State of Tennessee v. Lemont E. Blair ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
JANUARY 1998 SESSION
June 3, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE )
) 03C01-9705-CR-00176
Appellee )
) KNOX COUNTY
v. )
) Hon. Richard R. Baumgartner, Judge
LEMONT E. BLAIR )
) (Community Corrections Revocation)
Appellant. )
)
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Gerald L. Gulley, Jr. John Knox Walkup
Baker, McReynolds, Byrne, Attorney General & Reporter
O’Kane, Shea & Townsend
P.O. Box 1708 Clinton J. Morgan
Knoxville, TN. 37901-1708 Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenue North
Randall E. Reagan 2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
602 Gay Street, Ste. 905 Nashville, TN. 37243-0493
Knoxville, TN. 37902
Randall Eugene Nichols
District Attorney General
Paula R. Gentry
Assistant District Attorney General
P.O. Box 1468
Knoxville, TN. 37901-1468
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE
OPINION
The appellant, Lemont E. Blair, appeals as of right the Knox County Criminal
Court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence. We affirm the judgment of
the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
In 1995, the appellant pled guilty to possession of cocaine with the intent to sell,
possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, and possession of a deadly weapon, to
wit: a hand grenade. The trial court sentenced the appellant to ten (10) years on
each count and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently in a community-
based alternative to prison (“CAPP”).1
After serving approximately seven months in the community corrections
program, the appellant was arrested pursuant to a CAPP violation warrant. The trial
court conducted an evidentiary hearing and received testimony from witnesses
including appellant’s CAPP supervisor, Katherine Hancock. Ms. Hancock testified that
the appellant complied with the conditions of his sentence until around May 1996.
She stated that at that point, he began missing both his curfew and his weekly
meetings with supervisors and support groups. Moreover, Ms. Hancock testified that
the appellant had failed to pay any money towards his court costs.
Through additional testimony, the State also sought to prove that the appellant
was involved in a robbery and shooting on June 25, 1996. The incident occurred
during the early morning hours at the Walter Taylor Housing Project in Knoxville,
Tennessee. According to eyewitness testimony, several black males surrounded and
assaulted the victim, Ryan Simmons, in a nearby parking lot. One witness, Jennifer
Smith, testified that she heard two gun shots and observed the appellant dragging the
1
The conditions of appellant’s CAPP included: (1) compliance with all state and federal laws; (2)
avoidance of alcoholic beverages, illegal drugs, and beer taverns; (3) reporting to CAPP officials of any
traffic citations or other arrests; (4) no fraternizing with any persons known to be dealers or users of
illegal drugs; (5) no possession or ownership of a firearm or weapon; (6) maintenance of lawful
employment; (7) compliance with an evening curfew; (8) monthly payment of court costs; (9) completion
of 96 hour s of c om mu nity se rvice work per ye ar; (1 0) pa yme nt of a yearly c om mu nity co rrec tions fee in
the amount of $60.00 dollars; (11) payment of restitution to a victim if applicable; (12) limitations on
travel within the state; (13) restrictions on setting dates for marriage or contracting any major debts; and
(14) par ticipation in D ay Repo rting Cen ter activities.
2
victim’s body behind a dumpster. Ms. Smith, however, did not see the shooting and
was unable to identify the appellant as the gunman.
Detective Terry Clowers of the Knoxville Police Department testified that the
appellant was arrested and questioned about the shooting a few hours after police
arrived on the scene. The appellant admitted that he was at the housing project when
the shooting occurred; however, he stated that he merely happened upon the injured
victim and pulled him behind a dumpster for safety. He further indicated to Detective
Clowers that he was working at the housing project that evening as a barber.
Detective Clowers interviewed other witnesses who placed the appellant at the scene
before and after the shooting. However, there was no evidence that appellant was
involved in the crime and he was never charged.
Although appellant disputed his involvement in the shooting, he conceded that
he had failed to comply with certain conditions of his community corrections sentence.
The trial court determined that appellant was in material violation of CAPP based upon
his curfew violations and his failure to attend weekly meetings. 2 The judge noted that
he had warned appellant at an earlier hearing that non-compliance in the community
corrections program would result in a custodial sentence.3 Accordingly, the trial judge
revoked community corrections and ordered the appellant to serve the remainder of
his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction.
A trial judge may revoke a community corrections sentence upon finding that
the defendant has violated the conditions of his sentence by a preponderance of the
evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(d) (Supp. 1995). The judgment of the
trial court in that regard will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of
discretion. See State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991); State v.
2
The trial court was unwilling to conclude that appellant was involved in the crime at the housing
proje ct. Ho weve r, the c ourt d eterm ined t hat a ppe llant’s pres enc e at th e crim e sc ene was proo f of his
curfew violation.
3
The trial court conducted a hearing on April 26, 1996, to check appellant’s progress in the
community corrections program. At that hearing, the court apparently found that appellant had been
sporad ic in his attend ance o f week ly CAPP m eetings.
3
Williamson, 619 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981), perm. app. denied (Tenn.
1981).
In this case, we conclude that the evidence of appellant’s CAPP violations was
sufficient for the trial judge to make a conscientious and intelligent judgment. The
appellant has conceded that he missed weekly meetings with his CAPP groups, he
violated his curfew, and he failed to pay court costs. As such, the revocation of his
community corrections sentence was proper.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the
Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
_____________________________
WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE
CONCUR:
____________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
____________________________
J. CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
4