ÿWPCÀ, …U .V %„bŠ 0JŽØn­è• 0 (U:Åw@ÿ4? 0TS 0™§ 0D@ U:„ 0^¾ 0h 0r„ 0|ö 0†r 0ø 1uˆ 0dý U *a B‹B)¨DCÑ AMaz D3‚fµÉ 0@äx$fœèåêÏa_PÀ f# 0Tv#v~Ê#vÓH% AO+Æj+ 0D0, D/t, B£,<þ6X9`(CourierX ù2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô3|x¤«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular ' î(D)*ÕqDrDstÕ˜.e™Ó€Úƒç"x2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(I(2´$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X˜ XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òAugust€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó""""'ÿÿdxd \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ¿Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€warrant€does€not€appear€in€the€record.€€We€are€able€to€glean€fromÏthe€record,€however,€some€basic€facts€such€as€that€the€warrant€was€issued€inÏ1991,€the€basis€for€the€warrant,€and€that€Worley€"pleaded€guilty"€in€1996€to€theÏviolation€alleged€therein.€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò nÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝService€of€the€1991€warrant€may€be€inferred€from€the€comments€andÏtestimony€of€record€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€although€that€warrant€does€notÏappear€in€the€technical€record.Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ÞÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝBoth€the€appellant€and€the€state€incorrectly€argue€that€Code€sections€40„35„310€and€40„35„311€contain€the€controlling€statute€of€limitations.€€ThoseÏsections€deal€with€the€procedure€for€probation€revocation€proceedings,€notÏCommunity€Corrections€revocation€proceedings.€€Although€revocationÏproceedings€for€probation€and€Community€Corrections€sentences€areÏsubstantially€similar,€òòseeóó€òòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,€there€are€distinctions€in€theÏtwo€forms€of€alternative€sentencing€and€the€associated€revocation€procedures.ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Michael€Richmondóó,€No.€02C01„9410„CR„00217€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏJackson,€Sept.€13,€1995)€(discussing€differences);€òòState€v.€Tony€Barrettóó,€No.Ï01C01„9511„CR„00360,€slip€op.€at€6„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€22,Ï1996)€(difference€in€revocation€procedures);€òòcompareóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„310€(1990)€and€40„35„311€(Supp.€1996)€(probation€revocation€procedure)Ïòòwithóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(4)€(Supp.€1996)€(Community€CorrectionsÏrevocation€and€resentencing€procedure).Ì ÛÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendant€may,€however,€be€deprived€of€his€right€to€a€speedy€trialÏwhere€the€defendant€is€readily€accessible€for€service€of€process€but€service€isÏnot€effected€for€an€extended€period€of€time.€€òòAllenóó,€505€S.W.2d€at€718„19.€€In€thisÏcase,€the€appellant€makes€no€such€argument.Ì †Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough,€as€noted€above€in€Section€I€of€this€opinion,€the€1991Ïrevocation€warrant€was€not€included€in€the€record€on€appeal,€the€òòfactóó€of€theÏòòissuanceóó€of€the€warrant€is€evidenced€in€the€record.€€The€trial€judge€recited€fromÏrecords€of€the€trial€court,€without€objection,€and€judicially€noticed€not€only€theÏissuance€of€the€1991€warrant€but€also€the€defendantððs€recent€guilty€plea€to€thatÏwarrant.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Woodallóó,€729€S.W.2d€91,€94€(Tenn.€1987)€(an€arrestÏwarrant€contained€in€a€court€record€is€an€official€judicial€record€of€proceedingsÏin€that€case).€€Moreover,€the€defendant€in€her€brief€before€this€court€concedesÏthe€1991€issuance€of€the€first€revocation€warrant.Ì WÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€reflects€Worley€was€convicted€upon€her€guilty€pleas.€€As€partÏof€the€plea€agreements,€she€very€well€may€have€agreed€to€the€sentencesÏimposed.Ì FÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€in€passing€that€the€defendant€was€entitled€to€sentence€credit€forÏthe€ð ðtime€actually€served€in€any€community„based€alternative€to€incarceration.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(e)(4)€(Supp.€1996).€€By€the€trial€courtððs€order,€theÏdefendant€receives€the€benefit€of€this€credit€in€the€amount€of€353€days,€to€beÏapplied€to€her€Range€I€(30%)€service€of€her€three„year€sentence.Ì \Ñ\R3Ø'\Ñ(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€!ÔÑ7€ ˜  XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßR€%&$A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌó óÌà@ àMAY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à€à àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9608„CR„00322Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSullivan€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òBRENDA€FAYE€WORLEY,ó óà àà à)à àHonorable€Frank€L.€Slaughter,Ïà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudgeÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Community€Corrections€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRevocation)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌSTEPHEN€M.€WALLACEà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌLESLIE€S.€HALEà àà àà àà àà àMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€839à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌBlountville,€TN€€37617à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌÌà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àH.€GREELEY€WELLS,€JR.Ìà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àTERESA€M.€SMITHÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€526Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€€37617ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÑ€+ÑÇÑ7€ÒXXdð XXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑØØÓÓÑ7€ ˜  XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌà àà àThe€appellant,€Brenda€Faye€Worley,€appeals€the€Sullivan€CountyÏCriminal€Court's€revocation€of€her€Community€Corrections€sentence€and€orderÏthat€she€serve€her€original€three€year€effective€sentence€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€for€convictions€of€possession€of€cocaine€for€resale€and€possession€ofÏdrug€paraphernalia.€€In€her€appeal€to€this€court,€the€appellant€contends€theÏlower€court€abused€its€discretion€in€revoking€her€non„incarcerative€sentenceÏbecause€(1)€she€was€not€provided€with€written€notice€of€the€conduct€that€wasÏused€as€a€basis€for€the€violation€finding,€(2)€the€court€had€no€jurisdiction€overÏher€because€the€term€of€her€original€sentence€had€expired,€and€(3)€imposition€ofÏthe€original€sentence€was€not€warranted.€€We€fail€to€find€merit€in€the€appellant'sÏissues€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€lower€court.ÌÌà àà àIn€1990,€Worley€pleaded€guilty€to€possession€of€cocaine€with€intentÏto€sell€and€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia.€€She€received€3€year€CommunityÏCorrection€and€11€month,€29€day€local€jail€sentences,€respectively,€to€be€servedÏconcurrently.€€Although€we€have€not€been€favored€with€the€CommunityÏCorrections€contract,€we€are€able€to€discern€from€the€record€that€the€terms€of€thisÏsentence€included€that€she€was€to€perform€community€service,€be€under€houseÏarrest€at€a€designated€residence,€and€participate€in€counseling,€adult€education,ÏNarcotics€Anonymous,€Alcoholics€Anonymous€and€a€rehabilitation€program.ÌÌà àà àA€warrant€was€apparently€issued€for€Worley€in€1991,€whichÍalleged€she€had€violated€the€terms€of€her€sentence€by€moving€from€herÏresidence€without€permission.× ƒ, ××  ×€€A€second€warrant€was€issued€in€1995,Ïaccompanied€by€an€affidavit€which€alleged€Worley€moved€out€of€the€residenceÏin€which€she€was€under€house€arrest€in€March€1991,€had€not€been€heard€fromÏsince€that€time,€and€was€on€"absconder€status"€with€the€Community€CorrectionsÏprogram.€€Worley€was€served€with€these€warrants,× ƒ. ××  ×€and€a€revocation€hearingÏwas€held€in€the€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Court€on€May€29,€1996.€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€hearing,€Worley,€a€32€year€old€divorced€mother€of€four,Ïadmitted€she€violated€the€terms€of€her€Community€Corrections€sentence€asÏalleged€in€the€warrants.€€She€testified€she€moved€from€the€residence€where€sheÏwas€under€house€arrest€because€drugs€were€available€to€her€there€and€she€didÏnot€get€along€well€with€one€of€the€other€residents,€although€she€had€beenÏdenied€permission€to€move€by€Community€Corrections€officials€because€sheÏhad€nowhere€else€to€live€where€a€telephone€was€available.€€Worley€presentedÏthree€unsworn€letters€of€reference€from€former€employers,€which€uniformlyÏattested€that€she€was€a€good,€reliable€worker.€€She€testified€she€has€been€livingÏwith€the€father€of€two€of€her€four€children,€as€well€as€the€children€of€that€union.€ÍHer€two€older€children€live€with€her€during€the€summer€months.€€She€and€theÏfather€of€the€two€younger€children€are€both€employed€and€doing€their€best€toÏraise€their€family€and€be€productive€members€of€society€without€reliance€onÏgovernmental€assistance€programs.€€She€testified€she€no€longer€uses€drugsÏand€volunteered€to€take€a€drug€test.€€She€also€alleged€she€attempted€to€notifyÏthe€"probation€office"€of€her€whereabouts,€but€she€did€not€remember€the€name€ofÏthe€person€she€talked€with€or€the€date€on€which€she€called.€€She€testified€sheÏeventually€turned€herself€in€€because,€"I€wanted€to,€you€know,€to€get€it€over€withÏso€I€could€go€on€and€raise€my€kids.€€I€know€I€made€a€mistake,€but,€you€know,€I'veÏtried€to€correct€it."ÌÌà àà àScott€Fields,€Worley's€boyfriend,€Elizabeth€Sexton,€Worley'sÏcousin€and€former€roommate,€and€Martha€Fields,€Worley's€boyfriend's€mother,Ïtestified€as€character€witnesses€€for€Worley.ÌÌà àà àThe€state€presented€no€witnesses.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€court€found€Worley€violatedÏthe€terms€of€her€Community€Corrections€sentence€as€alleged€in€the€1991€andÏ1995€warrants.€€Further,€it€found€a€program€had€been€developed€for€herÏwhereby€she€was€to€rehabilitate€herself€through€outpatient€alcohol€and€drugÏcounseling,€participation€in€Narcotics€Anonymous,€Alcoholics€Anonymous,Ïrehabilitation€services€through€the€Department€of€Human€Services,€groupÍcounseling€at€the€Hay€House,€and€adult€education€services.€€The€court€foundÏthe€uncontroverted€evidence€to€be€that€the€appellant€failed€to€avail€herself€ofÏany€of€these€services€after€March€1991.€€The€court€was€troubled€that€the€realÏvictims€of€an€incarcerative€sentence€would€be€Worley's€young€children,€whoÏwould€be€subject€to€supervision€by€the€Department€of€Human€Services,€yet€"theÏmere€fact€that€a€person€is€a€father€or€a€mother€does€not€permit€one€to€violate€theÏlaw€and€to€walk€away€and€say€you€can't€do€anything€to€me€because€I'm€aÏmother."€€The€court€found€the€trial€judge€had€afforded€Worley€some€measure€ofÏmercy€in€imposing€her€original€sentences,€and€"good€order€and€discipline"Ïcompelled€that€she€"pay€the€price€for€her€crimes."€€Upon€finding€two€unspecifiedÏenhancement€factors€and€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€revoked€Worley'sÏCommunity€Corrections€sentence€and€ordered€her€to€serve€three€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction.ÌÌà àà àIn€a€revocation€proceeding,€the€state€has€the€burden€of€proving€theÏviolation€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,Ï82€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€trial€court€is€entitled€to€exercise€its€discretion€to€revoke€aÏCommunity€Corrections€sentence€upon€a€finding€that€the€defendant€has€violatedÏthe€conditions€of€the€sentence.€€òòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€82.€€Before€the€trial€courtÏmay€revoke€the€Community€Corrections€sentence,€the€record€must€containÏsufficient€evidence€to€permit€the€court€to€make€an€intelligent€and€conscientiousÏdecision.€€òòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€82.€€€Upon€revocation,€the€court€may€order€theÏdefendant€to€serve€her€sentence€in€confinement.€€òòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€82.€ÍThe€new€sentence€€may€be€for€a€longer€term€than€the€original€sentence.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(e)(4)€(Supp.€1996).€€On€appeal,€the€trial€court's€orderÏrevoking€a€Community€Corrections€sentence€is€subject€to€reversal€only€upon€aÏshowing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€82.€€In€order€for€anÏabuse€of€discretion€to€occur,€the€reviewing€court€must€find€that€the€recordÏcontains€no€substantial€evidence€sufficient€to€support€the€conclusion€of€the€trialÏjudge€that€the€violation€of€the€terms€of€the€sentence€has€occurred.€€òòHarkinsóó,€811ÏS.W.2d€at€82.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€appellant€admitted€violating€the€terms€of€herÏsentence,€yet€she€contends€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€revoking€herÏsentence€for€several€reasons.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àIn€her€first€allegation€of€error,€Worley€alleges€she€was€denied€dueÏprocess€because€she€was€not€provided€with€written€notice€of€the€allegations€thatÏformed€the€basis€for€the€finding€she€violated€the€terms€of€her€sentence.€€As€aÏresult,€she€contends€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€basing€its€revocationÏof€her€sentence€in€part€on€findings€of€which€she€received€no€advance€writtenÏnotice.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€state€contends€the€court€relied€primarily€onÏWorley's€admission€she€moved€without€permission,€which€Worley€does€notÏdeny€was€alleged€in€the€revocation€warrants,€and€this€alone€is€substantialÏevidence€to€support€the€revocation.€ÌÌà àà àClearly,€a€defendant€in€a€Community€Corrections€revocationÏproceeding€has€a€right€to€written€notice€of€the€allegations€which€form€the€basisÏfor€the€proposed€revocation€of€her€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411ÏU.S.€778,€786,€93€S.Ct.€1756,€1761„62€(1973);€òòState€v.€Wadeóó,€863€S.W.2d€406,Ï408€(Tenn.€1993).€€Failure€to€provide€such€notice€offends€due€process.€€òòGagnonóó,Ï411€U.S.€at€786,€93€S.€Ct.€at€1761„62;€òòWadeóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€408.€€However,€inÏorder€for€a€defendant€to€obtain€relief€on€appeal€based€on€a€due€processÏviolation€of€this€type,€the€record€must€demonstrate€there€is€no€substantialÏevidence€to€support€the€revocation€based€solely€upon€the€ground(s)€alleged€inÏthe€written€notice€and€substantiated€in€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,ÏòòState€v.€Kenneth€W.€Martinóó,€No.€01C01„9511„CR„00397€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€Oct.€24,€1996)€(probation€revocation).ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€Worley€admitted€she€violated€the€term€of€her€sentenceÏas€alleged€in€the€warrants.€€The€lower€court€found€she€moved€out€of€theÏresidence€where€she€was€under€house€arrest€and€made€no€effort€to€notifyÏproper€authorities€of€her€whereabouts€for€several€years.€€The€lower€court€alsoÏmade€findings€with€respect€to€Worley's€additional€failings€in€complying€with€herÏsentence.€€With€respect€to€the€latter€findings,€Worley€alleges€she€had€no€notice.ÏHowever,€Worley's€unauthorized€move€and€failure€to€report€alone€is€substantialÏevidence€supporting€the€trial€court's€revocation€of€her€Community€CorrectionsÏsentence.€€Worley€committed€a€serious€infraction,€and€she€made€no€effort€for€anÍextended€period€of€time€to€notify€the€authorities€of€her€whereabouts€so€sheÏcould€serve€her€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€basing€revocation€on€the€misconduct€admitted€byÏthe€defendant.ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€we€have€no€way€of€knowing€what€the€allegationsÏwere€in€the€1991€warrant,€save€what€we€are€able€to€glean€from€the€record.€€AsÏpointed€out€above,€the€1991€revocation€warrant€was€not€included€in€the€record.€€Ñ€/ÑÇà àà àIt€is€the€appellantððs€duty€to€ensure€that€the€record€on€appealÏcontains€all€of€the€evidence€relevant€to€those€issues€which€are€the€bases€ofÏappeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874€S.W.2€73,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993);€òòState€v.€Deborah€Gladishóó,€No.€02C01„9404„CC„00070€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Jackson,€November€21,€1995),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(May€6,€1996).€€In€theÏabsence€of€such€a€record,€the€affected€issues€are€waived.€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€€ð ðIn€the€absence€of€an€adequateÏrecord€on€appeal,€this€court€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€wereÏsupported€by€sufficient€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óóÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àIn€her€second€argument,€Worley€contends€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€revoking€her€Community€Corrections€sentence€and€ordering€her€toÏserve€her€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction€because€the€court€wasÏwithout€jurisdiction€over€her.€€She€asserts€the€second€revocation€warrant€wasÏnot€issued€until€after€her€sentence€had€expired,€contrary€to€Code€section€40„35„310€and€„311.€€The€state€counters€that€the€revocation€action€was€timely€whenÏinitiated€in€1991€with€the€issuance€of€the€first€warrant,€which€tolled€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.€ÌÌà àà àThe€Community€Corrections€statute€empowers€the€trial€court€"toÏrevoke€the€sentence€imposed€òòat€any€timeóó€due€to€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€orÏthe€termination€or€modification€of€the€program€to€which€the€defendant€has€beenÍsentenced."× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(e)(4)€(Supp.€1996)€(emphasisÏadded).€€The€phrase€"at€any€time"€is€not€further€defined€in€the€statute,€althoughÏby€its€plain€meaning€in€this€context,€it€is€clear€the€phrase€means€"at€any€time"Ïduring€the€term€of€the€defendant's€court„imposed€Community€CorrectionsÏsentence.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€relevant€inquiry€then€becomes€whether€the€court€hasÏjurisdiction€over€the€defendant€when€a€revocation€proceeding€is€initiated€duringÏthe€term€of€the€defendant's€sentence€but€the€defendant€does€not€come€beforeÏthe€court€until€after€the€expiration€of€her€sentence.€€It€appears€this€is€an€issue€ofÏfirst€impression€with€respect€to€Community€Corrections€sentences,€although€theÏissue€has€been€addressed€in€the€context€of€probation€sentences.€€In€the€latterÏcontext,€this€court€has€held€that€the€issuance€of€a€probation€revocation€warrantÏtolls€the€statute€of€limitations€contained€in€the€probation€statute,€and€the€trialÏcourt€is€not€deprived€of€jurisdiction€to€complete€revocation€proceedings€outsideÍthe€limitations€period.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€òòAllen€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€715€(Tenn.€1974).€€Likewise,Ïwhere€a€probation€revocation€warrant€is€issued€within€the€limitations€period€butÏis€not€served€due€to€the€defendant's€unknown€whereabouts,€and€a€secondÏwarrant€is€thereafter€issued€outside€the€limitations€period€and€served€on€theÏdefendant,€the€court€is€not€deprived€of€jurisdiction€to€find€a€violation€and€revokeÏthe€defendant's€non„incarcerative€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Rodney€M.€Adamsóó,€No.Ï222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Dec.€13,€1990).ÌÌà àà àWe€believe€the€logic€of€òòAllenóó€and€òòAdamsóó€is€equally€applicable€toÏthe€case€at€bar.€€When€the€1991€Community€Corrections€revocation€warrant€wasÏissued,€this€tolled€the€running€of€the€limitations€period.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€Worley,€due€to€her€ownÏmisdeed€in€absconding€from€supervision,€was€not€served€with€this€warrantÏwithin€the€limitations€period.€€Although€the€record€is€not€clear,€she€wasÏeventually€served€with€both€warrants€after€the€term€of€her€sentence€had€expired.ÍThe€revocation€proceedings€followed.€€On€these€facts,€we€hold€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€was€tolled€during€Worley's€voluntary€absence€from€CommunityÏCorrections€supervision€once€the€first€revocation€warrant€was€issued.€€It€wouldÏbe€a€miscarriage€of€justice€to€allow€a€defendant€to€live€a€life€"on€the€lam"Ïfollowing€the€imposition€of€a€non„incarcerative€sentence€and€later€avoid€theÏconsequences€of€her€failure€to€comply€with€the€terms€of€her€original€sentenceÏbecause€she€successfully€evaded€authorities€during€the€term€of€the€sentence.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€trial€court€had€jurisdiction€over€the€appellant.€€ItÏdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€exercising€that€jurisdiction.ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àà àIn€her€third€issue,€the€appellant€claims€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€sentencing€her€to€serve€her€original€term€of€incarceration,€threeÏyears€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€She€bases€her€argument€on€the€trialÏcourt's€failure€to€find€mitigating€factors€which€should€have€been€considered€inÏdetermining€her€sentence.€€The€state€concedes€the€trial€court€did€not€considerÏmitigating€factors€but€claims€it€is€harmless€error.ÌÌà àà àAs€we€noted€above,€a€trial€court€may€revoke€a€communityÏcorrections€sentence€and€resentence€the€defendant€to€incarceration€for€anyÏperiod€of€time€up€to€the€maximum€sentence€provided€for€the€offense.€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(e)(4)€(Supp.€1996).€€The€new€sentence€may€exceed€theÍlength€of€the€original€sentence.€òòState€v.€Griffithóó,€787€S.W.2d€340,€341„42€(Tenn.Ï1990).€€However,€when€the€trial€court€resentences€the€defendant€to€a€sentenceÏthat€exceeds€the€length€of€the€original€sentence,€the€trial€court€must€conduct€aÏsentencing€hearing€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€ActÏof€1989.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„209(a);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Jimmy€C.€Rayóó,ÏNo.€01C01„9501„CR„00022,€slip€op.€at€5„6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€4,Ï1995).€€The€sentence€imposed€must€conform€to€the€provisions€of€the€Act.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(a)„(e)€(Supp.€1996);€òòseeóó€òòJimmy€C.€Rayóó,€slip€op€at€6.€ÏFurthermore,€the€trial€court€must€state€on€the€record€its€reasons€for€imposing€aÏnew€sentence€and€must€make€specific€findings€of€fact€upon€which€application€ofÏthe€sentencing€principles€was€based.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„209(c),Ï40„35„210(f)„(g)€(Supp.€1996);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€James€Austin€Pattersonóó,€No.Ï02C01„9308„CC„00174,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€May€25,Ï1994);€òòsee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Ervinóó,€939€S.W.2d€581€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),Ïòòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1997).ÌÌà àà àThe€court€here€chose€not€to€impose€a€more€lengthy€sentence,€so€Ïstrict€compliance€with€statutory€resentencing€procedure€was€not€necessary.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòErvinóó,€939€S.W.2d€at€583.€€Moreover,€we€must€presume€the€appellant€wasÏalready€afforded€the€formalities€of€that€process€when€she€received€her€originalÏsentence.€€If€she€had€a€grievance€with€her€sentence€or€any€deficiency€in€thatÍprocess,€she€had€the€right€of€appeal€at€that€time.× ƒ3 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àFor€at€least€four€years,€Worley,€through€her€own€actions€andÏinactions,€eluded€justice.€€Although€she€presented€evidence€she€was€otherwiseÏliving€a€lawful,€productive€life€during€her€period€of€abscondence,€the€factÏremains€that€she€unilaterally€moved€out€of€the€home€where€she€was€underÏhouse€arrest€after€being€denied€permission€to€do€so€and€evaded€supervision€forÏan€extended€period€of€time.€€€We€cannot€say€the€trial€court€committed€an€abuseÏof€that€discretion€in€ordering€the€appellant€to€serve€the€term€of€her€originalÏsentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€While€we€commend€the€appellant'sÏactions€in€reforming€her€ways€and€admitting€her€mistakes,€and€we€likewise€noteÏthat€the€trial€court's€result€may€impose€significant€hardship€on€the€appellant€andÏher€family,× ƒ4 ××  ×€we€are€not€allowed€to€disturb€the€lower€court's€action€simplyÏbecause€we€might€prefer€a€different€result.€ÌÌà àà àThus,€we€find€no€reversible€error.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÑ€5ÑÇØØÙ  ÙØ Ø