### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON Marc h 2, 200 4 S es sio n STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. CL AY JONES

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty No. 00-685; 00- 686 Donald H . Allen, Jud ge

No. W2003-01205-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled May 19, 2004

J OE G. R I L EY , J

. , co n cu rr i n g.

I c on c ur in the re su lt r e a c he d b y

the ma jority , b ut m y

re a so nin g dif

fe rs so me wh a t. When advising the defe ndant of the char g es in the revoc ation war rant, the trial court state d the d e f e n d an t w as on community corr ections for

“a two- y ear

sentenc e.” A fter te lling the twe nty -oney ear -old defe ndant he could have an attorney and befor e the de fenda nt responded, the trial court then advised the defe ndant he could “admit to these viol ations” and would possibly be ordered to serve “this sentence or at least some portion” in the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection. The re w as no mention of two sentenc es or the possibility of a f uture he aring t o d et er m i n e t he sente nce( s). The defe ndant then stated he would “just admit to them” without an attorney . The trial c ourt then swore the de fe nd a nt and the c omm un ity c or re c tio ns of

fi c e r andqu e sti on e d b otha s to the a lle g e d v iol a tio ns
. Th e qu e sti on ing oc c up ie s o ve r t we nty pa g e s of the tr ia l c ou rt tr a ns c ri pt. Th e de fe nd a nt de nie d s ome of t he c h ar g e s
. N o me n ti o n w a s ma d e o f th e r e b e in g tw o c a s e s u n ti l j u s t p r io r to th e tria l c o u rt’s announcing its findings on the re vocation. No mention wa s made of the p o s s i b i l ity of the d ef en d an t ’s h av i n g t o s er v e fo u r y ea rs i n s t ea d o f t wo y ea rs
. T h e t ri al co u rts et a s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g, appar ently assuming the defe ndant would appe ar pro se. Th e de fe nd a nt w a s im me diate ly take n in to custody and, ac cording to the rec ord, has r emained inc arc erated eve r since.
I t app e ars to m e the de fe nd a nt wa s misle d by be ing tol d he fa c e d the po ssi bil ity of ha vin g to serve “this sentence ,” as oppose d to both sentence s, befor e he waived his rig ht to counsel. Howe ver, the majority opinion conclude s, and correc tly I think, that there could be no revoc ation on the sec ond c a se du e to la c k of no tic e
. Th us , the e nd re su lt, str a ng e ly e no ug h, is that th e de fe nd a nt w a s, in f a c t, fac ing only

one two-y ear

revoc ation as a ma tter of law

. I conclude , there fore , that the waive r wa s valid althoug h I

believe the issue is ex tremely close.-2-

I would also note that it appea rs t o me t he is sue i s, as a prac tical matter, moot in light of our dismiss al of the r evocation in the second case
. As I view the r ecor d, the def

endant ha s more than serve d his two-y ear

sentenc e.
Th e ini tial c oll oquy

be tw e e n th etr

ial c ou rt and the de fe nd ant a s to the

ri g ht t o c ou ns e l, or

to proce ed without counsel, a t the revoc ation hear

ing c ould best be described as neutral. It cer tainly does not sugg est that the defe ndant should ha ve an attorney

. Howeve r, I find nothing unlaw ful about the colloquy . Neve rtheless, a waiver of counsel should g ener ally be the exception rathe r than the r ule. This is especially

true in community

corr ections re vocations whe re the re must b e an a dditional sentenc ing he aring in full compliance w ith the Sentencing Act. See State v. S am uels, 44 S.W .3d 48 9 , 4 9 4 ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 1 )

. D e f e n d a n ts d o h a v e th e r ig h t t o c o u n s e l i n r e v o c a ti o n a n d sentenc ing proce eding s, see State v. Daniel W. Livingston a/k/a Daniel Gooch, No. M1998- 00471-CCA-R3- CD , 1 99 9 T e nn . Crim. Ap p. LEX I S 12 71 , at *6 n. 1 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. De c . 1 7, 19 99 ), a ndmy examination of recor ds in other jurisdictions in thi s state does not often reflec t that a def endant ha s wa i v ed t h e r i gh tt o co u n s el at a r ev o ca t i o n p ro ce ed i n g an d/ o r s en t en ci n g p ro ce ed i n g. Reg ardle ss, under the fac ts a nd circ umstances of this c ase, I concur in the result re ache d by t h e m a j o r i t y.

____________________________________ J OE G. RILEY, JUDGE