# FILED July 30, 1999 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JULY SESSION, 1999
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9810- CR-00412 ) Appellee, ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY V. ) ) ) HON . CHE RYL BLAC KBU RN, MAURICE E.BOYD, ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (AGGRAVA TED BURGLARY)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : JENNI FER LYNN T HOMPSON PAUL G. SUMMERS 715 Crescent Road Attorney General& Reporter Nashvill e, TN 37205 CLINT ON J. M ORG AN Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordel l Hull Bui lding 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashvill e, TN 37243 VICTO R S. JO HNS ON, III Distri ct Attorney General GRADY MOORE Assistant Distri ct Attorney General Washington Square, Suite 500 222 2nd Avenue North Nashvill e, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE-2- 

# OPINION

Fro m the trialcourt’s order rev oking the Defendant’s sentence in th e comm unity correcti ons program, the Defendant appeals as of right. In his sol e issue, the Defendant arguesthat t he trialcourt err ed by findi ng that he had vi olated conditi ons of his place ment in the com munity c orrection s progra m. W e af firm the judgm ent of the tria l court.

The rather spar

se record ref lects t hat Defendant pl ed guilt y to the offense of aggravated bur glary on March 19, 1998. He received a sen tence of six (6) yea rs, t o be served in the community cor rections program by ini tially being incarcerated day-for-day for one (1) full year, followed by five (5) ye ars ou tsid e of incarcerat ion in comm unity corre ctions su pervision . With m andato ry pretrial cred its availabl e, Defen dant wa s eligible to be released f rom incarcerat ion on June 8, 1998.

His release in the com munity w as mo re akin to a n extend ed fi eld trip than perm anen t releas e from incarc eration . On Ju ly 2, 1998, a violation rep ort was filedby his supervisi ng officer all eging a violati on of a rule of community correcti ons, to-wit: Defe ndant had not properly reported to his supervisi ng officer, havi ng last reported on June 10, 1998, t wo (2) da ys after his re lease from incarcera tion. A hearing was held and the trial c ourt, wi th the agreement of the Defendant and the Sta te, placed him back on r elease in t he community correc tions progr

am bu t increased the length of the sentence to seven (7) years. This was done on August 5, 1998.-3- Fifteen (15 ) days l ate r, anot her vi olati on repor

t wa s ma de b y the Defend ant’s supervisi ng officer. The Defendant, as of August 20, 1998, had not contacted his sup ervising officer s in ce being placed b ack into th e com munity correcti ons program on August 5, 19 98. On August 9, 1998, Defend a nt was arrested in relation to a dome stic assa ult upon h is girlfriend.

The Defendant stated that he had been in jai l since August 9, 1998, and could not contact

his community cor rections supervisor beca use th e office would not accept a collect

call f rom the jail . He admitted t hat he did not sen d a letter to the supervisor

or mak e any oth er efforts, oth er than o ne attem pted ph one ca ll, to notify his sup ervising officer th at he h ad be en arre sted a nd wa s in jail.

In his bri ef, theDefendant takes the positi on that si nce he had not been convictedof assault

and because his gi rlfr iend’s parents had “pressure d her” to testify against him at a preli minary hearing, that t he trial co urt erre d in findinga violat ion of his community correcti ons conditi ons by committi ng a crime. What the Defendant overlooks is that notwithst

anding the status of th e assault char ge, the trial court found in its ru ling that the D efend ant did not rep ort as re quired to his
comm unity corrections su pervisor.

The same principles t hat apply to a proba tion revocation he aring are applic able to a community cor rections revocati on hearing
. State v. Harkins , 811 S.W.2d 79, 83 (Te nn. 1991). The pr oof of a vi olation of community corr ections requirem ents is suff i cient i f it al lows the t rial cour t to make a consci entious and intell igentjudgmen t. The standa rd of review on ap peal is whethe r the trial court abused its di scretion. Only if there is no substanti al ev idence in the reco rd to-4-

support the trial cour t’s conclus ion that a vio lation has occurre d, c an there be a findingon appeal of an abuse of discreti on. Id . at 82. The proof of t he violation must be shown by a preponderance of the ev iden ce. State v. W all , 909 S.W .2d 8, 9 (Tenn . Crim. A pp. 199 4). The se stand ards we re met b y the proo f.

Upon consider

ation of the en tirerecord a nd the appl icabl e law, we affirm the ju dgme nt of the trial co urt.

____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge

___________________________________ NORMA McG EE OGLE, Judge