The opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
JANUARY 2000 SESSION
FILED
February 10, 2000
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
) Appellate Court Clerk
NO. W1999-01256-CCA-R3-CD
Appellee, )
) MADISON COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. ROY B. MORGAN, JR.,
JANIE COUSETT, ) JUDGE
)
Appellant. ) (Community Corrections
) Revocation)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
GEORGE MORTON GOOGE PAUL G. SUMMERS
District Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
STEPHEN P. SPRACHER R. STEPHEN JOBE
Assistant District Public Defender Assistant Attorney General
227 West Baltimore Street Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor
Jackson, TN 38301-6137 425 Fifth Avenue North
(At Trial and On Appeal) Nashville, TN 37243-0493
C. MICHAEL ROBBINS JAMES G. (JERRY) WOODALL
46 North Third Street, Suite 719 District Attorney General
Memphis, TN 38103
(On Appeal Only) SHAUN A. BROWN
Assistant District Attorney General
225 Martin Luther King Drive
P.O. Box 2825
Jackson, TN 38302-2825
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
OPINION
In July 1998, defendant pled guilty to theft of property over $1,000, a Class
D felony, and received a four-year community corrections sentence. In November
1998, the trial court issued a revocation warrant due to alleged violations of her
community corrections sentence. The trial court revoked community corrections,
and defendant appeals as of right charging:
(1) the underlying revocation warrant is void since it did not
contain a sworn affidavit upon which the trial judge
could make a determination of probable cause; and
(2) the trial court abused its discretion by revoking
community corrections and ordering her sentence
served with the Tennessee Department of Correction
(T.D.O.C.).
We find the warrant was valid, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Therefore, we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court in all respects.
I. FACTS
In July 1998, defendant pled guilty to theft over $1,000 and received a four-
year community corrections sentence. In November 1998, case officer Sherry Hall
filed an unsworn “affidavit” with the trial court alleging defendant’s violation of her
community corrections sentence. Specifically, the document charged defendant
with failure to report, failure to submit to drug screens and failure to pay fines and
costs. Based upon Hall’s written allegations, the trial court issued a warrant for
defendant’s arrest which was executed in February 1999.
At the revocation hearing, defendant admitted her failure to report and failure
to pay fines and costs. She also admitted failure to report an arrest (a ground newly
raised by the state at the hearing). However, she contested the allegation that she
failed to submit to a drug screen and offered explanations for the other violations.
After hearing testimony from Sherry Hall and defendant, the trial court found
defendant in violation, revoked her community corrections sentence and ordered the
sentence served with T.D.O.C.
2
II. VALIDITY OF WARRANT
Initially, defendant challenges the validity of the revocation warrant issued by
the trial court. She claims that an arrest warrant must be based upon sworn facts
from which the trial court can make a determination of probable cause. See Tenn.
R. Cr. P. 3 and 4. Because the trial court issued this warrant based upon unsworn
allegations, defendant argues that the warrant and all subsequent proceedings are
void. We respectfully disagree.
Revocation procedures for probation and community corrections are treated
similarly. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 83 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Tenn.
Code Ann. § 40-35-311(a) provides that “[w]henever it comes to the attention of the
trial judge that any defendant, who has been released upon suspension of sentence
. . . has violated the conditions of probation, the trial judge shall have the power to
cause to be issued under such trial judge's hand a warrant for the arrest of such
defendant.” (Emphasis added). Thus, unlike an arrest warrant issued pursuant to
the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, issuance of a probation revocation
warrant is governed by statute and does not require an affidavit. State v. Roger
Dale Chisam, C.C.A. No. 85-194-III, Franklin County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed
December 13, 1985, at Nashville), perm. to app. denied (Tenn. 1986). Revocation
of a community corrections sentence is governed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-
106(e)(4). This statute does not set forth any specific requirements for the
revocation warrant.
In this case, the trial court received written allegations from the case officer
that defendant violated several conditions of her community corrections sentence.
This was sufficient for the revocation warrant to be issued for defendant. This issue
is without merit.
III. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REVOCATION
Defendant admitted several violations of her community corrections
sentence. Nevertheless, she claims that, in light of her explanations for the
3
violations, the trial court abused its discretion by revoking community corrections
and ordering her sentence to be served with T.D.O.C.
Revocation of probation and a community corrections sentence is subject to
an abuse of discretion standard of review, rather than a de novo standard. Harkins,
811 S.W.2d at 82. Discretion is abused only if the record contains no substantial
evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that violation of a community
corrections sentence has occurred. Id.; State v. Gregory, 946 S.W.2d 829, 832
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Proof of a violation need not be established beyond a
reasonable doubt, and the evidence need only show that the trial judge exercised
a conscientious and intelligent judgment, rather than acting arbitrarily. Gregory, 946
S.W.2d at 832; State v. Leach, 914 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
Defendant admitted her failures to report, to pay fines and costs, to perform
community service and to report a new arrest. Furthermore, defendant failed to
make herself available for a drug screen as requested by her case officer at their
one and only office visit on October 27, 1998.
In her testimony, defendant offered the following explanations for her
violations:
(1) her failure to report stemmed from working twelve-hour
shifts, often at night, which caused her to oversleep
and/or miss regular office hours;
(2) her failure to make payments toward her fines and
costs stemmed from her need to pay rent and utilities
as the sole support for her family;
(3) her failure to complete community service was due to
scheduling coordination problems with her job; and
(4) the failure to report her new arrest stemmed from the
fact that the community corrections office blocked
collect calls from the jail, and defendant had no phone
at home.
The trial court determined that, in spite of several opportunities to do so,
defendant failed to report to her case officer; made no effort to pay her fines, costs
and restitution; failed to complete any community service; and failed to report a new
arrest. Furthermore, the trial court found defendant’s explanations for those failures
insufficient in light of the amount of time she was on release in the community and
revoked her community corrections sentence.
4
Our review of the trial court’s decision reveals no abuse of discretion. This
issue is without merit.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, we AFFIRM the trial court’s revocation of
community corrections.
____________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
____________________________
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
____________________________
ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE
5