### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 18 , 200 4
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. BILLY WAY NE QUILL EN
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for G ree ne County No. 03CR043 Jam es E. Beckner, Judge

No. E2004-00417-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Septem ber 27, 2004

The de fenda nt, Bill y W ay n e Quillen, pled g uiltyto two counts of attempt to obtain a contr olled substance by

fraud and wa s place d on judicial diversion for two y ears. His diversion was subsequently

revoke d, and the t ri al co u rt reinstate d his origina l two-y ear sentenc e to be se rved at 100%. On a

ppeal, the de fenda nt arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in or dering him to serve his sentence at 100% without rele ase e ligibility , and the State a g ree s. Ba sed upon our r ev i ew , we m o dify the defe ndant’s sente nce to r efle ct re lease elig ibilit y afte r ser vice of

30% of the two- y ear

sentenc e. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed as Modif ied
A L AN E. G L EN N , J

. , d el i v er ed the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.
Gre g W. Eichelman, District Public Defe nder, a nd Michae l A. Walcher , Assistant Publ ic Def ender , for the a ppellant, B illyWay ne Quillen.
Pa ul G. Sum me rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Kathy D. As lin g e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; C. Ber keley Be ll , J r. , Di strict Attorney Gene ral; and Cec il C. Mi lls, J r. and Eric D. Christiansen, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION
F AC TS
The fa cts surrounding the def endant’ s crime a

re g leane d from his motion to waive g rand jury investigation and to proce ed by information:-2- Cou nt 1 That, on De cembe r 30, 2002, in Greene County , Tenne ssee, the defe ndant committed the offense of attempting to obtain a contr olled substance by

fraud, by knowing ly attempting to obtain possession of a contr olled substance, to wit: L ortab, a S ch ed u le I I I controlled substance, by

misrepre sentation, to wit: bytelephoning Corley ’s Pharmac y and re prese nting that he was Dr . Michae l Monge r pr e sc ri bin g L orta

b f or Da nn y Gr e g g a ndthe n pre se nti ng him se lf to Cor le y ’s Pha

rm a c y re pr e se nti ng that he wa s Da nn y Gr e g g in o rd e r t o pick up the prescription; a Class D fe lony , in violation of T.C.A. § 53-11-402( a)( 3), and a g ain s t t h e pea ce and dignity of the State of Tenne ssee.
Cou nt 2 That, on January

3, 2003, in Gree ne County , Tenne ssee, t h edefe ndant committed the offe nse of attempting to obtain a c ontrolled substance by frau d , b yknowing ly

attempting to obtain possession of a controlled substanc e, to wit: L ortab, a Schedule I I I controlled s u b s t an ce , b y

m i s re p re s en t at i o n , t o wi t : b y t el ep h o n i ng Centra l Dr u g, and re prese nting that he was Dr . Michae l Mong er pr escribing L ortab for Chris Ada ms and then pre senting himself to Central Drug repr esenting that he was Chris A dams in or der to p i ck u p t he pre s cr i p tion; a Class D felony , in violation of T.C.A. § 53-11- 402(a) (3), a nd ag ainst the pea ce and dignity of the State of Tenne ssee. On April 8, 2003, the de fenda nt entere d g uiltypleas to two counts of attempt to obtain a controlled substanc e by

fra ud and wa s g rante d judicial diversion. He was plac ed on probation for two y ear s and orde red to pe rform 225 hours of community service work a nd to attend a dr ug reha bilitation progra m. Subsequently , on November 13, 2003, a probation violation affidavit wa s filed base d upon the def

endant’ s arr est for the ft over $500 and his positive drug scre en for marijuana

. F o ll o w in g a h e ar in g o n Ja n u ar y 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , th e tria l c o u r t r e v o k e d th e d e f e n d a n t’ s p r o b a ti on and re ins ta te d h is t wo -y e ar s e nte nc e to b e se rv e d at 10 0% le ss e arn e d c re dit s. AN AL YSI S
The de fenda nt’s sole issue on appe al is whether the trial court erre d in ordering him to serve h i s o r i g i n a l t w o
- ye a r s e n t e n c e a t1 0 0 %

. T h e S t a t e c o n c e d e s t h a tt h e d e f e n d a n t , a s a

R a n g e I, standard of

fende r, must be re lease d afte r ser vice of 30% of his sentenc e.
Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-313 provides that, f ollowing a

determination of g uilt byplea or

by trial, a t ri al co u rt m ay , in its di scre tion, defer further proce eding s and plac e a-3-

qualified de fenda nt on probation without e ntering a judgme nt of g uilt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 31 3( a )( 1) (A ) ( 20 03 ). Te nn e s s e e C o d e A n n o t at e d s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -3 13 (a )( 2) pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art , “Upon violation of a

condition of the probation, the court may enter an adjud i cation of g uilt and proce ed as othe rwise pr ovided.”
At the conc lusion of the defe ndant’s probation violation hearing , the trial court ruled:
I ha ve no cho ice in the ma tte r, be ing c on sis te nt w ith wh a t I do in every case , and g iven t he presentenc e report in this case, but to re voke probation an d reinstate the sentenc e to be se rved a hundred pe rce nt su bje c t to a ll cr e dit s to be ea rn e d. Yo u c a n g e t 20 pe rc e nt c re dit jus t for not ca using a ny probl em an d y ou can a lso ge t other cr edits but y ou’re in custody

to serve y our sentenc e.
As to releas e elig ibilit y , Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-501(a )(3) provides that “inmates with fe lony

sentences of two (2) y ear s or less shall have the re mainder of their orig inal sentenc e suspende d upon rea ching their re lease elig ibilit y date.” Reg arding Range I , standard of fe nd e rs , Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d sec tio n 40- 35 -5 01 (c ) pr ov ide s tha t re le a se e lig ibi lit y “ sh a ll occur afte r ser vice of

thirty perc ent (30%) of the a ctual sente nce imposed less sentenc e cr edits earned and retained by the defendant.” Acc ording ly , as a Rang e I , standard of fende r, we concur

with the defe ndant and the State that the defe ndant ca n only be re quired to s er v e 3 0 % of his sentence, not 10 0% a s o rd e re d b y

the tr ia l c ou rt

. CO NC LU SION
Ba sed upon the f

o r e g o in g a

u th orities and re asoning , we a ffirm the tria l court’s orde r re voking the def endant’ s diversion but modify his sentenc e to ref lect re lease elig ibilit y

afte r ser vice of

30% of the two-y ear

sentenc e.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE