State of Tennessee v. Vincent Walker

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: September 3, 1998
• Docket: 01C01-9709-CC-00390
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED MAY SESSION, 1998 September 3, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate Court Clerk C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9709-CC-00390 ) Appellee, ) ) ) MAURY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JIM T. HAMILTON VINCENT WALKER, ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (Direct Ap peal)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

SHARA FLACY JOHN KNOX WALKUP District Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter 128 N orth 2nd St. Pulaski, TN 38478 LISA A. NAYLOR Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

MIKE BOTTOMS District Attorney General P. O. Box 459 Lawrenceburg, TN 38464

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE OPINION

On January 6, 1997, the trial court issued a community corrections

violation warrant for failure to pay court costs, fines, supervision fees, and

maintain employment. On May 5, 1997, a second revocation warrant was

issued, this time for ag gravated robb ery. On June 2, 1997, the trial court

revok ed Ap pellan t’s com mun ity corre ctions place men t and im pose d his

original sentence of incarceration.

After a review of the re cord, we affirm the judgmen t of the trial court

pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

Appellant raises the following issues on appea l: Wheth er the trial court

should have waited to rule on the second warrant until Appellant was tried for

the charge, and whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial

court’s decision to revoke Appellant’s probation.

“The court shall also possess the power to revoke the sentence

impos ed at an y time du e to the co nduct o f the defen dant.” T enn. C ode An n. §

40-36-106(e)(4) The trial court did not have to wait until Appellant was tried for

the aggravated robbery charge before revoking community corrections.

The decision to revoke community corrections is entrusted to the sound

discretion of the trial court who may revoke a defendant’s placement in such a

program if a violation of the terms an d conditions the reof is established b y a

prepon deranc e of the ev idence . State v. Hark in, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn.

-2- 1991). There is no requirement that the trial judge wait for a criminal

convic tion to o ccur w hen a violation is brou ght to h is or he r attentio n and is

established by a preponderance of evidence.

The testimony of Juanita Stewart, that Appellant was the robber she

saw and the testimony of Appellant’s community corrections officer, that

Appellant violated the terms of his placement in community corrections

provide a mple b asis to revo ke App ellant’s com munity c orrection s placem ent.

Pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20 the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed for the above stated reasons.

____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

-3-