STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GLENDALL D. VERNER - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Amelia Ferrell Knisely on May 31, 2016

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Edward M. Yarbrough and J. Alex Little (on appeal and at trial) and Mandy Strickland Floyd (on appeal), Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Glendall D. Verner.

Attorneys 2:

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael A. Meyer, Deputy Attorney General; Glenn Funk, District Attorney General; and Rob Mitchell, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WILLIAMS

The defendant pled guilty on March 21, 2013, to one count of the theft of $1,000 or more, a Class D felony, and one count of the theft of $60,000 or more, a Class B felony. The defendant was given an effective ten-year sentence, all of which was to be served on probation. As part of his probation, the defendant was required to complete two hundred hours of community service work and was forbidden to sell securities or to work in the financial services or insurance business. On April 26, 2014, the defendant?s probation officer signed a violation of probation affidavit alleging that the defendant was terminated from his community service program for noncompliance. On May 22, 2014, a second affidavit was issued, averring that the defendant violated the special condition forbidding him from working in the financial services industry when he attempted to solicit investors for a project. The trial court held a hearing on three separate days over the course of four months, and the court ultimately concluded that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation. The trial court revoked the defendant?s probation and ordered him to serve one year of his sentence in confinement, to be followed by a new probationary period. The defendant appeals, asserting that his due process rights were violated because the terms of his probation were unconstitutionally vague, because the evidence did not establish a violation of his probation, because he was given inadequate notice of the violation, and because the trial court?s written findings were inadequate. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.