### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs A

ugust 21, 2001 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LINDA G. ROBISON Appeal from the Circuit Court for Coffee County No. 29,073 L. Craig Johnson, Judge

No. M2000-00192-CCA-R3-CD - Filed October 9, 2001

The defendant, Linda G. Robison, appeals from the revocation of her probation. She contends that her probation expired before the revocation warrant issued, thereby divesting the trial court of the power to revoke h

er probation. We a

ffirm the judgme

nt of the trial cour

t. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed
J OSEPH M. T IPTON , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J AMES C URWOOD W ITT , J R . and J OHN E VERETT W ILLI AMS , JJ., joined. Justin Johnson, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Linda G. Robison.
Paul G. Summers, A ttorney General and Reporter; La ura McMullen Ford, Assistant Attorney General; and Charles Michael Layne, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION
The defe nda nt p led guil ty t o one count of thef t of property

under $500, a Clas s A misdem eanor. The judgment of conviction reflects that on November 13, 1998, the trial court sentenced her to eleven mont

hs and twenty

-nine days i

n the county jail, with sixteen days to be served in jail in two-day

segments for eight consecutive weekends and the remaining eleven months and th irteen day

s to be served on pr

obation. The defe

ndant’s first wee

kend in jail began o n November

20, 1998. The defendant served an additional seven consecuti ve weekends in the

county jail and satisfied

her periodic con

finement.
On October 2 8, 1999, the trial court issued a probation violation warrant based upon allegati ons that the defendant had not paid probation and court fees and that she had been ca ugh t stealing candy fro

m a Tullahoma

c onvenience store. At the probation violation hearing, the defendant contended that her probation started on November 13, 1998, the day the t ria l court sentenced her, and expired eleven

months and thirteen days later on October 26, 1999. She argued that her probation ended two days before the trial court issued the probation violation warrant and-2-

that the trial court

di d not have jurisdiction to revoke her probation. The state argued that the defendant’s probation did not begin until November 22, 1998, the day she was released from ser ving her first weekend in jail, and that even if the defendant’s probation started on November 13, 1998, it ran over and above her periodic confinement. It contended that she was still on probation when the trial court issued the probation violation warrant. The trial court ruled that the defendant ’s probation started on November 13, 1998. Furthermore, it agreed with the state that the defendant’s probation had to be se

rve d separate and in addition to her periodic confinement. It found that the defendant was still on probati

on when t he trial court issued the probation violation warrant on October 28, 1999.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred by ruling that the or iginal prob ation te rm had not expired when the trial court issued the probation violation warrant and that the tri al cour t was without jurisdiction to revoke her probation. SeeTenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-310; State v. Clark , 970 S.W.2d 5 16, 518 (Tenn . Crim. App. 1998). When the trial court imposes a misdemeanor sentence, “the cour

t shall fix a

specific number

of months, day

s or hours, and the

defendant shall

be responsible

for the entire sentence

. . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-302(b). A trial court may allow a defendant convicted

of a misdemeanor to serve his or her sentence in periodic confinement coupled witha term of probation. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-104(c)(4), -302(e). Probation and periodic confinement

are two means of serving

a sentence with p

robation being a

n alternative to

confinement.
The trial court

sentenced the defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine day s. It ordered that she serve sixteen d

ays of the se

ntence in the cou

nty jail and that

she serve the remaining eleven months and thirteen days on probation. The trial court held that the defenda nt began s erving probation the day she was sentenced, November 13, 1998. Because she

started serving her sentence on that date, her sentence of elev en m onths and twenty-nine days could not end until November 1999. Therefo re, the defen dant was still serving her sentence when the trial court issued the probation violation warrant on October 28, 1999. At that time, the defe nda nt h ad s erve d si xte en d ays in jail through periodic confinement and was still on probation.
Based upon the foregoing and the record as a whole, we aff

irm the judgment o

f the trial court.

___________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE