State v. Hudson

9 Citing cases

  1. Ray v. Madison Cnty.

    536 S.W.3d 824 (Tenn. 2017)   Cited 32 times
    Recognizing that, under state sentencing law "trial judges have broad discretion when fashioning sentences" and are required to use "a case-by-case approach to sentencing"

    However, even if a trial court orders 100% service of a split confinement sentence—which would effectively preclude a defendant from earning work credits—the 100% requirement does not preclude inmates from earning good time credits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-2-111(b). See State v. Hudson, No. E2001-00377-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 264625, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2002) (explaining that section 41-2-111(b) entitles defendants sentenced to county jails for less than one year to good conduct credits and citing earlier cases applying this same proposition), perm. app. denied (Tenn. July 1, 2002). We also conclude that recognizing a trial court's implicit authority to fix a percentage of actual confinement that a felony split confinement defendant must serve before participating in work programs does not conflict with other statutory provisions related to work credits.

  2. State v. Green

    No. E2020-00968-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2021)   Cited 3 times

    This Court has repeatedly stated, "Where a period of confinement is imposed, an order of day-for-day service is impermissible because a trial court cannot deny a defendant the statutory right to earn good conduct credits or authorized work credits where the defendant receives a sentence of split confinement and becomes a county jail inmate. See State v. Jeannie Hudson, No. E2001-00377-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 264625, at *4-5 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Feb. 19, 2002), perm. app. denied (Tenn. July 1, 2002). Importantly, in this case, the Defendant's judgment of conviction in Count 2 does not include that he serve his sentence "day for day."

  3. State v. Oxendine

    No. M2019-00288-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 12, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    A sentence of split confinement is listed as a sentencing alternative in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-104(4). State v. Jeannie Hudson, No. E2001-00377-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 264625, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2002), perm. app. denied (Tenn. July 1, 2002). Split confinement is a sentence involving incarceration under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-102(5).

  4. State v. Leininger

    No. M2017-02020-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 18, 2019)

    " Id. The court further explained that a court may "fix the actual confinement percentage at 100%, if doing so is consistent with the principles of the Sentencing Act" and that "even if a trial court orders 100% service of a split confinement sentence - which would effectively preclude a defendant from earning work credits - the 100% requirement does not preclude inmates from earning good time credits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-1-111(b)." Id. at 838-39; see also State v. Jeannie Hudson, No. E2001-00377-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 264625, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2002) (explaining that Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-2-111(b) entitles defendants sentenced to county jails for less than one year to good conduct credits and citing earlier cases applying this same proposition). Thus, a trial court may fix a percentage of a felony split confinement that a defendant must serve prior to being eligible to earn work credits; however, it may not prevent a defendant from earning good behavior credits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-2-111(b).

  5. State v. Hixson

    No. M2002-03141-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 7, 2004)   Cited 1 times

    Where a period of confinement is imposed, an order of day-for-day service is impermissible because a trial court cannot deny a defendant the statutory right to earn good conduct credits or authorized work credits where the defendant receives a sentence of split confinement and becomes a county jail inmate. See State v. Jeannie Hudson, No. E2001-00377-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 264625, at **4-5 (Tenn.Crim.App., Knoxville, Feb. 19, 2002). In the Mattingly case, this Court found the sentence to be illegal and void, reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the matter for further proceedings.

  6. State v. Goodrum

    No. W2001-02979-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 5, 2004)

    Jonathan Thornton v. State, No. E2003-00393-CCA-R8-PC, 2003 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 239 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Mar. 17, 2003) no perm. to appeal filed; State v. Jeannie Hudson, No. E2001-00377-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Feb. 19, 2002), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 2002). If the sentence is one of split-confinement, with probation supervised by Community Corrections after a period of incarceration, likewise, the incarceration cannot exceed thirty percent of the total sentence of two years.

  7. State v. Mattingly

    No. M2002-02765-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Sep. 2, 2003)   Cited 8 times

    SeeState v. Alicia Tharpe, No. M2002-00992-CCA-MR3-CD, 2003 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 306, at *9 (Tenn.Crim.App. Apr. 4, 2003, at Nashville), perm. to app. pending; State v. Jeannie Hudson, No. E2001-00377- CCA-R3-CD, 2002 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 248, at **11-12 (Tenn.Crim.App. Feb. 19, 2002, at Knoxville), perm. to app. denied (Tenn.

  8. State v. Peery

    No. E2002-01682-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jun. 13, 2003)   Cited 5 times
    In State v. George C. Peery, III, No. E2002-01682-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App., at Knoxville, June 13, 2003), this court ruled that "a defendant on probation receives no credit for time served" after a revocation "but a participant in the community corrections program does."

    This Court has previously determined that the period of confinement which a defendant is ordered to serve in a split confinement cannot exceed the defendant's release eligibility date. Thornton v. State, No. E2003-00393-CCA-R8-PC, 2003 WL 1233478 (Tenn.Crim.App., Knoxville, March 17, 2003); State v. Hudson, No. E2001-00377-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 264625 (Tenn.Crim.App., Knoxville, February 19, 2002), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 2002); State v. Bradshaw, No. 01C01-9810-CR-00439, 1999 WL 737871 (Tenn.Crim.App., Knoxville, Sept. 22, 1999).

  9. State v. Finchum

    No. E2001-01072-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 2, 2002)   Cited 2 times

    We agree. In State v. Jeannie Hudson, No. E2001-00377-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 248 (Tenn.Crim.App., Knoxville, Feb. 19, 2002), our court stated as follows: In two recent cases, this Court has stated that a "defendant sentenced to the county jail for less than one year is entitled to earn good conduct credits."