IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs February 26, 2019

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HELENA MOORE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Roane County

No. 2015-CR-152 Jeffery Hill Wicks, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2018-00709-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The Appellant, Helena Moore, appeals the trial court’s revocation of her community 

corrections sentence and order to serve her original two-year sentence in confinement, 

contending that she should have been returned to community corrections. Upon review, 

we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD 

WITT, JR., and D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JJ., joined.

Ian McCabe, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Helena Moore.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Katherine C. Redding, Assistant 

Attorney General; Russell Johnson, District Attorney General; and Kristin Rudden 

Kelley, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

I. Factual Background

On August 14, 2015, the Appellant pled guilty to theft of property valued more 

than $1,000 but less than $10,000, and she received a sentence of two years, which was 

suspended to probation. On November 29, 2016, the trial court entered an order revoking

the Appellant’s probation and ordering her to serve forty days in jail before serving the 

balance of her two-year sentence on community corrections. In connection with the 

order, a “Behavior Contract and Conditions of Sentence” was entered that reflects the 

09/10/2019
- 2 -

Appellant was convicted of “Theft X 2 ($1000.00 to 10,000.00)” and that she was 

“sentenced to serve a term of 4 years in the Department of Corrections.” 1 

On April 7, 2017, a warrant was issued alleging that the Appellant violated the 

terms of her community corrections. At the revocation hearing, the parties stipulated that 

the Appellant had violated the terms of her community corrections.

Victor Owen, who was in charge of the Community Corrections Program, testified 

that on November 29, 2016, the Appellant began serving her community corrections 

sentence and that she first reported on December 6, 2016. Owen reviewed the rules and 

conditions of the community corrections sentence with the Appellant. He also warned 

her that the “worst thing” she could do was “abscond from” community corrections and 

that if she violated the terms of community corrections, she likely would go to prison. 

On December 6, the Appellant failed a drug test by testing positive for opiates and 

morphine. Owen noted the Appellant had a prescription that could have accounted for 

the positive opiate finding. Nevertheless, during in-person meetings and telephone 

conversations Owen had with the Appellant during the month of December, the 

Appellant acknowledged that she had “messed up,” that she “need[ed] help,” and that she 

wanted to get into a drug treatment program. Owen told her that he would not object if 

she could get into a program on her own but cautioned that she would be required to 

complete the program as a condition of community corrections. 

Thereafter, the Appellant voluntarily entered a residential rehabilitation program at 

“Serenity House.” Around February 6, 2017, after successfully completing the Serenity 

House program, the Appellant entered a three-month “intensive outpatient” program at 

Hope of East Tennessee (“Hope House”), which was a halfway house for women. Owen 

noted that Serenity House was more restrictive than Hope House. He again informed the 

Appellant that she would be required to complete the program as a condition of 

community corrections. Owen thought that Hope House was a follow-up program to 

Serenity House but did not know if the Appellant went there at the recommendation of

the staff at Serenity House. 

On March 1, the Appellant tested positive for Buprenorphine. Three days later,

the Hope House staff suspected the Appellant had used methamphetamine and requested 

that she submit to a drug test. She refused and was discharged from the facility later that 

day. On March 6, a Hope House staff member sent Owen a letter advising him of the 

Appellant’s discharge, but Owen could not recall the date he received the letter. 

 

1

The form indicates that at some point, the Appellant was convicted of another theft charge, that 

a two-year sentence was imposed for the other theft conviction, and that the sentences for the theft 

convictions were to be served consecutively. 
- 3 -

Owen said that the Appellant “abscond[ed]” from community corrections and had

no contact with him for six months after her discharge from Hope House. He noted that 

an offender was considered to have “officially absconded” from community corrections if 

she failed to report for thirty days. 

In September 2017, the Appellant was arrested for violating the terms of her 

community corrections sentence. Following her arrest, she sent Owen a letter from jail. 

She said that she did not report to community corrections after she was discharged from 

Hope House “because she was scared.” Sometime later, Owen learned that the Appellant 

had been charged with theft and that the victim of the new charge was the same victim of 

the theft convictions for which the Appellant was on community corrections. The new

charge was pending at the time of the revocation hearing. 

Owen noted that when he initially met with the Appellant, he advised her that she 

was supposed to pay $100 per month toward costs, fines, and restitution. However, she 

had paid nothing since she began serving her 2016 community corrections sentence. He 

said that he was less concerned about her failure to pay while she was in the rehabilitation 

facilities than he was about her failure to pay during “the six months she absconded.” 

Nevertheless, he noted that he had another client who was in Hope House around the 

same time as the Appellant and that the other client “actually did a good job on paying on 

her court costs and fines.” Owen thought the Appellant was employed at a McDonald’s 

restaurant for a brief time while she was at Hope House. Owen opined that the Appellant 

should serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement.

The State argued that the Appellant should be required to serve the balance of her 

sentence in confinement, noting that this was the second time she had unsuccessfully 

been released on alternative sentencing. The Appellant contended that as a drug addict, 

she was the type of offender community corrections was designed to help. The Appellant 

further contended that her violations were because she was a drug addict and that she 

voluntarily sought treatment in the Serenity House program. The Appellant asked that 

she be given another chance in community corrections.

The trial court agreed that community corrections was designed to keep nonviolent felons out of prison. The court stated, however, that the Appellant had been given 

a chance in community corrections and that she did not comply with its requirements. 

The trial court noted that the Appellant failed to report for approximately six months and 

that she left the rehabilitation facility without informing Owen. The trial court further 

noted that the Appellant was arrested on a new charge while on community corrections. 

The court revoked the Appellant’s community corrections sentence and ordered her to 

serve the balance of her sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant challenges 

the trial court’s ruling. 
- 4 -

II. Analysis

Generally, community corrections sentences are governed by the Tennessee 

Community Corrections Act of 1985. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-101. The Act 

provides as follows:

The court shall . . . possess the power to revoke the sentence 

imposed at any time due to the conduct of the defendant or 

the termination or modification of the program to which the 

defendant has been sentenced, and the court may resentence 

the defendant to any appropriate sentencing alternative, 

including incarceration, for any period of time up to the 

maximum sentence provided for the offense committed, less 

any time actually served in any community-based alternative 

to incarceration.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(4). A trial court may revoke a community corrections 

sentence upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that an offender violated the 

conditions of her suspended sentence. See State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 

1991). The trial court’s revocation of a community corrections sentence will be upheld 

absent an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs if the record contains no 

substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of 

community corrections has occurred. See State v. Gregory, 946 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn. 

Crim. App. 1997).

On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by 

revoking her community corrections sentence and ordering that she serve her sentence in 

confinement because she demonstrated a desire to rehabilitate herself by voluntarily 

attending the program at Serenity House. However, the Appellant admitted at the 

revocation hearing, and she acknowledges on appeal, that she violated the terms of 

community corrections. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking 

her community corrections sentence and ordering that she serve her sentence in 

confinement.
- 5 -

III. Conclusion

Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial 

court.

_________________________________

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE