IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs May 25, 2010 at Knoxville

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HERMAN MAJORS, JR.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County

No. 40801010 John H. Gasaway, III, Judge

No. M2009-02087-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 19, 2010

The defendant, Herman Majors, Jr., appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s

revocation of his community corrections sentence for his conviction of aggravated assault,

alleging that the trial court erred in not returning him to community corrections or placing

him on probation. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

JAMES CURWOOD WITT,JR.,J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which NORMA MCGEE

OGLE and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

Gregory Smith, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Herman Majors, Jr.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Assistant Attorney

General; John Wesley Carney, Jr., District Attorney General; and Arthur Bieber, Assistant

District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On February 5, 2009, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated

assault. The trial court imposed a sentence of ten years to be served on community

corrections. On February 26, 2009, the State filed a violation of community corrections

warrant that alleged that the defendant had violated the terms of his placement by failing to

report and by evading arrest. The defendant was served with the warrant on March 12, 2009.

On September 21, 2009, the defendant admitted the violation and waived a hearing on the

violation issue. The trial court found the defendant in violation and ordered him to serve the

remainder of his ten-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction.

The defendant filed a timely appeal on October 1, 2009, and on appeal, he
argues that the trial court erred by not returning him to community corrections or placing him

on probation.

At the September 21, 2009 hearing, the defendant pleaded guilty to a new

charge of misdemeanor evading arrest and to violating the terms of his community

corrections sentence. At the hearing, the defendant’s community corrections officer, Donald

Wilkerson, testified that he met with the defendant once on February 5, 2009, to complete

the defendant’s registration with the community corrections program. After the defendant

missed a required meeting, Mr. Wilkerson told the defendant that they would have to meet

twice a week. The officer testified that the defendant responded that he would not “report

twice a week or any [] because of transportation.” The officer testified that he admonished

the defendant that missing meetings would violate the community corrections sentence, to

which the defendant responded, “[D]o what [you] have to do.”

The court found the defendant in violation of his community corrections

sentence. The court ordered the defendant to serve the original ten-year aggravated assault

sentence in confinement.

In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by not returning

him to community corrections or placing him on probation because his failure to report was

not “a willful disregard of the rules of [c]ommunity [c]orrections” but was instead due to lack

of transportation. The defendant argues that because “there is no proof that the [c]ommunity

[c]orrections officer took any steps toward accommodating” his lack of transportation, he

“should be returned to either [c]ommunity [c]orrections or probation.” The State asserts that

the trial court did not abuse its discretion because there was ample evidence that the

defendant violated the terms of his community corrections sentence. We agree with the

State.

The decision to revoke a community corrections sentence rests within the

sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is no

substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that a violation has occurred.

State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82-83 (Tenn. 1991) (applying the probation revocation

procedures and principles contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-311 to the

revocation of a community corrections placement based upon “the similar nature of a

community corrections sentence and a sentence of probation”). Relief will be granted only

when “‘the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual

circumstances and relevant legal principles involved.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555

(Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)). The trial court is

required only to find that the violation of probation or community corrections occurred by

a preponderance of the evidence. See T.C.A. § 40-35-311(e) (2006); see also id. §

-2-
40-36-106(e)(3)(B). When reviewing the trial court’s findings, this court is obliged to

examine the record and determine whether the trial court exercised a conscientious judgment

rather than an arbitrary one. State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1991).

If the evidence is sufficient, the trial court may, within its discretionary

authority, revoke the community corrections sentence and require the defendant to serve his

sentence in confinement “less any time actually served in any community-based alternative

to incarceration.” T.C.A. § 40-36-106(e)(4).

The record reflects that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

determining that a violation occurred. “Only one basis for revocation is necessary.” State

v. Alonzo Chatman, E2000-03123-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville,

Oct. 5, 2001). Here, the defendant violated the terms of his community corrections sentence

by refusing to meet with his community corrections officer and by committing the new

offense of evading arrest. The defendant’s lack of “willful disregard” and the community

corrections officer’s failure to accommodate the defendant’s transportation problems do not

alter the fact that the defendant failed to comply with the terms of his community corrections

sentence. The record contains ample evidence of the defendant’s failure to comply with the

terms of his original sentence; therefore, we discern no arbitrary action in the trial court’s

determination. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the defendant

to serve his sentence in incarceration.

In conclusion, we hold that the record supports the trial court’s exercise of

discretion. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

_________________________________

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

-3-