### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE Ma y 11, 200 5 S es sio n STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JERE MY P. SM ITH
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Dickson Coun ty No. CR5141A R obert E. Burch, Judge

No. M2004- 02740-CCA -R3-C D F iled Septem ber 2, 2005

The a ppellant, J ere my

P

. S m i t h , p led g uiltyin the Dickson County Circuit Court to arson and re c e ive d a sen te nc e of

fi ve y e ars . T he tr ia l c ou rt g rante d th e app e lla nt c ommun ity c or re c tio ns . Subsequently , the t ri al co u rt revoke d the appe llant’s community corr ections and or dere d the app e lla nt t o s e rv e on e y e ar in co nf ine me nt b e fo re a g a in b e ing re le a se d in to c ommun ity c or re c tio ns . On app e a l, the app e lla nt co nte sts the re vo c a tio n. Up on re vie w of the re c or d a ndthe pa

rt ie s’ brie fs , we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.
N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which A L AN E. G L EN N and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined. Michae l J . Flana g an, Na shville, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, J ere my

P. Sm ith. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Pre ston Shipp, Assistant A ttorney Gene ral; Da n M. Alsobrooks, District Attorney Gene ral; and Kim Menke, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION On Novembe r 9, 2000, the a ppellant pled g uiltyto the char g e of a rson. The judg ment of c on vic tio n pr ov ide d that the app e lla nt wa s se nte nc e d to fi ve y e ars , wi th nin e ty da y s to be se rv e d in the county

jai l an d t h e re mainder of the sentenc e to be se rved on c ommunitycorr ections. A “community corr ections order ” was filed on November 13, 2000, also ref lecting that the appe llant wa s to be pla c e d o n c ommun ity c or re c tio ns fo llo wi ng his te rm of c on fi ne me nt. On March 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 , a wa rra nt was issued, alleg ing that the appellant ha d violated the c o n d i t i o n s o f

h i s c o m m u n i t y c o rr e c t i o n s s e n t e n c e b y:T he rec o rd d o es no t refl ec t t he na t ure o f t he M arc h 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 , p ro ce ed i ng s. 1

T h e appe l l an t di d n ot a ppea r a t t h e h ea r i n g on J u n e 4, 2004. 2
-2-

Violation of Rule #1 which states that a client is to be under h o u s e arr e s t [ a n d a ] Vi olatio n o f R ule #3 wh ic h s ta te s th a t th e c lie nt i s to re po rt to the field off

ice a s directe d by

the Case Of

fice r. On October 4, 2002, the trial court entere d an orde r re voking the appellant’ s communitycorr ections sentenc e. The order

provided that the a

ppellant was to serve on e y ea r in the county jail, then he would “continue se rving his sentence on Communi ty Correc tions at L evel 1 Super vision.”
Th e re a ft e r, on Ap ri l 17 , 2 00 3, the Te nn e sse e B oa rd of Pr ob a tio n an d Pa

ro le iss ue d a

“ Paro le Certificate,” r eleas i n g the appe llant into the communityunder the supervision of a pa role off icer , Fr ancine Wolfe

. At the appe llant’s community corr ections re vocation hea ring on September 24, 2004, the appellant’s community corr ections off

icer , Robert Spurg eon, testified that a fter the app e lla nt’ s r e le a se fr om c on fi ne me nt, Spu rg e on dis c ov e re d th a t th e app e lla nt ha d b e e n in c or re c tly rele ased on pa

role inst ead of community corr ections. The e rror

was c aused by

an incor rec t computer entry made by someone at the Dickson County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment. Upon lea

rning o f t he er

ror, Spu rg e on c on ta c te d Wo lf e to n oti fy

he r o f the e rr or . Wo lf

e , a lr e a dy a wa re of the e rr or , to ld Spurg eon that she had informed the appellant to “ report ba ck to the J udg e and f inish serving out that y ear ’s time.” The appellant did not re port to the court or to the jail. Spurg eon testified that a fter the appellant’ s relea se fr om confineme nt, he con t ac ted the appellant a nd informed him that he should be r eporti n g t o S purg eon, not to a par ole offic er. O n Marc h 25, 2004, Spurg eon and the appellant we re in c ourt, and the c ourt instructed the a ppellant 1 that he should report to Spurge on until J une 4, 2004, whe n another hearing would be held to cle ar up the c on fu sio n s ur

ro un din g the app e lla nt’ s se nte nc e . On Apr il 22 , 2 00 4, a no the r c ommun ity 2 corrections violat i o n wa rr an t wa s i s s u ed , al l egi n g t h at t h e a p p el l an tv i o l at ed h i s s en t en ce b y v i o lating rule 1 “which states that a client is to be under house arr est” a nd rule 3 “ which states that the c lient is to report to the field of

fice as direc ted by

the Case Of

fice r.” Spec ifically , the war rant states that the app e lla nt “ wa s in str

uc te d by Judg e Ge or g e Se xton on Marc h 25 to re po rt to [Sp ur g e on ] unt il h is court date i n J u n e 2 0 0 4 and he has not reported to [S purg eon] since Marc h 29, 2004. He ha s chang ed re sidence s and not reported it to [ Spurg eon].” At the conc lusion of the revoc ation hearing, the trial court state d:

I n p re vio us ly

fi nd ing thi s [appell ant ] in v iol a tio n o f h is Com muni ty Cor

re c tio ns , th e Or de r o f the Cou rt state s th a t he is i n violation and sentenc ed to Communit y Correc tion, sentence d to serve four months in the county jail, then be returne d and continue se rving-3- his sentence on Communi ty Correc tions with L evel One supe rvision. The B oard of

Pardons and Par o l es h as no authority to counterma nd this Court’s Order; therefor e, he was on Com munity Correc tions no matter wha t t h e Bo ard of Pardons and Par oles may say . He wa s on Communi ty

Correc tions; he d i d not report, did not comply with the rules of Communi ty Correc tions. The Court f inds he is in viol ation of the terms and conditions of his Comm unity Correc tions sentence, an d he is order ed to serve one y ear in the county

jail and be plac ed back out on CommunityCorrec tions at L evel One supervision. On appe al, the appe llant “conc edes that the Bo ar d o f P ar oles had no authority to issue the Certificate of Parole and to beg in to supervise the [appellant].” Howe ver, the appellant a rg ues that it was not [hi s] fault . .

. that he wa s wrong fully rele ased f rom jail and be g a n b e in g s up e rv ise d b y a pa ro le of fi c e r. Th e c ommun ity corr ections vio lation warr ant alleg es that the Trial court instructe d the [appellant] t o beg in re p o rt i ng back to c ommunitycorr ections. The re c or d c on ta ins no or de r r e fl e c tin g the Judg e ’s ins truc tio ns . Th e re fo re, the [ap pe lla nt] c a nn ot b e in v iol a tio n o f h is communi ty

corr ections, which is an or der of the Court. The [appellant], i f anything, is in contempt of Court f or not following the Trial Court’s instructions, there being no order

. II. Ana lys is Ge ne ra lly , c ommun ity

c or re c tio ns se nte nc e s a

re g ov e rn e d b y

the Te nn e sse e Com mun ity Cor re c tio ns Ac t of

19 85 . Se e Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 36 -1 01 (2 00 3) . T he Ac t pr ov ide s: The court shall

. . . possess the power to revoke the sentenc e imposed at any

time due to the conduc t of t he def endant or the termination or modification o f t he prog ram to which the defe ndant ha s b e e n s e nte nced, and the c ou rt ma y re se nte nc e the de fe nd a nt t o any approp ri ate se ntencing alternative, including inc arc eration, for any period of time u p to the maxi mum sentence provided for the offe nse committed, less any ti m e actually

serve d in any community -base d alternative to incarc eration. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 36-106(a )(3) (B )(4) (2003). A trial court may revoke a community

corr ections sentenc e upon finding by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that an offe nder violate d the conditions of his suspended sentenc e. See State v. Har kins, 811 S.W .2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). The trial court’s revoc ation of a c ommun i ty corr ections sentenc e will be upheld a bsent an a

buse of discr etion. I d. An abuse of discre tion occurs if the rec ord contains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion-4-

of the trial court that a violation of community corr ections has oc curr ed. See State v. G reg ory , 946 S.W .2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) . Upon re v o k i n g an offe nder’ s communitycorr ections sentenc e, one option a vailable to a trial court is to order a sentenc e of split confine ment. See Te nn. Code Ann. §§ 40-36- 106(f) and 40-35 -3 0 6 (a ) (2003) . Specifica lly , the trial court may order the offe nder to serve up to one y ear in c onfinement, followed by the re mainder se rved a s an alternative sentenc e. See T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-306(a ); see a lso St ate v. P at ri ck L amont Ba rker , No. M2004-02000-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1330841, at *4 (Te n n. Crim. App. at Nashville, June 6, 2005).
Th e app ell ant ’s so le c omp la int on app e a l is that he c a nn ot b e in v iol a tio n o f c ommun ity corr ections bec ause the trial court did not enter an orde r re flec ting his instruction to t he appe llant on Marc h 25, 2004, that the appellant was to “ beg in r eporting back to c ommun i t yco rr ec t ions.” Howeve r, our r eview of

the re cord r efle cts that prior to the a ppellant’s re lease on parole , there was a n o uts ta nd ing or de r e nte re d b y the tr ia l c ou rt

in wh ic h th e c ou rt

re vo ke d th e app e lla nt’ s c ommun ity corr ections sentenc e. As a result of the revoc ation, the trial court order ed the appe llant to serve one y ear in confineme nt, then the appe llant was to be returne d to c ommunitycorr ections. As we have no te d, ins te a d o f b e ing pr op e rl y re turne d to the co mm un ity c or re c tio ns pr og ram up on his re le a se from conf

inement, the B oard of

Probation and Parole r elea sed the a ppell ant on parole. No tw ith sta nd ing the e rr or of the B oa rdof Pr ob a tio n a ndParo le in i ssu ing the app e lla nt a “ Paro le Ce rt if ic a te ,” we no te that th e re is n o s ta tutory or case la w w hic h auth orize s th e Paro le B oa rdto su pe rs e de a

jud g me nt o f the tr ia l cou rt

. I n othe r wo rd s, a lth ou g h the B oa rd of Paro le s has auth ority ov e r i ts o wn re le a se pr og ram, the B oa rd do e s not ha ve the po we r to s up e rs e de , o ve rr ule , o r v iol a te a judgment reg arding sentenc ing issued by the trial court. See State v. Fr eddie Joe L emmons, No. 804, 1988 W L55691, at *3 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, J une 2, 1988). A ccor dingly , by the order s of the trial c ourt which we re e ntere d on November 13, 2000, and Oc tober 4, 2002, the app e lla nt w a s st ill in the c ommun ity c or re c tio ns pr og ram onAp ri l 17 , 2 00 3, a t th e tim e of his err oneous re lease from conf inement by

the B oard of Probation and P arole

. There fore , the trial court was within its discretion in finding that the appellant violated his communitycorr ections sentenc e by failing to report to his community correc tions officer

and in cha ng ing his a ddress without notify ing the proper

autho ri t ies as wa s alleg ed in the April 22, 2004, communitycorr ections violation warrant. III. Conclusi on Finding no reve rsible er

ror, we aff

irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE