State of Tennessee v. Tory Hardison, M2015-01188-CCA-R3-CD

Tory Hardison pled guilty (Oct. 29, 2013) pursuant to a written plea agreement to multiple cocaine- and alprazolam-related offenses across two Giles County cases, resulting in a negotiated effective 20-year Range I sentence suspended to community corrections.
The plea dismissed certain counts and a school-zone enhancement; sentencing specified which counts were concurrent or consecutive to produce the 20-year total.
While on community corrections, Hardison missed required reporting, accrued $165 in supervision-fee arrearages, failed to provide updated employment/costs verification, and acquired new arrests and drug-related charges.
Evidence at the revocation hearing included community-corrections records, jail booking records, and testimony from a police investigator and a paid confidential informant who described four controlled cocaine purchases from Hardison while he was on supervision.
The trial court found both technical (failure to report/pay) and nontechnical (new sales of cocaine) violations, revoked community corrections, and ordered Hardison to serve his original sentences in confinement.
On appeal Hardison argued the judgments were illegal (clerical errors as to which counts were concurrent/consecutive, including references to a dismissed count) and challenged the revocation as an abuse of discretion; the State conceded clerical errors but defended the revocation.

Issue	Hardison's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether judgments contain clerical errors making them illegal and requiring correction/remand	Judgments reference concurrency/consecutivity to a dismissed count, so they are illegal and revocation was unauthorized; requests remand and new revocation hearing	Errors are clerical under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36 and may be corrected; no new revocation required	Court: Remand for entry of corrected judgments to conform to plea agreement; no new revocation hearing required
Whether trial court abused discretion in revoking community corrections	Claimed inability to report while jailed, provided employment proof, and only $165 arrearage (argued non-willful) — revocation was excessive	Record shows missed reporting when not jailed, fee arrearage over multiple months, and controlled buys establishing new drug sales; revocation appropriate	Court: No abuse of discretion; sufficient evidence of both technical and nontechnical violations; confinement affirmed

State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991) (revocation of alternative sentence requires proof by preponderance; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
State v. Gregory, 946 S.W.2d 829 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (abuse of discretion standard: revocation will be overturned only if no substantial evidence supports finding of violation)