ÿWPCe …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dt w@¸ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` U,Õ 0dU,eU>‘ BÏU*ìB)DC? AM‚-Ï D3üv~/vÓ­ 0@€ AOÀÆ 0DÕ D/ BH˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡à~| ppppdp3|x*((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó DDeDÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òApril€16,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € Ñ›Ñ7€ökXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ ` °œXӜـ€ÙßL€()';+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àFEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€03C01„9506„CR„00159Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà à)à àSULLIVAN€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€FRANK€L.€SLAUGHTERÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE€ÌBILLY€CARTER,à àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€(PROBATION€REVOCATION)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€€ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌBilly€E.€Carterà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌPro€Seà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMCRCS/128549à àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌP.O.€Box€2000à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌWartburg,€Tennessee€37887Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMichelle€L.€LehmannÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Atty.€Gen.€&€ReporterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGreeley€Wells€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEdward€E.€WilsonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€526Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€Tennessee€37617ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóà àÌÌJUDGMENT€VACATED;€REMANDEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÓÓòòÌÌÓ Ð Óà@ àOPINIONóóÌThe€appellant,€Billy€Carter,€appeals€from€the€judgment€of€the€Sullivan€CountyÏCriminal€Court€revoking€his€probation.€€He€argues€that€he€was€denied€due€process€ofÏlaw,€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€testimony€of€a€social€worker,€that€theÏevidence€was€insufficient€to€revoke€his€probation,€and€that€he€was€denied€theÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€ÌAfter€reviewing€the€record€on€appeal,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€wasÏdenied€his€right€to€due€process€of€law,€œand›€accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏis€vacated€and€this€cause€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings.€€ÌOn€September€12,€1993,€the€appellant€pled€guilty€in€the€Sullivan€CountyÏCriminal€Court€to€burglary€and€was€sentenced€to€five€(5)€years€in€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€After€completing€the€Alternative€Incarceration€UnitÍProgram€(boot€camp),€the€appellant€was€placed€on€probation€pursuant€to€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„20„206.€€Thereafter,€on€December€2,€1994,€theÏappellantððs€probation€officer,€Elmer€Sams,€appeared€before€the€Criminal€Court€ofÏSullivan€County€and€made€a€sworn€affidavit€that€the€appellant€had€violated€hisÏprobation€order.€€Specifically,€the€affidavit€alleged€that€the€appellant€had€beenÏarrested€for€burglary€and€theft€in€an€amount€over€$11,500€and€burglary€and€theft€inÏan€amount€over€$600.€€Based€upon€the€affidavit€of€the€probation€officer,€the€trial€courtÏissued€a€warrant€on€December€2,€1994,€for€the€arrest€of€the€appellant.€€The€return€onÏthe€warrant,€dated€January€18,€1995,€indicates€that€the€appellant€was€not€served€andÏcontains€the€notation,€ð ðWife€advises€he€is€in€the€Blount€County€jail.ðð€€The€return€on€theÏprobation€violation€warrant€was€made€by€Norman€Wilson.€€ÌAlthough€there€is€no€indication€in€the€record€that€the€appellant€was€everÏserved€with€the€warrant,€the€trial€court€on€February€2,€1995,€appointed€counsel€toÏrepresent€the€appellant.€€ÌThereafter,€on€February€10,€1995,€the€appellant€appeared€in€court€with€hisÏappointed€counsel€and€a€hearing€was€conducted€to€determine€whether€the€appellantÏhad€violated€condition€(2)€of€his€probation,€which€was€the€appellantððs€promise€toÏð ðobey€the€laws€of€the€United€States,€or€any€state€in€which€I€may€be€as€well€as€anyÏmunicipal€ordinances.