### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs Jun e 15, 200 4 FL OYD W. JENKIN S v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for MonroeCounty No. 98-049 Car roll L. Ross, Jud ge

No. E2004-00705-CC A-R3- P C - F iled Jul y 26, 2004
The pe titioner, Floy d W. J enkins, appe als the Monroe County Criminal Court’s denial of his Motion for Probation. The state conte nds that the trial court properly denied the m o t i o n b eca use the petitioner is serving his sentence s in the Depa rtment of C orre ction and the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over him. We ag reewith the state and, pur suant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R., a ff irm th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim . App. R.
J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined. Floy d W. J enkins, Petros, Tenne ssee, Pro Se. Paul G. Summers, A ttorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Michelle Chapman Mc I ntire, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; and Jerry

N. Estes, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION
T h e r e c o r dr e f

l e c t s t h a ti n J u l y 1 9 9 8 , t h e p e t i t i o n e r p l e dg u i l t y t o t h r e e c o u n t s o f c ar b u r g l ar y, a Class E fe lony

. The trial court sentenced him as a Rang e II offe nder to thre e y ear s on probation for eac h conviction and order ed that two of the sentenc es be serve d consec utively

. I n Fe bruary 2000, the trial court revoke d the pe t i t ioner’s pr obation and orde red that he servehis sentence s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction (DOC). In Fe bru ar y 2 0 0 4 , the petitioner filed a pro se Motion for Probation, reque sting that the tria l court re instate his probation. The trial court de nied the motion on the basis that it no longe r had jurisdiction ove r the petitioner beca use he was serving his sentence s in the DO C. T he pe tit ion e r a pp e a ls, c la imi ng that th e tria l cou rt re ta ine d jurisd ic tio n ove r h is c a se and that the tria l court should have a ppointed counsel to re prese nt him.-2-

Once the petitioner wa s transfe rre d t o t h e DO C , the trial court lost j urisdiction over the petitioner’s sente nces. State v. B owling, 958 S.W.2d 362 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); seeT.C.A. § 40 -3 5- 21 2( d) . T hu s, to the e xten t th a t heis s e e kin g pr ob a tio n f or these nte nc e he is c ur

re ntl y s e r v in g , th e trial c o u rt p r o p e r ly d e te r mi n e dth a t i t h a dlo s t j u r is d ic ti o n o v e r th e p e ti ti o n e r ’ s c a s e . We n o t e t hat Rule 35, Tenn. R. Crim. P., provides that a “tria l court may reduc e a se ntence upon application filed w ithi n 120 day s after the date the sentenc e is imposed or probation is revoked.” Ob vio us ly , the pe tit ion e r’ s re qu e st to ha ve his pr ob a tio n re ins tate d wa s we ll ou tsi de that ti me lim it. Pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R., we affirm the trial court’ s denial of the motion.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE