# FILED March 23, 1999 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JANUARY SESSION, 1999 STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9804- CC-00165 ) Appellee, ) ) ) HUMPHREYS CO UNTY VS. ) ) HON. AL LEN W. WALLACE TIMOTHY S. BRADLEY , ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (Dire ct Ap pea l - Agg ravat ed B urg lary)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : WIL LIAM B . LOCK ERT , III JOHN KNOX WALKUP Distri ct Public

Defender Attorney Generaland Reporter WADE BOBO CLINTON J. MORGAN Assistant Public Defender Coun sel for the S tate P. O. Box 464 425 Fifth Avenu e North Ashland City, TN 37015 Nashvill e, TN 37243 DAN ALSOBROOKS Distri ct Attorney General GEORGE SEXT ON Assistant Distri ct Attorney 2nd Floor, Humphreys Co. Courthouse Wa verly, TN 37185
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE-2- 

## OPINION

On June 19, 1997, Appel lant Timothy S. Bradley pl ed guilt y to a n aggravated burglary that occur red at a resi dence in Humphreys County. After a sentencing hearing hel d that same day, the tri al court sentenced Appellant as a Range I standard offend er to a term of four yea rs to be se rved in the Com munity Corrections

Program. After

a revocati on hearing on Februar y 25, 1998, the trial court found tha t Appella nt had vio lated the c onditions of his Co mm unity Corr ections senten ce. On M arch 2, 1 998, the trial court ord ered A ppellant to serve his ori ginal four year sentence in t he Tennessee Department of Correctio n, less credit fo r the tim e served in the Community Corr ections Progr

am and for ti me served in jail for the violation. Appe llant challenges the trial court’s order, raisingthe foll owing i ssue : whether he i s entitl ed to pre-t rial j ail credit for t he Hump hre ys County se ntence in t his case for time that he spent in t he Dickson Coun ty Jail for ano ther case
. After a revi ew of therecord, we affirm the judgment of the trial cou rt.

FACTS
Althoug h the exa ct date is not in the record, it appe ars that at someti me during November or December of 1996, Appel lant was arr ested and place d in the Dickson County Jailfora burglary and th eft that o ccurre d at a re siden ce in Dickson County. On December 2, 1996 , Appe llant wa s cha rged in this case with an aggravated burglary and a theft that occurred at a resi dence in Hump hreys County. Appellant t hen spent approxi mately seven month s in the D ickson C ounty-3-

Jail befo re he ple d guilty to the aggrava ted burg lary in Hum phreys C ounty o n Ju ne 19, 19 97. Alth ough the rec ord is n ot entire ly clear, A ppella nt app arently pled guilty

to the Dicks on County chargeson July 18, 1997. In bot h this case and the Dickson County case, Appellant was ordered to ser ve h is sentences in t he Com munity C orrection s Progra m, with a ll sentenc es to run concu rrently.

ANALY SIS
Appellant

contends that

the tri al court erred when it failed to give him credit on his Humph reys Cou nty

sen ten ce for t he t ime he spent in th e Dicks on Co unty Jail. As suppo rt f or this contention, Appellant r elies on Tennessee Code Anno tated sec tion 40-2 3-101, w hich state s in relevan t part: The trial court shall, at the ti me the sentence is imposed and the defendant is committed to j ai l, the w orkhouse or the state peni tentiar y for imprison ment, r ender the judgment of the court

so as to all ow the defendantcredit on the sen tence for any pe riod of time for w hi ch the defendantwas comm itted and held in the city jail or juvenile court detention prior to wa iver of j uvenile court jurisdict ion, or cou nty jai l or workhouse, pending arraignment and trial . The defendant shall also receive credit on the sentence for the time s erved in the jai l, workhouse or penitentiary subsequent to any convicti on arising out ofthe original of fense for which t he defendant was t ried. Tenn. Code An n. § 40 -23-101(c) (1997). We conclude that this statute has no applicat ion to thi s case.
Initially, we note that the primary purpose of awardi ng pre-tr ial jail cred it is to prevent discri mination against indi gent defendants who are unable to make bond prior

to trialand appeal, unlike their coun terparts with thefinanci al means to obtain a b ond. See State v. Watkins , 972 S.W.2d 703, 705 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998); State v. Silva , 680S.W.2d 4 85, 4 86 (Te nn. Cri m. App. 19 84); State v.1 Appellant continues t

o maintain, as he did at the revocati on hearing, that he was hel d in the Dick son Cou nty Ja il for th e cha rges in both Dick son and H um phre ys Co untie s. Ho weve r, the o nly evidence ci ted by Appel lant i n support of this clai m is his own self-serving t estimony at the revocati on hearing. We agree with the trial court’s determinati on that t he record as a whol e indicat es that Appel lant was held in the Dickson County Jai l for the charges in the Dickson County case an d not for the Hum phreys C ounty cha rges in this case. -4- Abernathy , 649 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1 983). T his pu rpose would not be se rved b y giving Appe llant pre -trial jail cre dit in thi s case. Here, Appellant was being held i n the Dickson County Jail pen ding tri al for of fenses committed in Dickson C ounty. 1 Thus, even if Appellant had been able to post bond in this case forthe Hum phreys County charges, he would not havebeen released f rom the D ickson Coun ty Jail.
Furthermore, this Co urt has repea tedly held that section 40-23- 101(c) only providesfor credi t against a sentence if

the reason for the incarcerat ion arise s from the offens e for which t he sentence w as impos ed. See Abernathy , 649 S.W.2d at 286; Majeed v. State , 621 S.W .2d 153, 155 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1981 ); Trigg v. State , 523 S.W .2d 375, 376 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1975 ). Indeed, this Cou rt has held that

a defendant was not

entitl ed to pretrial j ail credit for t ime he served fora federal c rime prior to his conviction in state co urt for anoth er crime
. Trigg , 523 S.W.2d at 376. Likewise, this Court has held that

a defendant i s not entitl ed to credit for jai l time on a separ ate charge i n another state. Majeed , 621 S.W.2d at 155. S imilarly, A ppella nt is not e ntitled to pre-trialjail credi t in this case because the reason for his confinement i n the Dickson County Jailarose from the2 Appellant’s reliance on State v. Henry , 946 S.W .2d 833 ( Tenn . Crim. A pp. 1997 ), is misp laced. In Henry , thi s Court stated that t he defendant coul d receive pr e-tri al jai l credi t for bot h of the concurr ent sentences that

he had receivedafter bei ng convicted of two offenses i n the same trial if he had been charge d and he ld in jail for both o ffense s. Id. at 835. However,this Court noted that

if the d efendant had only been he ld on charges f or one offense, he would not be entit led to pr

e-tri al jai l credi t for t he sentence for the oth er offen se. Id. Thus, even under Henry , App ellant is not entitle d to a pre-t rial jail c redit f or his sen tenc e in this cas e bec aus e he w as no t bein g held in the D icks on C oun ty Jail fo r the H um phre ys Coun ty charges
. -5- Dickson County of

fenses and not t he Humphreys County offense for whic h Appe llant was s entenc ed in this ca se. This issue ha s no m erit. 2

According ly, the j udgment of t he trial cour

t is AFFIRMED
.

____________________________________ JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE