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

Briefs S eptem

ber 17, 200 3
STATE OF TENN ESSEE v. TERESA GAIL PRESSON
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dickson County No. CR3686 Robert E. Burch, Judge

No. M2002-03090-CCA-R3-CD - F iled November 20, 2003

The defenda

nt, Tere sa Gail Pr

ess on, appeal s from the Dickson County Circuit Court’s order revoking her probation that she received upon her guilty plea to theft of property

valued more than $10,000 but less than $60,000. The defendant contends that although she violated her probation, the trial court erred by

ordering her to serve the

remainder of her sentence in confinement. We affirm the judg ment of the

trial cou rt. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

J OSEPH M. T IPTON , J., delivered the opinion of the court , in which D AVID G. H AYES and J OHN E VERE TT W IL LI AMS , JJ., joined.

William B. Lock

ert, III, Di strict Public Defender; Chris L. Young , Assistant District Public Defender (on appeal) ; a nd Mitche ll B . Dugan , Dickson , Tennes see (at trial), f or the ap pellant, Teresa

Gail Presson. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter; J. Ross Dyer, Assistant Attorney General; Dan Mitchum Alsobrooks, Distri ct Attorney Genera l; and Kim G . Menke, Assista nt D istrict Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Te nnessee.
OPINION

The record reflects that on January 1, 1998, the defendant pled guilty to thef t of prop erty valued more than $10,000 but less than $60,000, a

Class C felony . The tria

l court se ntenced her to five ye ars in

the Department of Correction to be served on supervise d probation and ordered that she pay $22,021.84 in restitution. Subsequently, the defendant’s pr obation supervisor

filed a probation violation warrant, alleging that the de fendant had violated her probation by failing to meet with the supervisor and failing to pay her restitution.

At the revoca

tion hearing, Catherine Stringfield, the def endant’s probation supervisor, testified that she began supervising the defe ndant in July 2001. She said she filed a probation-2-

violation warrant against the defendant because the defenda nthad missed ten appointments with her from December 2001 to August 2002. She said the defenda nt’s excus e for miss ing the a ppointmen

ts was that the defendant had to work two jobs. She said that sometimes the defendant telephoned and rescheduled

the missed appointments but that the d efenda nt a lso missed some of the rescheduled appointme

nts. She said th at the de fendant also had f

ailed to p ay

her res t itut ion and that the defendant claimed she could not afford to pay the restitution because the defendant was no longer married and “just making end s m eet.” On cross-examination, Ms. Stringfield testified that the defendant’s probation contract had ten rules and that t

he defe ndant had violated only two of the

m. She acknowledged that the defendant had two children and that the defendant told her the defe ndant has hepatitis C. She said the defendant had paid $9,477 toward r

estitution but that the

defenda nt still owed over $10,000 and had not made any restitution payments since Marc h 4, 2002.

The defenda

nt testified that she h ad hepa titis C and mi ssed appo intments w ith Ms. Strin gfield in March and April 2002 because she wa s in the hos p ital. She s aid she mis sed appo intments in August 2002 because of car trouble. She s aid she telephoned and rescheduled some of the appointme

nts but that her car broke

down ag ain as she was driving to some of them. She said that she and her husband separated in December 2001 and

that “every

thing went downhill from then.” She said that she had to work two jobs in order to support her two children, that she currently worked at Thunder Alley a

nd made about $480 every two weeks, and that she could no longer afford to make her restitution payments. She said that she had been approved for food stamps and public housing recent ly and that s he was su

pposed to s tart nurs ing scho ol in April 2003 . She said t hat she w ould receive a $4,000 or $5,000 income tax refund, that she would pay it toward her

restitution, and that she never meant to violate her probation. Upon being que stioned by the trial court, the de fendant acknowledged

that the court hadwarned her at the guilty

plea hea ring ab out missing

appointme

nts with her probation supervisor.

Given the change in the defendant’s f inancial situation, the trial court chose not to hold the defendant in violation of her probation for failing to make restitution payments. Howeve

r, the trial court ruled that the defendant had violated the terms of her pr obation by failing to r

eport to her probation supervisor. The trial court noted that it had told the defendant at her guilty ple a hearing
never to miss appointments with her supervisor. I t det ermined that the defendant had missed appointme

nts and that t

he de fendant sometimes had chosen to go to work instead of kee ping the appointme

nts. The trial court revo ked the defen dant’s probation and ordered that she serve the remaind er of he r sentence in con

finemen t.
Alth ough the defe

ndant a dmi ts that she violated her probation, she contends that the trial court’s disposition of the case was improper. She arg ues that g iven her persona l circums tances, a less harsh punishment such as split confinement would have been appropriate. The state contends that the trial court did not abuse

its discretion by ordering that the defendant serve her sentenc e in confinement. We agree with the state.

The decision to revoke pr obation is within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Grear , 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978). Upon revoking probation, the trial court has the discreti on to-3-

order the original sentence to be served. See T.C.A. § 40-35-310, -311(d). An abuse of discretion may be found only if the rec ord contains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court. See State v. Harkins , 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991).

The defendant admitted missing appointments with her probation sup erv isor and missing
some of the appointments that she had rescheduled. She also acknowledg ed that the trial court

had warned her at he r guilty plea hea ring not to miss the a

ppointm ents. The record reflects that the defe ndant re peat

edly fail ed to comp ly with t he re ason able

requ irem ents o f her

prob ation . We conclude that the trial court had a material basis for requiring her to serve the remainder o f her sentence in confinement.

Based upon the foregoing and the re cord as a whole, we

affirm t he judg ment of the

trial cou rt.

____________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE