IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs December 3, 2002

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SANDRA 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 February 6, 2003

Defendant, Sandra Hoyle Cooper, appeals the trial court’s revocation of her community corrections

sentence. Defendant received two community corrections sentences of eleven months and twentynine days each following two separate convictions for theft and for filing a false police report. While

serving her community corrections sentences, Defendant was arrested for aggravated robbery.

Following a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked her community corrections sentences and

ordered the imposition of her original sentences. Defendant argues that the trial court improperly

based its revocation on circumstantial evidence that she committed the offense for which she was

arrested. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3, Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed

THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOE G. RILEY and ALAN E.

GLENN, JJ., joined.

George Morton Googe, District Public Defender; and Stephen P. Spracher, Assistant Public

Defender; Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Sandra Hoyle Cooper.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Elizabeth T. Ryan, Assistant Attorney General;

James G. Woodall, District Attorney General; and Jody S. Pickens, Assistant District Attorney

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On March 6, 2000, Defendant was indicted by the Madison County Grand Jury for theft of

property in an amount less than $500. The indictment alleged that Defendant stole cigarettes from

a Kroger store. On September 11, 2000, Defendant pled guilty to the offense and received a sentence

of eleven months, twenty-nine days. She was ordered to serve her sentence in the Madison County

Community Corrections Program. The trial court also imposed several conditions on her sentence,

including that she serve five days in the county jail, pay fines, perform community service work,
-2-

maintain full-time employment or provide proof of disability, submit to random drug and alcohol

screening, and stay out of all Kroger stores.

Defendant was again indicted by the Madison County Grand Jury on October 2, 2000, for

filing a false police report. Defendant pled guilty on November 14, 2000, and the trial court

sentenced her to serve eleven months, twenty-nine days in community corrections, with ten days to

be served in the county jail. The trial court ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the sentence

for her theft conviction and imposed several conditions on her sentence.

On March 1, 2002, the trial court entered an order revoking and immediately reinstating

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

sentence by failing to pay court costs and fees as directed, failing to report for supervision, and

failing to submit to drug testing.

On April 10, 2002, a violation report was filed, alleging that Defendant violated the

conditions of her sentences in both convictions by committing an aggravated robbery on March 13,

2002, and by failing to report her arrest for the offense. Following a hearing, 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 revoke a defendant’s community corrections sentence and order the

defendant to serve his or her sentence in confinement upon a finding by 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 decision to revoke a community corrections

sentence under the same standard applicable to a revocation of probation, which is abuse of

discretion. Id. at 82. The trial court abuses its discretion only 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. Gregory, 946 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).

Revocation Hearing

Harold Richie testified that he was romantically involved with Defendant for approximately

ten years. He testified that on March 13, 2002, Defendant knocked on his door at 3:20 in the

morning. 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 suddenly felt a blow to his

head. Defendant hit him four times with a hammer. While Defendant was hitting Mr. Richie with

the hammer, she repeatedly said, “Do you want to have sex with me?” Mr. Richie grabbed

Defendant and wrestled her to the floor. He reached for a gun that he kept under his pillow. She hit

him close to his temple, almost rendering him unconscious. She grabbed his leg and pulled him to

the window. He saw Defendant leave through the window and heard a car drive away. When he

regained his senses, he discovered that his wallet containing $525 was missing.
-3-

Jaime Hurst, Defendant’s community corrections supervisor, testified that Defendant did not

contact her to report the arrest for aggravated robbery. Ms. Hurst received a telephone call from

Mary Russell, of Western State Hospital, on March 26, 2002, requesting that Defendant be placed

in treatment. Ms. Russell did not call to inform Ms. Hurst of Defendant’s arrest. Ms. Hurst learned

of the arrest only after asking several questions, whereby she discovered that Defendant had been

arrested and sent to Western State for observation as a suicide risk.

Defendant admitted failure to report the arrest, testifying that while at Western State, she

learned of the allegations, but she was too medicated to call Ms. Hurst herself. She was taken to

Western State and was placed on suicide watch after the incident. Defendant testified that she does

not remember attacking Mr. Richie or taking his wallet. Defendant testified that she had never had

a relationship with Mr. Richie and does not remember ever having sex with him. She testified that

she suffers from an “illness,” and she “just can’t remember anything,” and that she takes a lot of

medication and sometimes “blacks out.” She also testified that she might have been drinking that

evening, 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 attempted to

commit suicide.

The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant failed to report her

arrest to her community corrections officer and that Defendant violated the law by committing an

aggravated robbery.

Defendant argues that the trial court relied upon circumstantial evidence in determining that

she violated the conditions of her sentence. We note that the victim’s testimony is direct evidence

of Defendant’s assaultive behavior, and only the theft element of aggravated robbery was established

by circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, Defendant concedes that she failed to contact her

community corrections supervisor to inform her of the arrest.

Defendant contends that the offense of aggravated robbery cannot be established by

circumstantial evidence alone. Citing Pruitt v. State, 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 256, 267, 460 S.W.2d 385,

390 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970), Defendant argues that the evidence must “exclude every other

reasonable theory or hypothesis except that of guilt.” That level of proof applies only to criminal

convictions based upon circumstantial evidence. Proof that a violation of a community corrections

sentence occurred need not be beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence is sufficient if it shows

that the trial court made a conscientious and intelligent judgment 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 hersentence by committing an aggravated robbery

and by failing to report an arrest.
-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