ÿWPC] ©eTz>¿Ø@æ:{bêzf+aÜÃÁ¨îiá=ƒjŽBÅ£¾÷$®»MªÛ‹øtѨÕ÷\–ã&•„äUÞ²Xâ&ò-Þ¯E_Ÿ\[W b Š7²ô›y±Ò{ï7ß;ݾ´ç ^¹IÍ€Då]ü/,Ñ^~ÛØ3ÞPïgï À¹¡‘O‹4,ÌjÂÚbæk!A¨Z¯W¨¦s5N½RUõ§†ó†múLõVlø_ÓáIÎ •Õ†Âì¨`žÂŽáR/…òGqQhÑæ5™‚‘¯ÙäoOvÚp®ào$ß•´TO¡¶åëôxn§l%˜J’z“kÉÞQ`š‘àï:ž»Ï :ûxf#Y¨þC®å˜iâl¡¡<„}Īœ€Ÿ éZD×™Ô«1PWñnhWþæÅœ~€?ˆ;ið²ÎåÄdþØ¿xQÈBzLQ[?˜dq°å{I¨/Õ8ø¯©vÓÃ%¹†9¡ܲèx7NSÝpW1BDò)’ŒJÏÁÌ÷§rù¦Û òV7kôß¿7ÎÙCÑrN÷ýlå˜WçE{N›Ÿsï’†©%Øf(ÖWʦòv=OÝ(r‡R2wt&@o ¸}+ëy µŒ¥«¿éb¿šÕÄPè_•,# hUNs %Á 0(ÇLï„; 0l¿w@+4kU:Ž 0DÈU: ÆF ( c4 U:—3ÑU:R>U:LÊAU:W—‘U:(U:bbbb Bœœ 0D¹ D3ýýýý AQ0 0D‰ 0DÍ D/ B@˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLàÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT zÒ°ÒÔ€ Xâ_XXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àThe€judgment€form€shows€that€the€defendant€was€sentenced€toÐ ° Ðincarceration€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€However,€at€the€sentencingÏhearing,€all€parties€agreed€that€the€defendant€began€serving€his€sentence€inÏCommunity€Corrections.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó   ¡ D¢ £ ¤ e¥ ¦ D§ ¨ D© Ó€P9&U3|x´ , øð AZ"Arial Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial RegularƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XŒ&XXXÔÔ€fXXŒ&ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XŒ&XfÔÐ  ÐÌò òFebruary€2,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÜŸ ôXXŒ&ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó YÒ°ÒÔ€XdXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ à€€The€record€indicates€that€counsel€was€not€appointed€until€July€21,Ð ° Ð1997;€therefore,€it€appears€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€an€attorney€presentÏat€whatever€transpired€on€July€10.€€The€state€entered€two€printouts€of€the€generalÐ à g Ðsessions€court€docket€into€evidence€at€the€hearing€without€objection.€€TheseÏprintouts€show€that€the€defendant€pleaded€guilty€to€theft€and€possession€of€aÏdangerous€weapon€on€October€31,€1995.€€In€his€brief,€defense€counsel€allegesÏthat€the€outstanding€general€sessions€warrants€were€the€result€of€the€defendantððsÏfailure€to€pay€the€fines€and€court€costs€from€his€1995€convictions.€€On€July€10,Ïwhen€the€defendant€made€a€partial€payment€on€the€fine,€the€court€released€himÏfrom€custody€on€those€convictions€but€held€him€on€the€probation€revocationÏwarrant.€€€We€recognize€that€statements€made€in€a€brief€are€not€evidence€norÏmay€they€be€considered€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.€€However,€we€include€thisÏinformation€here€because€it€provides€a€rational€explanation€for€what€otherwise€isÏa€rather€puzzling€series€of€events.€€Whether€the€defendant€pleaded€guilty€onÏOctober€31,€1995€or€on€July€10,€1997€makes€no€difference€in€the€resolution€ofÏthe€issues€in€this€case.€, øð AZ"Arial Regular )Ò°ÒÔ€XdXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àAccording€to€Ms.€Caldwellððs€testimony,€Gale€Wyatt,€the€defendantððsÐ ° Ðsupervising€officer,€was€attending€her€bridal€shower€at€the€time€of€the€hearing., øð AZ"Arial Regular HÒ°ÒÔ€XdXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àThose€rights€include:€(a)€written€notice€of€the€alleged€violation;€(b)Ð ° Ðthe€disclosure€of€evidence€that€supports€the€alleged€violation;€(c)€the€opportunityÏto€be€heard€in€person€and€to€present€evidence€in€support€of€his€defense;€(d)€theÏright€to€confront€the€stateððs€witnesses;€(e)€a€neutral€and€detached€trier€of€facts€toÏhear€the€evidence;€and€(f)€written€findings€of€fact€as€to€the€reason€for€revocation.€ÏòòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€776,€786,€93€S.€Ct.€1756,€1761„62€(1993);€òòState€v.Ð ` ° ÐWadeóó,€863€Ô‡ XdXXXdÔS.W.2dÔ#†XdXX Xd¦#Ô€406,€408€Ô‡ XdXXXdÔ(Tenn.€19Ô#†XdXX Xdø#Ô93).€, øð AZ"Arial RegularC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT 7Ò°ÒÔ€XdXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€revoked€hisÐ ° Ðprobation€because€he€failed€to€pay€court€costs€on€the€1995€convictions€is€notÏsupported€by€the€record.€€, øð AZ"Arial Regular Ò°ÒÔ€XdXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àTo€clear€up€the€confusion€over€the€dates,€the€trial€judge€sent€for€theÐ ° Ðclerk€of€the€court.€€She€also€reported€that€the€convictions€were€entered€on€JulyÏ10,€1997€and€that€the€defendant€was€given€suspended€sentences€pending€aÏpartial€payment€of€his€fines.€€It€appears€from€the€record€that€the€clerk€was€neverÏsworn€in€as€a€witness.€€The€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€appearance€of€theÏcourt€clerk€or€her€unsworn€testimony.€€€However,€we€have€not€considered€herÏstatements€as€part€of€the€record€in€this€case.€€, øð AZ"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý'ÿÿdxd(!)*Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ¤ ñ›ñ¤ ññ¤ ñ›ñ¤ ñÒ°Òò òÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ Xâ_XXXÔÑ7€íXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óñ© ñœßr€&"<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx$°ð Õrß›ñ© ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÌ€à@::'àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ à Ðó óÌò òà@#àDECEMBER€1998€SESSIONó óˆÐ pÀ ÐÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À àó ó)à  àNo.€03C01„9803„CR„00097Ð 0 € Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ  p  Ðà ` àAppelleeà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHamilton€CountyÐ P  Ðvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àà p àÐ ð@  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€JudgeÐ à0  Ðò òLARRY€DEWAYNE€BROWN,ó óà À à)Ð Ð  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à(Revocation€of€Probation)Ð À Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ ° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð pÀ ÐÌARDENA€J.€GARTHà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ P  ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ @ ÐÌWILLIAM€A.€DOBSON,€JR.€à À àà  àCLINTON€J.€MORGANÐ  p ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ ` Ð(At€hearing)à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÐ P Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Ave.€NorthÌDONNA€ROBINSON€MILLERà À àà  à2d€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€Bldg.Ð à0 Ð(On€appeal)à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à x àÐ Ð  ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àÐ À! Ð701€Cherry€St.€€Suite€300€à h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€H.€COX,€IIIÐ °"  ÐChattanooga,€TN€37402à h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€Generalà x àà Ð àÐ  #ð! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àC.€LELAND€DAVISÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à600€Market€St.€Suite€310Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ à.0*- ÐÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÐ  p5À04S Ðà@qq*àò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌÌà ` àó óThe€defendant,ÓÓÓlX°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXlÓ€Larry€Dewayne€Brown,€appeals€the€Hamilton€County€CriminalÐ €Ð ÐCourtððs€revocation€of€his€probationary€sentence.€€As€a€result€of€the€probationÏrevocation,€he€is€currently€serving€his€sentence€of€eight€years€and€one€month€forÏthree€counts€of€possession€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€In€thisÏappeal,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€state€presented€no€substantial€evidenceÏthat€he€had€violated€the€terms€of€his€probation€and€that€the€revocation€was€obtainedÏin€violation€of€his€due€process€rights.€€Based€upon€a€thorough€reading€of€the€record,Ïthe€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€law€governing€the€issues€presented€for€review,€weÏaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ¸ àWe€have€found€it€difficult€to€determine€the€sequence€of€events€that€ledÏto€the€revocation€of€the€defendantððs€probation.€€The€record€contains€some€seriousÏgaps€and€much€conflicting€information.€€We€have,€however,€pieced€together€theÏfollowing€chronology.€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€April€5,€1990,€the€defendant€pleaded€guilty€to€three€indictments€forÏpossession€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€€€The€trial€court€sentencedÏhim€to€serve€concurrent€sentences€of€six€years€as€a€Range€I€offender€on€two€of€theÏcharges€and€eight€years€and€one€month€as€a€Range€II€offender€on€the€third.€ÏApparently,€the€trial€court€ordered€the€defendant,€who€had€already€served€211€days,Ïto€serve€the€remainder€of€his€sentence€in€Community€Corrections.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€AfterÐ -P(+ Ðsuccessfully€completing€some€type€of€community€corrections€program€and€a€periodÏof€house€arrest,€the€defendant€was€placed€on€probation€in€July€of€1991.€€A€probationÏofficer€testified€that€the€defendant€was€arrested€for€shoplifting€in€1993.€€TheÏdefendant€vigorously€denied€this€allegation,€and€the€state€made€no€attempt€toÐ €4Ð/3 Ðsubstantiate€the€arrest.€€On€January€6,€1995,€a€probation€violation€report€was€filedÏalleging€that€the€defendant€had€tested€positive€for€cocaine€in€a€routine€drug€test,€thatÏhe€had€failed€to€report€since€December€7,€1994,€and€that€he€had€failed€to€attend€theÏAfter„Care€program€at€CADAS.€€€Although€a€capias€issued€shortly€thereafter,€theÏwarrant€was€not€served€at€that€time.€€Documentary€evidence€introduced€withoutÏobjection€through€a€probation€officer€shows€that€the€defendant€was€arrested€onÏOctober€30,€1995€for€theft€of€property€worth€less€than€$500€and€for€possession€ofÏan€illegal,€dangerous€weapon.€€He€pleaded€guilty€the€next€day€and€was€sentencedÏto€serve€30€days€on€each€conviction€and€to€pay€a€$50.00€fine€and€court€costs.€€TheÏsentences€were€suspended€contingent€upon€payment€of€the€fine€and€costs€and€hisÏgood€behavior.€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€July€9,€1997,€the€defendant€was€arrested€for€ð ðoutstanding€warrantsÏin€sessions€courtðð€in€the€same€two€misdemeanor€cases€and€then€served€with€theÏoutstanding€probation€revocation€capias.€€Sandra€Caldwell,€a€probation€officer,Ïtestified€that€the€defendant€pleaded€guilty€to€the€two€1995€misdemeanors€on€JulyÏ10,€1997.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р°"  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€appeared€to€be€confused€about€the€events€that€tookÏplace€in€1995€and€on€July€10,€1997.€€At€first€he€said€that€he€did€not€remember€theÏarrests€in€1995.€€Then,€after€a€recess,€he€recalled€the€arrests.€€Finally,€in€responseÏto€the€prosecutorððs€insistent€questioning,€he€admitted€that€he€had€pleaded€guilty€onÏJuly€10€but€thought€that€he€was€only€supposed€to€pay€a€fine.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ð-@), Їà ¸ àThe€record€contains€no€proof€that€the€defendant€committed€theÏprobation€violation€alleged€in€the€1995€violation€report.€€The€record€also€contains€noÏevidence€of€the€applicable€conditions€of€probation.ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€judge€found€that€theÏdefendant€had€violated€his€probation€based€upon€the€defendantððs€perhapsÏinaccurate€ñ¤ ñœacknowledgement›ñ¤ ññ¤ ñacknowledgmentñ¤ ñ€that€he€had€been€convicted€in€1997€for€the€two€1995Ïmisdemeanors.׃À ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€then€ordered€that€the€defendant€serve€his€sentences€asÐ Ð  Ðoriginally€imposed.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€by€revoking€his€probation€when€the€record€contains€no€substantialÏevidence€to€support€the€revocation.€€The€defendant€also€contends€that€the€testimonyÏof€Sandra€Caldwell,€the€probation€officer,€violated€his€due€process€right€to€confrontÏthe€witnesses€against€him.€€€We€respectfully€disagree.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€did€not€assert€in€the€trial€court€and€does€not€claim€inÏthis€court€that€his€due€process€rights€to€be€notified€of€the€grounds€for€revocationÏwere€violated.€€òòSeeóó€òòMorrissey€v.€Breweróó,€408€U.S.€471,€92€S.Ct.€2593€(1972).Ð p&À!$ ÐÐ P( #& Ðà ¸ àThe€revocation€of€probation€is€committed€to€the€sound€discretion€of€theÏtrial€judge.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,€80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€InÐ à Ðorder€for€an€abuse€of€discretion€to€occur,€the€reviewing€court€must€find€that€theÏrecord€contains€no€substantial€evidence€sufficient€to€support€the€conclusion€of€theÏtrial€judge€that€the€violation€of€the€terms€of€probation€has€occurred.€€òòHarkinsóó,€811Ð 0 € ÐS.W.2d€at€82;€òòState€v.€Delpóó,€614€S.W.2d€395,€398€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€TheÐ `  Ðtrial€court€is€required€only€to€find€that€the€violation€of€probation€occurred€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(d)€(1997).€ÏFurthermore,€when€probation€is€revoked,€ð ðthe€original€judgment€so€rendered€by€theÏtrial€judge€shall€be€in€full€force€and€effect€from€the€date€of€the€revocation€of€suchÏsuspension.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„310€(1997).€€The€trial€judge€retains€theÏdiscretionary€authority€to€order€the€defendant€to€serve€the€original€sentence.€€òòSeeóóÐ P  ÐòòState€v.€Dukeóó,€902€S.W.2d€424,€427€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð 0€ ÐÌà ¸ àIn€this€instance,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€record€lacksÏsubstantial€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€revocation.€€Our€review€of€theÏrecord,€however,€indicates€that€it€contains€competent€evidence€to€support€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€the€defendantððs€ð ðnewðð€arrest€and€conviction€violated€theÏconditions€of€probation.€€The€state€placed€into€the€record€without€any€objection€fromÏthe€defendant€printouts€from€the€sessions€court€docket€showing€that€the€defendantÏhad€been€convicted€of€two€misdemeanor€offenses€on€October€31,€1995.€€TheÏdefendant€admitted€that€he€pleaded€guilty€to€those€offenses€although€he€wasÏobviously€uncertain€of€the€date€the€judgments€were€entered.€€In€his€brief,€theÏdefendant€concedes€that€the€sessions€court€docket€accurately€reports€his€arrest€andÏconviction€for€theft€and€illegal€possession€of€a€dangerous€weapon€in€October,€1995.€ÏThe€thrust€of€the€defendantððs€argument€is€that€the€trial€court€mistakenly€believed€thatÏalthough€the€defendant€was€arrested€in€1995€for€those€offenses,€he€had€not€pleadedÏguilty€until€July€10,€1997.€€Given€the€confusing€nature€of€€the€testimony€at€theÏhearing,€the€trial€court€may€have€thought€that€the€convictions€were€entered€in€JulyÐ 09€48 Ðof€1997.