IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs March 12, 2002

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RANDY G. McDANIEL

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Henry County

No. 13086 Julian P. Guinn, Judge

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

The defendant entered pleas 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 after serving one year in the

Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant appeals this sentence, arguing that he should

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

ALAN E. GLENN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GARY R. WADE, P.J., and NORMA

MCGEE OGLE, J., joined.

Steven L. West, McKenzie, Tennessee, for the appellant, Randy G. McDaniel.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Jennifer L. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney General;

G. Robert Radford, District Attorney General; and Steven L. Garrett, Assistant District Attorney

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

The defendant was sentenced to two concurrent three-year sentences for violation of

Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-417(a)(1)(C)(2), manufacturing a Schedule II controlled

substance. According to the judgments, he was sentenced as a “Standard 30%” offender and was

to be placed on “Supervised Probation after 1 year confinement.” 

I. Place of Confinement

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 served at the county workhouse rather
-2-

than in the Tennessee Department of Correction because “[t]he Henry County Jail has contracted

with the department to house such felons.” 

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-104(b)(1) provides as follows:

A defendant who is convicted of a felony after November 1,

1989, and who is sentenced to a total sentence of at least one (1) year,

but not more than three (3) years, shall not be sentenced to serve such

sentence in the department of correction, if the legislative body for

the county from which the defendant is being sentenced has either

contracted with the department, or has passed a resolution which

expresses an intent to contract for the purpose of housing convicted

felons with such sentences. If the sentencing court concludes that

incarceration is the appropriate sentencing alternative, such defendant

must be sentenced to the local jail or workhouse and not to the

department.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-104(b)(1) (1997).

We agree with the State that the record on appeal contains evidence neither of a contract

between Henry County and the Tennessee Department of Correction, nor a resolution of its

appropriate legislative body that convicted felons be housed in the Henry County Jail. Accordingly,

there is no basis for our concluding that the defendant’s sentence should not be served in the

Tennessee Department of Correction, as ordered by the trial court.

II. Parole Eligibility/Sentence Credits

Next,the defendant argues that, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(c),

he is eligible for parole 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 order that he not receive sentence credits during this year.

We note that this court has previously determined that a “day for day” confinement cannot deny a

defendant sentence credits. State v. Clark, ___S.W.3d___ (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal

denied (Tenn. 2001); State v. James Hall Schlegel, No. W2000-02597-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 Tenn.

Crim. App. LEXIS 77, at *20 n.1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2002). Accordingly, the defendant is

entitled to receive sentence credits as he serves his sentence in the Tennessee Department of

Correction.
-3-

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing authorities and reasoning, the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed. 

___________________________________ 

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE