### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nua ry 25, 200 5
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RA ND Y L . JOHN SON
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty Nos. S44,297; S44,506; S44,507 Phyllis H. Mill er, Judge

No. E2004-01124-CC A-R3- CD - F iled March 15, 2005

Th e app e lla nt, Ra nd y L . J oh ns on , ple d g uil ty in the Sul liv a n Coun ty Cr imi na l Court to tw o c ou nts of ag g ravated assault and one count of thef t of property

valued ove r $1,00 0

. He r ece ived a total eff ective se ntence of nine y ear s incar cer ation in the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection. The trial court g rante d the appe llant p ro b at i o n
. Subsequently , his probation was re voked bec ause of new of fe ns e s a nda

po sit ive dr

ug sc re e n. Th e tr ia l c ou rt or de re d th e pe tit ion e r t o s e rv e his se nte nc e s in confine ment. On appe al, the appellant challeng es the revoc ation of his pr obation. Upon revie w of the re cord a nd the parties’ brief s, we a ffirm the judg ments of the trial c ourt.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt s o f the Cr im ina l C our t a r e Affir m e d.
N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., joined.
Richard A. T ate, B lountvill e, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Randy

L . J ohnson.
Paul G

. S u m m ers, Attorne y Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Wi lliam G. L amberth, I I , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; H. Gr eele y Wells, J r., Dist rict Att orney Gene ral; and Robert H. Montgome ry , J r., Assistant District Attorney

Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION
I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
On Marc h 29, 2001, the appe llant pled g uiltyto two co u n t s of ag g ravated assault and one count of theft of property

valued ove r $1,000. The tr ial court imposed a se ntence of three y ear s for one of the ag g ravated assault convic tions, two y ear s for the theft conviction, and four y ear s for the rema ining a g g ravat ed as s au l t conviction. The trial c ourt order ed that the two- and thre e-y ear sentenc es be se rved c oncurr ently to e ach other but c onsecutively to the four- y ear

sentenc e, for

a total eff ective sentence of seven y ear s. The trial court also allowed the a ppellant to serve his sentence s on community

corr ections.-2-

There afte r, on January

3, 2002, the appe llant’s alternative sentenc e wa s revoke d. The trial court a llowed the appellant to serve his sentenc e on probation, but incre ased his four-y ear sentenc e to a six -y ear

sentenc e, for

a total effec tive sentenc e of nine y ear s. Subsequently , Kathy Moody , the appellant’ s probation offic er, f iled two arr est war

rants for the violation of the appe llant’s probation, alleg ing tha t during drug scre ening , the appellant tested positive for marijuana , he fa iled to follow the laws of Tenne ssee by committing t he offenses of forg ery over $1,000 and thef t over $1,000, he failed to re port, and he failed to pa y monthlysupervision fee s. At the proba tion revocation hearing , Moody testified th at the appe llant tested positive for marijuana on Aug ust 13, 2002. She informed the appellant that she would take out an a rre st warr ant du e to the vio la tio n o f h is p ro batio n. B e c a us e of the po sit ive dr ug sc re e n, the app e lla nt v olu nta ri ly enter ed into an inpatient tre atment prog ram, fr om which prog ram he was re lease d on September 11, 2002. The a

ppellant’s last mee ting with his probation off icer was Aug ust 2002; he did not r ep o rt ag ain thro ug h Fe bruary

5, 2004. The a

ppellant also fa iled to pay any supervision fee s betwee n Aug ust 2002 and Fe bruary 2004.
Michae l Roberts testified at the revocation hearing that in September or October 2003, the app e lla nt wo uld oc c a sio na lly sp e nd the nig ht w ith him . T he re a ft e r, so me on e a pp ro a c he d Ro be rt s wi th a c he c k th a t ha d b e e n r e turne d f or ins uf fi c ie nt f un ds . Robe rt s did not write the c he c k, no r d id he g ive the appe llant permission to sign the che ck.
Detec tive Mark Ma son testified that on J anuary 1, 2004, he met with the appellant r eg arding the che cks stolen from Roberts. The appellant g ave a statement confe ssing to the theft of thre e of Roberts’ chec ks. One of the chec ks was written for $700 and the other f or $1,400. The a

ppellant used one of

the chec ks to pur chase a van w hich he late r sold for $600. The appellant a dmitted that Roberts did not give him permission to si g n the che cks.
At the conc lusion of the hearing, the trial court state d:
I find that y ou have viola t ed probation [on y our ca ses]. Ifind the State has prove d the ca se, I g uess way bey ond a prepondera nce of the evidenc e, by

clea r and convincing evidenc e they ’ve pr oved it and that y ou violated all the conditions alleg ed. Th e p o s itive drug scre en, violation of Rule No. 7 [t he positive drug scre en], Rule No. 6 [ failure to r e po rt ], Ru le No . 8 [fa ilu re to pa y fe e s] and Rul e No . 1 [fa ilu re to o b e y a ll la w s ].
No w, I ’m g oin g to r e vo ke y ou r p ro ba tio n a ndor de r y ou to serve y our sentenc e. It’s one thi ng to have a positive drug scre en. Of course that will ge t y ou revoke d too, b u t i t ’s another to go out a nd c omm it a c tua lly

tw o Cl a ss D fe lon ie s.-3-

The trial c ourt order ed the appellant to serve his nine- y ear sentenc e in conf

inement. The a

ppellant app e a ls the re vo c a tio n o f p ro ba tio n a ndthe imp os iti on of a se nte nc e of

c on fi ne me nt.
II. Ana lys is Up on fi nd ing by a pr e po nd e ra nc e of the e vid e nc e that th e app e lla nt h a s v iol a te d th e te rm s of his probation, a tria l c ourt is authorized to order an appellant to se rve the balanc e of his orig inal sentenc e in conf

inement. See Te nn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-310 and -311( e) ( 2003); State v. Har kins , 811 S.W

. 2 d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991) . I n the alter native, “at the conclusion of a probation re vocation hearing, the court shall have the authority to ext end the de fenda nt’s period of pr obation supervision fo r a ny pe ri odno t in e xce ss o f t wo (2 ) y e ars .” Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -3 08 (c) (20 03 ); se e a lso Sta te v. Hu nte r, 1 S. W.3 d 6 43 , 6 46 (T e nn . 1 99 9) . M or e ov e r, “ a n a c c us e d, a lr e a dy on pr ob a tio n, is not entitled to a second g rant of probation or a nother form of alternative sentenc ing.” State v. J eff rey A. War fi e ld, No. 01C01-9711-CC-00504, 1999 WL 61065, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Na shville, F e b. 10 , 19 99 ); se e a lso St a te v
. T im o th y A

. Jo h n s o n , N o
. M 2 0 0 1

- 0 1 3 6 2

- CC A

- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 2 WL 242351, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Nashville, F eb. 11, 2002). Proba tion revocation rests in the sound discretion of the tr ial court a nd will not be overturne d by this court absent a n abuse of that discretion. See State v. L eac h , 914 S.W .2d 104, 106 (Tenn. Cr i m
. Ap p
. 1995). An a buse of discretion exis ts w hen “the rec ord contains no substantial e vidence to support the tr i al co urt’s conclusion t hat a violation has occurre d.” S tate v. Conner , 919 S.W .2d 48, 50 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
I n the instant case , the proof ove rwhe lmingly demonstrated tha t the appellant violated the terms of his proba tion. On appea l, the appellant doe s not contest his violation; he mere ly arg ues that

the ends of justice and the inter est of the public and the a ppellant ar e not best serve d by

having the appe llant to serve his sentenc e. Con sid e ri ng the na tur e of the vio la tio n of pr ob a tio n, the be st i nte re st of the publi c and the appellant is for the appellant to be plac ed bac k o n p r o b a t i o n , s o t h a t h e c a n b e c o m e a p r o d u c t i v e m e m b e r o f s o c i e t y. We disag ree . Given the a

ppellant’s re peate d and egr eg ious violations of his probation, we conclude that th e tr ia l c ou rt

wa s w e ll w ith in i ts d isc re tio n in or de ri ng the app e ll a nt t o s e rv e his se nte nc e in confine ment. This issue is without merit.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEE OGLE, J UDGE