STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DANIEL McCAIG - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Landry Butler on Dec 22, 2016

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

James E. Lanier, District Public Defender; Martin E. Dunn, Assistant Public Defender, and Sean P. Day, Assistant Public Defender (on appeal); and Martin Dunn, Dyersburg, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Daniel Leon McCaig.

Attorneys 2:

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Senior Counsel; C. Phillip Bivens, District Attorney General; and Charles Dyer, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WOODALL

Following a jury trial in the Dyer County Circuit Court, Defendant, Daniel McCaig, was found guilty of misdemeanor theft. Defendant appeals this conviction. The theft charge was in Circuit Court by virtue of Defendant’s appeal from a conviction for the offense following a bench trial in the Dyersburg Municipal Court. The Dyersburg Municipal Court also partially revoked Defendant’s probation in an unrelated offense. Defendant appealed both judgments to the Circuit Court for de novo review. Defendant was sentenced by the Circuit Court to serve 11 months and 29 days in the Dyer County Jail for the theft conviction. The Circuit Court judge (hereinafter “trial judge”) also revoked his probation on the other case and ordered him to serve that sentence concurrently with the sentence for theft. Defendant has also appealed to this court the revocation of probation. In this appeal, Defendant raises the following issues for our review: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support his theft conviction; and 2) his due process rights were violated by the State’s failure to provide written notice of the allegation against him which was the basis for the trial court’s revocation of probation. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for theft. We also conclude that the written notice to Defendant of his probation violation did not include the theft charge, and therefore, that ground cannot be a basis to revoke probation. Furthermore, the trial court failed to base its decision on a de novo review. Therefore, we affirm Defendant’s theft conviction and reverse the trial court’s revocation of Defendant’s probation, and dismiss the probation violation warrant.

Attachments: