# FILED
May 22, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE MAY 1998 SESSION STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C

01-9708-CC-00380 Appellee, ) ) MONTGOMERY COUNTY VS. ) (Nos . 314 54, 35313 , 374 14 Be low) ) ANNA M. EADIE, ) The Hon. John H. Gasaway ) Appellant. ) (Revocati on of Communi ty Corrections )

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : COLLIER W. GOODLE TT JOHN KNOX WALKUP Assistant Public Defender. Attorney General and Repor ter 19th Judicial District 109 S. Second Street DARYL J. BRAND Clarksville, TN 37

040 Assistant Attorney Gener al Cordell Hull Buildi ng, Second Floor 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 JOHN WESLEY CARNEY, JR. District Attorney General ARTHUR F. BIEBER Assistant District A

ttorney General 204 Franklin Street, Suite 200 Clarksville, TN 37

040

OPINION FILED _______________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO R ULE 20
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E1 The appellant ’s counsel has filed a brief pur suant to Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S . 738, 87 S .Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed .2d 493 ( 1967). In th at brief, counsel requested tha t he be all owed to wit hdraw from representi ng the appell ant in t he above- styled cas e. Cou nse l shou ld now mo ve to w ithdra w pu rsua nt to R ule 14, Tennessee Supreme Court Rules. -1- O P I N I O N

The appellant, Anna M. Eadie, appeal s as ofright f rom the trial court’s revocation of her com munitycorrections sentence. She contends that the evidence presented at her revocation heari ng is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a revocation of community corrections. 1 Based on our review of the briefs and of the entire record in this cause, we conclude that thi s is an appropriate case for affirmance unde r Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules.

In 1993, the appellant entered a guilty plea to DUI, first o ffense, and she was sentenced to 11 months and 29 days, all of which was suspended. S he was also ordered to pay a $250 fine. The appellant violated probati on in 1993 by failing to r eport to her probation officer and by failing to report a change of address. In 1995, the appellant again violated probation when she was convicted of two counts of forgery. The appellant was sentenced to two years for each c ount of forgery, to be serv ed consecutively. Bo

th sentences were suspended. S he was also ordered to pay all court costs and res titution. In 1996, the appellant was conv icted ofa separate charge of forgery and was sentenced to two years of community corrections. She was again ordered to pay restitution. Bas ed
on this conviction of forger y, the trial court r

evoked the appellant’s prob ation being served forher DUI and prior forgery convictions. The appellant was ord ered to serve the remainder

of those sentences on communi t y corrections, consec utively to her 1996 sentenc e for fo rgery.

The appellan t’s comm unity c orrections sentence beg an on October 10, 1996. Subseque ntly, on November 14, 1996, a violation warrant wasissued. The appellant was served with the violation warrant on Ma rch 14 , 1997, and the appellant reported t o her community corrections supervisor approximately one week later.-2- At the revocation hearing, the appellant’s community co rrections supervis or testified that the appellant failed to report, left the county without permission, and failed to pay required court costs . The appellant admitted that she faile d to report toher community corrections

supervisor. She als

o admitted going to South Carolina for two weeks without requesting permission. While the record indicates that the appellant be gan complying with the conditions of community corr ections after the violati on warrant was served, she could offer no explanation as to why s he had fai led to c omply i n the pas

t. Based on the pr

oof, the trial court revoke

d the appellant’s community c orrections sentence and o rdered that the appellant serve the re mainder of her sentence in confinement.

Upon a f inding that a defendant has vi olated the conditions of community corrections, it is within the tr ial court’s discreti on to order the defen dan t to serve the sentence in confinement. State v. Harkins , 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn.1991). In order for this Court to find that a trial court abused its discretion in a revocation proceeding, it must be established that the record contains no substantial ev idence to support the conclusi on of the trial judge that the defe ndant violated the terms of the c ommunity corrections program. Id . The proof of a violation of community corrections need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is sufficient if it allows the trial judge to make a conscientious

and intelligent decisio n. Id .; St ate v. Milton , 673 S.W.2d 555, 557 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984).

In revoking the appellant ’s community correcti on s sen tence, the trial court made the following findings:

The issue before the Court is whether or not she violated her sentence, and the Court finds that she did. She failed to report. She did not get permission before leaving the area. She has not complied withthe conditions of her sentence. The record reflect s that Ms. Eadie has, by my count, been accused of violating p robation at least s ix times sin ce 1992. For five years Ms. Eadie has been in and out of this court. And sh e’s bee n on every program there is that I know o

f.
The Court told Ms. Eadie back in October of ‘96 when she stood right-3- there that the opportu nity that I gave her then would be her las t, so it is. You are ordered to serve the balance of you [sic] sentence with TDOC.

On this record, it is clear that thet rial court was jus tified in finding that the appellantviolated her community corrections and that the pr oof of the appellant’s violation s was sufficient to allow the trial court to make a conscientious and intelli gent decision. Accordin gly, based upon a reading of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicab le law, this Court finds that the judg ment of the trial court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal App eals Rules.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20. Because the petitioner i s indigent, costs of this appeal are taxed to the state.

________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E
CONCUR:

________________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE

________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUD GE