Community Corrections Sentence

State v. Hollowell, No. W2022-01434-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3-4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 8, 2023). 

Our review of a trial court’s community corrections revocation is similar to our review of a trial court’s probation revocation. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 83 (Tenn. 1991). Revocation of a community corrections sentence requires a two-step consideration by the trial court. See State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 753 (Tenn. 2022) (concluding “that a probation revocation proceeding ultimately involves a two-step inquiry”); State v. Clinton D. Braden, No. M2022-00733-CCA-R3-CD, 2023 WL 196130, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Jan. 17, 2023) (“The two-step consideration put forth in Dagnan also applies to community correction revocation hearings.” (citations omitted)). “The first is to determine whether to revoke [community corrections], and the second is to determine the appropriate consequence upon revocation.” Dagnan at 753 (footnote omitted). Our supreme court has held that “these are two distinct discretionary decisions, both of which must be reviewed and addressed on appeal.” Id. at 757-58. “Simply recognizing that sufficient evidence existed to find that a violation occurred does not satisfy this burden.” Id. at 758.

If the evidence is sufficient to show a violation of the terms of supervision in a community corrections placement, the trial court may, within its discretionary authority, revoke the community corrections sentence and require the defendant to serve his sentence in confinement “less any time actually served in any community-based alternative to incarceration.” T.C.A. § 40-36-106(e)(4). Furthermore, when the trial court does not alter “the length, terms or conditions of the sentence imposed,” id. § 40-36-106(e)(2), the court is not required to hold a sentencing hearing. As another option, however, the trial “court may resentence the defendant to any appropriate sentencing alternative, including incarceration . . . . [, and] resentencing shall be conducted in compliance with [Section] 40- 35-210.” Id. § 40-36-106(e)(4); see, e.g., State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489, 493 (Tenn. 2001) (observing that the trial court must conduct a sentencing hearing before imposing “a new sentence” following a community corrections revocation).

The appellate standard of review of a community corrections revocation is “abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record.” Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d at 759; see also State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Reams, 265 S.W.3d 423, 430 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision.” Dagnan at 759 (citations omitted). If the trial court fails to place its reasoning for a revocation decision on the record, this court may either “conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so” or “remand the case to the trial court to make such findings.” Id. (citing State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 327-28 (Tenn. 2014). Generally, “[a] trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010).

State v. Braden, No. M2022-00733-CCA-R3-CD, p. 2-3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 17, 2023). 

In State v. Dagnan, our supreme court determined that “probation revocation is a two-step consideration on the part of the trial court.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 757 (Tenn. 2022). A trial court is required to make two separate decisions: (1) whether to revoke probation; and (2) if probation is revoked, what consequence will apply. Id. The supreme court explained the standard of review of a decision revoking probation as follows:

abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness so long as the trial court places sufficient findings and the reasons for its decisions as to the revocation and the consequence on the record. It is not necessary for the trial court’s findings to be particularly lengthy or detailed but only sufficient for the appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the revocation decision. See [State v.] Bise, 380 S.W.3d [682,] 705-06 [(Tenn. 2012)]. “This serves to promote meaningful appellate review and public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our judiciary.” [State v.] King, 432 S.W.3d [316,] 322 [(Tenn. 2014)]. When presented with a case in which the trial court failed to place its reasoning for a revocation decision on the record, the appellate court may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so, or the appellate court may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings. See King, 432 S.W.3d at 327-28.

Id. at 759.

Given the similar nature of a sentence of community corrections and a sentence of probation, the same principles are applicable in deciding whether the revocation of a community corrections sentence is proper. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 83 (Tenn. 1991). The two-step consideration put forth in Dagnan also applies to community correction revocation hearings. See State v. Thomas Adam Blackwell, No. M2020-01171- CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 16946493, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2022), no perm. app. filed; State v. Casey Bryan Gibbs, No. M2021-00933-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 1146294, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 19, 2022), no perm. app. filed.

State v. Blackwell, No. M2020-01171-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5-6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2022).

On March 4, 2022, eight months after the revocation hearing in this case, our supreme court issued State v. Dagnan, concluding “that probation revocation is a two-step consideration on the part of the trial court.” State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 753 (Tenn. 2022). The first step “is to determine whether to revoke probation.” Id. The second step “is to determine the appropriate consequence upon revocation.” Id. In Dagnan, the supreme court made it clear that “[s]imply recognizing that sufficient evidence existed to find that a violation occurred does not satisfy this burden.” Id. at 758-59. The trial court must place on the record sufficient findings for the appellate court to be able to conduct a meaningful review of both its decision to revoke probation and its decision to impose a sentence for the revocation. Id. at 759. If the trial court does so, an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard of appellate review applies. Id. If a trial court fails to place on the record its reasoning for revoking probation, unless the defendant admits to the violation, or fails to place on the record its reasoning for imposing the sentence, an appellate court may conduct a de novo review if the record is sufficiently developed for the court to do so or may remand the case to the trial court to make such findings. Id.

Although there are a few differences, a community corrections sentence “closely resembles that of probation” and “the same principles are applicable in deciding whether a community corrections sentence revocation was proper.” State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). Likewise, the same principles are applicable in deciding the sentence to impose after a trial court finds that a defendant violated the terms of a community corrections sentence. The two-step consideration for probation revocation hearings outlined in Dagnan, also applies to revocation of community corrections hearings. State v. Gibbs, No. M2021-00933-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 1146294, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 19, 2022).

State v. Thornton, No. W2021-01127-CCA-R3-CD, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 14, 2022). 

This court reviews the length, range, and manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 79 (Tenn. 2012) (applying the standard to alternative sentencing). In determining a defendant’s sentence, including the manner of service, the trial court considers the following factors: (1) the evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) the presentence report; (3) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) evidence and information offered by the parties on enhancement and mitigating factors; (6) any statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee; (7) any statement by the Defendant in his own behalf; and (8) the result of the validated risk and needs assessment conducted by the department and contained in the presentence report. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 697-98. The State may appeal a defendant’s community correction’s sentence pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-402. State v. Jeremy Mulkey, No. E2012-02337-CCA-R3CD, 2013 WL 5026912, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 12, 2013). When the State appeals a defendant’s sentence, the same standard of review applies, but the burden is on the State to establish that the sentence is improper. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-402, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.