State v. Charles Stoots ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON FILED
JUNE 1998 SESSION August 7, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) NO. 02C01-9712-CC-00464
Appellee, )
) MADISON COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. WHIT LAFON,
CHARLES MARTIN STOOTS, ) JUDGE
)
Appellant. ) (Community Corrections
) Revocation)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
GEORGE MORTON GOOGE JOHN KNOX WALKUP
District Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
STEPHEN P. SPRACHER PETER M. COUGHLAN
(Hearing Only) Assistant Attorney General
227 W. Baltimore Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor
Jackson, TN 38301-6137 425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
C. MICHAEL ROBBINS
(Appeal Only) JAMES G. WOODALL
3074 East Street District Attorney General
Memphis, TN 38128
JAMES W. THOMPSON
Assistant District Attorney General
225 Martin Luther King Dr.
P.O. Box 2825
Jackson, TN 38302-2825
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
JOE G. RILEY,
JUDGE
OPINION
The defendant, Charles Martin Stoots, appeals the trial court’s revocation
of his Community Corrections sentence. The defendant pled guilty to burglary,
two (2) counts of theft over $1,000 and DUI. The defendant received an
effective sentence of six (6) years to be served in Community Corrections
consecutive to an eleven (11) month twenty-nine (29) day sentence of
confinement for DUI. The defendant failed to report to serve the DUI sentence.
We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendant's
Community Corrections sentence and AFFIRM its decision.
FACTS
The defendant entered his guilty pleas to burglary, theft and DUI on
January 8, 1997. He was sentenced to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29)
days for DUI to be followed by six (6) years on Community Corrections for the
burglary and thefts. He requested that his report date on the DUI be delayed for
a short period of time so that he could get his affairs in order. The trial court
complied and gave the defendant until January 18, 1997, to report.
The defendant went to Texas immediately after sentencing and did not
report to the jail at his scheduled time. Some months later, the defendant was
arrested in Texas on the violation warrant. The defendant claimed he went to
Texas to see his son and was involuntarily hospitalized while there, preventing
his scheduled reporting.
REVOCATION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
A trial court may revoke Community Corrections and resentence a
defendant upon finding the defendant violated the terms and conditions of
2
Community Corrections. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(4). Revocation of a
Community Corrections sentence is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of
review, rather than a de novo standard. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82
(Tenn. 1991). Discretion is abused only if the record contains no substantial
evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of the
Community Corrections sentence has occurred. Id.The failure to report to begin service of a sentence is a criminal offense.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-609(a)(2). The defendant claimed involuntary
hospitalization prevented him from doing so. However, the defendant testified
he had access to a telephone for three (3) months but failed to inform anyone in
Tennessee of his whereabouts or status of hospitalization. The trial court was
obviously unimpressed with the defendant’s explanation.
The defendant further contends the failure to report occurred prior to the
time he was to actually begin the Community Corrections program. This is no
defense. See State v. Stone, 880 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1994)(finding revocation of probation is proper where defendant commits
another offense after entry of judgment but before probationary period begins).
The trial court is in a much better position to assess credibility than this
Court since it can assess the appearance and demeanor of the defendant. The
trial court implicitly found the defendant’s absence from this state for months
without notifying local authorities to be inexcusable. We conclude the defendant
has failed to prove the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Community
Corrections.
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
3
_________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
4