The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has upheld the revocation of Marc Foder's probation, requiring him to serve the remainder of his sentence in prison. This decision affects Foder, who had previously pleaded guilty to felony evading arrest and misdemeanor assault. The court found that the revocation hearing met due process standards, despite Foder's claims that he was denied crucial evidence for his defense.
The case, State of Tennessee v. Marc Foder, was filed under docket number E2025-00596-CCA-R3-CD. It stems from a probation violation hearing where Foder argued that he was not given enough time to present video evidence that could have supported his case. The court ruled that the revocation process complied with necessary legal standards, affirming the trial court's decision.
In 2024, Marc Foder pleaded guilty to Class E felony evading arrest and Class A misdemeanor assault, receiving a two-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. However, in February 2025, a warrant was issued for his probation violation, alleging multiple new offenses, including vandalism and aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. Foder was appointed trial counsel to represent him during the revocation process.
The revocation hearing took place on April 4, 2025. During the hearing, Foder's attorney requested a continuance to obtain video evidence from a Walmart surveillance camera and body camera footage from police officers involved in the incident. The state opposed this request, stating that it had several officers present to testify. The trial judge denied the motion and proceeded with the hearing.
During the hearing, three deputies from the Knox County Sheriff’s Office testified about an incident involving Foder at a Walmart. Deputy Colter Robinson reported that he responded to a call about a man with a machete. When he arrived, he found Foder, who allegedly punched him in the face during an altercation. The deputies confirmed that Foder had a hatchet during the incident, which contributed to the decision to revoke his probation.
The trial court found that Foder violated the terms of his probation by engaging in physical altercations with law enforcement. In its ruling, the court stated, "the court does find by a preponderance of the evidence [Defendant] has in fact violated the terms and conditions of his probation, namely by being re-arrested and for fighting with law enforcement." Following the hearing, the court determined that Foder should serve his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction.
In its opinion, the court noted that Foder's attorney had not subpoenaed the video evidence or cross-examined the deputies regarding the body camera footage. The court concluded that the denial of the continuance did not violate Foder's due process rights. It stated, "Defendant failed to establish that the Walmart surveillance video or the deputies’ body camera footage existed or, if such evidence existed, that it would have affected the trial court’s determination that a probation violation occurred."
The court also addressed Foder's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, stating that the right to counsel in a probation revocation hearing is not guaranteed by the Constitution. The court found that Foder received the minimum due process protections required during the hearing and that his attorney's performance did not violate any constitutional rights.
The ruling from the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals is significant as it reinforces the standards for due process in probation revocation hearings. It highlights the importance of timely evidence and the discretion of trial courts in determining whether to grant continuances. The court's decision indicates that defendants must be proactive in securing evidence and preparing their defenses.
Moving forward, Foder's case may serve as a precedent for future probation revocation hearings in Tennessee. Defendants may need to be more diligent in gathering evidence and preparing their cases to avoid similar outcomes. The ruling also emphasizes the importance of effective legal representation and the potential consequences of failing to adequately prepare for a hearing.
Foder has the option to appeal this decision, but details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence how similar cases are handled in the future.