State of Tennessee v. Septian Valentine

02/22/2019

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs February 5, 2019

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SEPTIAN VALENTINE

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County

Nos. 12-CR-9808, 15-CR-10088, 16-CR-10195 R. Lee Moore, Jr., Judge

___________________________________

No. W2018-01018-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The Defendant-Appellant, Septian Valentine, appeals from the revocation of supervised

release by the Lake County Circuit Court, arguing that the trial court erred in revoking his

probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. After

review, we affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT

WILLIAMS, P.J., and J. ROSS DYER, J., joined.

Noel H. Riley II, Dyersburg, Tennessee, for the Defendant-Appellant, Septian Jamarquis

Valentine.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Senior Assistant

Attorney General; Danny Goodman, Jr., District Attorney General; and Lance E. Webb,

Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

Based on the limited record before us, it appears that the Defendant was convicted

in three separate cases of “[Possession with Intent] Sch[edule] II Coc[aine] o[ver] .5

gr[ams]; Kidnapping; Sale under .5 gr[ams],” for which he received an effective sentence

of fourteen years, to be served on probation.1 On April 5, 2017, a warrant was issued for

the Defendant’s arrest based on multiple violations of probation including a new arrest

for two counts of rape, failure to pay probation fees, and engaging in “assaultive,

threatening or intimidating behavior.” On March 19, 2018, the State amended the April

1

The record does not contain the judgments of conviction. We glean this information from the

probation violation report, warrant, and transcript of the probation hearing, all of which refer to the

Defendant’s convictions and sentence.

violation report to include that the Defendant additionally violated probation by

“enter[ing] an establishment whose prime purpose is to sell alcoholic beverages (bars,

taverns, clubs, etc.).”

At the April 23, 2018 probation violation hearing, Jarrell Malone, the Defendant’s

probation officer, testified that the Defendant had been previously advised of the terms

and conditions of probation, indicated that he understood them, and signed a certificate of

probation agreeing to abide by those conditions. Officer Malone confirmed that he

subsequently filed two violation reports, in April 2017 and March 2018, alleging that the

Defendant had violated probation based on a new arrest for two counts of rape, failure to

pay fees, engaging in assaultive behavior, and entering a bar. Officer Malone testified

that prior to the Defendant’s new arrest, the Defendant had complied with probation and

was “doing well.” Following the proof, the trial court stated:

All right, [the Defendant] you were -- one of the basis is the

conviction -- there is a conviction at least at that point, but even if there

were not a conviction, according to your own testimony you were drunk

and you were going into places that violated your probation. So, your

probation is revoked.

By written order on May 3, 2018, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s

probation and similarly reasoned:

After hearing the testimony of the Defendant’s probation officer, and

after consideration of the Defendant’s own sworn testimony at his jury trial

on March 21-22, 2018 in Lake Cir. No. 17-CR-10395 that he had been at

the Garage/Riverside bar when he met the alleged victims on the

evening/morning of April 1-2, 2017, and his eventual conviction for Rape

by a jury on March 22, 2018, and the entire record in this cause, the Court

finds that the Defendant is in violation of the terms and conditions of his

supervised probation by being convicted of the aforesaid Rape and by being

in a bar, and the Court finds that this probation should be revoked in full.

It is from this order that the Defendant now timely appeals.

ANALYSIS

We must dispense with the Defendant’s appeal in short order. Here, the

Defendant does not challenge the grounds upon which the trial court relied in revoking

his probation, but instead, he insists “the trial court should not have revoked the

[D]efendant’s probation because the court was aware of the fact that the [D]efendant

-2-

intended to appeal his rape conviction to the Honorable Court. Justice would have been

better served if the Court had reserved its ruling pending his appeal.” In effect, the

Defendant argues that this court should reverse the trial court for failing to stay its

probation revocation determination pending the outcome of the appeal. The Defendant

does not provide this court with any authority for this position, and we have found none.

To the extent that the Defendant suggests that he is entitled to a bond pending the appeal

of the order revoking probation, the record does not contain a motion for an appeal bond,

see Tenn. R. App. P. 8(a), or any findings of the trial court to facilitate appellate review.

See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(g); State v. Sandra Brown, No. M2000-00792-CCA-R3-CD,

2001 WL 1094940, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 19, 2001) (noting that the trial court

has authority to release a defendant on bail pending appellate review of a revocation of

probation). The trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation based upon his new arrest

and subsequent conviction of rape in addition to the Defendant’s prohibited patronage of

a bar. Because the record fully supports the trial court’s revocation of the Defendant’s

probation, he is not entitled to relief.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasoning and analysis, the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed.

____________________________________

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JUDGE

-3-