FILED

September 27, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

AUGUST SESSION, 1999

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9808-CR-00297

)

Appellee, )

)

) KNOX COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. RAY L. JENKINS,

JAMES EDWARD OAKLEY, ) JUDGE

)

Appellant. ) (Revocation of Community 

) Corrections Sentence)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE

CRIMINAL COURT OF KNOX COUNTY

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

KIMBERLY A. PARTON PAUL G. SUMMERS

P.O. Box 116 Attorney General and Reporter

Knoxville, TN 37901-0116

ELLEN H. POLLACK

Assistant District Attorney General

425 Fifth Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37243

RANDALL E. NICHOLS

District Attorney General

ZANE SCARLETT

Assistant District Attorney General

City-County Building

Knoxville, TN 37902

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
-2-

OPINION

The Defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his

comm unity corrections sentence and ordering the balance of his sentence to be

served in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Based on our review of the record presented on appeal, it appears that

judgments of conviction were entered against the Defendant on December 17,

1997 for fifteen counts of aggravated burglary and one count of burglary. For

each conviction the Defendant was sentenced to four years as a Range I

standard offender. The trial court ordered five of the sentences served

consecutively and the remaining sentences served concurrently, for an effective

sentence of twenty years. The trial court granted the Defendant’s application to

serve his twenty-year sentence in the Knox County Community Alternatives to

Prison Program.

On January 14, 1998, a petition was filed alleging that the Defendant had

violated the terms of his community corrections sentence by: (1) failing to obey

the law, (2) failing to make a full and truthful report to his case manager, (3)

failing to be actively employed, (4) failing to pay court costs, (5) failing to perform

comm unity service, (6) failing to pay community corrections monthly fees, (7)

failing to pay victim restitution, and (8) failing to report to his supervisor.

Counsel was appointed to represent the Defendant and a hearing was

conducted on the revocation petition on May 15, 1998. At the hearing, the
-3-

Defendant’s attorney advised the court that the Defendant wanted to “submit to

the revocation.” At that time, additional charges were apparently pending against

the Defendant, and counsel stated, “But he wishes to go ahead and submit and

go to the penitentiary and hope that the other charges don’t come out of the

Grand Jury.” The trial judge addressed the Defendant in open court as follows:

THE COURT: Mr. Oakley, Ms. Parton has advised the Court

that you intend to submit to the revocation warrant and go on and

serve the time; is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: You’ve discussed this with her and you feel it’s

in your best interest?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. All right. Thank you.

An order was entered on May 15, 1998 finding the Defendant guilty of

violating the terms of his community corrections sentence, granting the

Defendant 549 days of jail credit, and ordering the balance of the sentence

served in the Department of Correction.

On June 3, 1998, the Defendant filed a motion to have his case reheard,

stating that he had his ?mind set on changing” and did not want to serve his

sentence in prison. The trial court entered an order dismissing this motion on

June 8, 1998. On June 23, 1998, the Defendant filed a motion to waive or

suspend payment of all court costs, which was dismissed by the trial court on July

7, 1998. On July 30, 1998, the Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the

judgment entered on May 15, 1998. On August 24, 1998, the Defendant filed a

request that his sentence be reduced, along with a motion to have his case

retried, stating that he did not “entirely understand” his plea agreement.
-4-

In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by revoking

the Defendant’s community corrections sentence and by ordering that the original

sentences be served in the Department of Correction. He also argues that the

trial court erred by dismissing his motion for a reduction of sentence and his

motion to rehear without a hearing.

In order for a reviewing court to find an abuse of discretion in a community

corrections revocation case, it must be established that the record contains no

substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge that the

Defendant violated the terms of the community corrections program. State v.

Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). The proof of a violation need not be

established beyond a reasonable doubt, and is sufficient if it allows the trial judge

to make a conscientious and intelligent decision. Id. 

From the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial judge erred

or abused his discretion by revoking the Defendant’s community corrections

sentence and ordering the balance of the sentence served in the Department of

Correction. We likewise find no error or abuse of discretion in refusing to

consider the Defendant’s motion for a reduction of sentence. At the hearing on

the revocation warrant, the Defendant appeared with his attorney and advised the

court that he wished to ?submit” to the revocation warrant and serve his sentence

in the penitentiary. The Defendant’s position at the revocation hearing leads us

to conclude that he conceded he had violated the terms of his community

corrections sentence. At the hearing, counsel also advised the trial court that the

Defendant wished to be transferred to the penitentiary as soon as possible.
-5-

Although neither the record nor the transcript from the Defendant’s guilty

plea proceeding is before us, it is apparent that his twenty year sentence was the

result of a plea agreement. The trial judge granted the Defendant’s request to

serve his sentence in a community based alternative to incarceration.

Subsequently, during the Defendant’s revocation hearing, the trial court granted

the Defendant’s request to revoke his community corrections sentence and allow

him to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. The State argues that

the Defendant is the “author of his own predicament.” We agree.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

____________________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

___________________________________

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE