State v. William Davis, Jr.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
OCTOBER SESSION, 1999
FILED
December 15, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) NO.M1999-01738-CCA-R3-CD
)
Appellee, )
) MONTGOM ERY COUNTY
V. )
)
) HON. ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER
WILLIAM T. DAVIS, JR. )
)
Appe llant. ) (Aggravated Burglary; B urglary)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
MICHAEL R. JONES PAUL G. SUMMERS
District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
RUSSEL A. CHURCH CLINT ON J. M ORG AN
Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General
625 Frosty M orn Drive 2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
Clarksville, TN 37043 425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243
JOHN WESLEY CARNEY, JR.
District Attorn ey Ge neral
C. DANIEL BROLLIER, JR.
Assis tant D istrict Atto rney G enera l
120 Le gion Stre et
Clarksville, TN 37041
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-2-
OPINION
The Montgomery County Grand Jury indicted Defendant William Davis, Jr.,
for aggravated burglary and burglary. O n June 5, 1998 , Defend ant pled g uilty to
both of the charged offenses. That same day, the trial court sentenced Defendant
as a Ran ge II mu ltiple offender to concurrent terms of eight years for aggravated
burglary and fo ur yea rs for bu rglary. In additio n, the tria l court ordered Defendant
to serve the sentences in the Community Correc tions Pro gram. A Com munity
Corrections Program violation warrant was subsequently filed on July 17, 1998, and
was executed on August 6, 1998. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked
Defe ndan t’s placement in the Community Corrections Program and ordered
Defendant to serve his sente nces in th e Ten nesse e Dep artmen t of Correc tion, with
credit for time served. Defen dant c hallen ges th e revo cation of his placement in the
Com munity Corrections Program. After a review of the record, we affirm the
judgm ent of the tria l court.
BACKGROUND
At the beginning of the revocation hearing, defense counsel stated that
Defendant had violated the requirements of the Community Corrections Program
and he was submitting the matter to the trial court for appropriate disposition.
Christy Akin H olt testified that when Defendant was sentenced to the
Com munity Corrections Program, she discussed the terms and conditions of the
program with him. Defendant was released from jail on June 9, 1998, and he went
-3-
through the Community Corrections intake process on June 10, 1998. Defendant
committed a curfew violation on June 10, 1998, and although he reported on June
11, 1998, Holt never saw him again.
Holt testified that Defendant had previously been placed in the Co mm unity
Corrections Program on September 16, 1994, and he subsequently violated the
requirem ents of the program. Holt also testified that Defendant had admitted to the
previous violation and his placement in the program had been revoked as a result.
Defendant testified that he had previously been in the Community Corrections
Program in 1994 and he had violated the requirements of the program after
appro ximate ly six months. Defendant claimed that he committed the curfew violation
on Jun e 10, 19 98, bec ause h e did not h ave a pla ce to stay when he got ou t of jail.
Defendant also claimed that he never reported back to Holt because he was
working. Defen dant s tated th at he s hould be ab le to remain in the C omm unity
Corrections Program because he had learned his lesson.
ANALY SIS
Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked
his placement in the Community Corrections Program. We disagree.
The decision to revoke a Community Corrections sentence rests within the
sound discretion of the trial court and that decision will not be disturbed on appeal
unless there is no subs tantial e videnc e to su pport th e trial co urt's conclus ion that a
violation had oc curred. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W .2d 79, 82 (T enn. 19 91). In
-4-
reviewing the trial court's finding, it is our obligation to examine the record and
determine whether the trial court has exercised a conscientious judgment rather than
an arbitrary one. See State v. Mitch ell, 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1991). If the evid ence is sufficient, the trial court, may, pursu ant to its discretionary
authority, revoke th e Com munity Correc tions sen tence a nd requ ire the defe ndant to
serve the se ntenc e in confinement. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(3) (Supp.
1998).
In this case, there is absolu tely no question that Defendant violated the
requirem ents of the Community Corre ctions Prog ram. In additio n, De fenda nt’s
previous condu ct indicates that he is either unable or unwilling to comply with the
requirem ents of the program. Under these circumstances, the trial court w as clea rly
justified in revoking Defendant’s placement in the Community Corrections Program.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
____________________________________
THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
CONCUR:
___________________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JR., Judge
___________________________________
JAMES CURW OOD W ITT, JR., Judge
-5-