WPC$ u;#,DrfAЋDe.ȼCX v큟M_9nv +T5#4zoHd !>M(Ż^5᤯uE"E:s gbf&iNŷ0B/R[m@̈g 4wc͑5w0{"ky2 J*7۴`UN@ % 0(U:w4 0z  0D 9  #!% NF ^ H T V mk k 5 U: B AQ_ 0D% 0Di 0D D3(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,  AZ"Arial RegulartpO'3|x(*(2$ !   `   0   $ `   2    Wenotethatthetrialjudgewhooriginallyconductedtheseproceedingsisnow  retired.Thus,itwouldnotappearfeasibletosimplyremandforfindings.(#$  0   / $ `   1    Thetrialcourtconductedtworevocationhearingsinthismatter,May1998and  August1998.Thetrialcourtalsoconductedtwosentencinghearings,September1998  andDecember1998.HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0d'L    U + ["  _X XXX(zXX    Ad FILEDX X(z  October31,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAx ,  AZ"Arial Regular dZ[\]_C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  """"'dxd !  _X XXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TxY_B2.jz`  `@E` 8ttxP x_@  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATJACKSON@"SEPTEMBER1999SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, @-)  ` @-) p NO.02C019901CC00018   L   ` Appellee,@-)  8  @-) p MADISONCOUNTY     VS. @-)   @-) p HON.FRANKLINMURCHISON,   PHILLIPDAVIDHOWELL, @-) p JUDGE    @-) ` Appellant.@-) p (RevocationofJudicialDiversion) d (  @(#(#( FORTHEAPPELLANT: 2 MIKEMOSIER 204WestBaltimore  P.O.Box1623Jackson,TN383021623(OnAppeal) STEVEBEAL  $t 22MonroeAvenueLexington,TN383512135(AtHearing) !,   FORTHEAPPELLEE: 2  PAULG.SUMMERS   " AttorneyGeneralandReporter R.STEPHENJOBE  r% AssistantAttorneyGeneralCordellHullBuilding,2ndFloor425FifthAvenueNorthNashville,TN372430493 JAMESG.(JERRY)WOODALL  !,+ DistrictAttorneyGeneral LAWRENCEE.(NICK)NICOLA  $. AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral225MartinLutherKingDriveP.O.Box2825Jackson,TN383022825 )h$3 (  @( *4&3  OPINIONFILED:򀀀 H0+9 REVERSEDANDREMANDEDJOEG.RILEY,JUDGE  72A _ 8MXXdd8@@qq* OPINION    ` Pursuanttoanegotiatedagreement,defendantpledguiltytoaggravated H criminaltrespassandassault,ClassAmisdemeanors,andthetrialcourtplacedhim  d onjudicialdiversionpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.4035313.Subsequently,the  0 trialcourtfounddefendantinviolationofhisprobation,revokedjudicialdiversion,    andimposedsentence.Inthisdirectappeal,defendantchallengestherevocation. x  Afteracarefulreviewoftherecord,we REVERSE thedecisionofthetrialcourtand D   REMAND forfurtherproceedings. ` @[[) I.FACTS  t  ` Thevictimoftheunderlyingoffenses(aggravatedcriminaltrespassand  \ assault)wasthewifeofthedefendant.Atthetimeoftheplea,divorceproceedings ( werependingintheChanceryCourt.InSeptember1997,defendantenteredinto  anegotiatedpleaagreementwhichprovidedforhisplacementonjudicialdiversion p!  pursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.4035313.Thediversionplanincludedthe <#" followingspecialconditionofprobation: abidebyallpresentandfutureordersof %X $ thisCourtandoftheChanceryCourtofthisdistrict. &$"&  ` Theagreementwassignedbytheassistantdistrictattorney,defense l*%* counsel,anddefendant.Atthetimeofthispleasentry,defendantwasundera 8,', ChanceryCourtorderwhichrequiredpaymentof$1,000permonthinpendentelite .T). alimonytohiswife.Itisundisputedthatthesepaymentswerenotmade. / +0 Defendantcontendsthereisnoproofthathisfailuretopaywaswillful. 1,2  ` Thetrialcourtdeterminedthatdefendantsfailuretopayalimonyoperated 4506 asaviolationoftheChanceryCourtsorder,whichinturnviolatedhistermsof 7P28 probation( abidebyall...orders...oftheChanceryCourt.)Hence,thetrial 84: courtrevokedjudicialdiversionandeventuallysentencedhimforeachconviction.   #  1        @@@  II.CONDITIONOFPROBATION   d @- ` Defendantchallengesthereasonablenessoftheconditionofprobation    requiringhimtoabidebyordersoftheChanceryCourt.Thestatemaintainsthat x  defendantwaivedthiscomplaintsincethetermsofhisdiversionweretheresultof D  anegotiatedpleaagreement. `  ` Atrialcourtplacinganoffenderonprobationhastheauthoritytoimpose  specialconditionsuponthatprobation.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035303(d).Special t conditionsmayincludearequirementthattheoffendermeethisorherfamily @ obligations.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035303(d)(1).  \  ` Sincetherecordinthiscasedoesnotcontainatranscriptoftheguiltyplea,  wemustassumethatthestateiscorrectinitsargumentthatdefendantagreedto p!  thechallengedconditionofprobation.Onitsfacethatprovisionstatesthat <#" defendantwillabidebyallordersoftheChanceryCourt.Atthetimehepledguilty, %X $ thereexistedaChanceryCourtorderthat,amongotherthings,requiredthe &$"& paymentoftemporaryalimonytohiswife. (#( @aa  III.PROBATIONREVOCATION h3.4   4506  ` Atrialcourtmayrevokeprobationandordertheimpositionoftheoriginal  sentenceuponafinding,byapreponderanceoftheevidence,thatthepersonhas | violatedaconditionofprobation.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035310,311.The H decisiontorevokeprobationrestswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.  d Statev.Mitchell,810S.W.2d733,735(Tenn.Crim.App.1991).Revocationof  0 probationissubjecttoanabuseofdiscretionstandardofreview,ratherthanade    novostandard.Statev.Harkins,811S.W.2d79,82(Tenn.1991).Discretionis x  abusedonlyiftherecordcontainsnosubstantialevidencetosupporttheconclusion D  ofthetrialcourtthataviolationofprobationhasoccurred.Id.;Statev.Gregory,946 ` S.W.2d829,832(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).Thesesamestandardsapplyin , determiningajudicialdiversionrevocationbaseduponanallegedviolationof  probation. t  ` Defendantcontendsthattherecorddoesnotreflectthathisfailuretopay  \ alimonywaswillful.Thefindingsofthetrialcourtregardingthebasisforrevoking ( defendantsprobationaresomewhatconfusing.AttheAugust1998revocation  proceeding,thetrialcourtfoundthatdefendantfailedtomakealimonypayments p!  asorderedbytheChanceryCourt.But,whenpressedtodeterminewhethersuch <#" nonpaymentwaswillful,thecourtstated, IdontthinkIhavetofindhiminwillful %X $ contempt.Ijusthavetofindthathehasntfollowedhehasnthelduphisendof &$"& thebargain.Andheknewaboutthisalimony. (#(  ` IntheSeptember1998proceeding,thetrialcourtseemedtoindicatethat 8,', perhapsdefendantcouldnotpaythealimony,butthatsuchinabilitywasirrelevant: .T).  ` TRIAL / +0  ` COURT:8  [Defendanthad]achancetogetoutof 0,1 thiswithoutacriminalrecord,andheblew 1,2 that.PerhapshecouldnthelpI 2-3 shouldntsay blewit,becausemaybehe h3.4 couldntpay.Ifyoucantpay,youcant N4/5 pay.Butthatspassed.4506   Shortlyafter,inthesameproceeding,thefollowingexchangeoccurred: 7P28 8 ` DISTRICT84:` `   ` ATTORNEY:8 h Wehaveshownthathis 95; noncompliancewith[the  ChanceryCourts]orderis  willful.|hh  ` TRIAL H  ` COURT:  8 h Ihavealreadyfoundthat.. ~hh Ourreviewoftherecorddoesnotindicateapriorspecificfindingofwillfulnon  J compliance.Furthermore,thereisnowrittenorderofrevocationfromwhichto    clarifytheremarksofthetrialcourt.    ` Thetrialcourtrevokeddefendantsprobationforfailuretopayalimonyas *z  orderedbytheChanceryCourt.Inthisparticularsituation,werespectfullydisagree F withthetrialcourtsstatementthatitdidnothavetofinddefendantinwillfulnon  compliancewiththeChanceryCourtordersoastojustifytherevocationof  probation. Z  ` Themereexistenceofanalimonyorderdoesnotsignifyanabilitytopay. B If,infact,defendantwasfinanciallyunabletomakealimonypayments,thenhe  wouldnotbeinwillfulnoncompliancewiththeChanceryCourtsorder,and   probationcannotberevokedforthatreason.SeegenerallyBeardenv.Georgia, V"! 