# FILED
July 16, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON JUNE 1997 SESSION

) STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. N o. 02C01-9606-C C-00203 Appellee, ) ) Gibson Coun ty V. ) ) Honorab le Dick Jerm an, Jr., Judge ) COURTNEY

PRICE, ) (Sente ncing) A.K .A. COURTNE Y ) ROBERTSON, ) ) Appellant. )

FOR TH E APPEL LANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: Tom W . Crider Charles W. Burson Distric t Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter J. Diane Stoots Deborah A. Tullis Assistant Publ ic Defender Assistant Att orney Gener al 107 South Court Square 450 James Roberts on Parkway Trenton, TN 38382 Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 Clayburn Peeples Distric t Attorney General 110 South Colleg e Street Suite 200 Trenton, TN 38382

OPINION FILE D: ___________________
REVERSED A ND REMA NDED PAU L G. SUMM ERS, Judge-2- O P I N I O N
The appellant, Cour

tney Pric e, a.k.a. Cour

tney Robert son, pled gui lty to two counts of the illegal sale of a controlled substance. He was sentenced as a Range I offender and pl aced in the Communi ty Corrections Prog ram for four years on each count, to be served concurrently. The trial court subsequently ordered the appel lant arreste d because he had v iolated his community corrections

sentence by failing to obt ain employment a nd by failingthree drug screening tests. Des pite the appella nt’s vio lation of his co mmunity corr ections sentence, the tr ial court or dered that he be reinstated to the C ommunity Correction s Program an d that he find full-t ime employment by a certain date

. Shortly t hereafter, the tr ial court or dered the appella nt arrested because he failed to appear at his

hearing to show that he had obtained employ ment. The trial court then rev

oked the appellant ’s community correctio ns sentence and resentenced him t o six years in the Tennes see Department of Co rrection, thereby increasing his original sentence from f our years to six years.
On appeal, the appel lant does not chal lenge the tr ial court’ s finding that he violated the conditions of his community corrections sentence. He doe s, however , challenge the trial court’s deci sion to enhance hi s sentence from four years to six years, after his initial sentence was revoked. We respectfully
reverse the trial court’s judg ment.
The appellant arg ues that because “ the trial court did not se t out any enhancement factors on t he record and th e State did not fil e an enhancement notice, it can be presumed that the trial court found n o enhancement factors.” Therefore, he contends that the trial court erre d by increasing his sentence; and his orig inal sentence s hould be reinst ated based on the record before this Court.-3- The state argues

that Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e) (4) (Supp. 199 4) permits the tr ial court t o “resentence the [accused] to any appropri ate sentencing alternative, including incarcerat ion, for any pe riod of time up to t he maximum sentence prov ided for the offense committed. ” Also, the state acknow ledges that “the trial court failed to state the mitig ating and enhanc ement factors rel ied upon in the record, and that the presu mption of correctness given to the trial court’s decision on appeal is inappropr iate in this case.” However, the state maintains that a de novo review of the record indicates that enhance ment factors exist which ju stify the appel lant’s new sentence.
Although a de novo review of the sparse record that exists in this case certainly indicates that the appellant ’s enhanced sentence is warranted, this Court must follo w the Tennessee Criminal Se ntencing Refor m Act of 1989 and the Community Corrections Act. W hen a trial court enhances a def endant’s initial se ntence, it “s hall includespecific finding s of fact upon whi ch applicati on of the sentencing principles were based ” and must state on the record the reasons for imp osing a ne w sentenc e. Ten n. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-2 09(c) an d -210(f )-(g) (Supp. 1994) (emphasis ad ded). Although the review of sentences in this Court is de novo , the trial court must still comply with procedures mandate d by these statutes duri ng a sentenci ng hearing

. State v. Ervin , 939 S.W.2d 581 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) ; State v. Patt erson , No. 0 2C01- 9308-C C-001 74 (Tenn . Cri m. App. at Jackson, May 25, 1994 ); State v. Batts , No. 01C01-921 0-CR-00326 (Tenn. Crim. Ap p. at Nashv ille, Feb. 18, 1993); State v. Gauldin , 737 S.W.2d 795, 798 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1987).
The transcript of the sentencing hearing is barely two pages. The trial court summarily sentenced the app ellant to six years, without indicating in the record any legal basis for the i ncreased sentenc e and without making any findings of fact.-4- Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and rem and this case for a new

sentencing hearing that comports w ith the Tennessee C riminal Sente ncing Ref orm Act o f 1989 , Tenn . Code An n. § 40-3 5-101 e t seq.

______________________________ PAUL G. S UMMERS, Ju dge
CONCUR:

______________________________ DAVID H. W ELLES , Judge

______________________________ JOE G. RIL EY, Judge