### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs M

arch 13, 2001 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HENRY FORD WILLIAMS, JR.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Robertson County No. 8516B &8234B John H. Gasaway, III, Judge

No. M2000-01495-CCA-R3-CD - Filed May 18, 2001

The defendant, Henry

Ford Williams, appe

als the Robertson Co

unty Circuit Court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence. The trial court accepted the de

fendant’s guilt

y pleas to Cla

ss B felony possession of cocaine for resale and to Class C felony possession of cocaine. On September 16, 1993, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten y

ears, wit h el even mon ths and 29 d ays to be served in local confinement and the balance to be served in community correc tions. On February 18, 2000, the state filed a community corrections re vocat ion warrant. The trial court conducted

an ev ide nti ary he ari ng an d rev oke d th e def end ant ’s c omm uni ty corrections placement. From that order, the defendant has appealed to this court. Upon our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, a

nd the applicable

law, we affirm th

e action of the tr

ial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Ju

dgment of the Circ

uit Court Affirme

d.
J AMES C URWOOD W ITT , J R ., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D AVID G. H AYES and J OHN E VERETT W ILLI AMS , JJ., joined. Gregory D. Smith, on appeal, Clarksville, Tennessee; and Michael R. Jones, Public Defender, Springfield, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Henry For d Williams, Jr.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Elizabeth T. R ya n, Assistant Attorne y General ; John Wes ley C arne y, Jr., District Attorne y General ; and Dent Morriss, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

After t he d efendant was sentenced in 1993, he served the eleven-month, 29-day confinement

portion of his ten-year sentence. In the community corrections revocation warrant, the state alleged that the

defendant violat

ed community

corrections re

quirements in

that he (1) failed to1 The de fendant testified, “I like marijuan a.”
2 We note tha

t Tennesse

e Code Annotat

ed secti on 40-36-106(e

)(4) (Supp. 2000) provides t hat, upon revoking a communit

y correct

ions sen tence, t he court ma

y impos e incarcera ti on “for any period of time up to the maximum sentence pr ovided fo r the offense co mmitted, less any ti me actually serv ed in any community-based alternative to incarce ration .” (Emphasis added). -2- maintain employment and (2) failed to refrain from theuse of illicit drug s and alcoholic be

verages. Based upon testimony of a

probation officer

and of the defendant at the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the defendant had, by his own admission, used marijuana and that he inten ded to continue his use of marijuana and cocaine. 1 The c ourt vi ewed the defendant’s open defiance of community

corrections rul

es as an “affro

nt to the court. ” I t revoked the def endant’s communit

y corrections pla

cement and orde

red him to serve th

e balance of his s

entence in conf

inement.
In his appeal from this decision, the defendant claim s that the trial cou

rt abused its discretion in revoking the defendant’s community correction placement; however, he acknowledges in his brief that, in view of the defendant’s use of illegal drugs, the t rial court had the authority to revoke the placement. 2 He argues that the imposition of confinement for the balance of the sentence for a first-time violator is excessive. Because we disagree, we affirm the trial c ourt’s judgment.
The decision to revoke a community corrections sentence rests with the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that a violationhas occurred. State v. Harkins , 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). In reviewing the trial court’s finding, it is our obligation to examine the record and determine whether the trial court has exercised a conscientious judgment rather than an

arbitrary one. State v. Mitchell

, 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). If the evidence is sufficient, the trial court may, within its discretionary authority , revoke the commu nity corrections sentence and require the defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 36- 196(e)(3) (Supp. 2000).
In the present case, the trial court’s decision

to revoke the def

endant’s communit

y corrections placement based upon his use of illicit drugs is firmly supported in the record, a n d acco rdi ngly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the c ommunity corrections placement. The defendant appears to concede as much. Also, the record supports the trial court’s discretionary

decision to require the balance of the sentence to be served in confinement. This court has said that a person who violates probation has no claim to a second grant of probation or other form of alternative sentence. State v. James Mo ffit , No. 01C01-9010-CC-00252 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Apr. 4, 199 1). We believe tha t principle applie

s to a revocation o

f a community corrections placemen

t. The tria

l court is a

uthorize d to impo se confinement for the balance of the sentence, and we are not a t liberty to d isturb the decision absent a showing that the lower court abused its discretion. The record reflects no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly

, we affirm the ju

dgment of the tri

al court.-3- ___________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE