State of Tennessee v. Vincent Walker ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
MAY SESSION, 1998 September 3, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate Court Clerk
C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9709-CC-00390
)
Appellee, )
)
) MAURY COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. JIM T. HAMILTON
VINCENT WALKER, ) JUDGE
)
Appe llant. ) (Direct Ap peal)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
SHARA FLACY JOHN KNOX WALKUP
District Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
128 N orth 2nd St.
Pulaski, TN 38478 LISA A. NAYLOR
Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenu e North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
MIKE BOTTOMS
District Attorney General
P. O. Box 459
Lawrenceburg, TN 38464
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
OPINION
On January 6, 1997, the trial court issued a community corrections
violation warrant for failure to pay court costs, fines, supervision fees, and
maintain employment. On May 5, 1997, a second revocation warrant was
issued, this time for ag gravated robb ery. On June 2, 1997, the trial court
revok ed Ap pellan t’s com mun ity corre ctions place men t and im pose d his
original sentence of incarceration.
After a review of the re cord, we affirm the judgmen t of the trial court
pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.
Appellant raises the following issues on appea l: Wheth er the trial court
should have waited to rule on the second warrant until Appellant was tried for
the charge, and whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial
court’s decision to revoke Appellant’s probation.
“The court shall also possess the power to revoke the sentence
impos ed at an y time du e to the co nduct o f the defen dant.” T enn. C ode An n. §
40-36-106(e)(4) The trial court did not have to wait until Appellant was tried for
the aggravated robbery charge before revoking community corrections.
The decision to revoke community corrections is entrusted to the sound
discretion of the trial court who may revoke a defendant’s placement in such a
program if a violation of the terms an d conditions the reof is established b y a
prepon deranc e of the ev idence . State v. Hark in, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn.
-2-
1991). There is no requirement that the trial judge wait for a criminal
convic tion to o ccur w hen a violation is brou ght to h is or he r attentio n and is
established by a preponderance of evidence.
The testimony of Juanita Stewart, that Appellant was the robber she
saw and the testimony of Appellant’s community corrections officer, that
Appellant violated the terms of his placement in community corrections
provide a mple b asis to revo ke App ellant’s com munity c orrection s placem ent.
Pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20 the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed for the above stated reasons.
____________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE
___________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
-3-