Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
Assigned on Briefs June 21, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER T. STARNES
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2002-D-2192 Cheryl Blackburn, Judge

No. M2004-02563-CCA-R3-CD - Filed July 19, 2005

The defendant, Christopher T. Starnes, pled guilty to one count of sexual battery and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of ten years with one year to be served in confinement and the balance to be served on intensive probation. Thereafter, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's revocation of his probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed J.C. MCLIN , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GARY R. WADE, P.J., and JOSEPH M. TIPTON , J., joined. David M. Hopkins, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Christopher T. Starnes. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson, III, District Attorney General; and Rob McGuire, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION I. Facts In August 2003, the defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual battery and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of ten years with one year to be served in confinement and the balance to be served on intensive probation. In February 2004, a probation warrant was issued alleging that the defendant violated his probation by failing to meet with his probation supervisor, failing to attend meetings for sex offender treatment, and failing to report a change in employment. In March 2004, the trial court sustained the warrant but placed the defendant back on intensive probation for nine years. In April 2004, two probation warrants were

issued, alleging that the defendant's probation was violated because he was arrested for stalking and had committed technical violations of his probation. At the probation revocation hearing, Detective Gerald McShepard testified that he investigated the incident of stalking leading up to the arrest of the defendant. Detective McShepard indicated that the stalking victim gave him obscene letters she had received and that he turned them into the property room to be fingerprinted. Detective McShepard stated that the defendant's handwriting sample was obtained and submitted for comparative analysis. When asked by the State if Detective McShepard knew of the results of the handwriting analysis, the defense counsel objected on grounds of hearsay and lack of authentication. A discussion ensued, whereupon it was determined from the report that the defendant's writing sample had not been authenticated or confirmed. The defense counsel also argued that the report was not a certified copy, and there was no evidence that Detective McShepard or the individual conducting the handwriting analysis was an expert in handwriting comparison. Consequently, the trial court sustained the defense counsel's objection to hearsay and lack of authentication. On cross-examination, Detective McShepard stated that the defendant was identified as a suspect because he was a registered sex offender living in close proximity to the alleged victim. Detective McShepard acknowledged that other than the letters received from the victim, he had no personal knowledge of any evidence of stalking. James Holder, the defendant's probation officer, testified that the defendant failed to provide a valid permanent address as part of the conditions of his probation. Mr. Holder stated that the defendant, after being reinstated to probation on March 19, 2004, told him that he was living in a car. According to Mr. Holder, the defendant finally provided an address, 2131A Alpine Drive, but when Mr. Holder traveled to the address, he discovered a house that looked abandoned. Mr. Holder also stated that the defendant did not get back into treatment upon being reinstated. According to Mr. Holder, the defendant told him that he could not get back into treatment because he was looking for a job, was injured and could not work, and could not afford to go to treatment. Mr. Holder indicated that the defendant's original probation violation derived from the same issues. On cross-examination, Mr. Holder stated that he went to verify the defendant's address and the house appeared abandoned. However, when pressed for the specific date, Mr. Holder testified that he could not remember but indicated that he checked the address sometime between April 14th and 27th. When asked by the court, Mr. Holder stated that the defendant later gave him a different address, 2307A Alpine Drive, which was actually a home. However, Mr. Holder indicated that he did not verify this address. On cross-examination, Mr. Holder admitted that at the time the defendant's probation was reinstated, the defendant did not have a job or a place to live. Mr. Holder conceded that he had filed a probation violation warrant less than one month after the defendant's probation was reinstated, which had given the defendant less than thirty days to get a job, find a place to live, and pay for treatment. -2-

The defendant testified that he began searching for employment as soon as his probation was reinstated and obtained employment two weeks before he was arrested for violating his probation. He stated that he had not yet received a paycheck for working those two weeks. The defendant indicated that his treatment classes cost about $120.00 a month. According to the defendant, he struggled with paying his probation supervision fees and paying for his required treatment. The defendant stated that he went to his treatment classes until he was told by his instructor that he could not attend additional classes without paying for them. The defendant further stated that he wanted to attend the classes and believed them to be a "great benefit" to him. The defendant explained, "It was just the problem with the finances . . . I was going, but I couldn't keep paying for those classes." The defendant testified that he believed that there was a miscommunication regarding the Alpine address he gave Mr. Holder. Although the defendant could not remember the numbering of the Alpine address, the defendant stated that he believed that Mr. Holder must have written down the wrong address on Alpine. The defendant also stated that he was living on Alpine street and this address was given to all his employment prospects. When questioned by the court, the defendant acknowledged he had violated his probation a second time on the same issues. However, the defendant insisted that the problems arose because of miscommunication with his probation officer and lack of finances. Regarding the stalking charge, the defendant testified that he was not the person stalking the victim. According to the defendant, his fianc

Download Starnes.pdf

Tennessee Law