ðð€€ÌThe€State€presented€two€witnesses,€Elizabeth€Hill€McKinney€and€Jimmy€B.ÏPhillips.€€The€appellant€presented€no€proof.€€ÌMs.€McKinney,€a€social€worker€for€the€Salvation€Army€in€Johnson€City,Ïtestified€that€the€appellant€had€admitted€his€guilt€to€her€in€connection€with€theÏburglary€and€theft€of€the€residence€of€Jimmy€Phillips.€€Mr.€Phillips€testified€that€on€orÏabout€September€14,€1994,€his€home€had€been€burglarized€and€that€approximatelyÏthirty„five€to€forty€pistols,€a€knife€collection,€and€$3,500€in€cash€had€been€stolen.€€Mr.ÏPhillips€testified€that€the€appellant€rented€an€apartment€from€him€and€also€hadÏworked€some€for€Phillips.ÌAfter€hearing€the€testimony€of€two€witnesses€for€the€State,€the€trial€courtÏrevoked€the€appellantððs€probation€and€directed€that€he€be€incarcerated€for€theÏremainder€of€his€five„year€sentence.ÌIt€is€well€settled€that€in€the€context€of€a€probation€revocation,€due€processÏrequires€(1)€written€notice€of€the€claimed€probation€violation;€(2)€disclosure€of€theÏevidence€against€the€defendant;€(3)€the€opportunity€to€be€heard€in€person€and€toÏpresent€witnesses€and€documentary€evidence;€(4)€the€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€adverse€witnesses€unless€good€cause€for€not€allowing€confrontation€isÏfound;€(5)€a€neutral€and€detached€hearing€body;€and€(6)€a€written€statement€by€theÏfact€finder€as€to€the€evidence€relied€upon€and€the€reasons€for€revoking€probation.€ÏòòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778,€786€(1973);€òòSee€alsoóó€òòPracty€v.€Stateóó,€525€S.W.2dÍ677,€680,€682€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€€After€a€review€of€the€record€on€appeal,€weÏconclude€that€the€trial€court€denied€the€appellant€two€of€the€aforementioned€minimumÏrequirements€of€due€process€of€law€in€revoking€his€probation.ÌAs€stated€above,€before€a€defendantððs€probation€may€be€revoked,€he€isÏentitled€to€have€written€notice€of€the€claimed€probation€violation.€€The€record€in€thisÏcase€does€not€affirmatively€show€that€the€appellant€was€given€such€written€notice.€ÏAlthough€the€trial€court€issued€a€warrant€on€December€2,€1994,€charging€theÏdefendant€with€probation€violation€for€being€arrested€for€burglary€and€theft,€the€recordÏfails€to€reflect€that€the€appellant€was€served€with€the€warrant€providing€him€withÏwritten€notice.€€Additionally,€òòGagnonóó€requires€that€the€fact€finder€make€a€writtenÏstatement€as€to€the€evidence€relied€on€and€the€reasons€for€revoking€probation.€€In€thisÏcase€the€only€written€statement€entered€by€the€trial€court€is€a€fill„in„the„blank€formÏorder€which€contains€the€bare€conclusion€that€the€appellant€has€violated€the€termsÏand€conditions€of€his€probation.€€Although€the€trial€court€acknowledged€at€theÏbeginning€of€the€hearing€that€a€mere€arrest€would€not€be€grounds€for€revocation€ofÏprobation€in€this€case,€the€reason€given€in€the€revocation€order€was€that€the€appellantÏwas€ð ðarrested€and€charged€with€burglary€and€theft€over€$600,€burglary€and€theft€overÏ$11,500.ðð€€Not€only€did€the€trial€court€in€this€case€fail€to€set€forth€in€writing€theÏevidence€relied€upon€and€the€reasons€for€the€probation€revocation,€the€conclusionÏcontained€in€the€trial€courtððs€order€revoking€probation€could€not€serve€as€a€valid€basisÍfor€the€revocation.€€Being€arrested€and€charged€with€a€crime€is€not€a€violation€of€aÏcondition€of€the€appellantððs€probation.€€The€failure€to€obey€the€law€is,€however.€ÏAlthough€the€testimony€of€Elizabeth€Hill€McKinney€that€the€appellant€admitted€hisÏguilt€for€the€burglary€of€the€Phillips€residence€could€justify€a€finding€that€the€appellantÏhad€violated€the€terms€and€conditions€of€his€probation,€the€trial€court€made€no€suchÏfinding.€€ÌIn€òòState€v.€Delpóó,€614€S.W.2d€395€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€our€Court€held€thatÏwhere€a€trial€court€substantially€complies€with€the€sixth€requirement€of€òòGagnonóó,€theÏrequirements€of€due€process€have€been€met.€€In€òòDelpóó,€the€Court€found€substantialÏcompliance€with€this€requirement€where€the€trial€court€failed€to€enter€a€written€orderÏstating€the€evidence€relied€upon€for€revoking€probation€but€instead€ð ðmade€detailedÏfindings€orally€from€the€bench€at€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing.ðð€€òòId.óó€At€397.€€The€CourtÏfound€that€because€the€oral€findings€summarized€and€ð ðclearly€set€forth€the€reasonsÏfor€the€revocation€of€probation€.€.€.€,ðð€€the€probationerððs€due€process€rights€had€notÏbeen€violated.€€Unfortunately,€not€only€did€the€trial€court€in€this€case€fail€to€set€forth€inÏwriting€the€evidence€relied€upon€and€reasons€for€the€probation€revocation,€it€failed€toÏmake€any€oral€findings€which€would€justify€the€revocation.€€ÌWe€also€note€that€at€least€at€one€point€during€the€revocation€hearing,€the€trialÏjudge€made€the€comment€that€there€could€perhaps€be€a€finding€that€the€appellantððsÏprobation€could€be€œrevoked€if›€it€appeared€that€he€had€failed€to€report€his€arrest€to€theÍprobation€officer.€€Not€only€was€there€no€evidence€tending€to€establish€the€appellantððsÏfailure€to€report€his€arrest,€the€trial€courtððs€warrant€and€the€affidavit€in€support€of€theÏwarrant€did€not€allege€that€the€appellant€had€violated€the€conditions€of€his€probationÏby€failing€to€report€his€arrest.€€Obviously,€due€process€considerations€would€not€allowÏa€probation€revocation€to€be€based€upon€a€probation€violation€not€charged€in€writing.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòGagnonóó.ÌThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowedÏElizabeth€McKinney,€a€social€worker€for€the€Salvation€Army€in€Johnson€City,€to€testifyÏthat€the€appellant€told€her€that€he€was€guilty€of€the€charges€stemming€from€theÏburglary€of€the€Phillips€residence.€€The€appellant€insists€that€Rule€501€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provides€that€his€communication€with€Ms.€McKinneyÏwas€privileged€subject€only€to€a€waiver€by€him.€€€We€disagree.€€ÌRule€501€provides€that€ð ð[e]xcept€as€otherwise€provided€by€constitution,Ïstatute,€common€law,€or€by€these€or€other€rules€promulgated€by€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court,€no€person€has€a€privilege€to:€€(1)€[r]efuse€to€be€a€witness;€(2)€[r]efuseÏto€disclose€any€matter;€(3)€[r]efuse€to€produce€any€object€or€writing;€or€(4)€[p]reventÏanother€from€being€a€witness€or€disclosing€any€matter€or€producing€any€object€orÏwriting.ðð€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€63„23„107€provides€a€privilege€for€theÏconfidential€relations€and€communications€between€a€client€and€a€certified€masterÏsocial€worker€or€an€independent€practitioner€of€social€work€holding€a€valid€certificateÍof€registration.€€Elizabeth€McKinney€holds€only€a€bachelor€of€science€degree€in€socialÏwork.€€She€therefore€is€not€qualified€to€be,€nor€is€she,€a€certified€master€social€workerÏor€an€independent€practitioner€of€social€work€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€sections€63„23„101€and€103.€€Therefore,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€thatÏthere€was€no€privilege€which€prevented€her€from€testifying€regarding€the€appellantððsÏstatements€to€her€concerning€the€burglary€of€the€residence€of€Mr.€Phillips.€€ÌObviously,€we€cannot€review€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€in€support€of€theÏrevocation€in€the€absence€of€factual€findings€by€the€trial€court.€€Additionally,€we€areÏlikewise€unable€to€address€the€appellantððs€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏin€the€absence€of€factual€findings€in€support€of€the€revocation.€€ÌAlthough€we€conclude€that€there€was€sufficient€evidence€from€which€the€trialÏcourt€òòmightóó€have€found€that€the€appellant€violated€the€conditions€of€his€probation,€theÏtrial€courtððs€failure€to€make€findings€of€fact€in€accordance€with€the€principles€of€dueÏprocess€announced€in€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778€(1973),€and€òòPracty€v.€Stateóó,Ï525€S.W.2d€677€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974),€coupled€with€the€recordsðð€failure€to€reflectÏthat€the€appellant€was€given€written€notice€of€the€claimed€probation€violation,Ïrequires€us€to€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€which€shallÏbe€conducted€in€accordance€with€the€due€process€œrequirements›€in€òòGagnonóó.€€ÌAccordingly,€the€order€of€probation€revocation€entered€by€the€trial€court€in€thisÏcase€is€vacated,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedingsÏconsistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÓ  ÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