# FILED
September 18, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SHVILLE AU GUST 1997 SESSIO N

STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) NO. 01C01-9610- CR-00420 Appellee, ) ) SUMNER COUNTY VS. ) ) Hon. Jane W. Wheatcraft, Judge STA CY DWA

YNE MEA DOWS, ) ) (Community Correction s Appellant. ) Revocati on)

FOR THE APPELLA NT : FOR THE A PPELLEE : DAVID A LLEN DOYLE JOHN KNOX WALKUP Distric t Public Defender Attorney Gen eral and Repor ter PAMELA

E. BECK KAREN M. YACU ZZO NANCY MYERS Assistant Att orney Gener al Assistant District Public Defenders 450 James Roberts on Parkway 117 East Main S treet Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 Gallatin, TN 37066-2801 LA WRENCE RA

Y WHITLEY Distric t Attorney General DE E G AY Assistant

District Attorney G eneral 113 West Main Street Gallatin, TN 37066-2803

OPINI ON FI LED:

AF FIRMED

JOE G. RI LEY, JUDGE1 Appellant’s name is also sp elled “Stacey” in some of the court docu ments.

It is spelled “Stacy” in the judgments and revocation orders. 2 OPINION

The appellant, Stacy Dwayne Meadows, 1 appea ls the Sumner County Criminal Court ’s ord er revo king his community correctio ns sentence. Appel lant contends that the trial court erred i n revokin g this alt ernative s entence and ordering confinement. We find no error; according ly, the j udgment of th e trial court is affirmed.

PROCEDURAL BA CKGROUND

In September 1992, appel lant pled guil ty to burglar

y of a habitati on. He was sentenced to three (3) year s, with all but 30 day

s suspended, and pl aced on supervis ed probation. In March 1993, he pled g uilty to possession of marijuana in
a penal institution. He received a three (3) year communit y correc tions sentence
cons ecut ive to the burgl ary probat ion viol ation. He was required to s erve six (6) months in jail on the probation v iolation, and t he remainder of his sentence wa s to be served on probation. In March 1996, app ellant’s pr obation was once again rev oked on various grounds, including moving w ithout notifying his probation off icer, failure to repo rt to his probation officer, failure to pay probation fees, fail ure to p rovide pr oof of paymentof restitutio n and/or costs, failure to seek alcohol and dr ug treatment and
numerous arrests and convictions. He was ordered to serve 45 days in jail, and the remainder

of his sentence was to be served in the communi ty co rrec tionsprog ram. On April 15, 199 6, a Violation of Community C orrections Warrant was iss ued citing appellant’s fai lure to repor t to his case officer for a period of two ( 2) week s. The warrant

was later

amended to indicat e that appellant w as in absconder

status. At the revocation hearing, appellant testif ied that he had not repo rted to his
case officer since he h ad been released fro m jail after hi s sec ond p robation3

violatio n. H e claimed tha t he had been in Al abama visit ing his mothe r, but had attempted to contact his case officer. Addi tionally , he stated that he had been drinking excessively, but had not sought treatment beca use he did n ot ha ve insurance. At the con clusion of the hearing, the trial court found that appell ant violated the conditions of his c o mmunity corr ections sentenc e. The court ord ered that he serve the r

emainder of his sent ence in the TennesseeDepartment of Cor rection.

REVOCA

TION

In his sole i ssue on appeal, appe llant arg ues that the tri al court err ed i n revoking his community correctio ns sentence. More speci fically, h e insists t hat the
mere find ing of a violati on of the conditions of the community corrections sentence will not support revocation. He maintains th at incarcer ation is inapp ropriate, and the trial cour t abused its di scretion. Revocation o f a community co rrections sentence is su bject to abuse of discretion standard of review , rather than a de novo standard. State v. Hark ins , 811 S.W.2 d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991 ). Discretion is abused only if the record co ntains n o substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a v iolation of the community cor rections sent ence has occurr ed. Id

. In the case sub judice , thereis no quest ion that appel lant v iolat ed the t erms of his community

correctio ns sentence. In fact, he admitted that he d id not report to his case officer

as requir

ed i n the conditions of the community corr ections sentence. Moreover, it a ppears that he l eft the jurisdi ction soon after hewas released from jail. Appellantcomplains that there is no evidence in the record to sugges t that he is not amenable t o rehabilitat ion an d “no longer presents a g ood risk.”To the cont rary, there is over whe lming ev idence in the record to sug gest that he i s not a proper candidate for alternat ive se nte ncing. Appel lant has a his tory of noncompliance with the conditions of his release. H e has shown a blatantdisregard for4

the conditions of his alternative sente nces. Indeed, this is his third revocati on. The trial court did not abuse its dis cretion in r evoking appellant’s community correctio ns sentence. Furthermore, the trial court did not abus e its discr etion in order ing that appellant’s sentence be served i n confinement. Upon findi ng a vio lation, the tr ial court has the autho rity to terminate the pr ogram and order

confinement. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106( e)(4). It is evident that m ea sures less restricti ve than confinement have frequent ly and rec ently been appl ied u nsuccessfully to the appellant, making confinement an appropr iate measure. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 103(1)(C) . This issue is wit hout merit.

CONCLUSI ON

We conc lude that the t rial c ourt was wa rran ted in revoking appellant’s probation and ordering that he serve the remainder o f his sentences i n confinement. The judgment of the tr ial court i s affirmed.

JOE G. RILEY , JUDGE CONCUR:

J. CURWOOD WITT, JR., JU DGE

JOE H. WA LKER, III, SPECIA L JUDGE