State v. Stacy Dwayne Meadows

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
AUGUST 1997 SESSION
September 18, 1997
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) NO. 01C01-9610-CR-00420
Appellee, )
) SUMNER COUNTY
VS. )
) Hon. Jane W. Wheatcraft, Judge
STACY DWAYNE MEADOWS, )
) (Community Corrections
Appellant. ) Revocation)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
DAVID ALLEN DOYLE JOHN KNOX WALKUP
District Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
PAMELA E. BECK KAREN M. YACUZZO
NANCY MYERS Assistant Attorney General
Assistant District Public Defenders 450 James Robertson Parkway
117 East Main Street Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Gallatin, TN 37066-2801
LAWRENCE RAY WHITLEY
District Attorney General
DEE GAY
Assistant District Attorney General
113 West Main Street
Gallatin, TN 37066-2803
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
JOE G. RILEY,
JUDGE
OPINION
The appellant, Stacy Dwayne Meadows,1 appeals the Sumner County
Criminal Court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence. Appellant
contends that the trial court erred in revoking this alternative sentence and ordering
confinement. We find no error; accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 1992, appellant pled guilty to burglary of a habitation. He was
sentenced to three (3) years, with all but 30 days suspended, and placed on
supervised probation. In March 1993, he pled guilty to possession of marijuana in
a penal institution. He received a three (3) year community corrections sentence
consecutive to the burglary probation violation. He was required to serve six (6)
months in jail on the probation violation, and the remainder of his sentence was to
be served on probation.
In March 1996, appellant’s probation was once again revoked on various
grounds, including moving without notifying his probation officer, failure to report to
his probation officer, failure to pay probation fees, failure to provide proof of
payment of restitution and/or costs, failure to seek alcohol and drug treatment and
numerous arrests and convictions. He was ordered to serve 45 days in jail, and the
remainder of his sentence was to be served in the community corrections program.
On April 15, 1996, a Violation of Community Corrections Warrant was issued
citing appellant’s failure to report to his case officer for a period of two (2) weeks.
The warrant was later amended to indicate that appellant was in absconder status.
At the revocation hearing, appellant testified that he had not reported to his
case officer since he had been released from jail after his second probation
1
Appellant’s name is also spelled “Stacey” in some of the court documents.
It is spelled “Stacy” in the judgments and revocation orders.
2
violation. He claimed that he had been in Alabama visiting his mother, but had
attempted to contact his case officer. Additionally, he stated that he had been
drinking excessively, but had not sought treatment because he did not have
insurance.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that appellant violated
the conditions of his community corrections sentence. The court ordered that he
serve the remainder of his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction.
REVOCATION
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in
revoking his community corrections sentence. More specifically, he insists that the
mere finding of a violation of the conditions of the community corrections sentence
will not support revocation. He maintains that incarceration is inappropriate, and the
trial court abused its discretion.
Revocation of a community corrections sentence is subject to 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.
In the case sub judice, there is no question that appellant violated the terms
of his community corrections sentence. In fact, he admitted that he did not report
to his case officer as required in the conditions of the community corrections
sentence. Moreover, it appears that he left the jurisdiction soon after he was
released from jail.
Appellant complains that there is no evidence in the record to suggest that
he is not amenable to rehabilitation and “no longer presents a good risk.” To the
contrary, there is overwhelming evidence in the record to suggest that he is not a
proper candidate for alternative sentencing. Appellant has a history of non-
compliance with the conditions of his release. He has shown a blatant disregard for
3
the conditions of his alternative sentences. Indeed, this is his third revocation. The
trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s community corrections
sentence.
Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that
appellant’s sentence be served in confinement. Upon finding a violation, the trial
court has the authority to terminate the program and order confinement. Tenn.
Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(4). It is evident that measures less restrictive than
confinement have frequently and recently been applied unsuccessfully to the
appellant, making confinement an appropriate measure. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-
103(1)(C). This issue is without merit.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the trial court was warranted in revoking appellant’s
probation and ordering that he serve the remainder of his sentences in confinement.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
J. CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
JOE H. WALKER, III, SPECIAL JUDGE
4