Appellate panel hears challenge to probation revocation after defendant raised kleptomania claim

An appellate panel heard oral arguments over whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking the probation of Denisha Simmons after a shoplifting incident and whether the record supports reinstatement to probation with treatment.

Mitch Raines, a public defender with the Shelby County Public Defender’s Office, told the panel that Simmons was subject to split confinement sentences and that a violation warrant was issued after an encounter at a Food Lion in which loss-prevention personnel later reviewed video suggesting she took a low-dollar item. Raines said the trial court revoked probation and imposed service of the balance of the sentence rather than directing treatment.

Raines emphasized that Simmons has repeatedly said she was diagnosed with kleptomania and was under some form of treatment and medication. "The trial court was more focused on an appropriate punishment than any rehabilitation for Ms. Simmons," Raines told the panel, arguing the record lacked meaningful consideration of treatment or a concrete plan that would allow the court to weigh rehabilitation against incarceration.

Counsel and the panel disputed how many prior convictions appear in the record: Raines noted references in the transcript to roughly 86 prior shoplifting convictions, while parts of the record and questioning suggested the state believed the number to be nearer 65 and Simmons’s testimony might indicate it could be "closer to 100." The disparity was discussed as part of the panel’s assessment of whether the trial court properly weighed criminal history against rehabilitation prospects.

A central procedural dispute during argument was the standard of review. Defense counsel asked the court to find an abuse of discretion and, if appropriate, to either remand for additional findings about treatment or apply de novo review and reinstate probation with treatment conditions. The panel pressed whether the appellate court could perform de novo review without a record sufficient to evaluate an effective treatment plan and whether the trial court had placed adequate reasoning on the record.

Garrett Ward, arguing for the state, urged the panel to affirm. Ward said the trial court explicitly noted criminal-history concerns, the rapidity and similarity of the new offense, and made an express credibility finding against Simmons. "I don't think there is any room for this court to find that this trial court abused its discretion," Ward told the panel, arguing that the limited and equivocal treatment evidence in the record did not require overturning the revocation.

Defense rebuttal reiterated that Simmons had made a claim for treatment and that the trial court did not address that claim in a way that allowed meaningful appellate review; Raines asked either for a remand for further factfinding or for the panel to order probation with treatment conditions under de novo review.

The panel thanked counsel and took the case under submission, saying it would issue an opinion in due course.

Background and context: counsel discussed the Downey decision as an instructive precedent addressing kleptomania and court-ordered treatment, and Dagnan as a controlling discussion of standards for appellate review of trial-court consequence determinations. During argument the panel repeatedly returned to whether Downey’s principles apply in the probation-revocation posture and whether the record contains the type of corroborating evidence (therapist testimony, treatment plan, medical records) that would support reinstatement.

What happens next: the panel submitted the case and will issue a written opinion. The transcript does not record the court’s decision or any change to the trial court’s order; the outcome is unresolved pending the panel’s written opinion.