### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 13
, 200 3

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. TIMOT HY P. WILMOT H

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Willi am son Coun ty No. II-699-186 Tim othy L. Easter, Judge

No. M2003- 00491-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Fe bruary 2, 2004

The de fenda

nt, Timothy P. Wilmoth, pled g uilty to posse ssion of less than .5 g rams of c ocaine and misdemeanor e vading arr est. The tria l court imposed conc urre nt sentence s of six y ear s and ele ven months, twenty -nine da

y s, respe ctively

. All but thirty day s was suspende d. L ater , the def endant’ s probation wa s revoke d and he was order ed to serve the sentenc e in the De partment of Corr ection. I n this a pp e a l a s o f r ig ht, the de fe nd a nt c on c e de s a vio la tio n o f t

he te rm s o f h is p ro batio n, bu t a sse rt s that he should have been returne d to pr obation or place d on community corr ections. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir

med.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed

G AR Y R. W ADE , P

. J

. , delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J J ., joined.

Virg inia L ee Story , Fr anklin, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Timothy

P. W ilmoth.

Pa ul G . Summe rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Chr ist ine M. L a pp s, As sis tant A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Sharon E. Guf

fee , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

On September

18, 2000, the def

endant, who was charg ed with possession of coc aine g reater than .5 g rams and felony evading arr est, pled g uilty to the lesser included offe nses of possession of

coca ine less than .5 g rams, a Class C fe lony , and misdemea nor evading arr est. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16 -6 0 3
, 39-17-417. Af ter ser ving the thirty -day

jail term, the def

endant wa s place d on probation. On Nove mber 8, 2002, a probation violation warr ant was filed alleg ing that the defe ndant ha d f a ile d a dr ugsc re e n b y

te sti ngpo sit ive fo r ma

ri jua na

. At the he a ri ng , the de fe nd a nt p le d g uil ty to t he vio la tio n bu t a sk e d th e tr ia l c ourt to r e tur n h im t o p ro batio n o r p la c e him in a c omm un ity

corr ections prog ram. The defe ndant’s employ er, Trac y Clark, testified that the de fenda nt, whom he descr ibed as more of a subcontrac tor than an employ ee, had worked with him for three y ear s doing-2-

painting a

nd remode ling wor

k, often wor

king ove r for

ty hours per

wee k. Clark stated th at the defe ndant was r esponsible and ha d never shown any

indication of drugabuse.

Whil e ac kn o wl ed gi n g t h at h e h adt es t edp o s i t i v e f o r m ar i j u an a, t h e d ef

en d an td en i edhabitual

us e or a dd ic tio n. He c on te nd e d that he wa s “ jus t stu pid ” a nd ha d smo ke d mari jua na wi th on e of

his employ ees at a job site just before the drug scre en. The defe ndan t admitted that he smoked marijuana ag ain a c ouple of da

y s later a nd that he had a lso smoked it eight or nine months prior, but denied a ny other use dur ing the period of his probation. He maintained that six ty to eig hty perc ent of tho se e mpl oy e d o n c on str uc tio n si tes us ed a lc oh ol o r m a ri jua na and ind ic a te d th a t so me in h is employ wer e substance abuser s. The def endant c laimed that if allowe d to continue on probation, he intended to take the ACT, qualify for colleg e, and pursue a car eer in computer prog ramming in order
to g e t aw ay f

r o m h is w o r

k e n v ir o n me n t. D u r in g c r o s s

- e xa mi n a ti o n , h e a c kn o w le d g e d that it had been ove r one a

nd one-ha lf y ear s since he had underg one a dr ug scre en whe n his new probation office r re quested the te st. The def endant admitted that he had initially asked to be excused from the drug scre en and that when the pr obation office r had insisted on t h e t es t , h e was evasive. H e acknow ledg ed that he told the officer that if he tested positive, it was be cause he had be en ar ound others who ha d been smoking marijuana

.

The defenda

nt’s g randmother
, Martha L ester, testified that the defendant li ved with her and did he r y ard work. She stated that the defe ndant could return to he r residenc e if g rante d probation

o r an y a l t e r n a t i v e s e n t e n c e i n v o l v i n g r e l e a s e i n t h e c o m m u n i t y.

I n th is a pp e a l, t he defe nd ant cha lle ng e s th e tr ia l c ourt ’s fa ilure to e ith e r r e tur n h im t o probation or plac e him on c ommunity corr ections following the re vocation. The state asse rts that the trial cour

t did not abuse its discretion by revoking probation and order ing service of the orig inal
sentenc e.
Our g ener al l aw provides that a trial court may revoke a sente nce of probation upon finding by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that t h e defenda nt has violated the c onditions of his release

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-311(e ); Stamps v. St ate, 614 S.W .2d 71, 73 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) . On
appea l, a re vocation will be upheld a bsent an a buse of discretion. In order to establish that the trial

c ourt has abu sed i ts d isc re tio n, the de fe nd a nt m us t sh owtha

t th e re is n o s ub sta

nti a l e vid e nc e to support the deter

mination that he violated his pr obation. State v. Har kins, 811 S.W .2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991) (c iting State v. Gre ar, 568 S.W .2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978)); State v. Delp, 614 S.W .2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) . Relief ca n be g rante d only

when “ ‘the trial court's log ic and r easoning

wer e improper

when view ed in the lig ht of the fa ctual cir cumstance s and the leg al principles involved.’” State v. Shaf fer , 45 S.W .3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999) ).

Especia lly

mitigated or s t an d ar d o ffenders c onvicted of Class C, D, or E f elonies ar e, of

co u rs e, presumed to be favor able c andidates “ for a lternative se ntencing options in t he abse nce of

e vid e nc e to t

he c on tr a ry .” Te nn . Code Ann. § 4 0- 35 -1 02 (6 ). Am on g the fa c tor s a pp lic a ble to probation consider ation are the circ umstances of the offe nse, the de fenda

nt’s criminal re cord, soc ial-3-

history and pre sent condition, and the deterre nt eff ect upon and best interest of the defendant a nd the public. State v. Gre ar, 568 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978). T he natur e and c ircumst an ce s o f the offe nses may

often be so eg reg ious as to prec lude the g rant of pr obation. See State v. Poe, 614 S.W .2d 403, 404 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1 9 8 1 ). A l ac k of ca ndor may also milit ate a g ainst a g rant of probation. State v. B unch, 646 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tenn. 1983).

Be cause the def

endant, who at h i s first sentenc ing he aringrec eived the be nefit of the presumption for a

n alternative sentenc e, violated the spe cific te rms of his probation by using illeg al dr u g s o n a t le a s t th r e e o c c a s io n s , th is c o u rt c a n n o t s a y th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt a b u s e d it s d is c r e tion by failing to r eturn him to probation. The de fenda nt, however , also complains that af ter the r evocation of his probation, a c ommunity corr ections sentenc e rather than one to the Depa rtment of Corre ction would have be en an a

ppropriate alternative.

I nitially , community corr ections was unavailable to the de fenda nt as a sente ncing alternative afte r the re vocation of his probat i o n

. See State v. B owling, 958 S.W.2d 362 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (holding that “neither the C ommunity Correc tions Act nor the statutes dea ling with probation

a uth or ize a c ourt to i mpo se a ne w se nte nc e . . . a ft e r a de fe nd a nt h a s p a rt ia lly

se rv e d h is s e nte nc e in the Depa rtment of Corre ction”). H ere , the def endant a dmitted the viola t i o n o f h i s probationar y terms. I n denying the defe ndant’s re quest for r eturn to probation, the trial court foun d that the de fe nd ant ha d no t be e n c a nd id e ith e r wi th his pr ob atio n o ff ic e r o r i n h is c ourt

te sti mony . Se e State v. Nunley , 22 S.W .3d 282, 289 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (“ L ack of candor and cr edibility

are indications of a de fenda

nt’s potential for r ehabilitation.”). The trial judg e also found that measure s le s s r e s tr ic ti v e th a n c o n f in e me n t h a d f

r e qu e n tl y o r r e c e n tl y b e e n a p p li e d u n s u c c e s s f

u ll y to the defe ndant. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 103(1)( C). There is nothing in the rec ord to c ontradict the tri a l c o u rt’ s f

in d in g s

. T h a t t

h e d e f e n d a n t h a d

s u c c e s s f u ll y c o mp le te d

tw o a n d o n e

- h a lf y e a r s of probation is commendable , but it does not establish that the d ef en d an t was entitled to a noninc arc e rativ e se nte nc e up on re vo c a tio n. Acco rding to h is o wn te sti mony , h e ha d v iol a te d h is probation at lea st twice bef ore but simply

had not bee n caug ht until t he third violation. Be cause the
tr ia l ju dg e , w ho se e s th e wi tne sse s and he a rs the te sti mony

fi rs t- ha nd , mu st b e a ff

or de d c on sid e ra

ble dis c re tio n in en for cing the te rm s o f a pr ob a tio na

ry se nte nc e , th e jud g me nt o f t he tr ia l c ourt

is aff irmed.

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRES I DI NG JUDGE