IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
JANUARY SESSION, 1998
FILED
January 22, 1998
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
) No. 02C01-9703-CC-00123 Appellate C ourt Clerk
Appellee )
) HENDERSON COUNTY
vs. )
) Hon. Franklin Murchison, Judge
BOBBIE JEAN WEATHERS, )
) (Revocation of Community
Appellant ) Corrections)
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Clifford K. McGowan, Jr. John Knox Walkup
Attorney at Law Attorney General and Reporter
113 North Court Square
P. O. Box 26 Elizabeth T. Ryan
Waverly, TN 37185 Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
(On Appeal) 450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
George Morton Googe
District Public Defender James G. (Jerry) Woodall
227 West Baltimore Street District Attorney General
Jackson, Tn 38301
(At Trial and of Counsel Donald H. Allen
on Appeal) Asst. District Attorney General
P. O. Box 2825
Jackson, TN 38301
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
David G. Hayes
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Bobbie Jean Weathers, appeals as of right the judgment of
the Henderson County Circuit Court revoking her Community Correction sentences.
Prior to her revocation, the appellant was serving an effective fifteen year
Community Corrections sentence resulting from ten felony convictions. Finding the
alleged violations supported by the proof, the trial court revoked the appellant’s
Community Corrections sentences and ordered that the balance of her sentences
be served in the Department of Correction. The appellant appeals this ruling,
contending that, rather than a penitentiary sentence of total confinement, she should
have received an alternative sentence which would have permitted her to remain in
the community.
In 1991, the appellant was convicted of two counts of theft over $500, theft
under $500, and aggravated burglary. For these convictions, the appellant received
an effective seven year sentence and was placed on “intensive probation.” In 1993,
while still on probation, she was convicted of three counts of passing forged paper
and received concurrent four year sentences. These sentences were ordered to be
served consecutively to her effective sentence of eleven years previously imposed.
In addition, the appellant’s probation status was revoked and her effective eleven
year sentence was ordered to be served in Community Corrections. While serving
her Community Corrections sentence, the appellant, on February 20,1995, was
again convicted of burglary and theft of property over $1,000. Pursuant to the plea
agreement, no revocations occurred and she received two concurrent four year
sentences to be served consecutively to her prior effective eleven years sentence.
The appellant was permitted to remain in the Community Corrections program to
complete her sentences which now total fifteen years. Thirty-six days after pleading
guilty to the burglary and theft charges, the appellant tested positive for cocaine.
This violation was followed by the following violations: failure to obey the law -
misdemeanor conviction, changing her residence without permission, failing to
report to her case officer, failing to report the new arrest, and failure to pay cost and
2
restitution as ordered. The appellant does not contest these violations. She insists,
however, that she should be granted an alternative sentence which would permit her
to maintain employment and care for her minor children.
The law concerning revocation of a community corrections sentence is clear.
After a sentence is revoked, “the [trial] court may resentence the defendant to any
appropriate sentencing alternative, including incarceration, for any period of time up
to the maximum sentence provided for the offense committed, less any time actually
served in any community-based alternative to incarceration.” Tenn. Code Ann. §
40-36-106(e)(4) (1996 Supp.) (emphasis added).
The appellant’s flagrant abuse of her judicially granted liberty is indefensible.
The primary goal of noninstitutional punishment is to provide a period of grace in
order to assist the rehabilitation of a penitent offender. See Burns v. United States,
287 U.S. 216, 220, 53 S.Ct. 154, 155 (1932). Clearly, the appellant’s past conduct
demonstrates that she is unrepentant and efforts to rehabilitate have been rejected.
We conclude, as did the trial court, that no additional “period of grace” is warranted.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the
Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
____________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
____________________________________
JOE B. JONES, Presiding Judge
____________________________________
JOE G. RILEY, Judge
3