I n t he reco rd, t he ap p el l ant ’ s f i rs t nam e i s al so s p e lled “ C a ro l y n”; how ever, we wi l l ut i l i ze t he spel l i ng 1

co ntained i n the ind i ctm en t s. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y

8, 200 7
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. CA ROL INE WH ITE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Chester County Nos. 99-047 and 00-66 Roy B. Morgan, Jr., Judge

No. W2006-02580-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Jun e 11, 2007

The a ppellant, Caroline White, pled g uilty to ag g rav at ed as s ault and robbe ry , and she r ece ived a 1 total effe ctive sente nce of three y ear s intensive probation. Subsequently , the trial court revoke d the appellant’ s probation and order ed her to serve her sentence in confineme nt. On appea l, the appellant challeng es the revocation and arg ues t hat s he should have been g iven another probationar

y sentenc e. Upon our re view of the rec ord and the parties’ briefs, w e af firm the judg ments of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Circ uit Court are Aff irm ed

. N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J ., and J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., joined.
Kandi Ke lley , J ackson, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Caroline White.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; L a c y Wilb e r, As sis tant At tor ney Gen e ra l; Jer ry Woo da ll, Di str ic t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; a

nd Jody S. Pic ke ns , A ssi sta nt D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
On Se pte mbe r 1 4, 19 99, th e a pp e lla nt p le d g uil ty

to a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult and ro bb e ry . A s a condition of the plea ag ree ment, the appellant rec eived a sentenc e of three y ear s for e ach c onviction to be serve d on “intensive probation.” On Octobe r 13, 2000, the a ppellant’s probation was “re voked
a nd re ins ta te d” du e to t

he a pp e lla nt’ s f a ilure to r e po rt

to h e r p ro batio n off

ic e r, pa y su pe rv isi on fe e s, verify employ ment, g et per

mission before c hang ing a ddresse s, and submit a DNA sample.W e n ot e t h at t h e appe l l an t ’ s j u dg men t s r ef l ec t t h at t h e appe l l an t ’ s s u per v i s i on f ee s a n d h er c os t s of 2

su p e rv isio n w e re w a ive d ; ho w e v e r, the a p p e llan t wa s o rd e re d to p a y re stitutio n
. -2- There afte r, on F ebrua

ry 27, 2001, a probation revoc ation war rant was issued, char g ing the appellant with “[a]bsconding probation supervision; failure to pay fee s; and failure to submit a DNA specimen.” A sec ond violation warra nt was filed on June 23, 2006, contending that the appel lant violated probation by

being arr ested on Mar ch 5, 2006, for theft of proper

ty valued be tween $500 and $1000.
At the revoc ation hear ing, the trial court infor med the appe llant of the alleg ations contained in the probation violation warr ants and a sked the a pp el l ant if she wishe d to admit or deny the violations. The appellant r esponded, “ Iadmit to violate.” I n her ow n behalf , the appellant e x plained that
wh e n I

wa s 1 7, Iwas vi ol ate d in Oc tob e r, Iha d ju st h a d a ba by in Dec ember , but Iwas pa

y ing my probation fees before I couldn’t pay it no more. When Ifirst ca ug ht this char g e, I had a child, and whe n Iwas 17 and Iwas violated, I was pre g nant with my

second c hild, and I ju s t c o u l dn ’ t p a

y i t

. B u t I n e v e r r a n
. I w a s s t i l l a t t h e s a me ho us e and I was working

. I just couldn’t do it. I worke d up ‘til I couldn’t work no more

. The a ppellant conc eded t hat she ha d been c onvicted of the theft cha rg e alluded to in the se cond
re vo c a tio n w a rr a nt.
The trial c ourt advised the a ppellant that “I ’ve not put people in jail for not pay ing the fee s.” Howeve r, the c ourt expressed conc ern that the appellant ha d fa i l ed t o do “the simplest thing,” namely repor t to her probation office r. The court maintained that it was most interested in whe ther the appe llant would report to her probation off

icer and not violate t he law if she we re a g ain g rante d probatio n
. T h e appellant stated that she had r eporte d to her probation officer until she knew that “they was g onna viol at e m e. ” S he explained that “it wasn’ t no use for me to report no more ” if a violation warra

nt was g oing to be issued. Howeve r, the a ppellant said, “I

apolog ize. I mea n , I ’m older a nd I ’m better now . Ican do it. I can do my

probation now. I ’m g rown; I ain’t no child.”
The trial c ourt found that the appellant violated t he ter ms of her pr obation by

failing to pay fee s but affor ded that fa ilure no we ight in dete rmining the eff ect of her revocation. Howeve r, the 2 trial court wa s deeply

conce rned a

bout the appellant f

ailing to r eport a

nd violating the la

w. Additionally , the trial cour t noted that the appe llant had pre viously violated probation and had bee n g ive n a se c on d c ha

nc e a t a pr ob a tio na

ry se nte nc e . T he c ourt

state d th at th e a

pp e lla nt is not a proper

candidate for probation and that she’s failed to do the simplest of things and that’ s re p ort, and then on top of that she has vio la te d the law ag a in now tha t sh e ’s be c ome old e r a

nd wi se r. Th is-3- very y ear she we nt out and violated the law a nd h as been c onvicted of t he f t o f p r o p e rty , w h ic h is a

s im il a r o f f e n s e to th e r o b bery situation, taking something that doesn’t belongto y ou.
Th e cou rt r e vo ke d th e a pp e lla nt’ s p ro batio n a

nd or de re d h e r t o s e rv e he r o ri g ina l se nte nc e in confine ment. On appe al, the appe llant argues t hat t he trial court erre d in revoking her pr obation and order ing that she serve her se ntence in confineme nt.
II. Ana lys is
A trial cour

t is authorized to order an a ppellant to serve the balanc e of her or igina l sentence in confineme nt upon finding by a pre pondera

nce of the evidence that the appellant has violated the terms of he r probation during “ the maxim um time that was dire cted a nd order ed by

the cour t for the suspension.” See Te nn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35- 310 and -311(e ) (2006); State v. Har kins , 811 S.W .2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991) . Fur thermore , probation r ev o ca t i o n rests in the sound discre tion of the trial court a nd will not be overturne d by this c ourt absent an abuse of that discre tion. St ate v. L eac h , 914 S.W .2d 104, 106 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). An abuse of di scre tion exis ts when “the re cord c ontains
no su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e to su

pp or t the tr ia l c ourt ’s c on c lus ion that a vio la tio n ha s oc c ur re d. ” State v. Conner , 919 S.W .2d 48, 50 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

. I n th e ins tant ca se , the fi rs t viol a tio n warr a nt wa s issu e d o n F e br ua ry 27 , 2 00 1, we ll w ith in the orig inal sentenc e imposed by the trial court, interrupting the probationary period until the trial court he ard t h e i s s u es raised in the w arr ant. State v. Shaffe r, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001). Fur ther, the State w as authorized to, as it did on J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 , amend or file a subse quent revoc ation war

rant while the orig inal revoc ation war rant wa s still pending . I d. Acc ording ly , the trial court re tained jurisdiction to rule on the a p p el lant’s probation violation. M oreove r, the a ppellant admitted violating he r probation by failing to report, pa

y fines, submit a DNA sa

mple, or follow the law. The ref

ore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the appe llant’s probation.

Fur ther, a trial co u rt h as the authority to order the appellant to ser ve her orig inal sentenc e upon a revocation of probation. Se e Te nn
. Cod e Ann. §§ 40 -3 5- 31 0 a nd -3 11 (e ); Sta te v. Mit c he ll, 810 S.W .2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “[A]n accused, a lrea dy on probation, is not entitled to a sec ond g rant of pr obation or ano ther for m of alternative sentenc ing.” State v. J eff rey A. War fi e ld , No. 01C01-9711-CC-00504, 1999 WL 61065, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, F eb. 10 , 1 99 9) ; se e a lso State v. T im o th y A

. Jo hn s o n , N o
. M 2001-01362-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL242351, at *2 (T e n n
. Cr im

. A p p
. a t N a s h v il le , F e b

. 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 )

. T h e tr ia l c o u rt h a d p r e v io u s ly r e v oked the
a p p e l l a n t ’ s p r o b at i o n a n d

a l l o w e d h e r a g a i n t o s e r

v e h e r s e n t e n c e s o n p r o b a t i o n
. D e s p i t e thi s larg ess, the appe llant continued to v i o l ate the terms of her probation. Notably , contra ry to the appellant’ s claims that she was “older ” and “wiser ,” the appe llant not only continued to violate the te rm s o f h e r p ro batio n in the same mann e r t

hat r e su lte d in

the fi rs t r e vo c a tio n, bu t sh e wa s a lso convicted of

an other fe lony

offe nse shortly

befor e the r evocation hearing . Acc ording ly , we c onclude that the trial cour

t did not err in orde ring the appe llant to serve he r sentenc e in conf inement.-4- III. Conclusi on Finding no err or, we aff

irm the judg ments of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEE OGL E, J UDGE