ÿWPC@ g_ûeÉ1Á•.ð†=YPp‚:‡÷SÔ 8HhÍKû„ê|¼Ow ذ=N*s.Pú†$t½W£·ÊxVÅv¨èFº–üúü²–Bz-.&£yÜncݤË; iwÂijgèd Ä‚_›aDpïé¯ZØ:j×05Ò(¥·Û®Ésߪ¤ì—¦™qsP@ ºRîÂøg Ä•âÂ’ñ*Fëð:*Æ~$åû-!_6å{qYW©e&ÁÉTŒ.Ù3« ^Ö ›az†–„·)Åî5<)âÏËb®8¤mEÃɾ²yÜå‘v›EB„Ü2 ò‡T3d%œ±®š¦ïòˆX}®ï͆wöÂÅ2TšîG÷¨ÛNo‡8> œ;„h+™®®ò·ÿ$m­y¥å:2–ÙÂFLVµoÛ±­ïu;3]™$è*íPg„œ¤ìBRúCm’¼Þè÷Õ9Ĉ¾Ý97V|UsN Þ7‡@ v ÀQŽþt§DmqÑÝú×Ö ¦§¸gždõ¦ô­\þ(xÕm™ ù»„zpüŽÝäÍJ}Í‹=“kÑ© i-ƒ­¥‘RsðýØ»M±7‘vn°^Š^µ¼™ÅÈÇÅøÀ³ÈW’ȉÓaVöu²}Ò|(äóc`#!@UNa %¯ 0(µU:Ýw 4 / > xF 0l¾ 0D* U:n N¨ ^ ª U:¶ ð mò ò 5 [> U:™U:ÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓ B                                                        AQ*Æ{ 0DA 0D… 0DÉÉ D3 ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegulartpO'3|x nÒ°ÒÔ€ XD¸XXXÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendantððs€name€is€spelled€Ricio€Conner€in€the€indictment€but€isÐ ° Ðspelled€Rico€Conner€in€other€court€documents.€€In€keeping€with€this€courtððsÐ –æ Ðpractice,€we€use€the€spelling€as€it€appears€in€the€indictment.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular$‰d'L "Arial RegularÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ +Ý ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X ÄXXXÔÔ€â@XX ÄÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X ÄXâ@ÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€31,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó QÒ°ÒÔ€XD¸XXXÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡XD¸XXXD¸ÔWe€have€consolidated€the€defendantððs€first€two€appellate€issues€into€oneÐ ° Ðand€have€reordered€the€treatment€of€the€three€aggregate€issues.Ô#†XD¸XXXD¸p#Ô, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular dZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó""""'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X ÄXXXÔÒ°ÒÓ  Óò òÓÓÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ8€ ÄXXdædÈ8Ñßx€Y_B2.jzv`  `€€@ÿEÌ&` 8ttxP^ð È xßÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐAT€JACKSONó óÐ ˆØ Ðò òAUGUST€1999€SESSIONó óÐ `° ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà h àà À àà  à)Ð Ð  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àò òAppelleeó ó,à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òC.C.A.€No.€02C01„9807„CR„00201ó óÐ ¢ò  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òvsó ó.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òShelby€Countyó óÐ tÄ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òRICIO€L.€CONNER,à h àó óà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òHon.€James€Beasley,€Jr.,€Judgeó óÐ F– Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àó óà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð 2‚ Ðà ` àà ¸ àò òAppellantó ó.à h àà À àà  à)ò ò€€€€€€(Probation€Revocation)ó óÐ h Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌÌò òÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€FOR€THE€APPELLEE:ó óÐ ¼  ÐÌò òJEFFREY€S.€ROSENBLUMó óà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERSó óÐ ŽÞ ÐAttorney€at€Lawà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÐ zÊ ÐRosenblum€&€Reisman,€PCÌ80€Monroe€Avenue,€Suite€560€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òPATRICIA€C.€KUSSMANNó óÐ F– ÐMemphis,€TN€38103à h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ 2‚ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌ€€€à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37243Ð þN ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIó óÐ Ê!  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òSCOTT€GORDONÐ ‚$Ò# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Asst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ n%¾ $ Ðà ` àà ¸ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Criminal€Justice€Complex,€Ste.€301Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€201€Poplar€AvenueÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Memphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€_____________ó óÐ „-Ô(- ÐÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€VACATED€IN€PART;€REMANDEDÐ <0Œ+0 ÐÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÐ 3P.3 ÐÐ  ì3!% ÐÒ°ÒÌÓÓIn€his€oral€findings,€the€trial€judge€expressed€dismay€concerning€the€TDOCððs€releaseÐ º' #' Ðof€the€defendant€on€probation€after€serving€nine€months€in€the€ð ðboot€campðð€programÐ †)Ö$) Ðand€perplexity€about€the€legal€status€of€the€revocation€proceeding.€After€reciting€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðdefendantððs€history€of€reoffending€and€failing€to€appear€since€the€inception€of€hisÐ -n(- Ðcases€in€the€trial€court,€the€judge€granted€the€revocation€petition€and€said,€ð ðI€reallyÐ ê.:*/ Ðdonððt€know€that€I€have€authority€to€modify,€place€him€under€Community€Corrections,Ð ¶0,1 Ðor€something€else.€€I€donððt€believe€I€have€that€authority.€If€I€do,€let€[the€Court€ofÐ ‚2Ò-3 ÐCriminal€Appeals]€tell€me€and€Iððll€be€glad€to€review€it€and€revisit€it.ððà x àà Ð à€€€€€€€€€€Ð N4ž/5 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ æ7639 Ðapplying€a€ð ðprobable€causeðð€standard€of€proof€in€the€revocation€proceeding.€€WeÐ ²95; Ðagree€with€the€defendant€that€the€proper€standard€in€this€case€was€preponderanceÐ ° Ðof€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(e)€(1998).Ð |Ì ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€conclude,€therefore,€that€the€trial€court€misspoke€when€it€referredÐ  d Ðto€a€ð ðprobable€causeðð€standard€of€proof;€however,€this€error€was€harmless.€€TheÐ à 0 Ðrevocation€of€probation€is€committed€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòStateÐ ¬ ü  Ðv.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,€80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€order€for€an€abuse€ofÐ xÈ  Ðdiscretion€to€occur,€the€reviewing€court€must€find€that€the€record€contains€noÐ D”  Ðsubstantial€evidence€sufficient€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€theÐ ` Ðviolation€of€the€terms€of€probation€has€occurred.€€òòIdóó.€at€82;€òòState€v.€Delpóó,€814Ð Ü, ÐS.W.2d€395,€398€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€In€view€of€the€preponderance€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðevidence€standard€of€proof€and€the€abuse€of€discretion€standard€of€review€on€theÐ tÄ Ðquestion€of€whether€a€violation€of€probation€occurred,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Aaron€Switzeróó,Ð @ ÐNo.€03C01„9211„CR„00380,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€23,Ð  \ Ð1993),€the€record€contains€overwhelming€evidence€that€the€defendant€violated€theÐ Ø( Ðterms€of€his€probation€in€numerous€ways.€The€trial€courtððs€misstatement€in€referringÐ ¤ô Ðto€a€probable€cause€standard€of€proof€is€clearly€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ð p!À  Ð52(a).Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€second€issue,€the€defendant€essentially€argues€that€the€trialÐ Ô&$"& Ðcourt€was€willing€to€consider€some€alternative€to€incarceration,€€but€it€erroneouslyÐ  (ð#( Ðconcluded€that€it€had€no€discretion€or€authority€to€do€anything€except€orderÐ l*¼%* Ðconfinement€once€a€violation€of€probation€had€been€adjudicated.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à€Pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€40„20„201,€„206,€Ð Ð/ +0 Ðand€„207,€the€TDOC€placed€the€defendant€in€ð ða€special€alternative€incarcerationÐ œ1ì,2 Ðunit,ðð€commonly€referred€to€as€a€ð ðboot€campðð€program,€and€released€him€after€nineÐ h3¸.4 Ðmonths€under€ð ðsupervisionðð€of€the€division€of€community€services.€€Code€section€40„Ð 45„06 Ð20„206€provides€that€if,€after€being€placed€into€community€ð ðsupervision,ðð€a€defendantÐ 7P28 Ðfails€to€comply€with€ð ðthe€terms€and€conditions€of€supervision,€.€.€.€€the€release€onÐ Ì84: Ðsupervision€may€be€revoked€by€the€Trial€Judge€pursuant€to€ðð€40„35„311.ðð€€Tenn.Ð ° ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„20„206€(1997).€€Code€section€40„35„311€prescribes€the€procedureÐ |Ì Ðfor€a€trial€court€revoking€probation.€€In€the€present€case,€the€state€concedes€that€thisÐ H˜ Ðstatutory€scheme€empowered€the€trial€court€to€determine€the€revocation€issues€andÐ  d Ðupon€a€finding€of€a€violation€of€ð ðprobation,ðð€to€draw€from€the€full€range€of€remediesÐ à 0 Ðavailable€in€a€violation€of€probation€case,€including€a€modification€of€the€conditionsÐ ¬ ü  Ðof€supervision€and€an€extension€of€probation€for€up€to€two€years.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ xÈ  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„308€(1997).Ð D”  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€agree.€€€Although€the€trial€court€lost€jurisdiction€when€theÐ Ü, Ðdefendant€was€placed€in€TDOC,€Code€section€40„20„206€reinvested€the€trial€courtÐ ¨ø Ðwith€jurisdiction€once€TDOC€effectively€placed€the€defendant€ð ðon€probation.ðð€€òòSeeÐ tÄ ÐState€v.€Bowlingóó,€958€S.W.2d€362,€363€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Upon€determiningÐ @ Ðthat€the€defendant€violated€the€terms€of€his€probation,€the€trial€court€had€theÐ  \ Ðauthority€to€modify€the€terms€of€supervision,€extend€the€probationary€period€for€upÐ Ø( Ðto€two€years,€or€order€the€original€sentence€to€be€served€in€confinement.€€The€trialÐ ¤ô Ðcourt€was€neither€empowered€to€place€the€defendant€on€community€corrections€norÐ p!À  Ðto€increase€the€defendantððs€original€sentence;€however,€it€could€have€ordered€theÐ <#Œ" Ðdefendantððs€ð ðparticipation€in€the€community€correction€òòprogramóó€as€a€òòconditionóó€of€hisÐ %X $ Ðcontinuing€on€probation.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€364€(italics€in€original).Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ l*¼%* Ðwhen€it€determined€that€it€lacked€authority€to€apply€any€remedy€except€incarceration.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€must€now€determine€the€effect€of€the€trial€courtððs€misapprehensionÐ Ð/ +0 Ðof€its€authority.€€Initially,€we€point€out€that€the€confusion€related€to€the€remedy€to€beÐ œ1ì,2 Ðapplied€once€a€violation€of€probation€had€been€adjudicated€and€does€not€in€any€wayÐ h3¸.4 Ðimpugn€the€finding€of€a€violation.Ð 45„06 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWith€respect€to€remedy,€the€trial€courtððs€verbal€statements€as€theyÐ Ì84: Ðappear€in€the€transcript€of€the€revocation€hearing€are€contrary€to€the€writtenÐ ° Ðstatements€that€appear€in€the€order.€€In€both€communications,€the€trial€courtÐ |Ì Ðexpresses€perplexity€about€its€role€in€the€case€and€its€authority€to€apply€any€remedyÐ H˜ Ðexcept€confinement.€€However,€in€the€verbal€findings,€the€court€expresses€disdainÐ  d Ðfor€the€defendantððs€rather€oblique€style€of€testifying.€€Somewhat€spiritedly,€itÐ à 0 Ðrecounts€the€defendantððs€transgressions€committed€while€on€probation,€and€it€makesÐ ¬ ü  Ðno€mention€of€mitigating€factors€which€would€support€a€continuation€of€probation€inÐ xÈ  Ðsome€form.€€These€verbal€statements€are€at€odds€with€the€statements€in€the€orderÐ D”  Ðthat€ð ðseveral€mitigating€circumstancesðð€exist€and€that,€ð ð[h]ad€the€Court€placed€Mr.