### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on

Briefs D ecem

ber 3, 2002 STATE OF TENN ESSEE v. SANDR A HOYLE COOPER Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County Nos. 00-176, 00-808 Roy B. Morgan, Jr., Judge

No. W2002-01036-CCA-R3-CD - Filed F ebruary 6, 2003

Defend ant, Sandra Hoyle Coope r, appeals the trial court’s revocation of her c ommunity corrections sentence. Defendant received two community corrections sentences of eleven months an d t we nt ynine days eac

h following two separate convictions for theft an d for filing a fa

lse police report. While se rving her community corr ections sentences, Defendant was ar rested for aggra

vated robbery

. Following a revocation hearing, the trial cour t revok ed her c ommunity corrections sentenc es and ordered the imposition o f her or

iginal s entence s. Defe

ndant ar gues tha t the tria l court imp

roperly basedits revocation on circumstantial evidence that she committed the offense for which she was arrested. After

a careful revie

w of the r ecord, w e affir

m the judgment of the

trial cou rt. Tenn. R. App. P. 3, Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed
T HOMAS T. W OODA LL , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J OE G. R ILEY and A LAN E. G LENN , JJ., joined. George Morton Go oge, Di strict Publ ic Defe nder; an d Stephen

P. Sprach

er, Assis tant Pu bli c Defender; Jackson, Tennessee, for the appe llant, Sandra Hoyle Cooper

. Paul G. Summers , Attorney Genera l and Repo

rter; Eli zabeth T. R

ya n, Assista nt Attorne

y General ; James G. Woo dall, District Attorney Gene ral; and Jody S. Pickens, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Te nnessee. OPINION On March 6, 2000, Defendant was indicted by the Madison County Grand Jury for thef

t of propert y in an amount

less than $500. The indictment alleged that Defendant stole cig arettes from a Kroger store. On

Septembe

r 11, 2000 , Defen dant pled guilty to the offense and received a se ntence of eleven m onths, twe

nty -nine da

ys. She was ordere d to serve her sent ence in t he Madiso n County Community

Corrections Program. The trial court also imposed several conditions on her sentence, includ ing that she serve five day s in the county jail, pay fines, perform community se rvice wor k ,-2-

maintain full-time employ ment or pr

ovide pro of of disa

bility, submit to random drug and alcohol screen ing, an d stay

out of all K

roger stores. Defendant

wa s a ga in in di ct ed by t he Madison C ounty Grand Jury on October 2, 2000, for filing a false police report. Defendant pled g uilty on November 14, 2000, and the trial court sentenced her to serve eleven m onths, twe

nty -nine da

ys i n community

corrections, with

ten day s to be served i n the coun

ty jail. The trial court ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the se ntence for her theft conviction and imposed several conditions on her sente nce. On Marc h 1, 2002, the trial court entered an order re voking and immediately

reinstating Defendant’s community corrections sentence, finding that Defendant violated the conditions of her sentence by f

ailin g t o p ay court costs and fees as directed, failing to report for supervision, and faili ng to s ubmi t to d rug tes ting. On April 10, 2 002, a vio lation re port was f

iled, alle gin g that Defendant violated the conditions of her sentences in both convictions by committing an aggravate d robbery on March 13, 2002, and by failing

to report her

arrest for th e offen se. Fol lowi ng a hear ing, the trial court revoked Defendant’s community corrections sentences and ordered the imposition of her original sentences to be served by

incarceration. Standard of Review
A trial court may re

voke a defendant’s community corrections sentence an d orde r the defendant to serve his or her sentence in confinement upon a fi nd in g b y a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated a condition of her sentence. State v. Harkins , 811 S.W.2d 79, 82-83 (Tenn. 1991). We review a trial court’s dec ision to revoke a community corrections sentenc e under the same standard applicable to a revoc ation of probation, which is ab use o f discretion. Id . at 82. The trial court abuses its discretion o nly where the record contains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation has occurred. Id .; State v. G regory , 946 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Revocat ion Hearing Harold Richie testified that he was romantically involved with Def

endant f or appro ximately ten y ears. H e testi fied that on March 13, 2002, Defendant knocked on his door a t 3:20 in the morni ng. Mr. Richie and Defendant talked for a while. He heard a car horn blowing loudly outside. The conversation turned dull. Mr. Richie looked around the room and sudde

nly felt a blo w to his head. Defend ant hit him f our times with a hamme

r. While De

fendant was hittin g Mr. Richie with the hammer, she repeatedly said, “Do you want to h ave sex with me?” Mr. Richie grabbed Defendant

and wrestled her to the floor. He reac hed for a gun that he kept under

his pillow. She hit him close to his temple, almost rendering him unconscious. She grabbe d his leg and pulle d him to the window. He saw Defendant leave through the window and heard a car drive aw ay. When he regaine d his sense s, he d iscov ered th at his walle t cont ainin g $525 w as mis sing.-3-

Jaime Hurst, Defendant’s community corrections supervisor, testified that Defendant did not contact her to report the arr est fo r agg ravated robbe ry. Ms. Hurst rec eived a telephone call from Mary Russell, of

Western Sta

te Hospital, on March 26, 2002, requesting that Defendant be placed in treatme nt. Ms. Russe

ll did not ca

ll to inform M s. Hurst of Defendant’s arrest. Ms. Hurst lear ned of th e a rr es t o nl y a fter a sking several questions, whereby she discovered that Defendant had bee n arrested and sent to Western State for observation as a suicide risk. Defe ndant admitted failure to report the arrest, testify ing that while at Western State, she learned of the allegations, but she was too medicated to call Ms. Hurst herse lf. She was taken to Western State and was placed on suicide watchafter the incident. Defendant testified that she does notremember attacking Mr. Richie or taking his wallet. Defendant

testified that she hadnever had a relationship with Mr. Richie and does not remember ever having sex with him. She testified that she su ff er s f ro m a n “ il ln es s, ” a nd sh e “ ju st ca n’ t r em em be r a nyt hing,” and tha t she takes a lot of medication and sometimes “blacks out.” She also testified that she might have bee n drinking that eveni ng, but she does not remember, and that she owns a hammer, but she does not remember taking it from her house. Defendant testified that she knew about the allegations before she attempte d to commit suicide. The trial court foundby a prepond erance of the ev idence t hat Defe ndant fa iled to report her arrest to her community corrections officer and that Defendant violated the law by committing an ag gr av at ed ro bb er y. Defendant

argues that

the trial court relied upon circumstantial evidence in deter mining that she viola ted th e con ditio ns of

her s entence. We note that the victim’s testimony is direct evidence of Defendant’s assaultive

behavior , and only

the theft element of aggra

vated robbery

was established by circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, De fendant concedes that she failed to contac t her community

corrections supe

rvisor to inform he

r of the a rrest. Defendant

contends that the offense of agg ravated robbery

cannot be established by circumstantial evide nce alo ne. Ci ting Pruitt v. S tate , 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 256, 267, 460 S.W.2d 385, 390 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970), Defenda nt argues that the evidence must “exclude ever y other reasona ble theory or hy pothesis e xcept that o f guilt .” Tha t level of proof applies only to criminal convictions based up on circu mstantial evidenc e. Proof t

hat a violation of a community corrections sentence occurred need

not be beyond a re asonable doubt, and the evidence is sufficient if it shows that the trial court made a conscientious and intelligent judgme nt on the issue. Harkins , 811 S.W.2d at 82. We conclude that the evidence supports the trial court’s finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant violated the conditions of her sentenc e by committing an a ggravated robber

y and by failing to repor t an arr est.-4- CONCLUSION We affirm

the trial court’s revocation of Defendant’s community corrections sentence and imposition of her original sentence.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL , JUDGE