### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 26, 200 5

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . JO HN ALLE N, JR.

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Gr und y County No. 3700 Thomas W. G raham , Judge

No. M2005- 00551-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Janu ary 18, 2006

Following a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked the probation of Def endant, John Allen, J r., and orde red him to serve the re m ai nder of his sentence in confineme nt. I n his appea l, Defe ndant
arg ue s th a t the tr ial c ou rt e rr e d in fi nd ing that he ha d v iol a te d th e te rm s o f h is p ro batio n, a ndin revoking his probation and orde ring that the sentenc e be serve d by incar cer ation. After a re view of thi s matte r, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R

. and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

Phill i p A. Condra, District Public Def ender ; and Robert G. Morg an, Assistant Public Defe nder, J asper , Tenne ssee, f

or the a ppellant, J ohn Allen, J r. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Sophia S. L ee, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; James M i c h a e l T ayl o r , D i s t

ri c t At torne y Ge ne ra l, andSte ve n H . Strain, As sis ta nt D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

Def endant wa s indicted on two counts of r ape of a child, a Class A f

elony . Pursuant to a neg otiated plea a g ree ment, Def endant e ntere d a p lea of

nolo contender e on June 16, 2003, to one
c ou nt o f atte mpt e d a g g ra vate d s e xua l batte ry , a Cla ss C fe lon y , a nd the tr ia l c ou rt se nte nc e d h im t o six y ear s, all of which wa s susp en d ed, and Defe ndant was pla ced on pr obation. A probation vio la tio n w arr a nt wa s iss ue d on Se pte mbe r 8, 20 04 , a lle g ing that De fe nd a nt h a d v iol a te d th e te rm s of his probation by

failing (1) to maintain employ ment; (2) to report as i nstructed; (3) to pay fee s and court c osts; (4) to provide a spe cimen for DNA tes t i n g; an d (5 ) to comply with the Boa

rd of P ro b at i o n an d P ar o l e S ex Of fe n d erDi re ct i v es wh i ch re q u i re d s ex o ff en d erco u n s el i n g.-2-

At the probation revocation hearing, J eff Thomas, Def

endant’ s probation offic er, te stified t h at h e s t ar t ed s u p er v i s i n g De fe n d an t i n No v em b er 2 0 0 3

. M r. T h o m as s t at ed t h at t o h i s k n o wl ed ge De fe nd a nt ha d no t wo rk e d sin c e he wa s pla c e d on pr ob a tio n. Ac c or din g to D e fe nd a nt’ s f ile , D a vid Shinn, Defenda nt’s previous probation officer , ha d g r an te d D efe ndant permission t o trave l to Florida in J uly 2003 “for

employ ment purposes,” and De fenda nt returne d to Tennesse e in J anuary 2004 wh e n M r. Th oma s f

ir st s a w D e fe nd a nt.

Mr. Thomas said that Def endant was require d to report to his probation off icer twice e ach month. Mr. Thomas said that during 2004 Def endant reported once in J anuary , twice in March, once in A pril, on c e in M a y , a ndon c e in July

. De fe nd a nt did no t re po rt a t all in F e br ua ry , Jun e , o r A ug us t. Mr. Thomas said that he would ca l l Defendant, who w ould ag ree to come to the probation office, but then Def

endant of ten would not show up. The pr obation violation warrant was filed in September 2004.

Mr. Thomas said that De fenda nt had not paid any of his cou rt fe es o r costs. Howeve r, Def endant pr ovided Mr. Thomas with a c opy of a r ece ipt for a DN A sample a fter Mr . Thomas filed probation violation w ar ra n t . Mr. Thomas said that he g ave D efe ndant the name s of a c ouple of fa c ili tie s at whi c h he c ou ld re c e ive se x of fe nd e r co un se lin g , but De fe nd a nt tol d him tha t he c ou ld
no t a ff or d to pa rt ic ipate in any

pr og rams.
On cr oss-examina

ti o n , M r

. T h o ma s s aid

that the ave rag e cost for

sex offender

counseling was $90.00 per se ssion. I t was Mr. Thomas’ understanding that Def endant would initially

be re quired to atte ndc ou ns e lin g se ssi on s o nc e a week

. Mr . T ho ma s said that he ve rb a lly tol d D e fe nd a nt t o re po rt to h im t wi c e e a c h mo nth . D e fe nd a nt t oldMr . T ho ma s th a t he c ou ld n ot f inda job be c a us e no one would hire him. Mr. Thomas secur ed the trial court’s permission for Def endant to look for employ ment in Chattanoog a, but Def endant did not find a job. De fendant told Mr. Thomas before the re vocation hea

ring that he now ha d a job. Mr. Thomas acknow ledg ed that the re ceipt indicate d that Def endant pr ovided a DN A sample on F ebrua ry 4, 2004.

The trial c ourt asked D efe ndant about his criminal history , and De fenda nt te s tified that he only h a d c o n v ic ti o n s f

o r tr a f f ic o f f e n s e s

. D e f

e n d a n t s a id th a t h e h a d b e e n c h ar g e d with felony of fe ns e s b e fo re , b ut h e wa s n ot c on vic te d of tho se of fe ns e s. De fe nd a nt sa id he tho ug ht he wa s o nly require d to report to Mr. Thomas once e ach month. De fenda nt said he re ported a t least once eac h month to a probation office r i n Florida betwee n J uly 2003, and Februa ry 2004, and per formed one hundred hour s of community service

. Mr. Thomas wa s rec alled as a witness. He said that the NCI C report showe d that Def endant
was c onvicted of c arry ing a dang erous we apon in 1988 and plac ed on probation for ninety day s. The report also showed ar

rests for theft of property over two hundred dollars in value in J une 2000, and
an ar rest for theft of pr operty

in May 2001, but no disp o s ition of the case s. Mr. Thomas said that his re c or ds didno t r e fl e c t th a t D e fe nd a nt re po rt e d to a pr ob a tio n o ff

ic e r o r p e rf

orme d c omm un ity service in Florida.-3-

At the close of

the revoc ation hearing, the trial court found that Def endant had violated the te r m s o f h i s p r o b a t i o n b y

f a i l i n g t o r e p o r tt o h i s p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r a s r e q u i r e d , f

a i l i n g t o m a i n t a in employ ment or pay his f

ees and costs, and failing to pa rticipate in the require d counseling

. The trial
c ou rt re vo ke d D e fe nd a nt’ s p ro batio n a nd de nie d De fe nd a nt’ s re qu e st fo r a se nte nc e inv olv ing sp lit
c on fi ne me nt. Th e tr ia l c ou rt or de re d D e fe nd a nt t o s e rv e the re st o f h is s e nte nc e in c on fi ne me nt. Rely ing on Sta te v . J

e ss R . A mo ne tte , N o. M2 00 1- 02 95 2- CCA -R3- CD , 2 00 2 T e nn . Crim. App. LEXI S 745 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Na shville, Aug . 29, 2002), no perm. to appeal fi led , Def endant a rg ues that t he trial c ourt failed to r efle ct a suff icient basis for r evocation of Defe ndant’s probation in its findings of fac t and failed to c onsider other forms of a lternative se ntencing other than fu ll i nc arc e ratio n. F or

ins ta nc e , D e fe nd a nt ar g ue s tha t the tr ia l cou rt did no t con sid e r his a me na bil ity to reha bilitation, and that t h er e wa s no written evidenc e supporting Mr. Thomas’ te stimonythat Def endant wa s require d to report to him twice e ach month.

I n Am on e tte , the trial court based its decision to r evoke the defe ndant’s probation on ge nera l deter renc e to others, and made no finding s in support of its revoc ation based on the testimonyand evidenc e pre sented at the revoc ation hearing. A panel of this Court reve rsed the trial court’ s order of re vo c a tio n o f p ro batio n a ndre ma nd e d w ith ins truc tio ns fo r the tr ial cou rt to e nte r a

pp ro pr ia te finding s of fa ct and e nter a n order to refle ct those finding s.

I n t h e case sub judice , h o w e ver, the trial court spe cifica lly considere d the testimony

prese nted at the re vocation hea

ring and found tha t Defe ndant had f ailed to re port to his probation office r as re qu ir e d a nd had fa ile d to pa rt ic ipate in s e x off

e nd e r c ou ns e lin g a s r e qu ir e d b y the te rm s o f h is probation. The trial court stated:

I think he g ot his chance and he ble w it. Pretty signific antly

did he blow it, and I ’m not inclined under this l ong history of not repor ting, to do anything other than just say let the State take c are of it. . . . [H] e just hasn’t done a ny thing. He didn’t g et a job, he did n’ t r e po rt

fo r c ou ns eli ng, he d idn ’t re po rt to h is p ro batio n o ff

ic e r. He jus t hasn’t d o n e a n y th in g

. H a d n ’ t p a id a n y f e e s , c o s ts , a n y th in g

. H a d n ’ t a s k e d to be relieve d of fe es and f

ines. I just thi nk revoc ation is the only thing that c an be done here

. . . . The de cision to revoke pr obation rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Sta te
v . Mitc he ll , 810 S.W .2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). A trial court may revoke probation and order the imposit ion of the orig inal sentenc e upon a finding by a pre pondera nce of

the evidenc e that the defe ndant has violated a condition of probation. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-310, -311. The trial court re tains the discre tionary authority to order the defe ndant to serve his or her origina l sentence in confineme n t. See State v . Hunter , 1 S.W .3d 643, 646 (Tenn. 1999) . I f the re cord c ontains substantial evidence to support the trial court’ s conclusion that a probation violation has occur red, no abuse of

discretion will be found. State v. Hark ins , 811 S.W .2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991)

.-4-

Ba sed on our r eview, w e conc lude that the re cord supports the t ri al co u rt ’s finding that Def endant violated the terms of his pr obation, and we , there fore , find no abuse of discretion. The tr ia l c ou rt wa s w ith in i ts dis c re tio n to re vo ke De fe nd a nt’ s pr ob a tio n a nd ha d the statut ory a uth or ity to order D efe ndant to serve his entire sente nce in c onfinement.

CO NC LU SION

After revie w, we a ffirm the judg m en t o f t h e trial court r evoking probation and or dering De fe nd a nt t o s e rv e his se nte nc e in c on fi ne me nt.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE