State of Tennessee v. Amanda Treece ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON FILED
MAY SESSION, 1998 June 8, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9711-CC-00438
)
Appellee, )
) CHESTER COUNTY
V. )
)
) HON . FRAN KLIN MUR CHIS ON,
AMAN DA TR EEC E, ) JUDGE
)
Appe llant. ) (PROBATION REVOCATION)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
C. MICHAEL ROBBINS JOHN KNOX WALKUP
3074 East Street Attorney General & Reporter
Memphis, TN 38128
(On A ppea l) PETER M. COUGHLAN
Assistant Attorney General
2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
425 Fifth Avenu e North
Nashville, TN 37243
GEORGE MORTON GOOGE JAMES G. WOODALL
District Public Defender District Attorn ey Ge neral
MICHAEL RASNAKE DONALD H. ALLEN
Assistant Public Defender Assistant District Attorney General
227 West Baltimore Street 225 Martin Luther King Drive
Jackson, TN 38301 P.O. Box 2825
(At Tr ial) Jackson, TN 38302
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
OPINION
Following an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court of Chester County
entered an order which revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered her to serve her
original sentence of four (4) years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The
Defen dant, Amanda Treece, appeals from that action of th e trial co urt. W hile
Defendant does not ch allenge the revo cation of proba tion, she argue s in her sole
issue on appeal that the trial court erred by requiring her to serve her entire sentence
by incarceration in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
In March , 1996, Defen dant pled g uilty to five (5) cou nts of fo rgery in
violation of Tennessee Code An notated section 3 9-14-11 4, and re ceived a n effective
sentence of four (4) years incarceration in the Department of Correction. The
sentence was suspended, and she was placed on supervised probation. Within a
few mon ths, sh e was arreste d and convic ted of D UI, an d a he aring w as he ld in the
Circu it Court of Che ster County on a probation violation warrant. At the time, the
trial court revoked her probation, ordered her to serve “thirty (30) days shock
incarcer ation,” and allowed her to continue on a suspended sentence and probation
following th e thirty (30) d ays incar ceration.
In December of 1996, Defendant was arrested in Hardin County for DUI
and for violation of the “restricted d river’s license ” law. In February of 1997, she was
arrested for DUI and driving on a revo ked license in McNairy County. She was
convicted of the Hardin County and McNairy County offenses in March of 1997.
-2-
A second probation violation warran t was filed in th e Che ster Cou nty
forgery ca ses an d the evid entiary he aring wa s held in Ju ly of 1997 .
Defendant testified at her secon d probation violation h earing in July,
1997 that she had an alcohol and dru g abus e proble m whic h existed p rior to the time
she was convicted of forgery. She had not sought professional treatment for her
dependence problem after the first DUI conviction. How ever, after the second and
third convictions, she had entered into a six (6) month rehab ilitation p rogra m in
which sh e was p articipating at the time of the prob ation violation hearing .
At the conclusion of the hearing, Defendant’s counsel requested the trial
court to allow her to complete her rehabilitation treatment program . The trial court
found that violations of probation had occurred, revoked the suspended sentence,
and ordered Defendant to immediately be taken into custody to serve the original
four (4) year sentence in the Department of Correction.
Defendant correctly concedes that the record contains substantial
evidence to justify th e trial co urt’s finding tha t a violation of the terms and conditions
of probation existed. However, Defendant argues that there is not substantial
evidence to sup port the trial court’s decision to re quire her to serve the entire
sentence by incarceration in the Department of C orrect ion. W e resp ectfully
disagree.
Our court ha s previou sly held tha t trial judges h ave the d iscretion to
order a sentence to be served as orig inally en tered in the judgment upon a finding
-3-
that probation should be revoked . State v. Duke, 902 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1995 ); Tenn. Co de Ann. § 4 0-35-311(d ).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this matter, as th ere is more
than substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
____________________________________
THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
CONCUR:
___________________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
___________________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS , Judge
-4-