WPC # VUNa % 0(bw@4% 9 0lH 0D  0J 0TJ 0^ 0h 0rd 0| 0R 0 1uh 0d U>AU *B)DC B AM2  D3}m; 0@v~vf AO9 0DN D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($- -  !"D#$E%&E'(Ӏԡ  E"|x1((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 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)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd d-&C << G  !  #d##  $$   YYY FILED$XMay30,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  '''''dxd s !#d##   $       $$Aspartoftheagreement,theDefendantspetitiontoenterhisguiltypleasstated, allother0 presentlypendingchargesagainstDefendantaretobedismissed.Wecannotdeterminefromtherecordhowmanyotherchargeswerepending,althoughwedonotethattheDefendantspetitiontosuspendthebalanceofhissentencestatedthattheDefendantadmittedthathecommitted anumberofburglariesin1994. c !#d##   $       $$ԀWenotethatthisissueisdistinctfromamotiontoreducesentencepursuanttoRule35(b)ofthe0 TennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure.TheAdvisoryCommissioncommentstoRule35makeitclearthatitdoesnotalterthestatutoryauthorityoftrialcourtstomodifythesentencesofindividualssentencedtolocaljailsorworkhouses,butratheraffectsindividualssentencedtotheDepartmentofCorrection.("$    PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . #  `       \RA'\#$\RA'\7 XXdd7      R()&A1-j|`  `@R INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLENOVEMBERSESSION,1996  STATEOFTENNESSEE, ) C.C.A.NO.01C019603CR00087     )  Appellee,   )     )     ) DAVIDSONCOUNTYVS.     )      ) HON.THOMASH.SHRIVER ROBERTENLO   ) JUDGESOWELL,JR.,    )      )  Appellant.   ) (DenialofProbation)   ONAPPEALFROMTHEJUDGMENTOFTHECRIMINALCOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTY   FORTHEAPPELLANT:   FORTHEAPPELLEE:JOHNT.CONNERS,III   CHARLESW.BURSON134RiverwoodDrive   AttorneyGeneralandReporterFranklin,TN37069      EUGENEJ.HONEA      AssistantAttorneyGeneral      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493      VICTORS.JOHNSON      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      JONSEABORG      AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral      WashingtonSquare,Suite500      222SecondAve.North      Nashville,TN372011649OPINIONFILED________________________APPEALDISMISSEDDAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE   $OPINION $  ӛ ThisisanappealpursuanttoRule3oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.TheissueraisedinthisappealiswhetherthetrialjudgeerredorabusedhisdiscretionindenyingtheDefendantspetitiontosuspendthebalanceofhiseffectivesixyearsentencewithoutconductingahearingonthemeritsofthepetition.Wehavedeterminedthatthisappealshouldbedismissed. OnJanuary1,1995andMarch6,1995,pursuanttoapleaagreement,theDefendantenteredguiltypleastothreecountsofaggravatedburglaryandonecountofburglary.Hispleaagreementwasa packagedeal,inwhichtheStateagreedtodismissotherchargesagainsttheDefendant. +   כThepleaagreementprovidedthattwooftheDefendantsthreeyearsentenceswouldbeservedconsecutivelytoproduceaneffectivesentenceofsixyearstobeservedintheDavidsonCountyRegionalWorkhouse.NeithertheDefendants petitiontoenterpleaofguiltynorthejudgmentdocumentsreflectanyagreementconcerningasuspensionofanyportionofthesentences.AnorderwasenteredstatingthatasapartofthepleaagreementtheDefendanthadagreedtodrugtreatmentinaprogramcalled LifeLineDrugTreatmentprogram,andoneofthejudgmentdocumentslistedasaspecialcondition, LifeLines. OnNovember27,1995,theDefendantfiledapetitionrequestingthatthebalanceofhissentencesbesuspended.ThepetitionallegedthattheDefendanthadsuccessfullycompletedthe LifeLineDrugTreatmentprogram,andfurtherallegedthattheDefendantspleaagreement contemplatedthattheDefendantcouldpetitionforasuspensionofthebalanceofhiseffectivesixyearsentenceuponsuccessfulcompletionoftheprogram.Thetrialcourtpromptlydeniedthepetitionwithoutahearing.TheDefendantfiledapetitiontoreconsiderthedenialandattachedacopyofaletterdefensecounselhadwrittentotheassistantdistrictattorneyshortlyafterthepleaswereenteredconfirmingtheir understandingthatiftheDefendantsuccessfullycompletedtheLifeLineDrugTreatmentprogramtheStatewould bewillingtorecommendϜprobationatthehearingonhispetitionforasuspensionofthebalanceofhiseffectivesixyearsentence.Thetrialcourtpromptlydeniedthepetitiontoreconsiderwithoutahearing.ItisfromtheordersofthetrialcourtdenyingtheDefendantspetitiontosuspendthebalanceofhissentencesthattheDefendantappeals. Onappeal,theDefendantarguesthatthetrialcourt exceededitsauthorityindenyingthepetitionforasuspendedsentencewithoutconductingahearing.Intheeventthetrialcourtwasnotrequiredbylawtoconductahearingonthepetition,theDefendantarguesthatthetrialjudgeabusedhisdiscretionindenyingthepetitionwithoutahearing. ThismatterwassubmittedtothiscourtforadecisiononNovember13,1996.Duringthependencyoftheappeal,theDefendantwasreleasedonparole,failedtoreporttohisparoleofficerand,effectiveAugust7,1996,hadbeenclassifiedas abscondedfromparole.ThisCourtsubsequentlyorderedthatthisappealwouldbedismissedformootnessunlesstheDefendantcouldshowcausewhyitshouldnotbe. CounselfortheDefendantsubsequentlyfiledanaffidavitstatingthattheDefendantsparolewasrevokedinDecember,1996andtheDefendantwascurrentlyservinghissentenceintheDepartmentofCorrection.Inhisaffidavit,hisdefensecounselassertedthat,eventhoughtheissuesraisedonappealweremootinsofarastheDefendantisconcerned,therewasaroutinepracticeintheDavidsonCountyCriminalCourt,DivisionI,ofdenyingpetitionsforsuspendedsentenceswithoutahearingandthatthesecasesgenerallyevadedappellatereview.Counselassertedthatguidancewasneededontheissueofwhetherapetitionerwasentitledtoahearingonapetitionforasuspendedsentence. Thedoctrineofjusticiabilitypromptscourtstostaytheirhandincasesthatdonotinvolveagenuineandexistingcontroversyrequiringthepresentadjudicationofpresentrights.McIntyrev.Traughber,884S.W.2d134,137(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Theconceptofmootnessdealswiththecircumstancesthatrenderacasenolongerjusticiable.Id.Amootcaseisonethathaslostitscharacterasapresent,livecontroversy.Acasewillgenerallybeconsideredmootifitnolongerservesasameanstoproviderelieftotheprevailingparty.Id.Thetwomostrecognizedexceptionstothemootnessruleincludeissuesofgreatpublicinterestandimportancetotheadministrationofjusticeandissuescapableofrepetitionyetevadingreview.Id.Whethertotakeupcasesthatfitintooneoftherecognizedexceptionstothemootnessdoctrineisdiscretionarywiththeappellatecourts.Id. Inthecasesubjudice,itisobviousthatwecannotprovideanymeaningfulrelieftotheDefendantevenifwedeterminethatthetrialjudgeerredorabusedhisdiscretionindenyingtheDefendantspetitiontosuspendthebalanceofhissentence.ToorderthetrialcourttoconductanevidentiaryhearingontheDefendantspetitionforasuspendedsentence,inviewoftheDefendantssubsequentconductandcurrentstatus,wouldborderontheridiculous. CounselfortheDefendantarguesthatthisCourtshoulddecidetheissuepresentedasanexceptiontothemootnessrulebecausetheissuesarecapableofrepetitionyetevadeappellatereview.Wedonotbelievethatoursentencinglawsmandatethatatrialjudgeconductanevidentiaryhearingeachandeverytimeadefendantfilesapetitionrequestingthecourttosuspendthebalanceofasentence.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035212(c);4035314(c).WehavelocatednoTennesseecaseinvolvingthepreciseissueofwhetherapetitionformodificationofsentencepursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4035314(c)maybedeniedwithoutconductinganevidentiaryhearing. ,   ׀Thestatuteitselfprovidesonlythatthetrialjudgemaintainsjurisdictionoverthosedefendantssentencedtothelocaljailorworkhouse,givinghimorhertheauthoritytomodifysuchsentences,andthatapplicationstoreduceoralterthemannerofserviceofasentencemaybemadeatnolessthantwo(2)monthintervals.ContrarytotheDefendantsposition,wedonotbelievethelanguageofthestatuteimpliesthatahearingmustbeconductedforeveryapplication.Certainlythetrialcourtmayconductanevidentiaryhearinginappropriatecases,buttorequireahearingoneachandeveryapplicationcouldplaceanunreasonableburdenonthetrialcourt.Somediscretioniswarranted. Fromtherecordbeforeus,wecannotconcludethatthetrialjudgeerredorabusedhisdiscretionindenyingthepetitionforasuspensionoftheremainderofthesentencewithoutanevidentiaryhearing.Weareprovidedwithnofactsoftheunderlyingoffenses.WehavenoknowledgeofhowmanychargesagainsttheDefendantweredismissedaspartofthepleaagreement.WeknownothingoftheDefendantsbackground,hispotentialorlackofpotentialforϜrehabilitation,orhisinstitutionalrecord.Theorderenteredbythetrialjudgedenyingthepetitionforasuspendedsentencestatesthatthecourtconsideredthe entirerecord.The entirerecordbeforeusreflectslittlemorethanthattheDefendantenteredintoapleaagreementwhichprovidedforasixyearϜsentenceandthathecompletedadrugtreatmentprogramwhileincarcerated.̜ Becausetheissuespresentedinthisappealaremoot,thisappealisdismissed.̜      ____________________________________     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGECONCUR:___________________________________JOHNH.PEAY,JUDGE___________________________________JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE