IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
MAY 1998 SESSION
FILED
May 22, 1998
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9708-CC-00380
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellee, )
Appellate Court Clerk
) MONTGOMERY COUNTY
VS. ) (Nos. 31454, 35313, 37414 Below)
)
ANNA M. EADIE, ) The Hon. John H. Gasaway
)
Appellant. ) (Revocation of Community Corrections)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
COLLIER W. GOODLETT JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Assistant Public Defender. Attorney General and Reporter
19th Judicial District
109 S. Second Street DARYL J. BRAND
Clarksville, TN 37040 Assistant Attorney General
Cordell Hull Building, Second Floor
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
JOHN WESLEY CARNEY, JR.
District Attorney General
ARTHUR F. BIEBER
Assistant District Attorney General
204 Franklin Street, Suite 200
Clarksville, TN 37040
OPINION FILED _______________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
OPINION
The appellant, Anna M. Eadie, appeals as of right from the trial court’s
revocation of her community corrections sentence. She contends that the evidence
presented at her revocation hearing is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a
revocation of community corrections. 1 Based on our review of the briefs and of the entire
record in this cause, we conclude that this is an appropriate case for affirmance under Rule
20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules.
In 1993, the appellant entered a guilty plea to DUI, first offense, and she was
sentenced to 11 months and 29 days, all of which was suspended. She was also ordered
to pay a $250 fine. The appellant violated probation in 1993 by failing to report to her
probation officer and by failing to report a change of address. In 1995, the appellant again
violated probation when she was convicted of two counts of forgery. The appellant was
sentenced to two years for each count of forgery, to be served consecutively. Both
sentences were suspended. She was also ordered to pay all court costs and restitution.
In 1996, the appellant was convicted of a separate charge of forgery and was sentenced
to two years of community corrections. She was again ordered to pay restitution. Based
on this conviction of forgery, the trial court revoked the appellant’s probation being served
for her DUI and prior forgery convictions. The appellant was ordered to serve the
remainder of those sentences on community corrections, consecutively to her 1996
sentence for forgery.
The appellant’s community corrections sentence began on October 10, 1996.
Subsequently, on November 14, 1996, a violation warrant was issued. The appellant was
served with the violation warrant on March 14, 1997, and the appellant reported to her
community corrections supervisor approximately one week later.
1
The appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S . 738, 87 S .Ct.
1396, 18 L.Ed .2d 493 ( 1967). In th at brief, counsel requested that he be allowed to withdraw from
representing the appellant in the above- styled cas e. Cou nse l shou ld now mo ve to w ithdra w pu rsua nt to R ule
14, Tennessee Supreme Court Rules.
-1-
At the revocation hearing, the appellant’s community corrections supervisor
testified that the appellant failed to report, left the county without permission, and failed to
pay required court costs. The appellant admitted that she failed to report to her community
corrections supervisor. She also admitted going to South Carolina for two weeks without
requesting permission. While the record indicates that the appellant began complying with
the conditions of community corrections after the violation warrant was served, she could
offer no explanation as to why she had failed to comply in the past. Based on the proof,
the trial court revoked the appellant’s community corrections sentence and ordered that
the appellant serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement.
Upon a finding that a defendant has violated the conditions of community
corrections, it is within the trial court’s discretion to order the defendant to serve the
sentence in confinement. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn.1991). In order for
this Court to find that a trial court abused its discretion in a revocation proceeding, 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 the community corrections
program. Id. The proof of a violation of community corrections need not be established
beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is sufficient if it allows the trial judge to make a
conscientious and intelligent decision. Id.; State v. Milton, 673 S.W.2d 555, 557 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1984).
In revoking the appellant’s community corrections sentence, the trial court
made the following findings:
The issue before the Court is whether or not she violated her sentence, and
the Court finds that she did. She failed to report. She did not get permission
before leaving the area. She has not complied with the conditions of her
sentence.
The record reflects that Ms. Eadie has, by my count, been accused
of violating probation at least six times since 1992. For five years Ms. Eadie
has been in and out of this court. And she’s been on every program there
is that I know of.
The Court told Ms. Eadie back in October of ‘96 when she stood right
-2-
there that the opportunity that I gave her then would be her last, so it is. You
are ordered to serve the balance of you [sic] sentence with TDOC.
On this record, it is clear that the trial court was justified in finding that the
appellant violated her community corrections and that the proof of the appellant’s violations
was sufficient to allow the trial court to make a conscientious and intelligent decision.
Accordingly, based upon a reading of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the
applicable law, this Court finds that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed
pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed pursuant to Rule 20. Because the petitioner is indigent, costs of this appeal are
taxed to the state.
________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
________________________________
GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE
________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
-3-