APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to vehicular homicide by reckless driving. Pursuant to her plea agreement, the Defendant received a four-year sentence, with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the Defendant serve her entire four-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that she should have received some form of alternative sentencing. We conclude that the record supports the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of placement in the Community Corrections Program. Denial of placement in Community Corrections Program for untruthfulness and failure to report to begin sentence of incarceration was not abuse of discretion. We affirm.

The defendant, Tommy G. Benham, was convicted of two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to eleven years on each count, to be served concurrently. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the state failed to provide notice that it would seek enhanced punishment, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202(a). The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Because I believe the majority opinion essentially reduces the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202 (a) to a superfluity, I must respectfully dissent.

The appellant was sentenced on November 24, 1997 for two convictions, theft of property valued in excess of $10,000 and forgery. Two concurrent three year sentences were imposed with incarceration for one year followed by two years of community corrections. Restitution was not ordered until the appellant's sentenced had expired, and she brings this appeal maintaining that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose restitution following the expiration of her sentence. The State concedes that the restitution order in this case was entered following the expiration of the appellant's sentence and is therefore in contravention of Tennessee Code Annotation section 40-35-304(g)(2). We agree and reverse the order of restitution entered in this case.

The defendant was convicted in 1993 of three counts of aggravated burglary, and the trial court imposed three concurrent three-year sentences. In 1995, the defendant was convicted of one count of burglary and five counts of aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed a four-year sentence for the burglary count and six-year concurrent sentences for each of the aggravated burglary counts. The defendant's latter sentences were to be served consecutively to his previous three-year sentence, with probation granted as to all sentences. Subsequently, a petition to revoke the defendant's probation was filed, alleging that the defendant had failed to report to his probation officer and failed to pay restitution as ordered. Following a hearing, the court revoked the probation, and the defendant timely appealed. On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to revoke his probation, that his due process rights were violated, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his probation revocation hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected order revoking probation only as to Docket No. 6112.