FILED

December 9, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

OCTOBER SESSION 1997

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

)

 APPELLEE, )

) No. 01-C-01-9611-CR-00481

)

) Wilson County

v. )

) James O. Bond, Judge

)

) (Sentencing)

BRENDA STARKS, )

)

APPELLANT. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

J. Robert Hamilton John Knox Walkup

Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter

225 East Market Street 500 Charlotte Avenue

Lebanon, TN 37087 Nashville, TN 37243-0497

Elizabeth B. Marney

Assistant Attorney General

450 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Tom P. Thompson, Jr.

District Attorney General

203 Greentop Street

Hartsville, TN 37074-0178

Robert N. Hibbett

Assistant District Attorney General

111 Cherry Street

Lebanon, TN 37087-3609

OPINION FILED:______________________________

JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CAUSE DISMISSED

Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge
2

O P I N I O N

The appellant, Brenda Starks (defendant), appeals as of right from the judgment of

the trial court affirming the sentence, as amended, imposed by the General Sessions

Court of Wilson County. After the defendant entered a plea of guilty to passing a worthless

check, a Class A misdemeanor, she was sentenced to serve 364 days at 100% in the

Wilson County Jail. Her entire sentence was suspended and she was placed on

unsupervised probation. The General Sessions Court subsequently revoked the probation,

and she appealed to the Criminal Court for Wilson County. The trial court affirmed the

judgment of the General Session Court, but amended the judgment. The amended

judgment provided for confinement in the Wilson County Jail for 364 days at 75%. In this

court, the defendant contends:

[T]he sentence she was given by the Criminal Court for Wilson

County, Tennessee, an eleven (11) month, twenty-nine (29)

day sentence at seventy-five percent (75%), for the

misdemeanor offense of passing a worthless check, T.C.A. 39-

14-121, was excessive, in that the Court did not sentence

Defendant pursuant to the applicable provisions of the

Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, T.C.A.

40-35-101, et. seq.

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the laws

applicable to this case, it is the opinion of this court the judgment of the trial court must be

reversed and this cause dismissed because the defendant has served the entire sentence

prior to the institution of the revocation proceedings in the General Sessions Court. 

The defendant was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant for passing a worthless

check in the amount of $56.99 to Al’s Food Value on the 3rd day of December, 1994. The

arrest warrant was issued on February 15, 1995. On March 1, 1995, the defendant

entered a plea of guilty to the passing of a worthless check as alleged in the warrant. The

General Sessions judge sentenced the defendant to serve 364 days in the county jail at

100%. The service of the sentence was suspended, and, as a condition of probation, the

defendant was required to pay the amount of the worthless check to the victim and pay the

court costs. The defendant failed to pay either amount. On September 19, 1995, a

garnishment was issued. The defendant’s employer advised the General Sessions clerk’s
3

office the defendant had taken bankruptcy. On May 15, 1996, an “Order to Show Cause”

was entered and served upon the defendant. The order stated in part: “If you fail to

satisfactorily show cause as herein ordered, you may be found guilty of contempt of court,

your probation revoked, and you may be ordered to serve the entire sentence adjudged

against you in this cause.” The General Sessions judge revoked the defendant’s probation

and ordered her to serve the 364 days at 100% on or about May 29, 1996. The defendant

subsequently appealed the judgment of the General Sessions Court to the Criminal Court

for Wilson County.

 The offense of passing a worthless check under the sum of $500 is a Class A

misdemeanor. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-121 (f) and -105(1). The maximum punishment

for a Class A misdemeanor is a fine of $2,500 and confinement for eleven months and

twenty-nine days. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(e)(1) (Repl. 1997). In this case, the

General Sessions Court imposed the maximum sentence of confinement for eleven

months and twenty-nine days. A fine was not assessed as part of the sentence.

It is undisputed the General Sessions Court sentenced the defendant on March 1,

1995. Therefore, the defendant’s sentence expired on February 28, 1996 since the

defendant had been on probation during the period between March 1, 1995, and February

28, 1996. The probation revocation proceeding was not commenced until May 15, 1996,

the date the show cause order was filed. The General Sessions Court’s order revoking

the probation is not dated. However, it appears the hearing and subsequent revocation

occurred on or about May 29, 1996, the date set forth in the show cause order. The

defendant made a $250 bond on May 31, 1996.

It is obvious that the defendant’s sentence had expired approximately two and onehalf months before the revocation proceeding was instituted by the filing of the show cause

order. Consequently, the General Sessions Court did not have jurisdiction to revoke the

defendant’s probation.

According to the applicable statute, a “trial judge shall possess the power, at any

time within the maximum time which was directed and ordered by the court for such

suspension . . . to revoke and annul such suspension.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40--35-310

(Repl. 1997) (emphasis added). While a garnishment was issued by the General Sessions
4

Court Clerk on September 19, 1995, the garnishment did not toll the running of the

defendant’s sentence. Only the issuance of a revocation warrant -- the show cause order

in this case -- can toll the running of a sentence and prevent the sentence from expiring

before a revocation hearing can be conducted. Allen, 505 S.W.2d at 717.

In short, the defendant’s sentence had expired before the revocation proceedings

were instituted. Thus, the General Sessions Court did not have jurisdiction to revoke the

defendant’s probation and order her to serve the entire sentence. Given these

circumstances, the defendant is entitled to the reversal of the trial court’s judgment and the

dismissal of the revocation proceedings.

____________________________________________

 JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

CONCUR:

______________________________________

 WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE

______________________________________

 JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE