoke the defendant's suspended sentence. At the January 12, 1998,

revocation hearing, Lewis testified that he and the defendant had each invested in

six pounds of marijuana and had planned to sell it for a profit in Kentucky. Lewis

claimed that he had personally obtained the marijuana from a woman in Texas. He

stated that he acquired his share on credit and that the defendant paid roughly

$2,000.00 for the other six pounds.

The defendant revealed that at his initial sentencing hearing he had

tried to minimize his role in the offense and that some of his earlier testimony may

have been misleading to the extent of his involvement. While conceding that he had

not been entirely forthcoming as to the level of his participation, he nevertheless

maintained that he had truthfully answered the questions asked of him. Upon

further questioning by the trial judge, the defendant ultimately acknowledged that he

had not been truthful about how the marijuana was obtained, when he became

aware of its presence in his car, or what plans the two men had about selling it.

The trial court revoked probation, ruling as follows:

[T]here is no question that [the defendant] left the impression and intended to leave the impression that it was Mr. Lewis from start to finish ... and that it was all a big surprise to him. And it wasn't until Mr. Lewis came in a month later for his hearing and he testified as he did that the other

4 side of the coin was revealed.... *** ... [H]e knew full well what was going on. He was in this venture as fully as Mr. Lewis was. And he was just unwilling ... to tell the truth with regard to his participation and what was going on. And it is tragic because he has a good job, educated at ... one of the finest schools in the country, a lot of potential. But, doggone it, you've got to tell the truth. That's the bottom line and that's the first step.... It was apparent to me at the [initial sentencing hearing] that everyone ... was interested in finding out what the truth was. And he was dancing around it all day. And I expressed at that time real reservations about his honesty and his candor. But for all the other reasons I ... reluctantly put him on probation. But I'm sure not going to today. He's going to serve this ... two-year sentence at the penal farm.

I

The defendant contends that the trial court failed to follow the proper

procedures in revoking his probation. In particular, he complains that the trial court

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

Related

Gagnon v. Scarpelli
411 U.S. 778 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Practy v. State
525 S.W.2d 677 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1974)
State v. Stubblefield
953 S.W.2d 223 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1997)
State v. Williamson
619 S.W.2d 145 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1981)
Stamps v. State
614 S.W.2d 71 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1980)
State v. Peck
719 S.W.2d 553 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1986)
State v. Wade
863 S.W.2d 406 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1993)
State v. Carden
653 S.W.2d 753 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Clifford Jackson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-clifford-jackson-tenncrimapp-1999.