State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Daniel Loader

Defendant, Jeremy Loader, pled guilty on July 12, 2002, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, to two counts of theft of property over $1,000, a Class D felony, and two counts of arson, a Class E felony in Case No. 02-002. In Case No. 01-146, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of burglary other than a habitation, a Class D felony. The terms of Defendant's plea agreement set the length and manner of service of Defendant's sentence as follows. In Case No. 02-002, Defendant would serve four years on each of the theft of property convictions, all suspended but nine months, and two years for each of the arson convictions, all suspended but 144 days, with Defendant placed on probation for the remainder of his sentences on each count. For Case No. 01-146, Defendant would serve four years for each arson conviction, all suspended but nine months, with Defendant placed on probation for the remainder of his sentences. The sentences in Case No. 02-002 and Case No. 01-146 would be served concurrently for an effective sentence of four years. In exchange, the State withdrew other charges against Defendant. Defendant spent nine months in jail before entering his guilty pleas because he was unable to make bond. The trial court granted Defendant's request for judicial diversion, and Defendant was placed on judicial diversion for a period of six years. Defendant's judicial diversion in both cases was revoked on April 21, 2003, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, with pretrial jail credit of nine months, in accordance with the terms of his plea agreement. Defendant does not appeal the revocation of his judicial diversion but argues that the trial court erred in ordering a sentence of confinement. Defendant contends that the terms of his plea agreement called for a sentence of split confinement, with the period of confinement already served, in the event his judicial diversion was subsequently revoked. Alternatively, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in not conducting a sentencing hearing prior to imposing Defendant's sentence. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.