WPC  U> 03 0<AU,} 0J 0T 0^G 0h 0r  0| 0 0 1u % 0 0BL 0C AI U *  8  v~ v<  9p`(&Times New Roman: 8WP Defaults       !!VL` ` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:VX  < :InitialStyle<  9p`(Geneva2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)XPp 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X\RA'\("$   ("$     1 2 3 4 5C << G<  9p`(Arial       ` X FILEDXDecember30,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  .         ` X Theproprietyofsentencingthedefendanttocommunitycorrectionsinviewofthenatureoftheseoffensesisnotanissuebeforethiscourtinthisappeal.X          ` X Thiscourtdoesnotmeantoimplythatconsecutivesentencescould̀notbeimposedfollowingasentencinghearing.Consecutivesentencesmayvalidlyresultfromaviolationofcommunitycorrectionsifbaseduponpropergroundsafteranewsentencinghearing.PtPtHH$GHHdH'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   sktop Geneva  sktop Geneva ! .  J;+'b|`  `@J      ` XINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE    ATNASHVILLE    OCTOBER1998SESSION    STATEOFTENNESSEE,)) NO.01C019709CC00416 Appellee,)) GilesCountyVS.)) HonorableJimT.Hamilton,JudgeBOBBYCROOK,) ) (Revocationofcommunity Appellant.) corrections)  Ӏ    ) !!Mo ` ` X0 FORTHEAPPELLANT:0 0 HershellD.Koger0 131N.1stStreet0 P.O.Box11480 Pulaski,TN384780 FORTHEAPPELLEE:0 0 JohnKnoxWalkup0 AttorneyGeneralandReporter0 and0 KarenM.Yacuzzo0 AssistantAttorneyGeneral0 CordellHullBuilding,2ndFloor0 425FifthAvenueNorth0 Nashville,TN3724304930 0 T.MichaelBottoms0 DistrictAttorneyGeneral0 and  0 RichardH.Dunavant0 AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral0 GilesCountyCourthouse0 P.O.Box3040 Pulaski,TN384780304!! ` XOPINIONFILED:򀀀REMANDEDFORRESENTENCINGJosephM.Tipton,    X Judge    OPINION   ` X, X Thedefendant,BobbyCrook,appealsasofrightfromthejudgmentofthetrialcourtresentencinghimtoconsecutivetenyearsentencesuponrevokinghiscommunitycorrectionssentences.Hewasoriginallysentencedtoconcurrenttenyearterms.Thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourterroneouslyimposedtheconsecutivesentenceswithoutfirstconductingasentencinghearingandmakingfindingsthatconsecutivesentenceswereappropriate.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtrevokingthedefendant'scommunitycorrectionssentencesisaffirmed.However,theconsecutivesentencesarevacated,andthiscauseisremandedforanewsentencinghearing. Thedefendantwasoriginallyindictedforespeciallyaggravatedkidnappingandaggravatedrape,ClassAfelonies.Heenteredintoapleaagreementwiththestateandpledguiltytofacilitationofespeciallyaggravatedkidnappingandfacilitationofaggravatedrape,ClassBfelonies.Aspartoftheagreement,thedefendantwassentencedasaRangeI,standardoffender,toconcurrenttenyearsentencestobeservedoncommunitycorrections.    ׀Thenegotiatedpleaprovidedthathewouldberesentencedtoconsecutivetenyeartermsifhewerelaterjudgedtohaveviolatedthetermsofhisalternativesentences.Thetrialcourtlaterdeterminedthatheviolatedthetermsofthecommunitycorrectionssentencesand,withoutconductingasentencinghearingormakingfindingstosupportconsecutivesentences,imposedtheconsecutivesentencespursuanttothepartiesoriginalpleaagreement.  I.   Initially,wenotethatatrialcourthasthepower,uponrevocationofacommunitycorrectionssentence,toresentenceadefendanttoaperiodofincarcerationuptothemaximumfortheoffenseoriginallycommitted,withcreditfortimealreadyservedinthecommunitycorrectionsprogram.T.C.A.4036106(e)(4).AtrialcourtmayimposeasentencegreaterthantheoriginalsentencewithoutoffendingtheDoubleJeopardyClauseofeithertheUnitedStatesConstitutionorTennesseeConstitution.Statev.Griffith,787S.W.2d340,34142(Tenn.1990). Thepurposeofallowingthetrialcourttoimposeanewsentenceisthatthenature,circumstancesandfrequencyofthedefendantsviolationsmay warrantadifferenttypeofalternativesentenceorincarceration.Statev.Ervin,939S.W.2d581,583(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).Thetrialcourtmaynot,however,usethestatuteforthesolepurposeofpunishingadefendantforviolatingthecommunitycorrectionssentence.Id.  II.    TheTennesseeCriminalSentencingReformActandtheCommunityCorrectionsActareinparimateria.Statev.Taylor,744S.W.2d919,920(Tenn.Crim.App.1987).Consequently,whenatrialcourtoptstoresentenceadefendanttoasentencemoreseverethantheoriginal,thetrialcourtmustconductasentencinghearingpursuanttotheprinciplesoftheSentencingReformAct.Statev.Cooper,977S.W.2d130,132(Tenn.Crim.App.1998);Ervin,939S.W.2dat583;Statev.KeithF.Batts,No.01C019210CR00326,DavidsonCounty,slipop.at5(Tenn.Crim.App.Feb.18,1993). Itismandatoryforthetrialcourttostateontherecordthereasonsforimposinganewsentence.Statev.Gauldin,737S.W.2d795,798(Tenn.Crim.App.1987).TheSentencingReformActprovidesthattherecordofthesentencinghearing shallincludespecificfindingsoffactuponwhichapplicationofthesentencingprincipleswasbased.T.C.A.4035209(c). Thepurposeofthestatutoryrequirementsistoensurethataproperrecordismadeforappellatereview.Ervin,939S.W.2dat584.ThefactthatthiscourtisrequiredtomakeadenovoreviewdoesnotinanywaydiminishthetrialcourtsstatutorydutytocomplywiththeguidelinesandmandatesoftheSentencingReformAct.Gauldin,737S.W.2dat798.  III.    WebelievetheinstantcaseissimilartoStatev.TimothyLemontWade,No.01C019303CR00092,DavidsonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.Nov.24,1993),andBatts.Ineachcase,thetrialcourtinformedthedefendantatthesentencinghearingthathewouldbesentencedtoamaximumsentenceifhiscommunitycorrectionssentencewereeverrevoked.Ineachinstance,thedefendantagreedtocommunitycorrectionswiththisunderstanding.Whenthecommunitycorrectionssentencesinthosecaseswererevoked,therespectivetrialcourtsimmediatelyimposedmaximumsentenceswithoutmakingthefindingsrequiredbytheSentencingReformAct.Thiscourtremandedbothcasesfornewsentencinghearings. Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourterredinsettingasentence,beforerevocationofthecommunitycorrectionssentences,thatwouldbeautomaticallyimposedintheeventthecommunitycorrectionssentenceswererevoked.ThisisthesamesituationcondemnedinWadeandBattsinthatthetrialcourtincreasedthe  effectivesentencesolelyforthepurposeofpunishingthedefendantforviolatingthetermsofthecommunitycorrectionssentence.SeeErvin,939S.W.2dat583.Here,asthere,thepracticeisimproper.  IV.   WearenotunmindfuloftheSentencingReformActsprovisionsdispensingwiththesentencinghearingwhenthedistrictattorneygeneralandthedefendantagreeuponasentencewhichisacceptedbythetrialcourt.SeeT.C.A.4035203(b),205(d).However,weconcludethattheagreementintheinstantcasewherebythedefendantagreedtotwoseparatesentencesforthesametwooffenses,oneofwhichwascontingentuponfutureconductofthedefendant,isneithercontemplatednorauthorizedbytheSentencingReformActortheCommunityCorrectionsAct. Wearealsomindfulthatthestateintheoriginalpleanegotiationsreducedthechargesasapartofthepleaagreement.Thedefendantunequivocallyagreedatthattimetoconsecutivesentencingintheeventofafutureviolationandnow,ineffect,seekstorenegeontheagreement.Nevertheless,havingestablishedthattheautomaticallyincreasedsentenceswerenotauthorized,atthisjuncturethiscourtcanonlyremandforanewsentencinghearing.Therefore,asthedefendantwasnotaffordedtherequisitehearinguponrevocationasprovidedbytheSentencingReformAct,thiscasemustberemandedforsuchasentencinghearing.            _________________________       JosephM.Tipton,JudgeCONCUR:___________________________JoeG.Riley,Judge___________________________JamesCurwoodWitt,Jr.,Judge