State v. Robert P. Thurman
This text of State v. Robert P. Thurman (State v. Robert P. Thurman) 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.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED MARCH 1999 SESSION April 16, 1999
Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) NO. 01C01-9806-CC-00253 Appellee, ) ) MAURY COUNTY No. 6613 VS. ) ) HON. ROBERT L. JONES, ROBERT P. THURMAN, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Probation Revocation) ) ) AFFIRMED - RULE 20
ORDER
Appellant, ROBERT P. THURMAN, appeals the trial court's revocation of his
probation. On October 12, 1994, appellant pled nolo contendere to nine counts of
obtaining unemployment benefits through misrepresentation, Class E felonies. He
received an agreed upon effective sentence of four years and was placed upon
immediate probation.
Appellant violated terms of his probation four times between October 1994
and December 1997. Twice the trial court reinstated appellant on probation. For
the third violation, the trial court reinstated probation and placed appellant in a
community corrections program. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(f). For the
fourth violation the trial court extended the period of supervision by six months.
In January 1998, appellant committed a burglary in Marshall County. In April
1998, he was found guilty by a Marshall County jury. As a result, in May 1998, the
trial court revoked his probation outright and ordered him to serve the balance of his
original four-year sentence. A review of the record shows that the trial court was
well within its discretion to do so.
The court gave appellant ample opportunity to prove himself deserving of a
sentence involving release in the community, and appellant was unable to comport with the conditions of such release. Appellant’s claim that the trial court abused its
discretion by revoking probation and ordering the balance of appellant's sentence
served by incarceration is completely without merit.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee
Court of Criminal Appeals. It appearing that the appellant is indigent, costs shall be
taxed to the state.
So ordered. Enter:
_______________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
____________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
____________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Robert P. Thurman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-robert-p-thurman-tenncrimapp-1999.