### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 11, 200 4
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. CA LVIN RE EVE S
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Humphreys County Nos. 9703, 9705B Allen W. Wallace, Judge

No. M2002- 02976-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jul y 2, 2004

F oll ow ing a

re vo c a tio n h e ari ng , th e tr ia l c ou rt re vo ke d th e pr ob a tio n of

De fe nd a nt, Ca lvi n Re e ve s, and orde red him to serve the re mainder of his sentence in confineme nt. D efe ndant does not appe al the re vocation of his probation but arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in imposing a sentenc e of c on fi ne me nt i ns te a d o f an a lte rn a tiv e fo rm of se nte nc ing . A ft e r a tho ro ug h r e vie w o f the re c or d in thi s matte r, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed
T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.
Willi am B . L oc ke rt , I I I , D ist ri c t Pu bli c De fe nd e r; a ndRic ha rdD. Ta y lor , Jr. , A ssi sta nt P ub lic De fe nd e r, fo r the app e lla nt, Ca lvi n Re e ve s.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Mic he lle Cha pman, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Dan Mitchum Alsobrooks, District Attorne y Gene ral; and Lisa C. Doneg an, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION
I n lieu of a t ra n script of the he aring which wa s either lost or destroy ed, De fenda nt filed a Statement of the Evidenc e which w as appr oved by the trial court. See T en n
. R

. App. P. 24(c). Acc ording to the S tatement, on Aug ust 2, 2001, Def endant was convicte d of the sale of coc aine, a Schedule I I drug , and re ceive d a sente nce of eig ht y ear s. Defe ndant’s sente nce w as suspende d, and he wa s place d on probation.
A war rant for violation of probation was issued on January 24, 2002, alleg ing that Defe ndant had fa iled to (1) obey

the law; (2) report his arr est on J anuary 17, 2002 for simple possession of a controlled substanc e; (3) pay the re quired fe es to the court; and ( 4) obser ve the c urfe w imposed during his probation. At Def endant’ s probation re vocation he aring, Ga ry Hammer , Def

endant’ s-2-

probation off

icer , testified that Def

endant wa s ar re s ted on Dec ember 12, 2001, for possession of Sc he du le I I

dr ug s fo r the pu rp os e of sa le or de liv e ry , p os se ssi on of dr ug pa ra ph e rn a lia ; a ndsimple po sse ssi on of a S ched ule V I dr ug . D e fe nd a nt w a s a g a in a rr e ste d o n Jan ua

ry 17 , 2 00 2, fo r s imp le possession of a Sche dule VI drug . Mr. Hammer

said that Def

endant’ s arr est in Dece mber oc curr ed at 2:09 a.m. which w as i n v i o l ati on of his 7:00 p.m. curfe w. Mr. Ha mmer also testified that De fe nd a nt w a s f

ive mon ths in a

rr e ars on his re qu ir e d f

e e s.
Ba sed upon the e vidence prese nted at the r evocation hearing , the trial court revoke d De fe nd a nt’ s p ro batio n a ndimp os e d D e fe nd a nt’ s o ri g ina l se nte nc e of e ig ht y e ars to be se rv e d in confine ment. The trial c ourt found that this was De fenda nt’s second violation of pr obation. After his fi rs t vi olatio n, De fe nd a nt s e rv e d a period of inc arc e ratio n an d wa s the n pla c e d on pro batio n a g a in during the term of which he once mor e committed drug -re lated off enses. The trial court f

ound that c on fi ne me nt w a s a

pp ro pria te be c a us e De fe nd a nt h a d d e mon str a te d a n in abil ity to a bid e by the te rm s of his probation. Defenda nt does not appea l the revoc ation of his probation but arg ues that the trial court e rre d in not gr anting him a second probation or other form of a lternative se ntencing in lieu of incar cer ation.
A r e v o c a ti o n o f p r o b a ti o n is s u b je c t to a n ab u s e o f d is c r e ti o n s tan d ar d o f r e v ie w. State v. Harkins , 81 1 S. W. 2 d 7 9 , 8 2 ( T e n n
. 1 9 9 1 )

. A tria l c o u r t m a y r e v o k e p r o b a ti o n a n d o r d e r the imposit ion of the orig inal sentenc e upon a finding by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that the per son has vio l at ed a c ondition of probation. Tenn. Code. Ann. §§ 40- 35-310 and - 311. The trial c ourt re ta ins the dis c re tio na

ry a uth ority to or de r the de fe nd a nt t o s e rv e his or he r s e nte nc e in c on fi ne me nt. See State v . Hunter , 1 S.W .3d 643, 646 (Tenn. 1999)

. De fe nd a nt a

rg ue s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt

faile d to c on sid e r the se nte nc ing principl e s a nda ll re le va nt f a c tor s a nd cir cum st anc e s p ri or to o rd e ri ng De fe nd a nt t o s e rv e his orig ina l se nte nc e in confine ment. Def

endant contends that none of the criteria supporting a sente nce of confine ment are prese nt in his case. Tha t is, Defe ndant maintains that he doe s not have a long history

of criminal c on du c t, andc on fi ne me nt i s u nn e c e ssa ry to av oidde pr e c ia tin g the se ri ou sn e ss o f the of fe ns e or to provide a n eff

ective deterr ent t o others from committi ng simil ar c rimes. See Tenn. Code. Ann. 40- 35-103(1) . Def

endant’ s arg uments ag ainst incarc eration in thi s case , howeve r, ar e misplace d in the context of a revoc ation hearing.
Be fore imposing a sentenc e, a trial court must conduct a sentenc ing he aring in acc ordanc e with Tennesse e Code Annotated se ction 40-35-209. The sentenc ing principals cited by Def endant a nde mbo die d in Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio ns 40 -3 5- 10 2 a nd-4 0- 35-10 3 go ve rn a ll sentenc ing de terminations. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-102, Sentenc ing Commission Comments. At the conc lusion of a def

endant’ s sentencing hearing, a trial court ha s the authority to determine if a pe ri odof pr ob a tio n is app ro pria te

. Te nn . Code An n. § 40- 35 -3 03 (b ). I f the tr ia l cou rt so de te rm ine s, it must sentenc e the de fenda nt to a specific sentenc e and t hen suspend the e x ecution of a ll or part of the sente nce w hile the def endant is plac ed on probation. Id. 40-35-303( c).-3-

A def e n d a n t i s n o t s u b

je c t t o r e s e n te n c in g u n d e r th e p ar a me te r s o f

T e n n e s s e e Co de Annotated se ction 40-35-209, howe ver, a s a re sult of the revoc ation of his or her probation. Sta te v . Sam ue ls , 44 S.W .3d 489, 4 9 5 (T en n
. 2 001). Nor doe s a ruling that a probation violation has occur red r esult in a new c onviction. State v. Jac kson , 60 S.W .3d 738, 743 (Tenn. 2001)

. After a def endant is sentenced to the De partment of Corr ection, the tria l court loses jurisdiction and reg ains j u risdiction only for the pur

pose of r evoking probation. Id. 40-35-212( d) a nd40 -35 -31 1(d ); Sa mu e ls , 44 S.W .3d at 495. The pr ocedur es for revoc ation of probation are g ov e rn e d b y

the pr ov isi on s of Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d se c tio ns 40 -3 5- 31 0 a nd40 -3 5- 31 1. Whil e the dec ision to revoke probation rests within the sound d i s cretion of the trial court, the statutory options extended to the trial court a fter f inding that r evocation is appropriate a re limited. Hunter , 1 S.W .3d at 647; Sta te v . Mitc he ll , 810 S.W .2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) . I f the trial c ourt rev o k e s p r o b a ti o n , it c a n " ( 1 ) o r d e r in c ar c e r a ti o n ; ( 2 ) c a u s e e xe c u ti o n o f th e ju d g me n t a s it was orig inally enter ed; or (3) extend the remaining probationary period for

a period not t o exceed two y ears ." Hunter , 1 S.W .3d at 648. The trial court has no authority to impose a new sentenc e upon the def endant or incre ase the leng th of the def endant’ s orig inal sentenc e. S ta te v
. Ta y lor , 9 92 S.W .2d 941, 945 (Tenn. 1999) ; State v. Bowling , 958 S.W

. 2 d 3 6 2, 364 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)

. Se e als o Y

ou ng v . S tat e , 101 S.W .3d 430, 432 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (Orde r re voking pr obation and re instating orig inal sentenc e does not impose a ne w sentenc e subj ect to post-conviction attac k).

The e vidence during Def

endant’ s revoc ation heari n g supports the trial court’s finding that Def endant violated the terms of his probation. Base d upon the evidenc e befor e us, we cannot sa y that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Def endant to ser ve his eig ht-y ear sentenc e in the Depa rtment of Corre ction.

CO NC LU SION
The judg ment of the trial c ourt is acc ording ly aff irmed.

_________________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE