# FILED
August 7, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON JUNE 1998 SESSION

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) NO. 02C01-9712-CC-00464 Appellee, ) ) MADISON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. WHIT LAFON, CHARLES MA

RTIN STOOTS, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Community Corrections

) Revocation)

FOR THE APPELLANT : GEORGE MORTON GOOGE District Public Defender STEPHEN P. SPRA

CHER (Hea ring Only) 227 W. Baltimore Jackson, TN 38301-6137 C. MICHAEL ROBBINS (Appe al On ly) 3074 East Street Memphis, TN 38128 FOR THE APPEL LEE : JOHN KNOX WALKUP Attorney General and Repor ter PET ER M . CO UGH LAN Assistant Attorney Gener al Cordell Hull Buildi ng, 2nd Floor 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 JAMES G. WOODALL District Attorney General JAMES W. THOMP

SON Assistant

District Attorney

General 225 Martin Luther King Dr. P.O. Box 2825 Jackson, TN 38302-2825

OPINION FI LED:

AFFIRMED
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE2 OPINION
The defendant, Charles Martin Stoot s, appeals the trial court ’s revocation of his Co mmunity C orrectio ns sente nce. The defend ant pled guilty to bu rglary, two (2) counts of theft over $1,000 and DUI. The defendant receiv ed an effective sentence of six (6) years to be served i n Community Corrections consecutive to an elev

en (11) month twenty-ni ne (29) day sentence of confinement for DUI. The defendant failed to repo rt to serve the DUI s entence. We find the trial court did not ab use its discretion in revoking the defendant's Community Corrections sentence and AFFIRM its dec ision.

FACTS
The defendant entered his guilty pleas to burglary, theft and DUI on January 8, 1997. He wa s sentenced to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine ( 29) days for DUI to be follow ed by six (6) y

ears on Community Correc tions for the burglary and thefts. He requested that his repor t date on the DUI be delayed for a short period of time so that he could get his affa irs in order. The trial court complied and gave the defendant unti l January 18, 1997, to repor t.

The defendant went to Texas immediatel y after sentencing and did not report to the jail at his

scheduled time. Some months later, the defendant was arrested in Texas on the v iolation warrant. The defendant claimed he went to Texas to see his son and w as involuntarily hospitalized whil e there, preventing his scheduled re porting.

REVOCATION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
A trial court may rev

oke Community Correcti ons and resentence a defendant upon finding the defendant violat ed the terms and conditions of3

Communit

y Corr ections . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36- 106(e)( 4). Rev ocation of a Community Corrections sentence is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review, rather th an a de novo standard. State v. Harkins , 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). Discretion i s abused only if the record contains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court th at a violation of the Community Corrections sentence has occurred. Id.
The failure to report to begin service of a sentence is a criminal offense. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-609(a)(2). The def endant claimed involuntary hospitalization prev

ented him from doing so. How ever, the defendant testified he had access to a telephone for three (3) months bu t failed to inform anyone in Tennessee of his whereabouts or s tatus of hospitalization. The trial court was obviously unimpresse

d with the defendant’s expl anation.

The defendant further contends the failure to r eport occurred prior to the time he was to actually begin the Community Cor rections program. This is no defense. See State v. Stone , 880 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)(finding revocati on of probation is proper w here defendant commits another offense after entry of judgme nt but before probationary period begins).
The trial court is in a much better position to assess credibility than this Court since it can asses s the appearance and demeanor of the defendant. The trial court implicitly found the defendant’s absence from this state for months without notifying l ocal authorities to be inex cusable. We conclude the defendant has failed to prove the tri al court abused its discr etion in revoking C

ommunity Corrections.
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.4 _________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

________________________ PAUL G. SUMM ERS, JUDGE

________________________ DAVID H. WELL ES, JUDGE