€€The€date€the€judgments€were€entered,€however,€is€ñ¤ ñœñ¤ ñirrelevant.€€Proof€ofÏconvictions€for€the€1995€offenses€is€a€basis€for€the€revocation€of€probation.ñ¤ ñ›ñ¤ ñÌÌà ¸ àEven€though€we€have€not€been€asked€to€do€so€by€the€defendant,€weÏhave€reviewed€ñ¤ ñœñ¤ ñtheñ¤ ñ›ñ¤ ñ€issue€of€lack€of€notice€of€the€ground€for€probation€revocation.€ÏThe€defendant€was€entitled€to€be€informed€of€the€conditions€or€requirements€of€hisÏprobation.€€The€record€contains€no€indication€of€what€the€full€regimen€of€conditionsÏwere;€however,€ð ðcompliance€with€œouñ¥ ñrñ¥ ññ¦ ñtñ¦ ñ›€state€laws€œiñ§ ñsñ§ ññ¨ ñnñ¨ ñ›€an€automatic€conditionðð€ofÏprobation.€€òòState€v.€Subblefieldóó,€953€S.W.2d€223,€225€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€TheÐ ° Ðstate€need€not€have€proven€that€the€defendant€was€prohibited€from€offending€theÏcriminal€laws€as€a€condition€of€probation,€nor€need€it€have€shown€that€the€defendantÏwas€aware€of€any€such€condition.€€The€defendant€was€likewise€entitled€to€be€notifiedÏof€the€charge€upon€which€revocation€is€based.€€òòMorrisseyóó;€òòStamps€v.€Stateóó,€614Ð 0€ ÐS.W.2d€71,€73€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€However,€this€due€process€right€to€noticeÏð ðððcalls€for€such€procedural€protections€as€the€particular€situation€demands.ðððð€òòStampsóó,Ð ð@ Ð614€S.W.2d€at€73.€€The€very€nature€of€a€ð ðnoticeðð€right€suggests€that€it€may€beÏwaived.€€In€the€present€case,€the€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€admission€ofÏevidence€about€the€two€new€misdemeanor€convictions,€did€not€argue€in€the€trialÏcourt€that€the€new€convictions€were€beyond€the€scope€of€the€probation€violationÏreport€and/or€revocation€warrant,€and€did€not€claim€in€this€appeal€that€he€had€beenÏdeprived€of€notice€that€new€convictions€would€serve€as€bases€for€revocation.€€In€this€Ïsituation,€we€have€no€choice€but€to€conclude€that€the€notice€ñ¤ ñœñ¤ ñissueñ¤ ñ›ñ¤ ñ€was€ñ¤ ñœñ¤ ñwaived.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).ñ¤ ñ›ñ¤ ñ€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€also€ñ¤ ñœñ¤ ñarguesñ¤ ñ›ñ¤ ñ€that€the€court€violated€his€due€process€rightÏto€confront€the€witnesses€against€him€by€allowing€Sandra€Caldwell€to€testify€insteadÏof€the€probation€officer€who€had€actually€been€his€supervisor.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defendantÐ p5À04 Ðcorrectly€contends€that€although€a€probationer€at€a€revocation€hearing€is€not€entitledÏto€all€of€the€procedural€safeguards€associated€with€a€criminal€trial,€the€due€processÏclause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€articleÏI,€section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€require€ñ¤ ñœñ¤ ñthatñŸ ñ€añŸ ññ¤ ñ›ñ¤ ñ€probationer€be€affordedÏcertain€basic€rights€including€the€right€to€confront€the€stateððs€witnesses.€€òòBlack€v.Ð 0 € ÐRomanoóó,€471€U.S.€606,€613,€105€S.€Ct.€2254,€2258€(1985).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€are€satisfied€thatÐ `  Ðthe€defendant€was€not€denied€this€constitutional€right.€€ÌÌà ¸ àFirst,€the€defendant€had€ample€opportunity€to€object€to€Ms.€CaldwellððsÏtestimony€when€she€explained€that€she€had€never€supervised€the€defendant.€€TheÏrecord€contains€no€objection€to€her€testimony,€and€defense€counsel€declined€toÏcross„examine€her.€€As€noted€above,€the€trial€court€admitted€the€computer€recordÏof€the€defendantððs€1995€convictions€without€any€objection.€€The€defendant€did€notÏlack€the€opportunity€to€challenge€either€the€documentary€evidence€or€to€attack€theÏbasis€of€Ms.€Caldwellððs€knowledge.€€Moreover,€it€is€clear€that€the€trial€court€did€notÏrely€upon€the€allegations€in€the€probation€officerððs€file€or€the€January,€1995€probationÏviolation€report.€€The€trial€court€had€before€it€the€uncontroverted€record€of€theÏGeneral€Sessions€Court€in€which€the€defendant€was€convicted€and€sentenced€andÏthe€defendantððs€admission€that€he€had€pleaded€guilty€to€two€misdemeanors€after€heÏwas€placed€on€probation.€€Based€on€that€evidence,€the€trial€judge€properlyÏconcluded€that€the€defendant€ð ðdid€violate€probation€by€a€new€arrest€and€convictions.Ï.€.€.ðð€€€€The€defendantððs€admission€alone€is€substantial€evidence€sufficient€to€supportÏthe€trial€courtððs€order.€€òòState€v.€Regina€Ann€Owenóó,€No.€03C01„9707„CC„00271,€slipÐ ð-@), Ðop.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€22,€1998).€€We€are€unable€to€see€howÏMs.€Caldwellððs€rather€limited€testimony€violated€the€defendantððs€right€to€due€process.Ð °1-0 Їà ¸ àIn€addition,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏcontinued€the€hearing€until€the€officer€who€supervised€the€defendant€was€availableÏand€argues€that€the€computer€printouts€are€not€competent€evidence.€€However,€theÏrecord€contains€no€request€for€a€continuance,€and,€as€noted€above,€the€defendantÏfailed€to€object€to€the€admission€of€the€printouts.€€This€court€need€not€grant€relief€toÏa€party€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonably€available€to€prevent€orÏnullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€ÌÌà ¸ àThis€court€has€stated€that€ð ða€revocation€decision€is€best€tested€byÏwhether€such€an€action€would€serve€the€ends€of€justice€and€be€in€the€best€interestÏof€both€the€public€and€the€defendant/appellant.ðð€€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€810€S.W.2d€733,Ð pÀ Ð736€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€record€demonstrates€that€once€the€moreÏrestrictive€provisions€of€community€corrections€and€house€arrest€were€removed,€thisÏdefendant€was€either€unwilling€or€unable€to€abide€by€€the€conditions€of€his€releaseÏinto€the€community.€€This€court€will€reverse€an€order€of€revocation€only€if€the€recordÏcontains€no€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€finding.€€òòState€v.€Gabelóó,Ð Ð  Ð914€S.W.2d€562,€564€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€€In€this€ñ¤ ñœñ¤ ñcaseñ  ñ€theñ  ññ¤ ñ›ñ¤ ññ¤ ññ¤ ñ€record€is€not€asÏcomplete€as€it€should€be.€€The€judgments€of€the€defendantððs€convictions€as€theyÏappear€in€the€record€reflect€TDOC€sentences,€and€the€technical€record€containedÏno€documentation€to€show€when€or€how€such€sentences€were€converted€first€toÏCommunity€Corrections€sentences€and€then€to€probated€sentences.€€The€conditionsÏñ¤ ñœñ¤ ññ¡ ñtoñ¡ ññ¢ ñofñ¢ ññ¤ ñ›ñ¤ ññ¤ ññ¤ ñ€probation€were€not€proven.€€An€unsworn€witness€was€allowed€to€give€evidence.€ÏThe€true€technical€nature€of€the€convictions€which€ultimately€served€as€the€basesÏfor€revocation€was€never€clarified.€€Greater€care€should€be€taken€to€build,€preserve,Ïand€transmit€to€this€court€a€full€and€accurate€record€of€the€proceedings€in€the€lowerÏcourt.€€Nevertheless,€the€record€contains€evidence€that€supports€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€and€his€order€revoking€the€defendantððs€probation.€€That€decision€is€clearlyÏin€the€best€ñ¤ ñœñ¤ ñinterestñ£ ñsñ£ ññ¤ ñ›ñ¤ ññ¤ ññ¤ ñ€of€the€both€the€public€and€the€defendant€himself.€€ÌÐ 09€48 Ðà ¸ àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓÓÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT€JR.,€JudgeÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________€€ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judgeà h àÐ ° ÐÌà ¸ à