461U.S.660,67273,103S.Ct.2064,2073,76L.Ed.2d221(1983);Statev.Dye, "$r# 715S.W.2d38,40(Tenn.1986). %>!%  ` Althoughtherewassomeproofconcerningdefendantsbankaccountfrom )$) whichthetrialcourtmighthavefoundwillfulnoncompliance,weareunableto R+&+ determinewhetherthetrialcourtactuallyfoundwillfulnoncompliance.Sincesuch -n(- afindingisnecessary,wemustreversedefendantsrevocationandremandfora .:*/ newrevocationhearing.   #  2       0,1 @  IV.RECOMMENDATIONUPONREMAND  6j17 Ї ` Initsbrief,thestatecitestothisCourtsdecisioninStatev.DominicJude  Amari,C.C.A.No.01C019703CR00077,Tenn.Crim.App.1998LEXIS682, | (Tenn.Crim.App.filedJune30,1998,atNashville)insupportofitsargumentthat H revocationbaseduponviolationofanothercourtsorderisproper.Inthatcase,the  d defendantenteredintoajudicialdiversionagreementwhichrequiredhimto abide  0 byallordersofanycourtwithdomesticjurisdiction.Thecircuitcourtwithcivil    jurisdictionfounddefendantincriminalcontemptfordiscussingdivorcemattersin x  thepresenceofhisminorson.Atalaterdate,thecriminalcourtrevoked D  defendantsprobationonthebasisthathe violatedtheorderofthecircuitcourt ` respectinghisdomesticcase.ThisCourtupheldtheprobationrevocation,stating, ,  theevidenceofappellantscontemptorderwassufficienttosupportthetrialcourts  decisiontorevokehisprobation.DominicJudeAmari,1998LEXIS682,at*3.We t note,however,thatunlikethecaseatbar,inAmarithecriminalcourthadaprior @ findingofcriminalcontemptbythecivilcourtuponwhichtobaseitsprobation  \ revocation. (  ` Wecannothelpbutnotethatitappearsquestionablewhetherthetrialcourt p!  anddefensecounselsharedthestatesunderstandingofthechallengedprovisions <#" effect.Itisapparentfromtherecordthatthelanguageoftheprovisionwas %X $ includedbytheprosecutorfortheprimarypurposeofenforcingtheChancery &$"& Courtsalimonyorder.Theassistantdistrictattorney(ADA)statedattheMay1998 (#( revocationproceedings, asfaras...the[ChanceryCourts]order[requiring l*%* defendant]tomakealimonypayments...theStatewasawareofthissituation,and 8,', thatiswhyweputintheorderstoabidebyallfutureandpresentordersofthe .T). ChanceryCourt. / +0  ` ThevictimtestifiedattheAugust1998revocationproceedingthatsheand 4506 theADAthoroughlydiscussedthechallengedconditionofprobationinthecontext 7P28 ofherdesiretoreceivealimonypayments: 84: @     8 ` DEFENSE` `  8 ` COUNSEL:8` ` [theADA]advisedyouatthattimethat  youcouldntputintherethat[defendant] | wouldhavetopayalimonyasapartof b this[plea]agreement?H   8 ` VICTIM:8` ` Hesaidthatwecouldputintherethathe  d hadtoobeyallotherCourtorders...or  J any...orderinChanceryCourt. 0   8 ` DEFENSE  ` `  8 ` COUNSEL:8` ` Now,mainlywhatyouwerespeaking   aboutwasconcerningthestayingaway x  fromyou^    8 ` VICTIM:8` ` No,sir.Mybigconcernwasthealimony.*z     ` InboththeAugustandSeptemberhearings,theADAconfirmedthat , enforcementofthealimonyorderwastheintentoftheprovision.   ` AttheSeptember1998sentencingproceeding,theADAdiscussedthe @ statesdesirethatdefendantbeplaced underthegunofthecriminalcourt:  \ 8 ` [T]heStateofTennesseedoesnthave[defendant]underthegunin ( ChanceryCourt.TheStateofTennesseeisinherehopingtohave  himundertheguninthiscourt.Wecanonlyhavehimunderthegun  inthecriminalcase,andthatswhatweareaskingYourHonortodo   Єistokeephimunderthegunalsointhecriminalcase.p! ` `   ` However,defensecounselmadevariousstatementsevidencingadifferent %X $ understandingoftheprovisionseffect.AttheMay1998proceeding,defense &$"& counselstated: (#( 8 ` Itwasourunderstanding...thatweweretoabidebytheportions l*%* ...[relatedto]thesituationtostayawayfromhertheOrderof R+&+ ProtectionandtheRestrainingOrders...Ididnotadvisehim...that 8,', thisorderinvolvedhimhavingtopayalimonypaymentsaspartofhis -n(- pleaagreementonthiscriminalcharge..T).` `  8 ` .../ +0` `  8 ` When[theADA]andIwerenegotiatingthis...[theADA]was 1,2 interested...concerningtheRestrainingOrdersand...keeping[the 2-3 parties]separated...thatswhatweunderstood[tobe]thegistofit h3.4 ...Iwasprettymuchflabbergastedbywhatwasbeingbroughtupin N4/5 theCourt.Ihadnoideathat[thealimonyorder]wouldberelevant.4506` `  DefensecounselalsomadesimilarstatementsatboththeAugustandSeptember 7P28 proceedings. 84: Ї ` Similarly,thetrialcourtstatedattheMay1998proceeding:  8 ` [Defendant]maynothaveunderstoodthathehadthat[obligation]. | Okay....Youknowthisiskindofmaybeatoughsituationfor b [defendant]becauseyoustartcrisscrossingadivorcecasewitha H criminalcaselikethis,anditcanbeprettydifficultandcausesome . ~ problems.Ithasinhiscase. d` `  AttheAugust1998proceedingthetrialcourtstated:  0 8 ` Thisissomethingunusualabroadstatementsayingthatmy    probationisbasedupon[defendant]followingsomerulesofsome   otherCourt....TheChanceryCourthasgottheirbusiness,and x  wevegotourbusiness....Heresomebodygotthisthinginhere ^  abouttheChanceryCourtand...everybodyagreedtoit,andthats D  thewayitwentdown.*z ` `  ThetrialcourtsfrustrationisparticularlyapparentinitsstatementattheSeptember F 1998sentencing:  8 ` Illbehonestwithyou...ifIhadthoughtmore,Iprobablywould  neverhaveapprovedthisinthefirstplace....(Emphasisadded.)t` `  Infact,thetrialcourtinsentencingdefendantaftertherevocationdeclinedto @ imposethissamerequirementasaconditionofprobation.  \  ` Thatisnottosaythatacriminalcourtcannotmakecompliancewithanother  courtsordersaconditionofprobation.However,incaseswherecivildivorce p!  mattersandcriminalmattersbecomeentwined,wesuggestitisfarpreferablethat <#" thecivilcourtbegivenanopportunitytoadjudicateitsowncontemptmattersbefore %X $ thecriminalcourtusesviolationofthecivilcourtorderasabasisforprobation &$"& revocation.SeegenerallyDominicJudeAmari,supra. (#(  ` Wesharethefrustrationofthetrialjudgewhofoundhimselfconducting 8,', severalproceedingsrelatingtothenonpaymentofalimonyasorderedbythe .T). ChanceryCourt.Theunderlyingchargesincriminalcourtwereaggravatedcriminal / +0 trespassandassault.Wealsounderstandthefrustrationofthevictimwhowas 1,2 unabletoreceivethealimonyasorderedbytheChanceryCourt.Nevertheless,it h3.4 doesnotappeartobeintheinterestofjusticetoputadefendant underthegun 4506 ofthecriminalcourttoadjudicateanyandallissuesrelatingtocivillitigationin 7P28 anothercourt.Attheveryleast,thecriminalcourt,underthesecircumstances,has 84: discretionastowhethertoproceedwitharevocationhearingpriortoan  adjudicationbythecivilcourt.However,sinceallprobationersarerequiredtoabide | bythelaw,afindingofcriminalcontemptbythecivilcourtcancertainlybeusedas H abasisforrevocation.  d @& V.CONCLUSION  x   ` Basedupontheforegoing,we REVERSE theprobationrevocationand ` terminationofjudicialdiversionand REMAND forfurtherproceedings. , /(#____________________________ (  `     h      p JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE    CONCUR: <#"  ____________________________  ' #' DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE (#(  ____________________________  -n(- THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE