State v. Maurice Manley

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: January 22, 1998
• Docket: 02C01-9612-CC-00482
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

DECEMBER 1997 SESSION FILED January 22, 1998

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. ) Appellate Co urt Clerk APPELLEE, ) ) No. 02-C-01-9612-CC-00482 ) ) Madison County v. ) ) Franklin Murchison, Judge ) ) (Probation Revocation) MAURICE MANLEY, ) ) APPELLANT. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

C. Michael Robbins John Knox Walkup Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter 202 South Maple, Suite C 500 Charlotte Avenue Covington, TN 38019 Nashville, TN 37243-0497 (Appeal Only) Georgia B. Felner Vanessa King Counsel for the State Assistant Public Defender 450 James Robertson Parkway 227 Baltimore Street, West Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Jackson, TN 38301 (Trial Only) James G. Woodall District Attorney General OF COUNSEL: P.O. Box 2825 Jackson, TN 38302 George Morton Googe District Public Defender Donald H. Allen 227 Baltimore Street, West Assistant District Attorney General Jackson, TN 38301 P.O. Box 2825 Jackson, TN 38302 OPINION FILED:___________________________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge

OPINION

The appellant, Maurice Manley (defendant), appeals as of right from

a judgment of the trial court revoking his intensive probation.1 The trial

court found the defendant violated his probation by failing to report to his

probation officer, changing his address without the consent of the

probation officer, failing to appear for the requisite random drug screens,

failing to be at home when the probation officer made custody (curfew)

checks, failing to enter into an alcohol treatment and counseling

program, and failing to pay the probation fees, court costs, and

restitution. In this court, the defendant presents one issue for review:

“Did the trial court err in ordering the defendant incarcerated for service

of the remainder of his sentence?”

The defendant testified there was no excuse for failing to report to

his probation officer as ordered. He stated he was an alcoholic and

1 The defendant entered pleas of guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies. The trial court sentenced the defendant to Range II sentences of six (6) years for each offense pursuant to a plea agreement. The trial court suspended the defendant’s sentences and placed the defendant on intensive probation for six (6) years.

2 drank as much alcohol as possible seven days a week. The defendant

testified he was “probably somewhere drinking” when he was supposed

to report to his probation officer. He also admitted he did not enter an

alcohol treatment program or counseling program as ordered by the

court. He testified he continued to live at the same address even though

people at that address stated they did not know where the defendant was

living. He claimed he worked sporadically and was unable to pay the

probation fees, court costs, and restitution. The defendant did not testify

where he obtained the funds to purchase alcoholic beverages seven days

a week.

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the

parties, and the law governing the issue presented for review, it is the

opinion of this court that the judgment of the trial court should be

affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. See

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

____________________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

3 CONCUR:

______________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

______________________________________ CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE