# FILED
July 18, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON JAN UA RY SESSION , 1997

STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) No. 02C01-9602 -CC-00068 Ap pellee ) ) MADISON COUNTY vs. ) ) Hon. FRAN KLIN MURCHISON, Judge BOBBY A NDERSON, ) ) (Probation Revocation) Appellant )
For the Appell ant : For the Appell ee : PAMELA

J. DREWERY CHA RLES W. BUR SON Asst. Public

Defender Attorney Gen eral and Repor ter 227 W. Baltimore Jackson, TN 3 8301 SUSA N ROSEN Assistant Att orney Gener al Criminal J ustice Div ision GEORGE MORT ON GOOGE 450 James Roberts on Parkway Distric t Public Defender Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 JAMES G. (JERRY) WOODA LL Distric t Attorney General NICK NICOLA Asst. Dist rict Attor ney General P. O. Box 2825 Jackson, TN 3830 2

OPINION FILE D: AFFIRMED

David G . Hayes Judge2 OPINION
The appellant, Bobby

Anderson, appeals

as of right from a judgment of the Madison County Circuit Court revoking his probation. The sole issue be fore this court i s whether the trial c ourt erred by reinstating the appellant’s original sentence instead of ordering anot her less restrictiv e alternative to confinement pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(C).

After revie wing t he record, we affirm the trial court’s jud gment.
In July of 1993, the appellant ent ered three g uilty pl eas to felony dr ug offenses and received an effective ten year sentence w ith placement i n the local community cor rections pr ogram. Hi s community corrections sentence was ultimately

revoked and the appellant was transferred to the Wayne County Correctional Facility where he participated in the “boot camp program .” After his rele ase f rom “ boo t cam p” in N ovem ber o f 19 94, h e was p lace d on i nten sive probation. Two days after bei ng placed on i ntensive pr obation, the appell ant
was arrested for disord erly cond uct. In Januar y, 1995, the app ellant was arrested for ag gravated robbery and was agai n arrested i n May of 1995 for criminal trespass and resisting arrest. In addition to the se arrests, which were not reported, the appe llant, among other violations, used drugs, f ailed to perform required community serv ice, failed to pay court cost, failed to report as directed, and failed to subm it to drug tests.
The appellant does not dispute the all egations that he violated the conditions of his probat ion. At the sentencing hearing, he of fered the excuse that he had failed to attend drug s creenings and had failed to per form the required community serv ice because he had car trouble . He also related that he did not pay hi s court cost s because he had onl y been w orking tempor ary jobs.3

He explain ed that after h elping his mothe r finan cially, he b arely had enough money to support himself . According to the appellant’s own testimony, his “support” i ncluded mariju ana purchases. The appellant testi fied, “I do hav e a little mari juana problem. I like to sor t of relax bac k and smoke a li ttle marijuana

. . . .”
The appellant’s s ole contention i s that the tri al court err ed in orderi ng that his entire t en year sent ence must be serv ed in the Depar

tment of Correcti on without co nsidering other alternatives. Thi s argument i s misplaced. If the trial court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a proba tioner violates a condition of his probation, it is wit hin the court’ s discreti on to revoke probation and cause exec ution of the judgment as it w as origi nally enter ed. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-310,- 311(d)(1990). State v. Ha rkins , 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). If the record conta ins substantial evidence to support th e trial court’s conclusion that the appellant v iolated a condi tion of his probat ion, no abuse of discretion will b e found. Id.

The record in t his case conta ins overw helming ev idence to suppor t the appellant’s pr

obation revocation. The appell ant has been prov ided numerous sentencing al ternatives , including probation, communi ty corrections, and the “boo t cam p” pro gram . Non e of thes e alt erna tives to in carce ratio n have
succ eed ed. I n sum , the appe llan t’s re cord is app allin g. Acc ordi ngly, we conclude that the trial cour t did not abuse i ts discreti on in reinstating the appellant’s or iginal ten year sente nce and design ating confinement i n the Department of Corr

ection. The judg ment of the trial court is affirmed.4 ____________________________________ DAVID G. HA YES, Judge

CONCUR:

________________________________ JOE B. JON ES, Pres iding Jud ge

________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL , Judge