IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
JANUARY SESSION, 1997
FILED
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) July 18, 1997
) No. 02C01-9602-CC-00068
Appellee ) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
) MADISON COUNTY
vs. )
) Hon. FRANKLIN MURCHISON, Judge
BOBBY ANDERSON, )
) (Probation Revocation)
Appellant )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
PAMELA J. DREWERY CHARLES W. BURSON
Asst. Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
227 W. Baltimore
Jackson, TN 38301 SUSAN ROSEN
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
GEORGE MORTON GOOGE 450 James Robertson Parkway
District Public Defender Nashville, TN 37243-0493
JAMES G. (JERRY) WOODALL
District Attorney General
NICK NICOLA
Asst. District Attorney General
P. O. Box 2825
Jackson, TN 38302
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
David G. Hayes
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Bobby Anderson, appeals as of right from a judgment of
the Madison County Circuit Court revoking his probation. The sole issue before
this court is whether the trial court erred by reinstating the appellant’s original
sentence instead of ordering another less restrictive alternative to confinement
pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(C).
After reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
In July of 1993, the appellant entered three guilty pleas to felony drug
offenses and received an effective ten year sentence with placement in the local
community corrections program. His community corrections sentence was
ultimately revoked and the appellant was transferred to the Wayne County
Correctional Facility where he participated in the “boot camp program.” After his
release from “boot camp” in November of 1994, he was placed on intensive
probation. Two days after being placed on intensive probation, the appellant
was arrested for disorderly conduct. In January, 1995, the appellant was
arrested for aggravated robbery and was again arrested in May of 1995 for
criminal trespass and resisting arrest. In addition to these arrests, which were
not reported, the appellant, among other violations, used drugs, failed to perform
required community service, failed to pay court cost, failed to report as directed,
and failed to submit to drug tests.
The appellant does not dispute the allegations that he violated the
conditions of his probation. At the sentencing hearing, he offered the excuse
that he had failed to attend drug screenings and had failed to perform the
required community service because he had car trouble. He also related that he
did not pay his court costs because he had only been working temporary jobs.
2
He explained that after helping his mother financially, he barely had enough
money to support himself. According to the appellant’s own testimony, his
“support” included marijuana purchases. The appellant testified, “I do have a
little marijuana problem. I like to sort of relax back and smoke a little marijuana.
. . .”
The appellant’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in ordering that
his entire ten year sentence must be served in the Department of Correction
without considering other alternatives. This argument is misplaced. If the trial
court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer violates a
condition of his probation, it is within the court’s discretion to revoke probation
and cause execution of the judgment as it was originally entered. Tenn. Code
Ann. §§ 40-35-310,-311(d)(1990). State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn.
1991). If the record contains substantial evidence to support the trial court’s
conclusion that the appellant violated a condition of his probation, no abuse of
discretion will be found. Id.
The record in this case contains overwhelming evidence to support the
appellant’s probation revocation. The appellant has been provided numerous
sentencing alternatives, including probation, community corrections, and the
“boot camp” program. None of these alternatives to incarceration have
succeeded. In sum, the appellant’s record is appalling. Accordingly, we
conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reinstating the
appellant’s original ten year sentence and designating confinement in the
Department of Correction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
3
____________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
________________________________
JOE B. JONES, Presiding Judge
________________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, Judge
4