### 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. JODY LEE TUR NER

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Cum berland Coun ty Nos. 7280 and 7454 L eon Burns, Jr., Jud ge

No. E2004-00060-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Novem ber 29, 2004

F oll ow ing his g uil ty ple a

to t wo c ou nts of

the ft , th e de fe nd a nt, Jody L e e Tu rn e r, wa s se nte nc e d in the Cumberland County

Criminal Court to an effe ctive four -y ear term to be se rv ed on probation, supervised by a communit y corr ections progr am age ncy

. A few wee ks later, the c ourt revoke d the community

place ment and orde red the defe ndant t o serve his four-y ear sentenc e in the De partment of Corr e c t i o n

. F r o mt h a to r d e r , t h e d e f e n d a n tap p e a l s

. U p o n r e v i e w , w e a f f i r mt h e j u d g m e nts below.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt s o f the Cr im ina l C our t a r e Affir m e d.

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

David B rady
, Di s t ri ct P u b l ic Def ender ; and J ohn B. N isbet, I I I , and Joe L . Finley , J r., Assistant District Public Defe nders, Cookeville, Te nnessee , for the A ppellant, J ody L ee T urner

.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Kat hy D. A sli ng e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Willi am E . Gi bs on , Di st ri ct A tt orn ey Gen eral ; an d Ke vi n P oo re, A ss is tan t D is tr ict At to rneyGen eral, for the A ppellee, State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

On Oc tob e r 1 , 2 00 3, the de fe nd a nt p le a de d g uil ty to the ft of pr op e rt y va lue d in e xce ss of $500, a Class E fe lony
, and to the ft of property valued in excess of $1,000, a Class D fe lony

. See
ge ne ra lly Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39- 14-103, -105 ( 2003). As a Rang e I offe nder, he rec eived a

twoy ear sentenc e for

the Class E felony

and a f our-y ear sentenc e for

the Class D felony . The trial c ourt imposed the sentenc es to run conc urre ntly , y ielding a n eff ective se nt en ce o f four y ear s. The trial court ordere d that the s entenc es be “suspende d to [ Depa rtment of Corre ction] probation supervised by [communi ty

corr ections].” Consequently , the court ordere d the def endant to comply

with the require ments and conditions of t he community corr ections prog ram, including require ments that he ob e y a ll a pp lic able la ws , r e fr a in f

ro m th e us e of

dr ug s, a ndsu bmi t to dr

ug sc re e ns

.T he off i cer t es t i f

i ed t hat he s ent t he t es t s amp l e t o t he “ l ab” and l ear ned of t he r es ul t s l at er whe n he r ece i ved 1

the lab re p o rt.

-2-

On Novembe r 7, 2003, the state f iled a communit y corr ections vi olation report a nd alleg ed that the defe ndant had tested positively for the use of methamphe tamine on Octobe r 30 and that on November 4, 2003, he admitt ed to using methamphetamine and ref used to submit to a drug

scre en.

On Dec ember 1, 2003, the trial court conducted a revoc ation h ea ring . The def e n d an t’ s p r o b ation office r testified that the de fenda nt entere d the community corr ections prog ram on October

1, 2003, and wa s g iven a drug field t est on October 30, which re veale d the consumption of metha m p h etamine. The off icer attempted to administer anothe r test on Novembe r 4, but the 1 defe ndant “e lected not to take the test [because ] he would fail it for meth[a m p h et amine].” The defe ndant sig ned a sta tement ac knowledg ing that he had be en using the drug , and the of fice r plac ed the writt e n s ta te me nt i nto e vid e nc e . T he of fi c e r t e sti fi e d th a t, h e be lie ve d, the de fe nd a nt t oldhim that he had use d methamphetamine on N ovember 3, 2003.

The de fenda nt testified at the re vocation hea ring that he had maintained employ ment and had e nrolled in “a lcohol and drug assessment,” a s require d b y t he community corr ections
prog ram. He attended outpatient classes once a wee k for three wee ks in O ctober 2003. He a dmitted that he wa s addicted to me thamphetamine and had used it in October and as rec ently as two wee ks prior to the hea

ring . He testified that he nee ded a pr og ram more intensive than we ekly classes. H e reque sted a more intensive prog ram to treat his addiction; however, he admitted t h at , in J anuary 20 03 , h e de c lin e d to a tte nda re ha bil itatio n p ro g ra m c a lle d “ Ne w L e a f. ” He a dmi tted on c ro ssexamination t h at, when f irst questioned by

his probation office r, he untruthf ully denied using methamphetamine.

The trial judg e expressed c oncern that the def endant ha d rebu ffe d attempts to treat his substance a

buse problems in January 2003, following an ar

rest for driving under the influence

. The judg e obser ved that the de fenda nt had re fused to “g et serious” about his drug problem until after he ha d b e e n p la c e d o n p ro ba tio n a ndha d b e e n c a ug ht i n v iol a tio n o f the ru le s. B a se d up on the us e of methamphe tamine demonstrate d by the drug scre en and the defe ndant’s admission, the c ourt on Dec ember 1, 2003, order ed the re vocation of the defe ndant’s community corr ections plac ement and order ed his confine ment in the Depa rtment of Corre cti on to serve the balanc e of his orig inal
sentenc e.

On J anuary 6, 2004, the defendant filed a noti ce of appea l. On appeal, the def endant
arg ues that the order of incar cer ation was too ha rsh and that, instead of confining the def endant, the trial court should ha ve extended his pr obation for two additional y ear s. The state re sponds that the trial court a cted within its discretion in ordering c on fi n em en t as a me ans of se rving the orig inal
sentenc e. We ag ree with the state.-3- Be fore we explain our rea soning, we must a ddress the de fenda nt’s untimely notice of appe al. See Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 3( b)
, 4( a ). We no te that, in c ri min a l c a se s, the no tic e of app e a l is

no t jurisd ic tio na l, a nd thi s c ou rt ma y wa ive the un tim e ly fi lin g of a no tic e of app e a l in the int e re sts of justice. Te nn. R. App. P. 4(a). Although the def endant ha s not asked this court to take this ac tion, the state ha s n ot m ov e d f

or a dis mis sa l of the app e a l. At a ny rate , we c on c lud e that ju sti c e is b e st

se rv e d b y e xcu sin g the fi lin g of

a tim e ly no tic e . We , the re fo re , pro c e e d to the me ri ts o f the app e a l.

The standa

rd of re v i ew upon a

ppeal of an orde r re voking pr obation is the abuse of d is c r e tion standa rd. State v. Hark ins , 811 S.W .2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991) . I n order for a n abuse of discretion to oc cur, the revie wing court must find that the re cord c ontains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge that a viol ation of t he terms of probation has occur red. Id. ; Sta te v . D e lp , 6 14 S.W. 2d39 5, 39 8 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 80 ); see State v . Michae l Emler , No. 01C01-9512-C C-00424, slip op. at 4 (Tenn. Crim. App., Na shville, Nov. 27, 1996) (whe re the defe ndant admits violation of the terms of probation, revoc ation by the t rial court is not arbitrary or

c apr ic iou s) ; see also State v. Mitzi Ann Boyd , N o. 03 C01 -9 50 8- CC- 00 24 6, sli p o p. a t 3 ( Te nn . Crim. App., Knoxvil le, Nov. 1, 1 9 9 6 ). T h e t rial court is required only to find that the violation of probation occ urre d by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-311(e ) (2003)

. Upon finding a violation, the trial court is ve sted with the statutory authority to “re voke the pr obation and suspension of se ntence and cause the defe ndant t o commence the ex ecution of the judg ment as orig inally enter ed.” Id. Furthermore , when pr obation is r evoked, “the orig inal judgme nt so render ed by the trial judg e shall be in full force a nd eff ect f rom the date of the re vocation of suc h suspension.” Id . § 40 -3 5- 31 0 ( 20 03 ). Th e tr ia l ju dg e re ta ins the dis c re tio na ry a uth or ity to o rd e r the de fe nd a nt t o

serve the orig inal sentenc e . See State v . Duke , 902 S.W .2d 424, 427 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

.

I n the pre sent ca se, th e d ef en d ant was placed on pr obation with his sentence

su sp e nd e d p e nd ing his c omp lia nc e wi th c omm un ity c or re c tio ns supervi sio n. He a dmi tte d h is vio la tio n o f the te rm s o f h is p ro ba tio n a ndmake s no cla im on app e a l th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in

re vo kin g pr ob a tio n. Al tho ug h h e ur g e s u s to c on c lud e that se rv ing t he fou r-y e ar s e nte nc e in

c on fi ne me nt i s too hars h, we fi nd no ba sis fo r c on c lud ing that th e tr ia l c ou rt abu se d it s d isc re tio n in ordering confine ment. The de fenda nt was appa rently addicted to metha mphetamine and ma y have benef itted from an intensive r ehabilitation prog ram; howe ver, the trial court wa s troubled by the defe ndant’s re buffing attempts in J anuary 2003 to g et hi m into a substance a buse prog ram. The trial court found that the theft offe nses which ar e the ba ses for the curr ent sentenc es we re r elated to the defe ndant’s involvement with methamphetamine, and the court expressed conc erns f or the saf ety of the public should the defe n d ant remain in the community . The re cord supports the trial judge ’s

rea soning, a nd we c annot help bu t o b s er v e t hat the def endant c ontinued his use of methamphetamine, not only

afte r submitting his g uiltyplea and acc epting the terms of probation, but even af t ert h e v i o l at i o n wa rr an th ad b ee n fi l ed

. Gi v en t h e re co rd b ef o re u s an d t h e t ri al co u rt ’s fi n d i n gs of fa ct, we discern no a

buse of discr etion in ordering the four- y ear sentenc e ser ved in the De partment of Corre ction.

Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.-4- ___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE