### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on

Briefs M arch 12, 2002 STATE OF TENN ESSEE v. RAND Y G. McDAN IEL Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for He nry County No. 13086 Julian P. Guinn, Judge

No. W2001-01501-CCA-R3-CD - Filed April 2, 2002

The defendan t entered pl eas of guilty to two counts of manufacturing a Schedule II controlled substance and was sentenced to concurrent three- year sentences. The trial court further ordered that the defendant have split confinement, with supervised probation af t er serving one year in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant appeals this sentence, arguing t hat he sho

uld be eligible for parole after service of 30% of the sentence, that his sentence should be served at the county workhouse, and that he should receive sentence credits. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed
A LAN E. G LENN , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which G ARY R. W ADE , P.J., and N ORMA M C G EE O GLE , J., joined. Steven L. West, Mc Kenzie , Tennes see, for the appe llant, Ran dy G. McD aniel. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Jennifer L. Bledsoe , Assistant Attorney Genera l; G. Robert R adford, District Attorney General; and Steven L. Gar rett, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Te nnessee. OPINION The defendant was sentenced to two concu rren t three-year sentences for violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-417(a)(1)(C)(2), ma nufacturing a

Schedule II controlled substance. According to the judgments, he was sentenced as a “Standa rd 30% ” o ffender and was to be placed on “Supervised Probation after 1 year confinement.” I. Place o

f Confine ment As to the place of his confinement, the defendant argues that, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-104(b)(1), his sentence should be serve d at the county workhouse rather-2-

than in the Tennessee Department of Correction bec ause “[t]he He nry County Jail has contracted with the department to house such felons.”
Tenness ee Code A

nnotated section 4 0-35-104 (b)(1) providesas follow s: A defendant who is convicted o f a felony after November 1, 1989, and who is sentenced to a total sentence of at least one (1) year, butnotmore than three (3) years, shall not be sentenced to serve such sentence in the d epartm ent of correction, if the legislative body for the county from which the defendant is be i ng sentenced has either contracted

wit h the de partment, or has passed a resolution which expresses an intent to contract for the purpose of housing convicted felons with such sentences. If the sentenc ing court concludes that incarceration

is the app ropriate sente ncing alternative, such defendant must be sentenced to the local jail or workhouse and not to the departm ent. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-104(b)(1) (1997).
We agr ee with th e St ate that the record on appeal contains evidenc e neither of a contract b etween Henry County and the Tennessee Department of Corr ection, nor a resolution of it s appropr iatelegislative body that convicted felons be housed in t he Henr y County Ja

il. Accordingly, there is no basis for our concluding that the defendant’s sentence shoul d no t be served in the Tenness ee Depa

rtment of Correct ion, as or dered by the trial court. II. Parole Eligibility/Sentence Credits Next, the def

endant argues that, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotat ed section 40-35-501(c) , he is eligible

for par ole after serving 10.8 months of his sentence but that the judgments, providing for probation “after 1 year confinement,”do not so allow. The judgments require that the defendant serve “1 year confinement,” but do not o rder that he not receive sentence credits during this year. We note that this court has previously determined that a “day for day” c onfinement cannot deny a defendant s enten ce credits. State v. Clark , ___S.W.3d___ (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 2 001); State v. James Hall Schlegel , No. W 2000-02597-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 77, at *20 n.1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2002). Ac cordingl y, the def endant is entitled t o recei ve sente

nce cre dits as he

serves h is senten ce in the

Tenness ee Depa

rtment o f Correction.-3- CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing authorities and reasoning, the judgment of the t rial cou

rt is affirmed.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE