State v. Ellison

19 Citing cases

  1. State v. Wolfinger

    No. E2023-01752-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Sep. 3, 2024)

    Id. (first quoting State v. Ellison, No. 01C01-9708-CR-00361, 1998 WL 272955, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 29, 1998); and then citing State v. Chaney, No. 01C01-9801-CC-00010, 1999 WL 97914, at *1 n.2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 18, 1999)). The State is not required to show a conviction but needs only to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant violated the law.

  2. State v. Davis

    No. E2023-00579-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. May. 15, 2024)

    Id. (first quoting State v. Ellison, No. 01C01-9708-CR-00361, 1998 WL 272955, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 29, 1998); and then citing State v. Chaney, No. 01C01-9801-CC-00010, 1999 WL 97914, at *1 n.2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 18, 1999)).

  3. State v. Booker

    No. E2023-00435-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. May. 2, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    A revocation on this basis requires the State to "produce evidence in the usual form of testimony" in order to establish the probationer's commission of another offense while on probation. State v. Ellison, No. 01C01-9708-CR-00361, 1998 WL 272955, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 29, 1998); see State v. Chaney, No. 01C01-9801-CC-00010, 1999 WL 97914, at *1 n. 2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 18, 1999).

  4. State v. Washington

    No. W2016-00669-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Sep. 5, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    A revocation on this basis requires the State to "produce evidence in the usual form of testimony" in order to establish the probationer's commission of another offense while on probation. State v. Walter Lee Ellison, Jr., No. 01C01-9708-CR-00361, 1998 WL 272955, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., May 29, 1998). In cases where the alleged violation is the commission of a new offense, the State must present sufficient facts to allow the trial court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct in question violated the law.

  5. State v. Rogers

    No. E2013-00909-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 11, 2014)

    See Harkins, 811 S.W.2d at 83 n.2. A revocation on this basis requires the State to "produce evidence in the usual form of testimony" in order to establish the probationer's commission of another offense while on probation. State v. Walter Lee Ellison, Jr., No. 01C01-9708-CR-00361, 1998 WL 272955, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 29, 1998); see State v. Michael Chaney, No. 01C01-9801-CC-00010, 1999 WL 97914, at *1 n.2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 18, 1999).

  6. State v. Taylor

    No. M2011-01996-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    A revocation on this basis requires the State to "produce evidence in the usual form of testimony" in order to establish the probationer's commission of another offense while on probation. State v. Walter Lee Ellison, Jr., No. 01C01-9708-CR-00361, 1998 WL 272955, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 29, 1998); see State v. Michael Chaney, No. 01C01-9801-CC-00010, 1999 WL 97914, at *1 n.2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 18, 1999).

  7. State v. Morton

    No. M2011-00876-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 30, 2012)   Cited 2 times

    A revocation for garnering new arrests requires the State to "produce evidence in the usual form of testimony" in order to establish the commission of the offense while defendant was on probation. State v. Walter Lee Ellison, Jr., No. 01C01-9708-CR-00361, 1998 WL 272955, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 29, 1998). It is not necessary that the trial court find proof of the offenses for which appellant was arrested beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence that he committed new offenses is sufficient.

  8. State v. Williams

    No. W2010-00598-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 15, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    We initially observe that the defendant provided no legal authority in support of this proposition. In any event, in addressing this issue, we note that a new arrest and pending charges are proper grounds on which a trial court can revoke a defendant's probation provided that the State establishes sufficient grounds, generally by "produc[ing] evidence in the usual form of testimony," that the defendant committed another offense while on probation.See Harkins, 811 S.W.2d at 83 n. 3 (Tenn. 1991); State v. Walter Lee Ellison, Jr., No. 01C01-9708-CR-00361, 1998 WL 272955, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 29, 1998);see also State v. Michael Chaney, No. 01C01-9801-CC-00010, 1999 WL 97914, at *1 n. 2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 18, 1999). Extrapolating this principle, we would be hard-pressed to conclude that the trial court did not have sufficient evidence before it to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the new offense when two officers testified regarding the defendant's driving on a suspended license and the jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

  9. State v. Spencer

    No. M2009-02606-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 11, 2011)

    The evidence may take the form of live testimony from the arresting officer.See State v. Walter Lee Ellison, No. 01C01-9708-CR-00361, 1998 WL 272955 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 29, 1998). The trial court accredited the testimony of Officer Cooley concerning the Defendant's possession of the weapon and concluded that the Defendant had committed the offense and had violated the conditions of his community corrections sentence.

  10. State v. Dennis

    No. W2010-00259-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 20, 2010)

    See id. at 83 n. 3. Typically, a revocation on the basis of a new arrest requires the State to "produce evidence in the usual form of testimony" in order to establish the probationer's commission of another offense while on probation. State v. Walter Lee Ellison, Jr., No. 01C01-9708-CR-00361, 1998 WL 272955, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., May 29, 1998). Here, the prosecutor mistakenly informed the trial court, without any objection by defense counsel, that the arresting officer had testified at the previous hearing with respect to the defendant's August 10, 2009 arrest for theft. The trial court apparently believed that such testimony had been presented in finding that the defendant had violated his probation by his commission of the August 10, 2009 theft.