# FILED September 30, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVI LLE JUNE SE SSION, 1997 ST ATE OF TE NN ES SE E, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9608-CC-00335 ) Appell ee, ) ) DICKSON COU NTY ) V. ) ) HON. AL LEN W. WAL LA CE, JUDGE ROBERT MOOR E, ) ) Ap pella nt. ) (CommunityCorrec ti ons Revoc ati on) 

### SEPA RA

TE OPI NION CONCURRI NG IN PA RT AND DISSENTING IN PART I con cu r in all pa rts o f Ju dg e B ark er’s well -wri tt en opini on, ex cept as to thatportion whi ch remands thi s case t o the t ri al court f or a new sent encing heari ng, to wh ich p art I res pec tfully diss ent. Th e D efe nd an t in thi s case di d not disp ute the t ri al court’ s ter minati on of Defe ndant’ s plac ement in the C om m unity Correct ions Pro gram . The so le issu e o n a pp ea l, as s pe cifica llyphrased bythe De fend ant, is “ can the t ri al court denythe Def endant credi t for tim e a ctu ally served in acom mu nity base d alterna tive to i ncarcerati on upon revocati on of t hat sentence?”

In the trial c ourt, t he S ta te did notrequest the courtto i ncrease Def en da nt’s sen ten ce , wh ich the trial c ou rt wa s en titled to d o u po n a full sentenci ng heari ng aft er cons id ering enhancement and m iti gating f actors. Inst ead, the Assist ant Distr ict Attorney General succi nctlyset forth her request as follo ws : “T he Sta te’s po sitio n is just go ahe ad a nd vio late him. I li ke the way-2-

the Jud ge do es in the se si tuat ion s, you know, maybe put hi m in County Jail for abouta yearand put hi m back on Comm unity Corr ecti ons and see whathe will do.”
On appeal, the Stat e did notsubmit i n a separat e issu e thatthe t ri al c our terred by f ail ing t o increase Defendant ’s sen tence. Itis c orrect t hat t he Sta te does notneed to fi le a sep arat e noti ce of appeal in order t o rai se a sentenci ng issue whe n the De fend ant h as a ppe aled to this c ourt. Sta te v. Ru sse ll , 800 S.W
. 2d 16 9, 1 70 -72 (T en n. 1 99 0). H ow eve r, un de r ap plica ble app ellate rul es, t he Sta te m us t still spe cify a n iss ue for a pp ella te re view , su bm it support ing argu m ent, a nd id entify a ppro priate relief. State v. Hay es , 894 S. W .2d 298 , 300 (Te nn. C rim. A pp. 1 994 ).

The trial c ou rt co uld have consi dered an incr ea se in th e D efe nd an t’s sentence, but d ecline d to do so. Th e S tate did no t urg e in the trial c ou rt or in this cour tthatthe sent ence shoul d be inc reased. Menti oned in t his record, an d conceded to bythe Def endant, is t he factthathe is noten t i t l ed t o c r ed i tf ort i me in which he may have been i n an “abscond ed” st atus whi le sent enced to t he Co m m unity Co rrectio ns P rogr am . I agree t hat t he language of Tennessee Code Annotat ed secti on 40-36- 106(e)( 4) supports t he proposi ti on thatDefendantis not enti tl ed to credi t for

ti me periods in which he was in an “absconde d” st atus from the C om m unity C orre ction s Pr ogra m .

Since the i ssue of whetherornot to i ncrease Defendant’s sentence was not addressed on appeal , I am of the op ini on t hat t his ca se shoul d be remanded to t he tr ial courtfora new hea ring li mited t o the sol e purpose of-3-

deter mining the am ou nt o f cre dit to wh ich D efen dan t is entitled by sta tute f ort i me actu ally ser ved in the C om m unity C orre ction s Pr ogra m .

____________________________________ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge