IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE FILED JULY SESSION, 1999 July 30, 1999 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9810-CR-00412 ) Appellee, ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY V. ) ) ) HON . CHE RYL BLAC KBU RN, MAURICE E. BOYD, ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (AGGRAVATED BURGLARY)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: JENNIFER LYNN THOMPSON PAUL G. SUMMERS Crescent Road Attorney General & Reporter Nashville, TN 37205 CLINT ON J. M ORG AN Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243 VICTO R S. JO HNS ON, III District Attorney General GRADY MOORE Assistant District Attorney General Washington Square, Suite 500 2nd Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE OPINION From the trial court’s order revoking the Defendant’s sentence in the comm unity corrections program, the Defendant appeals as of right. In his sole issue, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by finding that he had violated conditions of his place ment in the com munity c orrection s progra m. W e affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court.

The rather sparse record reflects that Defendant pled guilty to the offense of aggravated burglary on March 19, 1998. He received a sen tence of six (6) years, to be served in the community corrections program by initially being incarcerated day-for-day for one (1) full year, followed by five (5) years ou tside of incarceration in comm unity corre ctions su pervision . With m andato ry pretrial cred its available, Defen dant wa s eligible to be released from incarceration on June 8, 1998.

His release in the com munity w as mo re akin to a n extend ed field trip than perm anen t releas e from incarc eration . On Ju ly 2, 1998, a violation rep ort was filed by his supervising officer alleging a violation of a rule of community corrections, to-wit: Defendant had not properly reported to his supervising officer, having last reported on June 10, 1998, two (2) da ys after his re lease from incarcera tion. A hearing was held and the trial c ourt, with the agreement of the Defendant and the State, placed him back on release in the community corrections program but increased the length of the sentence to seven (7) years. This was done on August 5, 1998.

-2- Fifteen (15) days later, another violation report was made by the Defendant’s supervising officer. The Defendant, as of August 20, 1998, had not contacted his sup ervising officer s ince being placed b ack into th e com munity corrections program on August 5, 1998. On August 9, 1998, Defendant was arrested in relation to a dome stic assa ult upon h is girlfriend.

The Defendant stated that he had been in jail since August 9, 1998, and could not contact his community corrections supervisor beca use th e office would not accept a collect call from the jail. He admitted that he did not send a letter to the supervisor or mak e any oth er efforts, oth er than o ne attem pted ph one ca ll, to notify his sup ervising officer th at he h ad be en arre sted a nd wa s in jail.

In his brief, the Defendant takes the position that since he had not been convicted of assault and because his girlfriend’s parents had “pressured her” to testify against him at a preliminary hearing, that the trial court erre d in finding a violation of his community corrections conditions by committing a crime. What the Defendant overlooks is that notwithstanding the status of the assault charge, the trial court found in its ruling that the D efend ant did not rep ort as re quired to his comm unity corrections su pervisor.

The same principles that apply to a proba tion revocation he aring are applic able to a community corrections revocation hearing . State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 83 (Tenn. 1991). The proof of a violation of community corrections requirem ents is sufficient if it allows the trial court to make a conscientious and intelligent judgmen t. The standa rd of review on ap peal is whethe r the trial court abused its discretion. Only if there is no substantial evidence in the reco rd to -3- support the trial cour t’s conclus ion that a vio lation has occurre d, can there be a finding on appeal of an abuse of discretion. Id. at 82. The proof of the violation must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. W all, 909 S.W .2d 8, 9 (Tenn . Crim. A pp. 199 4). The se stand ards we re met b y the proo f.

Upon consideration of the entire record and the applicable law, we affirm the ju dgme nt of the trial co urt.

____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge

___________________________________ NORMA McG EE OGLE, Judge

-4-