T h e i n di ct men t s r ef l ec t t h at t h e Appel l an t ’ s n ame i s Cl ay Jon es ; h owe v er , on s ome docu men t s i n t h e r ec or d, 1 hi s nam e ap p ears as St anl ey C l ay Jo nes or St a n le y C

. Jo nes. O ur po l i cy i s t o us e t he nam e as i t ap p ears o n t he ind ic tm e n t. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON Marc h 2, 200 4 S es sio n STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. CL AY JONES
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty Nos. 00-685;00- 686 Donald H . Allen, Jud ge

No. W2003-01205-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled May 19, 2004

The Appe llant, Clay

J ones, appeal s fr o m t he judg ment of the Madison County Circuit Court 1 revoking his community corr ections sentences. I n May of 2001, Jones pled guilty to two counts of sale of a counter feit controlled substanc e. Pursuant to a neg otiated plea a g ree ment, J ones re ceive d concur rent two-y ear

sentenc es with place ment in the Communi ty Correc tions P rog ram. On O ctober 22, 2002, a wa

rrant was issued alleg ing violations of his beha vioral contra ct. Howe ver, the war rant on ly lis te d on e ind ic tme nt nu mbe r. F oll ow ing a re vo c a tio n he ari ng , he wa s fo un d invio latio n o f h is community

corr ections sentenc es under b o t h i ndictment numbers. On a ppeal, Jones raises the following issues for our review : (1) whether, prior to waiver of hi s rig ht to counsel and subseque nt inc ulp a tory

a dmi ssi on s at th e re vo c a tio n h e ari ng , d ue pr oc e ss r e qu ir e d th e tria l cou rt to i nf orm hi m that he could be rese ntence d to consec utive term s if his sentence s wererevoke d; (2) whe ther lac k of pr op e r n oti c e of

re vo c a tio n d e prive d h im o f d ue pr oc e ss; and (3) wheth e r r e se nte nc ing him to consec utive terms was pr oper. A fter r eview, we aff irm the trial court’s revoc ation of Jones’ sentence in the c a se in w hic h n oti c e wa s r e c e ive d. Ho we ve r, wi th r egard to revocatio n o f h is s e nte nc e in wh ic h n o n oti c e wa s re c e ive d, we fi nd that the pr oc e e din g s faile d to a ff or d f un da me nta l du e pr oc e ss protec tions and reve rse the trial court’s or der of revoc ation.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed in Par t; Re verse d in P art.
D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., deli v er ed t he opinion of the c ourt, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., joined. J OE G. R I L EY , J ., filed a se parate conc urring opinion.
Ge or g e Mo rt on Go og e , D ist ri c t Pu bli c De fe nd e r, Jac ks on , T e nn e sse e , f or theAp pe llant, Clay

Jone s.T h is is ap p a r e n t fr o m he r te stim o n y a t t h e re v o c a tio n he a rin g . H o w e v e r, the w a rr a n t wa s n o t i ssu e d un til 2 O ct ober 22, 2002, a n d t h e Appel l an t w as n ot s er v ed wi t h t h e wa r r an t u n t i l Fe br u ar y 12, 2003. -2- Paul G. Summers, Atto rn ey Ge nera l and Reporter ; Michael Moore , Solicitor Genera l; Thomas E. Wil liams, I I I , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; James G. Woodall, Dist rict Attorney Gene ral; and Shaun Br own, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION
F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
OnAu g us t 28 , 2 00 0, a Ma dis on Cou nty g rand jury re turne d tw o se pa rate ind ic tme nts a g a ins t the Appellant. In d i ct m en t number 00-685 c harg ed the Appe llant with sale and/or de livery of counter feit LS D o n May 9, 2000, and indictment number 00- 686 char g ed him with sale and/or delivery of counte rfe it methamphetamine on June 19, 2000. O n an unspec ified date , the Appellant was also char g ed with fac ilitation of agg ravated assault. There afte r, pursua nt to a neg otiated plea ag ree ment, the Appellant pled g uiltyto two c ounts of sale of a counte rfe it controlled substance , and the cha rg e for fac ilitating ag g ravated assault wa s dismis sed. The A ppellant, as a Rang e I standard offe nder, w as sentenc ed to two y ear s on eac h count of sale of a counter feit controlled substance, a nd the se se nte nc e s w e reto b e se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y in the Com mun ity

Cor re c tio ns pr og ram. The Appe llant’s Communi ty Correc tions case office r, Gra ce B y num, submit ted a r equest for a violation war

rant early in October of 2002. The wa rrant, which only

listed indictment number 00- 2 68 5, a lle g e d th e fo llo wi ng vio latio ns :
1. F a ile d to re ma in h omedu ri ng c ur fe w h ou rs
. 2. Failed to remain e mploy ed. Mr. Jones has not held full time employ ment[.]
3. Failed to pay

costs, fines & restitution. Mr. J ones has ne ver paid.
4. Failed to re p o rt t o the community corr ections off

ice a s directe d. Mr. J ones has failed to re port on numerous oc casions.
5. F a ile d to pay

su pe rv isi on fees a s o rd e re d. Mr . Jon e s is in a rr e ars $5 55 .0 0 w ith sa id f e e s.
6

. Fa i l ed t o re p o rtt o h ea l t h d ep ar t m en tfo r D NA t es t i n g.
OnOc tob e r 1 8, 20 02 , a n a dd e nd um t o th e wa rr a nt w a s f

ile d, a lle g ing that:-3- Mr . Jon e s is in v iol a tio n o f R ule#1 2 whi c h sta te s, “ Of fe nd e rs wi ll o be y

a ll of the laws of the State of Tenne ssee, United States, or any state in which he/she may be, as well as any

municipal ordinanc es. Any violation of the law shall be r eporte d to the case office r within 24 hours. This includes t raf fic viol ations. Failure to report will be a serious infrac tion of the rules.” Mr. J ones wa s arr ested on 9-21- 02 for Evading Arre st when McNairy CountyDeputy

L ambert attempted to pick him up on Ha rd e ma n Co un ty

wa rr a nts , # 89 93 5 a nd# 8 99 36 , f

or F or g e ry a ndTh e ft

. This addendum contained both indictment numbers; howeve r, the r eis n o indic ation in the rec ord that this document was served on the Appe llant.
A hea ring was he ld on Fe bruary 18, 2003. At the hea ring , the Appellant wa s informed of the a lle g a tio ns a g a ins t hi m a ndhis ri g hts , in c lud ing his ri g ht t o c ou ns e l. A ft e r q ue sti on ing by thec ou rt , the Appellant waived his rig ht to counsel. The trial court then pr ocee ded to hea r testimony

from the Appellant and B y num. The Appe llant admitted “most” of the a llegat i o ns weretrue, a lthough he disputed certain details. Following the testimony , the trial court found that the Appella n t h ad violated the terms of his behavior al contract i n a substantial way , and an or der w as ente red to that aff ect on F ebrua

ry 19, 2003. The trial court schedule d a rese ntencing hearing f or Mar ch 20, 2003, and orde red the prepa

ration of a

pre- sentenc e investig ative re port.
On Marc h 20, 2003, a sente ncing hearing was commenced. On this s ame date, the Appe llant filed an a ffidavit of indig ency seeking the appointment of a n attorney . Following the Appellant’ s reque st, the trial court re considere d t h e Appellant’s previous waiver of c ounsel and a ppointed counsel to assist the Appellant with reg ard to sente ncing determinations. The hearing w as continued until the nex t day . On Marc h 21, 2003, the pre -sentenc e re port was e ntere d into evid en ce , and testimonywas h ear d from the Appe llant conce rning the various alleg ations in the warr ant and a dd e nd um. Con c e rn ing his failu re to re po rt his arr e sts fo r m isd e me a no r andfe lon y e va din g arr e st, the Appellant testified that these cha rg es we re to b ed is mi s sed following his assistance with nar cotics of fi c e rs in o the r inv e sti g a tio ns
. Th e Ap pe llant s tate d th a t heha d d isc us se d th is a rr a ng e me nt w ith Bynum and that s he had approve d his involvement. The trial court, concluding that this ex planation was implausible, rese t the hearing ag ain to hear testimonyfrom B y num conce rning this matter. On April 1 4 , 2 0 0 3 , B y n u m te s ti f ie d th a t th e A p p e ll a n t h a d n e v e r d is c u s s e d w ith h e r any arr a ng e me nt to a ssi st na

rc oti c s of fi c e rs
. She state d that su c h a n a rr a ng e me nt w a s “ stric tly

a g a ins t policy ” and r equire d approva l by the court. The court inquired if the Appellant ha d anything to say in r e sp on se to B y nu m’ s te sti mon y , a ndtheAp pe llant d e c lin e d to make a state me nt, re lying on his privileg e ag ainst self-incrimination. At the conclusion of t he hearing , the t rial court resente nced the Appellant to conse cutive two-y ear terms to be serve d in the Depa rtment of Correc tion, and he wa s g iven cr edit for time served in the CommunityCorrec tions P rog ram. This effec tive four- y ear sentenc e w as also ordered to be serve d consec utively to his eleven-month and twe nty -nine-dayT his H ard em an C o un t y s en t en ce wa s t o b e susp en d ed aft er se rvice o f si xtee n d ays o n w ee ke nd s. 3

T h e A p p e llan t’s no tice o f ap p e a l wa s p re m a tur e ly fil e d a s the ju d g m e n ts o f co n v ic tio n w e re no t en te re d un til 4 Jul y 21, 200 3. H owever , Rul e 4( d), T enn es s ee R ul es of Ap pel l at e Procedur e, provi des t hat a n ot i ce premat ur el y f i l ed i s t reat ed as havi ng be en f i l ed af t er ent ry of t he judgm ent f rom whi ch t he ap p eal i s t aken. -4- sentenc e for

passing a worthless chec k in Har deman Count y
. The Appellant filed a notice of a ppeal 3 on May 13, 2003. 4
AN AL YSI S
I. DueP r oc e ss A revocation hearing is described as a fle x ible, informal proc eeding

. Black v . Romano , 471 U. S. 6 06 , 61 3, 105 S. Ct. 22 54 , 2 25 8 ( 19 85 ); State v. W ade , 863 S.W .2d 406, 408 (Tenn. 1993)

. Whil e the a ccuse d is not enti t l ed to “the full panoply of proc edura l safeg uards a ssociated with a criminal trial,” Black , 471 U.S. at 613, 105 S. Ct. at 2258, the Due Proc ess Clause contained in the Fourteenth Amendme nt to the United States C o n s t itution and the L aw of the L and provision contained in Article I , Section 8 of t he Tennessee Constit ution requirethat the ac cused be aff orded c e rt a in b a sic ri g hts . T he min imu m r e qu ir e me nts ma nd a te d b y theDu e Pr oc e ss C laus e inc lud e : (a) written notice of

the claimed violations of [probation or] parole; (b ) d isc los ur e to the [pr ob a tio ne r o r] p aro le e of e vid e nc e a g a ins t hi m; (c) opportu n i ty

to be hea rd in person a

nd to present witnesse s and documentary evidenc e; (d) the right to conf

ront and c ross-examine adve rs e witnesses (unless the he aring office r spec ifically

finds g ood cause for not allowing confr ontation); (e) a “neutral and detac hed” hearing body such as a traditional parole board, me mbers of which ne ed not be judicial of fice rs or law y ers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinder s as t o the evidence r elied on and r easons f or revoking [probation or] parole.
Ga gn on v . S c ar

pe lli , 4 1 1 U. S

. 7 7 8 , 7 8 6 , 9 3 S

. C t

. 1 7 5 6 , 1 7 6 1 -6 2 (1 9 7 3 ) ( ci t i n g Morrissey v . Brewer , 40 8 U .S. 47 1, 48 9, 92 S. Ct . 2 59 3, 26 04 )( 19 72 ); see also W ade , 863 S.W .2d at 408.
A. Statem ents of the Trial Court First, the Appellant arg ues “that his due proce ss rights wer e violated since he wa s told bythe Court that if he admitted the violations his probation (s i c) could be r evoked and that he could be order ed t o s e r v e th is s e n te n c e o r a t l e a s t s o mep o rti o n o f it inth e D e p artm e n t o f

Co rr e c ti o ns.”-5-

S p e c i f i c a l l y, h e c o n t e n d s t h a t , b e f o r e t h e tr i a l c o u rtp e r m i t t e d h i mt o w a i v e h i s r i g h t t o a n a t t o r n e y, due proc ess re quired the tria l court to inform him that he could be re- sentenc ed to conse cutive twoy ear terms. The Appellant compar es the revoc ation proce eding s to a g uiltyplea and, relying upon State v. Mac key , 553 S.W .2d 337, 341 (Tenn. 1997) , contends that the c ourt was r equire d to inform him of the maxi mum penalty provided by

law.
Prior to the Appellant’s inculpatory admissions, the trial court informed the Appellant of the alleg ations ag ainst him, his right to have an attorney assist in his defense, and hi s ri gh t to an evidentiary

hearing on the alleg ations. The trial c ourt went on to explain:
TH E CO UR T: No w, I do want y ou to und e rs ta nd , too, that y ou c a n ad mit to the se a lle g a tio ns , th at is, y ou ’dbe ple a din g g uil ty to the se vio latio ns that I ’v e jus t g on e ov e r with y ou . B ut I do want y ou to u nd e rs ta ndthat if y ou a dmi t to the se vio latio ns y ou r p ro batio n c ou ld b e re vo ke d a ndy ou cou ld be or de re d to se rv e thi s sentence or at least some portion of this sentencein the Tenne ssee De partment of C o rr e c t i o n s
. O k a y? So, wi th that bei ng sa id, Mr . Jon e s h ow do y ou wi sh to p ro c e e d inthi s m a t t e r ?
MR. J ONES: Well, m ost of it’s true.
THE COURT: Most of it’s true? I s there some of it that’s not true?
MR. J ONES: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All rig ht. So, do y ou want to admit to some of these a nd deny some of these ? I s that what y ou’re telling me?
MR. J ONES: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All rig ht. Well, do y ou want to have an attorney to repre sent y ou in this m atter? It’s up to y ou.
MR. JONE S: I ’l l ju st a dmi t to the m. I ’l l ju st a dmi t to the m.
THE C OU R T : Al l rig ht. Well, are y ou telling me y ou do not want to have an attorne y

repr esent y ou?
MR. J ONES: No, sir.
Af te r h e ar in g te s ti mo n y f

r o m th e A p p e ll a n t a n d h is c o mmu n ity c o rr e c ti o n s c a s e o f f ic e r, the trial court de termined that the A ppellant had violated the terms of his ag ree ment.T he p ri mar y pu r pos e of t h e Commun i t y Cor r ec t i on s Act w as “ t o e s t abl i s h a pol i cy w i t h i n t h e St at e of 5 T enness ee t o punis h s el ect ed , no nvi o l ent fel o ny o f fend ers in f

ront- end c o m m uni t y ba sed al t ernat i ves t o i ncarcerat i o n, t her eby r es er vi ng s ecu r e c onf i nemen t f aci l i t i es for vi ol ent fel ony offender s
. ” G riffi th , 7 8 7 S .W .2 d a t 3 4 1 . A s a n a id in
a c c o m p lishin g this p u rp o se , i t i s p ro v id e d in T 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 ) (2 0 0 3 ) th a t:

In s ent enci ng an el i gi b l e d efend ant to any co m m uni t y - b ased alt ernat i ve t o i ncarcerat i o n, t he
co urt shal l pos s es s t h e powe r t o s et t h e du r at i on of t h e s en t en ce for t h e of fen s e commi t t ed at a ny p eri o d of t i m e up t o t he m axi m um s ent ence wit hi n t he ap p rop ri at e sent ence range, a nd shal l ret ai n t he
au t h or i t y t o a l t er or a men d a t a n y t i me t h e l en g t h , t er ms or c on di t i on s of t h e s en t en ce i mpos ed.

T enness ee C o d e A nno t at ed s ect i o n 40

- 3 6

- 1 0 6 (e)( 4 ) ( 2 0 0 3 ) grant s t he t ri al judge t he aut ho ri t y t o res ent ence a d efend ant fo llo w ing a re v o c a tio n o f t h e o rig ina l se n te n c e
. G riffi th , 787 S. W

. 2d a t 341- 42.

T he co urt s hal l al so p o ss ess t he p o wer t o revoke t he sent ence i m p o sed at any t i m e d ue t o t he
c o n d u c t o f t h e d e fen d a n t .

. . , an d the c o u rt m a y re se n te n c e th e d e fen d a n t t o a n y a p p ro p ria te s e n t e n c i n g a l t e r n a t i v e , i n c l u di n g i n c a r c e r a t i on , for a n y pe r i od of t i me u p t o t h e ma x i mu m s e n t e n ce p rovided fo r t he o f

fense com m i t t ed , l ess any ti m e act ual l y served in any co m m uni t y - b ased alt ernat i ve t o i ncarcerat i o n.
T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 4 0 -3 6 -1 0 6 (e )( 4 ). -6- Our supre me court, in Sta te v . G riffith , 787 S.W .2d 340 (Tenn. 1990) , held that “the decision to rese ntence a def endant to a se ntence g reater than h is origina l sentence does not . . . violate the g uarantees a g ainst double jeopar dy .” Gr iff ith , 787 S.W .2d at 342. The c ourt, relying on Te nn e sse e Cod e An no tate d s e c tio ns 40 -3 6- 10 6( e )( 2) a nde (4 ), re a so ne d th a t: 5
the sentenc ing of a defe ndant to a community based a lternative to inca

rce ration is not fi na l, b ut i s d e sig ne d to pr ov idea fl e xible a lte rn a tiv e that c a n b e of be ne fi t bo th t o the def endant and to soc iety and allows the court to monit or the de fendant's c onduct while in the community

corr ections prog ram. A defe ndant sentenc ed under the Act has no leg itimate e x pectation of finality in the severity of the sentenc e, but is plac ed on notice by the Act itself that upon revoc ation of t he sentence due to the conduc t of thede fe nd a nt, a gr e a te r s e nte nc e ma y be imp os e d. Th is b e ing so , th e de c isi on to rese ntence a d efe ndant to a sente nce g reater than his orig inal sentenc e does not subject t he def

endant to multiple punishments for the same of fense ; rather , the prac tice re flec ts the need to alter the defe ndant' s sentenc e in light of the fa ct that the court' s initi al sentenc e to a c ommunity b as ed alternative to inca rce ration wa s not eff ective.
Id . Apply ing the rationale of Gr iff ith and the mandates of Ga gn on v . S c ar pe lli , we conclude that due proce ss does not require the trial court to inform a defe ndant of the maxim um penalty provided by law bef ore pe rmitting him to waive his rig ht to an attorney

. Additionally , the Appellant a rg ues that he ha d a rig ht to counsel and that c ounsel should have been a ppointed at the beg inning of the proc eeding s. We disagr ee and conclude that the Appellant-7-

knowing ly

and voluntary waived his right to counse l. See State v . Merriweather , 34 S.W .3d 881, 885 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (any waiver of the rig ht to counsel had to be de termined by the trial judge in ope n court to be knowing and voluntary ). The trial c ourt informed the Appellant thre e times that hewa s e nti tle d to thea ssi stanc e of c ou ns e l. T he Ap pe llant re sp on de d that he wo uld jus t a dmi t to the vio latio ns a nddidno t w a nt an atto rn e y to a ssi st i n h is d e fe ns e . T his iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.
B. W ar r ant Next, the Appellant challeng es the re vo ca t i o n o f his two-y ear sentenc e for

the sale of

a c ou nte rf e it c on tr oll e d s ub stanc e un de r i nd ic tme nt n umb e r 0 0- 68 6. He arg ue s th a t th e tria l c ou rt did no t ha ve theauth ority

to re vo ke his se nte nc e be c aus e the rewa s n o in dic a tio n inthere c or d th a t a revoc ation war

rant wa s issued for the 00- 686 sentenc e. The State contends that the Appellant had actua l notice of the intent to re voke his sentenc e in both case s.
I n the prese nt c ase, the violation wa rrant only listed indictment number 00-685. While an addendum to the wa

rrant was filed, whic h listed both doc ket numbers, there is no indication in the re c or d th a t th is d oc ume nt wa s eve r se rv e d on the Ap pe llant. Du ri ng the re vo c a tio n he ari ng , th e fi rs t time indictment number 00-686 was noted was during the t rial court’s pronounce ment of re vocation an d , wh i l e t h e a d d en d u mwa s m en t i o n ed b y t h e Ap p el l an t ’s ca s e o ff i ce r d u ri n g t h e h ea ri n g, indictment numbers wer e not re fer ence d. According ly , we c onclude that the A ppellant was not place d on notice by

the violation warr ant nor wa s actua l notice rece i v ed i n any form prior to the hearing that his communit y corr ections sentence was being revoke d under indictment number 00- 686. These notice require ments could have been r emedied by amendment to the wa

rrant or waive r by theAp pe llant. We f

indthat th e re vo c a tio n p roce e din g vio late d th e min ima l du e pr oc e ss require ments of Ga gn on v . S c ar pe lli

. The trial court’s order of revoc ation of the Appellant’ s 00-686 two-y ear sentenc e is reve rsed.
II. Co nse c ut iveSe nt e nc ing
L astly , the Appellan t co ntends that the trial court erre d by ordering that his two-y ear sentenc es run c onsecutively to one another

. Our ruling reve rsing the re vocation of the Appellant’s 00-686 sentenc e, re nders this issue moot. The State is p re cl u ded fr om seeking revoc ation of the Appellant’s 00- 686 upon rema nd beca use the sentenc e has expired, as no violation warr ant was e ver filed and a ctual not i ce wa s n o t received prior to revoc ation. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-310 (2003) ( trial court may

revoke suspension of sentenc e “at any time within the max imum ti me which was dire cted and order ed by the court for such suspe nsion”); State v. Shaffer , 45 S.W .3d 553, 555 (T en n
. 2 0 0 1 ) ( tri al co u rtgen er al l y m u s tre v o k e p ro b at i o n wi t h i n p ro b at i o n ar y p er i o d , al t h o u gh issuance of

r e v o c a ti o n w arr a n t w ith inp r o b a ti o n ar y p e rio d w il l t o ll p a s s a g e o f ti mew ith inw hich c ou rt mus t a c t) ; Stat e v. J

e ss R . A mo ne tte , No. M2001-02952-CCA-R3-CD (T enn. Crim. App. at Na sh vil le , A ug . 2 9, 20 02 ); State v. Larry Ammons , N o. W20 01 -0 08 34 -C CA -R 3- CD (T e nn . Crim. App. at Jackson, Mar. 18, 2002) , perm. to appe al denied , (Tenn. 2002). Acc ording ly , further revie w i s u n n e c e s s ar y.-8- CO NC LU SION
Ba sed upon the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court was not requir ed to inform the Ap pe llant that hec ou ld b e re se nte nc e d to c on se c uti ve te rm s if he wa s fo un d to be in v iol a tio n o f h is community

corr ections sentenc es. Ac cording ly , we a ffirm t h e re vocation of the Appellant’s twoy e ar c ommun ity

c or re c tio ns se nte nc e un de r i ndictme nt n umb e r 0 0- 68 5. Ho we ve r, wi th r e g ardto re v o ca t i o n o f hi s t wo -y ea r se n t en ce u n d er i n d i ct m en t n u mb er 0 0 -6 8 6 , we fi n d t h at t h e p ro ce ed i n gs failed to c omply

with due proc ess re quirements. The ref ore, w e re verse the trial cour t ’s o rder of revoc ation with reg ard to the A ppellant’s sente nce in c ase numbe r 00-686.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE