# FILED
November 10, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE OCTOBER 1997 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) APPELLEE, )

) No. 01-C-01-9612-CC-0 0527 ) ) Maury County v. ) ) Jim T. Hamilton , Judge ) ) (Revocation of Probation) ORLANDO HOBSON, ) ) APPELLANT. )

FOR THE APPE LLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: William C. Bright John Knox Walkup Assistant Public Defender Attorney General & Repor ter 128 North 2nd Street 500 Charlotte Avenue Pulaski, TN 38478 Nashville, TN 37243-0497 OF COUNSEL: Janis L. Turner Assistant Attorney Gener al Shara A. Flacy 450 James Robertson Parkwa y District Public Defender Nashville, TN 37243-0493 128 North 2nd Street Pulaski, TN 38478 T. Michael B ottoms District Public Defender P.O. Box 459 Lawrenceburg, TN 38464-0459 Stella L. Hargrove Assistant District A

ttorney General 10 Public Square Columbia, TN 38402-1619

OPINION FILED:_______________________________
AFFIRMED Joe B. Jones, Pre siding Judge2 

## O P I N I O N

The appellant, Orlando Hobson (defendant), appeals as of right from a judgment of the trial court revoki ng his probation and req uiring him to serve the balance o f his sentence
. In this court, the defendant contends the trial court abused it s discreti on b y ordering him to serve the balance of hi s sentences without consi dering whether he should receive yet anoth er altern ative sentence. After a thorough rev iew of the record, the bri efs submitted by the parties, and the la w governing the

issue pres ented f or revi ew, it is the opinion of this court that the j udgment of the trial court shoul d be affirmed. The defendant was convicted of fiv e (5) counts of

sexual assault following his pleas of guilty to these offenses. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve six (6) months in the Mau ry Co unty Jail and ordered al l five sentences to be serv ed consecutively. I t appears the sente nces w ere imposed pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The cou rt suspended the defendant’s entire sentence andplaced him on probation for five (5) years. The sentencing judgments w ere imposed February 17, 1995. The trial court issued a revocation ar rest warrant on Apri l 28, 1995. The defendant’s probation was revoked on June 5, 1995, becaus e he had tested positive for coc aine. The court reinstated the defendant’s pr obation on July 6, 1995. A second revocation arre st warrant was i ssued on February 14, 1996. The grounds forthe issuance of the warrant were thefailure of the defendant to report to his probation officer for five months and failure to pay fees. The warrant was retired on March 15, 1996 with t he understanding the case w ould be reviewed in t

wo months. The warrant w as a mended on April 29, 1996 to allege the defendant was residing in a home wit h youn g children. The warrant was amended a second tim e on Augu st 14, 1996. The amended warrant alleged thedefendant had tested positive for mar ijuana. The third amendment to the warrant, dated August 21, 1996, alleged the defendant changed h is address without advising the probation officer and failed to pay the f ees ordere d bythe court. On September

13, 1996, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered that he
serve the balance of his sentences. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking3

the defendant’s probation. See State v. Harkins , 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991). This court has conducted a de novo review of the record in conformity with Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). The trial court did not

abuse its discretion by refusing to grant the defendant some form of alternative sentencing after this second rev oc ation of his probation. The state establishedthe defendant tested positive for mar ijuana use; he failed to a dvi se the probation officer he was changing addresses before mov ing to Jackson, Tennessee; he lived in a residence with three minor children after agr eeing he would not do so; he failed to report to the pr obation officer

for five months; he failed to pay the fees ordered by the trial court; a nd he failed to report for a psy chological examina

t ion to determine if he needed counseling for his sexual propensiti es involving chi ldren. The trial court was very

patient with the

defendant, and the court gave the defendant every opportunity to

conform his conduct. The defendant obviously refused to conform his conduct, and he committed the above enumerated violations of his probation. Moreover, the evidence adduced at the hearing overcame the presumption that he is a favorable candidate fo r alternative sent encing.

____ ________

__________________________ _ JOE B. JONES, PRESI DING JUDGE

CONCUR:

______________________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE

______________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE