### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Marc h 20 , 200 7
ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v
. R OB ER T F R A N KL IN D EL Z EL L, III

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Stewart County Nos. 4-1439-C R-02-R2, 4-1601-CR-05-R1 A llen Wallace, Sr., Judge

No. M2006- 01822-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jun e 27, 2007

Th e de fe nd ant, Rob e rt

F ra nk lin De lze ll, I I I , ap pe a ls f ro m th e jud g me nt o f t

he Ste wa rt County Cir c uit Court, revokinghis community corr ections sentenc e and imposing confine ment. Follow ing our revie w of the r ecor d and the pa rties’ brie fs, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J . and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., joined.

Willi a m B

. L oc ke rt , I I I , Di str ic t Pub lic De fe nd e r and Da wn Ka va na g h, As sis tant Dist ri ct Publi c D e f e n d e r , A s h l an d

C i t y , T e n n e s s e e , f

o r t h e a p p e l l an t , R o b e rtF r an k l i nD e l z e l l , III

. Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Pr e sto n Ship p, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Dan M. Alsobrooks, District Attorne y Gene ral; and Car ey Thompson, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION

I t a pp e ars fr om t

he re cord be fo re us that in Ma y of 20 03 , th e de fe nd ant p le d guil ty to attempted ag g ravated sexual battery of a minor and rec eived a sentenc e of five y ear s to be serve d on probation. In May o f 2005, a probation violation warra nt was issued, alleg ing, inte r a lia , that the defe ndant had violated the conditions of his probation by committ i n g t h e offenses of child rape , ag g ravated sexual battery , and violation of the sexual offe nder r eg istry law. Subsequently , in March of 2006, the de fenda

nt entere d a nolo contende re ple a to attempted a g g ravated sexual battery and
rec eived a

sentenc e of four y ear s to be serve d in a community corr ections prog ram. Althoug h not entirely clea r, it appea

rs that the def

endant’ s five-y ear p robation sentence wa s revoke d and the defe ndant was ordere d to serve the sentenc e in community corr ections conse cutive to his four-year sentenc e. Thus , t h e d ef en d ant re ceive d an ef

fec tive sentenc e of nine y ear s to be serve d in a community

corr ections prog ram. There afte r, in Ma y of 2006, a war

rant wa s issued alleg ing that the defe ndant violated the c onditions of his communi ty corr ections sentenc e by failing to remain unde r-2-

house ar rest, by leavingthe State of Te nnessee without permission, by failing to obey

the laws of the State of Tenne ssee a fter pic king up new c riminal char g es in Stewart County , and by failing to pay all court c osts and supervision fee s.
A revocation h e ari ngwa s h e ld; wh e re up on , Apr il Cl ark , th e dir e c tor of the c omm

un ity
corr ections prog ram, testified that L ance Parker was the de fenda

nt’s community

corr ect i o ns supervisor. On Ma

y 9, 2 0 06, Mr. Parke r filed a Violation of Communit y Correc tions W arr ant ag ainst the defe ndant. Acc ording to Mr. Parke r’s re cords, the de fenda nt violated the conditions of his community

corr ections sentenc e by

leavingthe Nashville Resc ue Mission and g oing to Stewa rt County and the State of Kentucky without permission. The defe ndant also violated the c onditions of hi s community corr ections sentence by incurring new charg es. Ms. Clark di d not expound upon what those c harg es we re.
Offic er Ma

rk McElroy of t he S tewar t County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment testified that he br oug ht char g es ag ainst the defe ndant for violatingthe require ments of the sex offende r re g istry . Acc ording to Office r McElroy , the def endant wa s seen outside a residenc e in Stewa rt County on May

8, 2006. Ho we ve r, the de fe nd ant wa s supp os e d to be in Na sh vil le a t a missi on

. Al tho ug h the de fe nd ant c ou ld not be locate d at the residenc e, the owner of the residenc e, Richard J ones, told Of fice r McElroy

that the def endant ha d b ee n d ro pped off around 1:00 p.m. that day . Offic er Mc Elroy noted that he lear ned four children lived at this residence and that police r ecor ds sh o we d t h e defe ndant left the Union Rescue Mission on April 30, 2006.

Ric ha rd Jone s tes tif

ie d that the de fe nd ant wa s dro pp e d off ne ar his ho us e aro un d 1 1:0 0 a .m. Mr. J ones spoke with the de fenda nt and the def

endant told him he was “try ing to g et a car from the next door that was his.” Mr. Jones testified that J anet De lzell di d not live in the ho u se next door.

The de fenda

nt testified that he had not left the mission for eig ht day s prior to his arre st. The de fe nd ant f

ur the r t e sti fi e d th a t he wa s arr e ste d in a little pa rk in Na sh vil le a c ro ss the str e e t f ro m a pu bli c lib ra ry , a nd no t in Ste wa rt County . A c c or din g to the de fe nd ant, he we nt t o St e wa rt County and stay ed “a

n hour or two” in orde r to g et his car . The de fenda nt first denied g oing to Ke ntucky t h e na dm i t t e d

g o i n g t o K e n tu c ky w i t h h i s e x - w i f e b e f o r e g o i n g t o S t e w artC o u n t y.
The state the n called Janet De lzell, t he def endant’ s ex-wife, to testify . Ms. Delzell stated that the def endant accompa

nied her to Kentucky

to pick up her pa

y chec k. Acc ording to Ms. Delzell, the defe ndant did not want to drive ba ck to Nashville so they stopped at a motel to g et a r oom for the nig ht. However , on ce in t he ro om, the de fe nd ant b e c a me “ vio le nt a nd he ld a kn if e to my thr oat, [an d] to ld m e that if

Ike pt t he kid s f ro m hi m tha t he wo uld tr

y to kil l me. ” Th e re a ft e r, Ms. De lze ll took the defe ndant to Stewart County and droppe d him off. Ms. Delzell stated that her seven- y ear
old da ug hte rs we re the vic tim s in the pr ior c a se fo r whic h th e de fe nd ant g ot c omm un ity c or re c tio ns

. Ms. Delzell asser

ted t hat the def

endant stay ed in Stewar

t County overnig ht beca

use he told her

he drove by and saw police at her mother’s house in Stewart County . Ms. Delzell also noted that her daug hters lived with her

mother in Stewart County

.-3-

At the c on c lus ion

of the he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ourt ma de the fo llo wi ngfi nd ing s:
Th is m an is be ingc ha

rg e d w itha

ve ry se ri ou s cr ime . He ’s on

pr ob a tio n w ith Communi ty

Correc tions for t h at crime a nd he just ignor ed the c onditions of Com mun ity

Cor re c tio ns . H e is - - I c an’ t un de rs tand that la dy g oin g any

wh e re wi th him, she did; but t hat [doesn’t] relieve his responsibility or his duty

that he had unde r the Com m u n i t y Correc tions progr am. . . . [T] hese little g irls are seven y ear s old, twins and live in this county ; and he is r ight back around close to the m. T here ’s no
rea son - - no e x cuse. I ’m g oing to violate him and le t him serve time in t he Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ections, that’s the judg ment of the Court.

On a pp e a l, t he de fe nd ant f

ir st a rgue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in re vo ki ng hi s com mun ity
corr ections sentenc e base d on g rounds other tha n those alleg ed in the re vocation wa rr an t . The defe ndant contends that the court’s g ener alized f indings violated his due proce ss rig ht to notice of the cha rg es ag ainst him.

A trial cour

t may revoke a community

corr ections sentenc e upon finding by a pre pondera

nce o f t he evide nce that the defe ndant has violated a condition of that sentenc e. See State v . Harkins , 81 1 S. W.2 d 7 9, 82-8 3 ( Te nn . 1 99 1) ; se e als o Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 36-106(e )(3) , - 40-35- 311. Revocation of a communi t y co rr ec t ions sentence is subject to an abuse of discre tion standard of revie w rather than a de novo standard. Harkins , 811 S.W .2d at 82. Discre tion is abused only if the
rec ord conta ins no substantial evidence to support the t rial cour t’s conclusion that a violation has
occur red. Id.

Communi ty

corr ections re vocation, like probation r evocation, is commonly predic ated upon a showing of a violation of the c onditions of the prog ram. Sta te v . M ic ha e l H ar lan By rd , No. 01C01-9609-CC-00411, 1998, WL 216859, *6 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 1, 1998). Due proce ss require s t h at a d ef endant be g iven adva

nce written notice of the g rounds upon which the
revoc ation of probation or community corr ections is based. Se e Ga gn on v . S c ar pe lli , 411 U.S. 778, 78 6 ( 19 73 ); Sta c

ySte war t v . S

tate , No. M1999-00684-CCA-MR3-CD, 2000 WL374756, *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 7, 20 0 0 ). T h e b u rd en then f alls on the state to prove the alleg ed violation by

a pre pondera n ce o f t h e evidence. Se e By rd , 1998 WL 216859, at *5. A re vocation based on g rounds not alleg ed and notice d to the defe ndant violates due pr ocess. Se e id

. Upon re view, we initially ag ree with the defe ndant that the tr i al court’s findings a re somewhat g ener alized and nondesc ript as to what violatio n i t wa s rely ing on in r evoking the defe ndant’s communit y corr ections sentence. However , the re cord r efle cts that the def endant ha d notice that the state was seeking to revoke his community corr ections sentenc e base d on a number of vio la tio ns, in clu di ng the fa c t th a t th e de fe nd ant v iol a te d th e c on dit ion s o f h is c omm un ity
corr ections sentenc e by

(1) not re maining unde r house a rre st and (2) le aving the State of Te nnessee without the consent of the c ommunity corr ections prog ram. I t is our view that the state proved by
a p r e p o n d e r an c e o f

e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e d e f

e n d an tv i o l a t e d

t h e s e t w o c o n d i t i o n s o f

h i s c o m mun ity
corr ections sentenc e. In response to the evidenc e prese nted, the trial court simply expressed conc ernT e n n e sse e C o d e A n n o ta te d se c tio n 4 0 -3 6 -1 0 6 (e )( 2 ) sta te s: 1

In se n te n c ing a n e ligib le d e fen d a n t t o an y c o m m u n ity- b a se d a lter n a tive to inc a rc e ra tio n , t h e c o u rt sh a ll po s s e s s t h e po w e r t o s e t t h e du r a t i on of t h e s e n t e n c e f or t h e of f e n s e c om mi t t e d a t a n y pe r i od of t i me
u p t o t h e max i mu m s en t en ce wi t h i n t h e a ppr opr i at e s en t en ce r an g e, a n d s hal l r et ai n the a u tho rity to al t er or am end at any t i m e t he l engt h, t erm s o r cond i t i o ns o f t he sent ence i m p o sed. (emp hasi s ad d ed ).

-4- ov e r t he g ra vit y of the de fe nd ant’ s a c tio ns in di sre g ard ingthe e xpre sse d r ule s o f t he c omm un ity
corr ections prog ram. As such, we perc eive no abuse of discretion by the trial cour t in revoking the de fe nd ant’ s c omm

un ity c or re c tio ns se nte nc e and or de ri ng him to s e rv e his se nte nc e in c on fi ne me nt.
The de fenda

nt also argues that the trial court improperly relied on fac ts unde rlying his prior
c on vic tio ns to e nh anc e his se nte nc e . H ow e ve r, the de fe nd ant’s argume nt i s mi sp la c e d in that hi s sentenc e wa s not enhanc ed. The rec ord cle arly ref lects that the c ourt revoke d the def endant’ s community

corr ections sentenc e a n d order ed the de fenda nt to serve the r emainder

of his sentenc e in confineme nt as authorized by Tenne ssee statute. Acc ording ly , we perc eive no err or in the cour t’s 1
revoc ation of the de fenda nt’s sentenc e. The judgme nt of the trial cour t is affirmed.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I

N, J UDGE