### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nua ry 25, 200 5
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . REBECCA G. RATLI FF Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty No. S47,686 R. Jerr y Beck, Judge

No. E2004-00940-CC A-R3- CD - F iled March 15, 2005

The de fenda nt, Rebecc a G. Ratliff, a ppeals fr om the Sulli van County Criminal Court’s revoca tion of her probation. On a

ppeal, the de fenda nt claims that the trial court err ed in orde ring her to ser ve her origina l two-y ear sentenc e in the Department of Correc tion. Be cause the re cord supports the trial
c ou rt in i ts d isc re tio na

ry de te rm inatio n to or de r i nc arc e ratio n, we a ff ir m.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s A ffirm e d.
J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, in w h ic h G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., joined.
Mark H. T oohey , King sport, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llant, Rebecc a G. Ratliff. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & R eporte r; Br ent C. Cherry , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; H. Gre eley Wells, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and James Goodwin and B . Todd Marti n, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION
On J uly 30, 1999, the defe ndant was convicted of attempt to pass a w orthless che ck, a Class E felony

. Her two-y ear sentenc e was suspended but was im posed t o run conse cutively to a sentenc e in a previous case
. Ba sed upon the consec utive alig nment of sentenc es, the probationary period in the pre sent ca se wa s due to expire on J une 16, 2003.

On J anuary 25, 2002, the state issued a violation of probation re port based upon the defe n d an t ’s Oc t o b er1 9 , 2 0 0 1 Vi rgi n i a c o n v i ct i o n s o f u t t er i n g b ad ch ec k s
. T h e r es u l t i n g warrant wa s not served on the defe ndant until March 2003.

On April 1 5 , 2004, the trial court conducted a revoc ation hearing. T he def endant admitted that she had violate d the terms of he r proba tion. She testified that she had thre e childre n, ag es 10, three y ear s , an d 1 6 m o n t hs. She stated that, except for he r Virg inia offe nses and-2-

c on vic tio ns , she ha d co mpl ie d with a ll oth e r te rm s of he r pr ob a tio n. She te sti fi e d tha t th e Vi rg ini a offe nses re sulted from her discontinuing he r medications for bipolar disorder . She had bee n taking lithium and Panax and was on hiatus from the medica tions pursuant to her doctor ’s orde r due to he r pre g n a n c y
. Sh e te s ti f

ie d th a t w h e n s h e w r o te th e tw o b a d c h e c k s in V ir g in ia , s h e w a s having financ ial difficulty

and used the proce eds from the checks t o buy g roce ries and pay utilit y bills. Her mother paid the two c hecks in Virg inia, and the de fenda nt served six mont hs on probation.

Th e de fe nd a nt te sti fi e d tha t her 16 -m on th- old so n w a s b or n w ith a ho le in h is h e art

. He ha d been hospitalized numerous times, the most rec ent hospitaliz ation resulti ng from seve re dehy dration following a vira l episode. The de fenda nt testified that the child was una ble to walk and underw ent phy sical thera

py once a wee k. She testified that her fianc ee works a night shift and that she is the only

person a vailable to ca

re f or her children.
The trial c ourt ac knowledg ed that the defenda nt had a long history of medica l or psy cholog ical proble ms, including bipolar disorde r and de pression. The court a lso recog nized that the de fe nd a nt h a d a

lon g his tory

of c re dit -r e la te d o ff

e ns e s, inc lud ing fo ur

fe lon ie s in Sul liv a n Co un ty and bad c heck misdemeanors in Virg inia prior to the 2001 convic tions in t hat commonwea lth. The judge stated, “[I ]n t his ty pe of of fense , the court is r eluctant to inc arc erate somebody , . . . but there can be a ce rtain point rea ched w here the integ rity of t he [ c]ourts

. . . rea ch a limi t of how many times y ou c a n be pu t on [ p]r ob a tio n .
. . .” Th e jud g e c on c lud e d tha t the su c c e ssi on of pr ob a tio ns ha d “

jus t run out of re ason and tha t even though mi tiga tion fac tors wer e pre sent, the mitigation was rec y cled.”

On April 21, 2004, the trial c ourt ord ered revoc ation of the de fenda nt’s probation based upon the Virg inia convictions and orde red the defe ndant to serve her two- y ear sentenc e in the De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n. Th e de fe nd a nt f

ile d a tim e ly no tic e of app e a l. On appe al, the def

endant c laims that the trial court e rre d in ordering her to ser ve her sentenc e in conf

inement. We disag ree
. The standa

rd of r evie w u p o n ap peal of an orde r re voking pr obation is abuse of discretion. State v. Hark ins , 811 S.W .2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). I n order for a n abuse of

discretion to occur , the reviewing court must find that the re cord c ontains no substantial evidence to support the conc lusion of the trial judg e that a viol ation of t he ter ms of probation has oc curr ed. Id. The trial court is re quired only

to find that the violatio n o f p ro b at ion occur red by a pre pondera nce of

the
e v i d e n c e
. T e n n
. C o d e A n n
. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 3 1 1 ( e ) ( 2 0 0 3 )

. U p o n f i n d i n g a v i o l a t i o n , t h e tr ia l c ou rtis vested with the statutory

authority to “re voke probation and suspension of sentenc e and c au s e the defe ndant to commence the execution of t he judgment as orig inally enter ed.” Id. Furthermore , when probation is revoke d, “the or igina l judgment so re ndere d by the t rial j udg e shall be in full forc e and eff ect f rom the date of the re vocation of suc h suspension.” Id

. § 4 0 -3 5 -3 1 0

. T h u s , t h e t ri al j u d ge reta ins the discretionary

authority to order the defe ndant t o serve the orig inal sentenc e. See State v

. Duke , 902 S.W .2d 424, 427 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

.-3- I n this case, the tr ial judge expressed sy mpathy for the defe ndant’s plig ht, but he cited apt, substantial bases f

or orde ring her se ntence serve d in confineme nt. The judg e wa s conce rned not
on ly that th e de fe nd a nt h a d a ma sse d a lon g re c or d o f b a d c he c k o r c re dit -r e la te d o ff e ns e s, bu t a lso that she had r ece ived proba tion repeatedly . The c ourt conc luded that it could no longe r nod t o her lawless beha vior, and the r ecor d supports this conc lusion. The defe ndant has not shown that the trial court a bused its discretion in ordering he r to serve her two- y ear sentenc e.
Acc ording ly , the orde r of the tr ial court is af firmed.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R,. J UDGE