### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 28, 200 4

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JOHNN Y A RWOO D

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Jeff erson County Nos. 6828 & 6829 O. Duane Slon e, Judge

No. E2004-00319-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Dece m ber 9, 2004

After the J eff

erson County Circuit Court revoke d his pr obation, the defe ndant, J ohn n yAr wood,
ag ree d to consec utive sentenc es i n exchang e for being place d back on pr obation. I n this appeal, the de fe nd a nt c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt erred by imp os ing c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s w ith ou t f ir st conducting a sente ncing heari n g o r ordering a prese ntence report. We vacate the trial court’s judgme nts and rema nd the ca se for proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt s o f the Ci r c uit Co ur t V ac at e d and C as e Rem anded

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., deliver ed t h e opini on of the c ourt, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.

Edwar d C. Mill er, D istrict Publi c De fende r, for the appe llant, J ohnny

Arwood.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Mic helle Chapman McIntire, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Al C. Schmutz er, Jr., District Attorney Gene ral; and Charles L . Murphy , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

The resolution of t his case is the result of t he record’ s lack of clarity reg arding whether

the trial court imposed a sentenc e of probation or community corr ections. The rec ord ref lects that the defe ndant, J ohnny Arwood, ple d g uiltyon J anuary 31, 2000, to theft of prope rty over te n thousand dollars, a Class C felony ; theft of prope rty over one t h o u s an d d o l lars, a Class D f elony ; and two counts of simple drug possession, both Cl ass A misdemea nors. The ple a ag ree ment ref lects that the defe ndant ag ree d to a ten-y ear sentenc e as a

Rang e I I I offe nder, with the sentenc e suspended to 365 day s with the “balance on community corr ections super vised probation.” A ccor ding to the judg ment form filed F ebrua

ry 12, 2000, the J eff

erson County

Circuit Court sentence d the def endant to ten
y ear s for e ach the ft count and e leven months, twenty -nine day s for e ach misdeme anor, or dering that all sentenc es be served c oncurr ently for a n eff ective se ntence of ten y ear s. The spec ial conditions-2-

section of the j udg ment provided that 365 day s wer e to be served in confine ment with the “bala nce in the Communi ty

Correc tions P rog ram (supe rvised)” and that “re stitut ion is a specific require ment of probation.” The judg ment also contains an “ X” in the box marked “ Communi ty Ba sed Alterna tive,” with re g ard to the se ntence

.

The de fenda nt was re lease d from conf inement on September

9
, 2000. On Novembe r 2, 2001, the state fi led a mo tio n to re se nte nc e him , a lle g ing that th e de fe nd a nt “ vio la te d h is C ommun ity Cor re c tio ns Pr ob a tio n” by

c omm itt ing a

ne w of fe ns e , us ing a n int oxic a nt, a nd faili ng to r e po rt to h is probatio n o ffice r. I n an ame nded judg ment filed De cembe r 27, 2001, the trial c ourt found the defe ndant g uiltyof violating his “ Communi ty Correc tions Probation” and order ed that he ser ve the balanc e of his ten- y ear

sentenc es in confine ment.

Ap pr oximate ly

on e y e ar l a te r, the de fe nd a nt petit ion e d f or e arl y re le a se a nda g re e d to

consec utive sentenc es, for an eff ective sentenc e of twenty y ear s, in e x chang e for rese ntencing . The trial court’ s “Or der” and the “ Waiver of Jury Trial and G uiltyPlea,” both filed N ovember 12, 2002, state that the de fenda nt ag ree d to be rese ntence d under the “community corr ections act.” The plea
ag ree ment, signe d November 12, 2002, also states that the de fenda nt ag ree d to r esente ncing under the Comm u n it y Co rr e c ti o n s A c t, b u t a d d s th a t th e s tate a g r e e d to r e c o mm e n d to th e court “community

corr ections super vised probation.” I n a “Final J udg ment and Order” filed Nove mber 12, 2002, the trial court ordere d the def endant “ place d back on sup ervised probation” a nd “Community Correc tions” for a “net sentence ” of twenty y ear s. The spec ial conditions section of the amende d judgme nt, filed Dec ember 5, 2002, states that the defe ndant ag ree d to be re sentenc ed

un de r “ the Com mun ity

Cor re c tio ns Ac t” a ndthat hi s se nte nc e wa s su sp end ed to “ Com mun ity Correc tions supervised probation.”

On April 7, 2003, the state filed a “ Violation of Communit y Correc tions” aff

idavit, alleg ing th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s arr e s te d f

o r p u b li c in to xic a ti o n a n d p o s s e s s io n o f d ru g p ar ap h e r n a li a

. On May 8, 2003, the trial court found the defe ndant g uiltyof a se cond probation violation and ordere d him to serve the balance of his twenty -y ear sentenc e in conf

inement. The judg ment states that the defe ndant committed a “Com m unity Correc tions viol ation” and “ second violation of pr obation.” He wa s awa

rded “ cre dit pursuant to jail recor ds and community corr ections re cords.” On J une 19, 2003, the def

endant f iled a motion reque sting that the trial court re consider its sentenc ing or der. The trial court de nied the motion after a hea ring on J anuary

26, 2004. The de fenda nt appea led.

The de fenda nt contends that the trial court err ed by rese ntencing him to consecutive ten- y ear terms without f

irst c onducting a sentenc ing hearing or ordering a prese ntence investigatio n

. T he
state re sponds that the trial court did not r esente nce the defe ndant, but mere ly order ed that he se rve the ba la nc e of

his tw e nty -y e ar s e nte nc e a ft e r he vio la te d the te rm s of his ple a a g re e me nt an d tha t a hearing w as not requir ed.

The de fenda nt is corre ct in his premise that revocation of a community

corr ections sentenc e and subseque nt resente ncing entitles him to a hearing. A trial court has the powe r, upon re vocation of a c ommunitycorr ections sentenc e, to rese ntence a defenda nt to a period of incar cer ation up to the-3-

ma xim u m f

o r th e o f f e n s e o r ig in a ll y c o mm it te d

. T

. C. A

. § 4 0

- 3 6

- 1 0 6 ( e ) ( 4 )

. T h e tria l c ourt may imp os e a se nte nc e g re a te r tha n th e or ig ina l sen te nc e wi tho ut o ff e nd ing the Do ub le Jeop ard y Claus e of either the United States Constitut ion or Tenne ssee Constit u t i o n

. State v. Griff ith, 787 S.W .2d 34 0, 34 1- 42 (T e nn . 1 99 0) . T he Te nn e sse e Cr imi nal S ent encin g Re fo rm Ac t a ndthe Com mun ity Correc tions Act are in pari materia. State v. Tay lor, 744 S.W .2d 919, 920 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). Consequently , the trial court must conduct a s en t en ci ng hearing pur suant to the principles of the 1989 Sentencing Reform Act, as ame nded. State v. Cooper, 977 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). Relative to the sentenc ing he aring , the re cord “ shall include spec ific finding s of fa ct upon which application of the sentenc ing principles was based.” T.C.A. § 40-35-209( c). The purpose of the statutory

require ments is to ensure that a pr oper r eco rd i s made f or appe llate re view. State v. Ervin, 939 S.W.2d 581, 584 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).

The re cord’ s lack of c larity , howeve r, conc erning the defendant’s sentence cre ates a potential problem. I n this re g ard, we note State v. J oe W. Franc e, No. E2003- 01293-CCA-R3-CD, J eff erson Cou nty (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. July

19
, 2004 ), in w hic h th e de fe nd a nt w a s se nte nc e d to tw e lve y e ars , suspended to twelve months wi t h the balanc e on “c ommunitycorr ections super vised probation.” Th e jud g me nt r e fl e c ts tha t a ft e r the tr ia l c ou rt fo un d th a t he ha d v iol a te d th e con di ti on s of his
pr ob a tio n, the de fe nd a nt a g re e d to be re se nte nc e d to tw e nty y ears , su sp e nd e d to “ c ommun ity

corr ections super vised probation.” Th e def endant c ommitt ed anothe r community corr ections violation, a nd the trial court order ed him to serve the balanc e of his twenty -y ear sentenc e in prison. On appe al, the def

endant a rg ued that eve n tho u g h he ag ree d to the sentenc e modifica tion, he was entitled to a sentenc ing he aring befor e his sentenc e wa s increa sed.

This court st ated that a formal sentenc ing he aring is not required w hen a de fenda nt conce des that he violated the terms of the community corr ections sentenc e and e lects to ac cept, knowing ly and vol u n t ar ily , an incr ease d sentenc e by ag ree ment with the state. F ranc e, slip op. at 4. I t noted the
tw e nty -y e ar pr iso n se nte nc e in F ra nc e wo uld re qu ir e a he ari ng a ndfo rm a l r e se nte nc ing be c a us e it constituted a new sentenc e, which had to be supported by statutory enhanc ement fa ctors. I d. at 5;

see a lso St ate v. Crook, 2 S.W.3d 238 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). The c ourt, howeve r, interpr eted the terminolog y

used in the judg ments to mean the de fenda nt’s alter n at i v e sentence w as “pr obation,”

ra th e r th a n a c o mm u n it y c o rr e c ti o n s s e n te n c e

. N o ti n g th a t p r o b a ti o n c o u ld n o t b e g r anted f or a twelve- y ear

sentenc e, the c ourt conc luded the judgments provided for illega l sentenc es and set aside the def endant’ s conviction.

A t ri a l c ou rt ’s a uth or ity

var ie s in re vo c a tio n p ro c e e din g s d e pe nd ing on wh e the r the c a se b ef o re it involves probation or a community corr ections sentenc e. A trial court, upon revo k i n g a community

corr ections sentenc e, “ma y rese ntence the def

en d an t to any

appropriate sente ncing alternative, including inc arc eration, for any period of time up to the maximum s entenc e provide d for the offe nse committed . . . .” T.C.A. § 40-36- 106(e) (4). B y contra st, a trial court revoking probation ha s th e a uth or ity

to e xten d th e pe ri odof

pr ob a tio n s up e rv isi on fo r a pe ri odno t to e xce e d tw o y e ars ; order execution o f t h e orig inal judgme nt; or, if the violation resulted in an a dditional conviction, order the new se ntence to be serve d consec utively to the orig inal judgme nt. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-308( c), -3 10 , - 31 1; S ta te v. Hu nte r, 1 S. W.3 d 6 43 , 6 47 (Te nn . 1 99 9) . It c a nn ot r e se nte nc e the de fe nd a nt.-4-

We a lso no te that a s a

c on dit ion of

pr ob a tio n, a defe nd ant can be pla c e d in to a c ommun ity

corr ections prog ram. T.C.A. § 40-36- 106(f)

.

I n th e ins ta nt ap pe a l, the re c or d is unc le ar wh e the r the se nte nc e re c e ive d w a s p ro batio n, to b e s u p er v i sed in the community corr ections prog ram, or a community

corr ections sentenc e. The jud g me nts fi le d o n F e br

ua ry 12 , 200 0, state the de fe nd a nt sha ll s e rv e “ the ba la nc e in the c ommun ity

corr ections prog ram (super vised),” and the box marke d “Community Ba sed Alternative” is che cked. Ho we ve r, the de fe nd a nt’ s p le a a g re e me nt s ta te s th a t th e ba la nc e sh a ll b e serve d o n “ c ommun ity

corr ectio n s supervised pr obation.” The state’s subseque nt motion for resente ncing aver s that the defe ndant violated his “CommunityCorrec tions P robati o n

. ” The resulting amende d judgme nts filed Dec ember

27, 2001, state that the de fenda nt was “g uiltyo f v iolation of communitycorr ections
pr ob a tio n. ” Th e c ou rt ’s “ F ina l Judg me nt and Ord er” file d N ov e mbe r 1 2, 20 02 , in re sp on se to defe ndant’s petition for e arly rele ase, pla ced the d efendant “ba ck on super vised probation” a nd “community

corr ections.”

We b e lie ve that th e tr ia l c ou rt int e nd e d a

se nte nc e un de r the Com mun ity Co rrection s A c t. Communi ty

Correc tions may

also be a c ondition of probation. Resentenc ing f or long er pe riods of time would o n l y b e p ro per in c ases involving community corr ections sentenc es. I f the ten- y ear sentenc es in this case involved pr obation, they would be invalid bec ause no f orm of probation may be g rante d unless a def

endant is sentenc ed to “e ight y ear s or less.” T.C.A. § 40-35- 303(a) . On the oth e r h a nd , if the de fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e s w e re c ommun ity c or re c tio ns se nte nc e s, re se nte nc ing wo uld be prope r, but the trial court must proceed in a ccor d an ce with the revoc ation proce eding s and

rese ntencing proce dures a s outlined in the Comm unity Correc tions Act.

I n sum, we obser ve that the tria l court’s use of l ang uag e re nders the judg ments problematic. The terms “probation,” “ community corr ections,” “community corr ections super vised probation,” and “c ommunitycorr ections (supe rvised)” wer e used inter chang eably to describe the def

endant’ s sentenc e on multiple court documents, including the judgme nts. Be cause we c annot determine from the re c or d th e ma nn e r o f s e nte nc e s in te nd e d b y thetr ia l c ou rt , w e c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt mus t de te rm ine wh e the r the de fe nd a nt’ s se nt enc e s w e re be ing se rv e d o n p ro batio n o r a s c ommun ity

corr ections sentenc es. I f it is determined that the de fenda nt’s sentenc es we re imp o s ed u nder the Communi ty

Correc tions Act, he is e ntitled to a sentenc ing he aring pursuant to the princ iples of the 1989 Sentencing Reform Act. I f the sentenc es wer e for probation, then a ll the judgments re flec ting ten-y ear sentenc es would be invalid. We va cate the judgme nts a nd rema nd the ca se to the trial court for f urther pr ocee dings c onsistent with thi s opinion.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE