### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 13, 2001 Sessi

on STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHARLE S ARTHUR REEVES Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Montgomery County No. 31804, 37443 John H. Gasaway III, Judge

No. M2000-01201-CCA-R3-CD - Filed May 29, 2001

The defendant appealed the trial court’s loss of jurisdiction when h

e was transferr

ed into the custody of the Department of Correction. The issue is now moot. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed J OHN E VERETT W ILLI AMS , J., delivered the opinion of the co urt, in which D AVID G. H AYES and J AMES C URWOOD W ITT , J R ., JJ., joined. Michael R. Jones, District Public Defender, and Charles S. Bloodworth, Assistant Public Defender, for the appellan

t, Charles Arthur

Reeves. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Rep

orter; Elizabeth T . Ryan, Assist ant Attorney

General; John Wesley

Car ney, Jr., District Attorney General; and Lance A. B aker, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION In 1993, the defenda

nt, Charles Arthur Reeves, pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The defendant was subsequently

sentenced to an e

ightyear sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. However, the defendant’s sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for a period of eight years. In 1996, the defe ndant was arrested and convicted

for robbery

, for which he re

ceived a four a

nd a half year sentence, set to run consecutively

with the 1993 sentence. Again, however, the defendant’s sentence was suspended a nd he was placed on eight years of probation. In April 1999, the defendant’s probation was revoked following several probationviolations and he was or dered to ser ve his sentence in the Tennessee D

epartment of Corr

ection. Prior to commencing the service of his sentence, the trial court granted the defe ndant a rehabilitative furlough. In February 2000, the defendant’s furlough was terminated after the defendant failed to-2-

attend a hearing reg

arding the furl

ough. The defe

ndant was subsequ

ently arr ested and physical custody of the de fend ant was transferred to the Tennessee Department of Correction. A second hearing had been scheduled to address the defendant’s terminated furlough, however, the trial court lost jurisdiction to hear the matter and ruled that the matter was moot. The only issue ra

ised in this appeal

is whether the tri

al court erred b

y holding th

at “it lost jurisdiction over

the defendant after he was physically transported to the Tennessee Department of Correcti on.” Duri ng oral argument it came to the court’s attention that the defendant was to be paroled on the same day as oral arguments in this matter. On April 18, 2001, this court received notice from the defenda nt’s counsel of the

defendant’s a

ctual rel ease. With such notice the defendant’s counsel furnished this court with a copy of the defendant’ s parole certificate. Because the defendant in the instant case has been released on parole, the issue before

this court is now moot. This appeal is dismissed.

___________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE