Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State of Tennessee v. Jay Bean
Citation: Not availableDocket: M2009-02059-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; March 16, 2011; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Jay Bean filed a "Motion to Furlough Defendant" to enter a drug treatment program while serving his sentence for aggravated burglary, theft over $1,000, and vandalism over $1,000, to which he pled guilty under a negotiated plea agreement. The trial court denied the motion, prompting Bean to appeal. The State contended that the appeal should be dismissed as Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b) does not allow an appeal as of right in this situation. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the State and dismissed the appeal. Bean was initially sentenced to six years with split confinement, which included 180 days of incarceration and the remainder on supervised probation. He faced probation violations in 2008 and 2009, leading to a revocation of probation and a mandate to serve his original sentence. The trial court's September 9, 2009, order denying the furlough was after a hearing where Bean testified. In his appeal, Bean argued not only against the denial of the furlough but also claimed that the trial court should have imposed a community-based alternative to incarceration upon revocation of his probation. Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-316(a) indicates that under certain conditions, a trial court may grant furlough for medical, penological, rehabilitative, or humane reasons. An appeal as of right from a trial court’s order denying a defendant’s motion for a furlough is not permitted under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b). This rule specifies the types of orders eligible for appeal, including judgments of conviction, sentences without plea agreements, probation revocations, and final judgments in specific proceedings. The defendant's notice of appeal concerned the denial of a furlough from a six-year sentence, which does not fall within the categories listed in Rule 3(b). The order does not pertain to a conviction, a non-negotiated sentence, or a final judgment in the specified proceedings, nor did it reference a prior probation revocation. In the cited case of *State v. Thomas Coggins*, the court ruled similarly, stating that an appeal was not available for the denial of a motion for a new hearing on probation revocation. Even if the appeal were construed to include the July 2009 probation revocation order, the notice of appeal filed in September 2009 would be untimely since it must be filed within 30 days of the order. There is no transcript of the relevant hearing or probation violation warrant in the record, and this was the second violation of probation for the defendant. Consequently, there are no grounds to waive the timely filing requirement. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.