The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has affirmed a trial court’s decision to fully revoke Rex A. Moore’s suspended sentence, concluding that the defendant’s repeated failures to comply with probation, culminating in a new felony assault, justified sending him to confinement. The appellate court found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by imposing the maximum penalty after Mr. Moore demonstrated an ongoing pattern of willful misconduct.
Background: A Strained Probation
Mr. Moore’s legal troubles stem from a 2022 plea agreement where he pleaded guilty to one count of theft of property and two counts of violating the Tennessee Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration Act (Sexual Offender Registry). He received an effective four-year sentence, which the trial court suspended, placing him on probation.
However, this period of community supervision quickly unraveled. A probation warrant was issued in July 2024, alleging that Mr. Moore had misrepresented his residence, a direct violation of his registry requirements. Crucially, the warrant was later amended to include a more serious allegation: that Mr. Moore had committed a felony assault against a corrections officer while already incarcerated.
At the revocation hearing, the State presented evidence that Mr. Moore had a history of probation issues, including four or five violations within the previous 18 months, according to his probation officer, Johnny Caldwell.
Conflicting Stories on Residence
The core of the initial probation violation centered on Mr. Moore’s living situation. As a registered offender, he was required to report any change of address. Officer Caldwell testified that Mr. Moore claimed to have secured a room at the Gateway Inn on Asheville Highway. However, a residence check two weeks later found no one there. The hotel manager later confirmed, via receipts, that Mr. Moore had only stayed for a single night in June 2024, directly contradicting the paperwork Mr. Moore had filed. When confronted, Mr. Moore admitted he had been “here and there.”
Mr. Moore offered a different narrative on the stand. He claimed his probation officer told him to communicate only via text and that he had sent documentation of various hotel stays. He admitted moving rooms at the Gateway Inn, sleeping in his car for two nights after running out of money, and then paying for an extended stay in a different room (Room 240). He insisted he had shown Officer Caldwell photos of Room 240 and that the officer had visited him there.
To resolve the conflicting accounts, the court subpoenaed the hotel’s official records, which were later admitted as evidence, appearing to support the officer’s version of events over Mr. Moore’s testimony.
The Assault and Plea for Mercy
The hearing also addressed the subsequent charge: the assault on a corrections officer in December 2024, where audio evidence suggested Mr. Moore bit the officer during an altercation. Mr. Moore reportedly raised a defense of “temporary insanity” regarding the assault.
During the final hearing session in January 2025, Mr. Moore requested a referral to Mental Health Court, stating he was seeking help and struggling with housing due to his offender status and low income.
The Trial Court’s Firm Stance
In announcing the decision to fully revoke probation, the trial court was unequivocal. Judge G. Scott Green stated he had likely been “way too lenient” previously. The court characterized Mr. Moore not as someone suffering from mental health issues, but as having “a manipulation issue.”
The judge pointed to the hotel records that “directly contradict what [the Defendant] testified to under oath.” Finding Mr. Moore “clearly in violation of the terms and conditions,” the court concluded that despite being given “several different chances,” Mr. Moore’s response was only to “go out and violate again and then try to twist the system.” The court formally found that Mr. Moore had violated the laws of the State and ordered him to serve the remainder of his four-year sentence in confinement.
Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion?
Mr. Moore appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by opting for full revocation instead of considering lesser sanctions, such as split confinement, given his claims of housing instability and financial hardship.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the decision under an “abuse of discretion” standard, giving deference to the trial court, provided it made sufficient findings.
The appellate court sided entirely with the State and the trial court.
First, the court confirmed that Mr. Moore committed serious, non-technical violations: lying about his residence (impeding supervision) and committing a new felony assault while incarcerated. The court noted that committing new felonies while on probation for a felony weighs heavily against continued community supervision.
Second, regarding the consequence—full revocation—the court emphasized that Mr. Moore’s pattern of behavior showed he was either unwilling or unable to abide by the rules. The court pointed to the trial judge’s observation that previous, less restrictive sanctions had failed to correct Mr. Moore’s behavior.
“The failure of lesser sanctions to correct behavior may show that the defendant is unwilling to engage in rehabilitative efforts and demonstrate that he or she is no longer suitable for probation,” the opinion stated, citing prior case law.
Finally, addressing the claim that the court failed to consider alternatives, the appellate panel confirmed that the law requires courts to consider full revocation when a probationer poses a “significant risk” to the community that “cannot be appropriately managed in the community.” Given the nature of the new crimes—especially the assault—the court found that continued probation would not advance rehabilitation or ensure public safety.
The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the trial court acted well within its discretion, and the judgments were affirmed.