Ð ` ÐConner€on€probation,€the€Court€would€certainly€consider€placing€Mr.€Conner€backÐ Ü, Ðon€probation€with€some€stricter€conditions.ððÐ ¨ø ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€are€mindful€of€the€rule€which€this€court€routinely€applies€that€in€theÐ @ Ðcase€of€a€conflict€between€the€provisions€of€a€judgment€and€the€provisions€of€theÐ  \ Ðtranscript,€the€latter€controls.€€òòSeeóó,òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€706€S.W.2d€96,€96€(Tenn.Ð Ø( ÐCrim.€App.€1985).€€However,€we€do€not€view€the€order€and€the€transcript€in€theÐ ¤ô Ðpresent€case€to€be€in€conflict€so€much€as€they€reflect€a€disharmony€in€tone.€€TheÐ p!À  Ðtone€of€the€transcript€suggests€that€the€trial€judge€would€not€have€awarded€theÐ <#Œ" Ðdefendant€further€probation,€and€the€tone€of€the€order€suggests€that€the€court€wouldÐ %X $ Ðhave€considered€probation€had€it€perceived€the€opportunity.€€We€do€not€find€that€thisÐ Ô&$"& Ðis€a€conflict€in€the€operative€provisions€of€these€communications€which€wouldÐ  (ð#( Ðrequire€our€selection€of€the€transcript€as€the€basis€for€the€prevailing€meaning.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€find€that€the€sense€of€both€the€transcript€and€the€order€is€that€theÐ .T). Ðtrial€court€clearly€adjudicated€a€violation€of€the€terms€of€probation€but€never€reachedÐ Ð/ +0 Ðthe€point€of€adjudicating€the€remedy.€€The€trial€judge€stated€on€the€record€that€heÐ œ1ì,2 Ðgranted€the€petition€to€revoke€because€the€probation€conditions€were€imposed€byÐ h3¸.4 Ðthe€TDOC.€€He€then€stated,€ð ðAnd€I€donððt€know€that€I€have€the€authority€to€doÐ 45„06 Ðanything€other€than€that€.€.€.€.€I€donððt€believe€I€have€that€authority.ðð€€The€order€statesÐ 7P28 Ðthat€the€trial€court€ð ðcan€only€determine€that€Mr.€Conner€has€violated€probation€andÐ Ì84: Ðplace€him€back€into€the€[TDOC].ðð€€These€comments€indicate€that€the€trial€court€neverÐ ° Ðadjudicated€the€possible€remedies.€€Given€these€circumstances,€it€is€appropriate€toÐ |Ì Ðremand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€so€that€court€may€determine€the€violation€ofÐ H˜ Ðprobation€remedy.€€It€is€apparent€from€our€review€of€the€record€that€a€full€revocationÐ  d Ðhearing€was€conducted.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€may€well€decide€that€it€can€make€theÐ à 0 Ðrequired€determinations€without€further€hearing,€but€we€leave€that€choice€to€the€trialÐ ¬ ü  Ðcourt.Ð xÈ  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThis€adjudication€preempts€the€defendantððs€third€issue.€€The€defendantÐ ` Ðargues€in€the€alternative€to€his€position€in€the€second€issue€that€if€the€trial€courtÐ Ü, Ðlacked€the€authority€to€revoke€probation,€by€the€same€token€it€lacked€jurisdiction€toÐ ¨ø Ðissue€the€revocation€warrant.€€As€we€have€said€above,€Code€section€40„20„206Ð tÄ Ðgave€the€trial€court€the€jurisdiction€to€initiate€and€conduct€revocation€of€probationÐ @ Ðproceedings€in€the€context€of€this€case.Ð  \ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€defendant€violated€theÐ ¤ô Ðterms€of€his€probation.€€We€vacate€the€order€of€confinement€in€the€TDOC€andÐ p!À  Ðremand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€determination€and€imposition€of€the€violationÐ <#Œ" Ðof€probation€remedy.Ð %X $ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à________________________________Ð l*¼%* Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ R+¢&+ ÐÌÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð Ð/ +0 ÐÌÌÌÌ______________________________Ð N4ž/5 ÐDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ 45„06 ÐÌÌÌ______________________________Ð Ì84: ÐJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE