IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs October 5, 2010 

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. PAUL WILLIAM PERRY, SR.

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardeman County

No. 09-01-0827 J. Weber McGraw, Judge

No. W2010-00790-CCA-R3-CD - Filed December 13, 2010

The Defendant-Appellant, Paul William Perry, Sr., appeals the revocation of his community

corrections sentence. He originally pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Hardeman County to

aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and vandalism between $1,000 and $10,000, a Class D

felony. Perry was granted an alternative sentence of four and a half years with the

Corrections Management Corporation. Perry admits that he violated the terms of his

sentence; however, he argues that the trial court erred by revoking the sentence and ordering

confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ALAN E. GLENN and

J. C. MCLIN, JJ., joined.

Gary F. Antrican, District Public Defender; Shana Johnson, District Public Defender (at trial)

Waverly, Tennessee; Clifford K. McGown (on appeal) Somerville, Tennessee, for the

Defendant-Appellant, Paul William Perry, Sr.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Brian C. Johnson, Assistant Attorney

General; D. Michael Dunavant, District Attorney General; and Joe VanDyke, Assistant

District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

Background. The indictment alleges that Perry fired numerous gunshots at the

victim’s property, causing significant damage to her house, car, and four-wheeler. The

victim was inside of her home at the time of the offense. The judgments were entered against

Perry on August 13, 2009. He was sentenced as a standard offender to four and a half years

for aggravated assault and three years for vandalism. The trial court ordered these sentences
to run concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Perry was ordered to pay

$7,200 in restitution through monthly payments of $150. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the

original sentence was suspended after Perry served 156 days in jail. He was ordered to serve

the remainder of his sentence with the Corrections Management Corporation, a community

corrections program.

The sentencing order required Perry to enter into a Behavioral Contract Agreement.

This agreement set forth the terms of the alternative sentence. On November 3, 2009, a case

officer for the Corrections Management Corporation submitted a petition to the trial court

which alleged that Perry violated the terms of the Behavioral Contract Agreement. The case

officer requested that the trial court issue a capias and schedule a revocation hearing. The

petition alleged the following violations:

Mr. Perry is in violation of Rule #2, which states, “All Offenders under house

arrest will be required to remain at home unless performing community

service, working, attending classes or counseling.” Mr. Perry was not at home

on: 8/30/09 (5:24pm), and 9/4/09 (6:44pm).

Mr. Perry is in violation of Rule #6, which states, “Offenders will not use or

possessintoxicants, inhalants, narcotic drugs or controlled substances, nor visit

business establishments where alcoholic beverages are the primary source of

business. Offenders will also be subject to random alcohol and drug

screening.” Mr. Perry tested positive for Cocaine on 8/25/09, and 10/27/09.

He was advised to seek inpatient treatment and he refused.

Mr. Perry is in violation of Rule #9, which states, “All Offenders will report

in person to their supervising Case Officer as directed at a pre-designated

meeting place. At this meeting, the Case Officer and Offender will develop

a weekly activity schedule which the Offender must follow and complete.”

Mr. Perry did not report for his scheduled weekly on 9/8/09 (3p-5p).

Based on these alleged violations, the trial court issued a warrant for Perry’s arrest.

The trial court conducted a revocation hearing on March 12, 2010. Defense counsel

said Perry stipulated to the alleged violations. Defense counsel asked the trial court to

consider ordering a period of confinement before reinstatement to the Corrections

Management Corporation or probation. Perry was the only witness to testify at the hearing,

and he admitted to the violations set forth by the case officer. He acknowledged that he

owed a substantial amount of restitution; however, he claimed he had $1,200 which he was

willing to pay towards restitution. Perry asked the trial court to consider placing him in

-2-
rehabilitation. He testified that he had issues that needed to be addressed. Presumably, Perry

was referring to problems with substance abuse. He acknowledged that he declined an

opportunity to go to rehabilitation while with the Corrections Management Corporation.

Perry spent seventy-seven days with the Corrections Management Corporation.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Perry violated the terms of

the Behavioral Contract Agreement . It revoked the alternative sentence, and it imposed the

original term of confinement. The trial court stated:

On the agreed violation, there appears to be several substantial reasons

why he has violated his probation. He did receive the benefit, apparently, of

a good resolution when he entered the plea; therefore, the Court does not

believe he should be given any further relief. His suspended sentence will be

revoked.

Perry filed a timely notice of appeal in challenging the judgment of the trial court.

ANALYSIS

Perry concedes that he violated the terms of his community corrections sentence. He

claims, however, that the trial court erred by revoking his sentence and imposing the original

term of confinement. Perry argues that the trial court should have imposed an alternative

sentence aimed at rehabilitating his substance abuse problem. The State contends that the

trial court acted within its discretion in sentencing Perry because he admitted to the

violations. The State also asserts that Perry was given the opportunity to seek rehabilitation

while with the Corrections Management Corporation. Upon review, we agree with the State.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the same principles that apply in the

revocation of probation also apply in the revocation of community corrections. State v.

Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 83 (Tenn. 1991). The revocation of community corrections, like

the revocation of probation, rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. A trial

court may revoke either alternative sentence upon a finding by a preponderance of the

evidence that the defendant violated the conditions of the sentence. See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-

310, -311(e) (2009). An appellate court will uphold a trial court’s decision to revoke

probation or community corrections absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Beard, 189

S.W.3d 730, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005); State v. Webb, 130 S.W.3d 799, 842 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 2003) (quoting Harkins, 811 S.W.2d at 82). In order to establish an abuse of

discretion, the defendant must show that there is no substantial evidence in the record to

support the trial court’s conclusion to revoke either of the alternative sentences. See State

v. Schaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001). After a probation or community corrections

-3-
sentence has been revoked, the trial court may order the imposition of the original sentence.

T.C.A. §§ 40-35-311(e), -36-106(e)(4) (2009).

In this case, Perry admitted that he violated the terms of his sentence by failing to

report for a scheduled meeting, twice testing positive for cocaine, and twice leaving his home

without authorization. Therefore, the trial court was authorized by statute to revoke Perry’s

community corrections sentence and impose the original term of confinement. Id. We

recognize that Perry seeks rehabilitation. At the revocation hearing, he acknowledged that

he needed treatment and that he was open to rehabilitation. The record shows that Perry

previously declined to attend rehabilitation programs ordered by the court. As such, the trial

court was permitted to revoke his sentence and order confinement. Perry has not shown that

the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, he is not entitled to relief.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

______________________________

CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, JUDGE

-4-