IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
FILED
AT KNOXVILLE September 27, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
AUGUST SESSION, 1999 Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9808-CR-00297
)
Appellee, )
)
) KNOX COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. RAY L. JENKINS,
JAMES EDWARD OAKLEY, ) JUDGE
)
Appe llant. ) (Revoca tion of Co mm unit y
) Corrections Sentence)
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CRIMINAL COURT OF KNOX COUNTY
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
KIMBERLY A. PARTON PAUL G. SUMMERS
P.O. Box 116 Attorney General and Reporter
Knoxville, TN 37901-0116
ELLEN H. POLLACK
Assistant District Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenu e North
Nashville, TN 37243
RANDALL E. NICHOLS
District Attorney General
ZANE SCARLETT
Assistant District Attorney General
City-County Building
Knoxville, TN 37902
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
OPINION
The Defe ndan t appe als from the judgm ent of th e trial co urt revo king h is
comm unity corrections sentence and ordering the balance of his sentence to be
served in the De partme nt of Corre ction. We affirm the judgment of the trial cou rt.
Based on our review of the record presented on appeal, it appears that
judgm ents of conviction were entered against the Defendant on December 17,
1997 for fifteen counts of aggravated burglary and one count of burglary. For
each conviction the Defe ndant w as sen tenced to four years as a Range I
standard offender. The trial court ordered five of the sentences served
cons ecutive ly and the remaining sentences served conc urrently, for an effective
sentence of twenty years. The trial court gra nted the Defen dant’s ap plication to
serve his twenty-year sen tence in the Kn ox County C omm unity Altern atives to
Prison Program.
On January 14, 1998, a petition was filed alleging that the Defendant had
violated the terms of his community corrections sentence by: (1) failing to obey
the law, (2) failing to make a full and truthful report to his case manager, (3)
failing to be actively employed, (4) failing to pay court costs , (5) failing to perform
comm unity service, (6) failing to pay community corrections monthly fees, (7)
failing to pay victim restitution, and (8 ) failing to report to his superviso r.
Counsel was appointed to represent the Defendant and a hearing was
conducted on the re vocation petition on May 15, 1998. At the hearing, the
-2-
Defe ndan t’s attorney advised the court that the Defe ndant w anted to “subm it to
the revocation.” At that time, additional charges were a ppare ntly pending against
the Defendant, and counsel stated, “But he wishes to go ahead and submit and
go to the penitentiary and hope that the other charges don’t come out of the
Grand Jury.” The trial judge addressed the Defendant in open court as follows:
THE COURT: Mr. Oakle y, Ms. Parton has advised the Court
that you intend to submit to the revocation warrant and go on and
serve the time; is that c orrect?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You’ve discussed this with her and you feel it’s
in your be st interest?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. All right. Thank you.
An order was entered on May 15, 1998 finding the Defendant guilty of
violating the terms of his community corrections sentence, granting the
Defendant 549 days of jail credit, and ordering the balance of the sentence
served in the Department of Correction.
On June 3, 1998, the Defendant filed a motion to have his case reheard,
stating that he had his ?mind set on chan ging” a nd did not wa nt to se rve his
sentence in prison. The trial court entered an order dismissing this motion on
June 8, 1998. On June 23, 1998, the Defendant filed a motion to waive or
suspend payment of all court costs, which was dismissed by the trial court o n July
7, 1998. O n July 30, 1 998, the Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment entered on May 15, 1998. On August 24, 1998, the Defendant filed a
request that his sentence be reduced, along with a motion to have his case
retried, statin g that he d id not “entire ly unders tand” his p lea agre emen t.
-3-
In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by revoking
the Defendant’s community corrections sentence and by ordering that the original
sentences be served in the Department of Correction. He also argues that the
trial court erred by dismissing his motion for a reduction of sentence an d his
motion to rehear without a hearing.
In order for a reviewing court to find an abuse of discretion in a com munity
corrections revocation case, it must be established that the record contains no
substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge that the
Defendant violated the terms of th e com munity c orrection s progra m. State v.
Harkins, 811 S.W .2d 79, 82 (Tenn . 1991). T he proo f of a violation need not be
established beyond a reasonable doubt, and is sufficient if it allows the trial judge
to mak e a con scientiou s and inte lligent decis ion. Id.
From the reco rd before us, we ca nnot co nclude that the trial judge erred
or abused his discretion by revoking the Defendant’s community corrections
sentence and ordering the balance of the sentence served in the Department of
Correction. We likewise find no error or abuse of discretion in refusing to
consider the Defen dant’s m otion for a re duction o f sentenc e. At the hearing on
the revocation warrant, the Defendant appeared with his attorney and advised the
court that he wished to ?submit” to the revocation warrant and serve his sentence
in the penitentiary. The Defe ndan t’s position at the revocation hearing leads us
to conclude that he conceded he had violated the terms of his community
corrections sentence. At the hearing, counsel also advised the trial court that the
Defendant wished to be transferred to the penitentiary as soon as possible.
-4-
Although neither the record nor the transcript from the Defen dant’s gu ilty
plea proceeding is before us, it is apparent that his twenty year sentence was the
result of a plea agre emen t. The trial jud ge gran ted the D efenda nt’s reque st to
serve his sentence in a community based alternative to incarceration.
Subseq uently, during the Defendant’s revocation hearing, the trial court granted
the Defe ndan t’s request to revoke his community corrections sentence and allow
him to serve his sen tence in the Department of Correction. The State argues that
the Defendant is the “author of his own predicament.” We agree.
The jud gmen t of the trial cou rt is affirmed .
____________________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
___________________________________
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
-5-