WPC #6Te%FFgS3u~S DuyN%ԿHsJuxt:}[/ _GgzZ,WMXLś] i{ *g:g?~-!BǴQ9^"ZUy9zebW2LB Yj4I +BG6?XSlIl6WS\ڧC+;[xP5岉>2z+B̿5E;6!61D(l^eR"̷{9ǗxGeE9{v"L B+'rtv!j:\ ({Ώ5. 403q'4= %yU4޳,A@ێb$Rh=ҫ)w%+%g8|'C]C#*b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #  _ %NEb 0 B 0 D3i D- 0K ASg 0- 0D AL1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularh_B0:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2<$ !.8dd8         0    d(|37,$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|37,$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _   8GXXdd8@hh/INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE#/ #Ԉ #    @  @` XGX #XXG#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.RONALDHAMILTON,SR.XGX  / @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty  ) @@No.2001B956CherylA.Blackburn,Judge   @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.M200300814CCAR3COFiledOctober12,_2004_ z  AV) ` dE<M` A N     TheDefendant,RonC.Hamilton,Sr.,appealsfromthetrialcourtsorderdenyingtheDefendants F  motiontoalteroramendjudgment.TheStatefiledamotiontoaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt /  bymemorandumopinionpursuanttoRule20,RulesoftheTennesseeCourtofCriminalAppeals. h WegranttheStatesmotionandaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. Q  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtAffirmedPursuant # toRule20,Tenn.Ct._Crim_.App.R.      #XGY#XGX.DavidH.Welles,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJerryL.SmithandThomasT.  _Woodall_,JJ.,joined. y RonaldHamilton,Sr.,ProSe. K PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;BradenH._Boucek_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; m VictorS.Johnson,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andRogerMoore,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral, V fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. ? 5@@OO& MEMORANDUMOPINION #XXGd#XGX      #XXG+ #XGX   `     h       OnNovember1,2001,theDefendantpleadedguiltytoandwasconvictedofpossessionof }## MDMA,aScheduleIcontrolledsubstance,withintenttosell,samebeingaClassBfelony. f$$ Pursuanttothepleaagreement,additionalchargesweredismissedandtheDefendantwassentenced O% % asaRangeIstandardoffendertonineyearsintheDepartmentofCorrection.Thepleaagreement 8&!& alsoprovidedthattheStaterecommendedthattheDepartmentofCorrectionplacetheDefendant !'q"' intheSpecialAlternativeIncarcerationUnit,commonlyknownas BootCamp.  (Z#(   OnNovember13,2002,thetrialcourtreceivedaletterfromtheDefendant,postmarked ),%* November8,2002.Inthisletter,theDefendantinquiredaboutthestatusofa legalmotionRule *&+ 35,whichhestatesthathemailedinFebruary,2002.TheletterstatesthattheDepartmentof +&, CorrectionhaddeterminedthattheDefendantwasmedicallyineligibleforbootcampandheasked ,'- theCourtto helpmetakecareofthismatter.Theletterhadattachedtoitacopyofa motionfor -(. _reductionormodificationofsentencewhichappearstohavebeensworntobytheDefendanton  February20,2002.NotedonthepetitionisanindicationthatitwasmailedFebruary21,2002.This  petitionrequeststhattheCourtreducehissentencebecausetheDepartmentofCorrectionwouldnot  allowhiminthebootcampprogramdueto pastmedicalinjurys(sic). k   Inresponsetothisletter,thetrialcourtenteredanorderonDecember19,2002inwhichshe =  pointedoutthattheBootCamprecommendationwasonlyarecommendationtotheDepartmentof & v CorrectionandthatthefinaldecisionconcerningtherecommendationwasuptotheDepartmentof  _ Correction.Thetrialcourtalsonotedthatthecourthadnorecordofeverreceivingthemotionfor  H reductionormodificationofthesentence,butthatthedateofthedocumentclearlyindicatedthat  1  itwasfiledmorethan120daysfromthedatethesentencewasimposed.TheCourtthereforeruled    thatthemotionwasfiledafterthetimelimitationforcorrectingorreducingasentencepursuantto   Rule35oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure.     OnJanuary24,2003,theDefendantfileda motiontoalteroramendjudgment.The n  DefendantaskedtheCourttoreconsideritspreviousorderandrequestedthatthetrialcourtmodify W  oramendtheoriginalsentencingorderanddirectthattheDefendantbeplacedintheSpecial @ AlternativeIncarcerationUnitwithintheDepartmentofCorrection.Inresponsetothismotion,the )y trialcourtenteredanorderinwhichitstateditchosenottoaddresstheargumentsconcerningthe b timelinessoftheRule35motionbecauseevenifthemotionwastimelyfiled,itlackedmerit.The K CourtconcludedthatitdidnothavetheauthoritytoordertheDepartmentofCorrectiontoplacethe 4 Defendantintoitsbootcampprogramandthatitcouldonlymakerecommendationsthatthe  Defendantbeconsideredfortheprogram.TheCourtalsopointedoutthattheDepartmentof  CorrectionhadtheauthoritytodeterminetheDefendantssuitabilityorfitnessfortheprogram.The  trialcourtthereforedeniedtheDefendantsmotiontoalteroramendthejudgment.Itisfromthis  orderthattheDefendanthasappealed. q   Baseduponourreviewoftherecordinthiscase,weconcludethatthetrialcourtproperly C determinedthatitdidnothavetheauthoritytogranttheDefendantthereliefwhichhesoughtinhis ,| petition.Rule35oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedureauthorizesatrialcourttoreduce e asentenceuponanapplicationfiledwithin120daysafterthesentenceisimposed.Itspecifically N providesthatnoextensionshallbeallowedonthetimelimitation.Asnotedbythetrialcourt,even  7 assumingthemotionwasoriginallyfiledonFebruary20,2002,thedateitwassigned,itwas !   untimely.WehavealsodeterminedthatthetrialcourtwascorrectinitsconclusionthattheCourt " ! waswithoutauthoritytoordertheDepartmentofCorrectiontoplacetheDefendantinitsbootcamp #" program. $#   WethereforegranttheStatesmotionandaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtpursuantto ]&!% TennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealsRule20. F'"&    `     h      `     h      +#'+ Ї   `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE