### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 2000 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMES DOU GLAS HAMPTON
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County No. C-10412 D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., Judge

No. E1999-00115-CCA-R3-CD September 26, 2000

The defendant appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his probation. The defendant admits that he materially violated his probation, but con ten ds that the trial court’s disposition of the case was improper. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 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 H. W ELLES and R OBERT W. W EDEMEYER , JJ., joined. Raymond Mack Garner, District Public Defender, and Shawn G. Graham, Assistant District Pu

blic Defender, for the appellant, James Douglas Hampton.

Paul G. Summers, Attorne y General and Reporter; Pet

er M. Coughlan, A

ssistant Attorney

General; Michael L. Flynn, District Attorney General; and Tammy M. Harrington, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION

The defendant, James Douglas Hampton, appeals as of right from thetrial court’s revocation of his probation. Although the defendant admits that he violated his probation, he contends that the trial court’s disposition of the case was improper. He argues that the trial court

should have ordered him to remain on supervised intensive probation or , in the alternative, to se rve a period of sp

lit
c onfi nement

followed by placement into a therapeutic half-way house with supervision by Community Corrections. On December 22, 1998, the defendant pled guilty to ag gravated assault and was sentenced to six years imprisonment. He was, however, placed on supervised inte

nsive probation. O

n August 23, 1999, a hearing was held to determine if the defen dant had vi olated his probation . At the hear ing, Marcus Miller, the defendant’s probation officer, testified as fol lows: He was assigned to the defendant’s case on December 22, 1998. On January 15, 1999, he filed a

probation violatio

n report,-2-

and on January 20, 1999, a probation violation warrant was issued, alleg ing th at the defendant changed residences witho

ut notifying

him, did not report to him, did not keep curfew, failed to pay court cost s, and fai led to enroll in an MRT program. The defendant was arrested on January 24, 1999, and remained in ja

il until Jun e 7, 1999, when he was released on bond. Conditions of the defendant’s release w ere to report to Miller twice a week and to attend scheduled meetings at the Overlook Center for evaluation.

Miller testified that he was out of the office on June 9, 1999, when the defendant left a messag e that he was residing at the Knoxville Union Rescue Mission. Miller called the Rescue Mission on June 15, 1999, and learned that the defendant was not there. However, Reverend Joe Colquitt retur ned his call and tol

d him that the defe

ndant had been ar

rested. Miller co

ntacted th e Knox County Jail and discovered that the defendant had been arres

ted for public

intoxication. On June 21, 1999, a second probation violation warrant was issued, alleging that the defendant violated his probation by being arrested for pu blic int oxication, by moving from his residence without permission, and by not reporting to Miller. Miller recommended that the defendant’s probation be
revo ked and that the defe ndant be placed i

n a special need

s facility w

ithin the Departme

nt o f Correction. On cross-examination, Miller acknowledged that the defendant had alcohol problems and mental health

issues.

The defendant testif

ied that he did not ha

ve a set schedule

to meet with Mille

r but t hat he attendedrequired meetin

gs with him. He als

o said that he attended “

alcohol meetings.” He said that after being released from custody in June 1999, he went to the Rescue Mission and was waiting to register when he was arrested for public intoxication. He stated that he was not intoxicated when he was arrested. The defendant testified that he would meet with his probation officer if he were allowed to continue on probation. He said that he would participate in alcohol-related programs and that he could stay

at his family ’s residence ins tead of living in s

everal location

s.
The trial court found that the defendant had violated his probation. It stated that th e defendant had his own ideas about what hes hould and should not be able to do and that it was apparent that he could not

function on his own. The trial court noted t hat the defenda

nt had met with his probation officer

only one time . Because the d efendant did

not propose an alte

rnative that would provide a stable, structured environment and that would protect him and the public, the trial court concluded

that the only option was to sentence the defendant to incarceration in the Depa rtment of Correction. The trial court recommended that the defendant be placed in the special needs unit. On appeal, the defendant does not challenge the finding that he violated his probation. Rather, he argues that incarceration was not appropriate.

A trial court may revoke probation upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated a condition of probation. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-310, -311(e). If the trial court revokes probation, it can “(1) order incarceration; (2) cause execution of the judgment as it was originally entered; or (3) extend the remaining probationary period for a per iod not to exceed two years.” State v. Hunter , 1 S.W.3d 643, 648 (Tenn. 1999). The decision to revoke probation is within the sound discretion of

the trial court, a

nd its judgment will

be reversed only upon a showing-3-

of an abuse of discretion, reflected in the record by an absence of substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings. State v. Gregory , 946 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn . Crim. App. 1 997) (citation omitted).

In the present case, the defendant admits that he violated probation. The trial court ordered incarceration

because it

found that the defendant had his own ideas about what he should or should notdo and that he could not functi on on his own. The re cord contains sub stantial evidenc e to support these findings. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

___________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE