ÿWPC½ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ U,- 0dY U,½ U>é U*'B)QDCz B½ AMÚ-'v~TvÓÒ D3¥ 0@Ø AOÆg 0D- D/q B ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- »¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃӀϻ~g Àä3|xÑ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òMarch€13,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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 „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€"ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¶XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€&'$;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌÌœJANUARY›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ03C01„9509„CC„00258›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœSULLIVAN›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œARDEN€L.€HILLó ó›Ìò òœROBERT€ANTHONY€MESSER,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà àœ(Probation€Revocation)›ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€œFROM›€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œSULLIVAN€COUNTYó ó›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœB.€C.€MCINTURFF›à àà àà àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ132€Broad€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€583ÌKingsport,€TN€37662à àà àà àMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0495ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGREELEY€WELLSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€MONTGOMERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€"°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€"XÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àThe€Defendant,€Robert€Anthony€Messer,€appeals€as€of€right€from€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€which€found€him€to€be€in€violation€of€the€terms€of€hisÏprobation.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€œjudge›€abused€his€discretion€inÏrevoking€the€Defendantððs€probation.€€We€disagree€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àOn€August€17,€1994,€the€Defendant€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€to€one€count€ofÏvehicular€homicide.€€He€was€sentenced€to€serve€three€years€œin€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Correction,›€which€would€be€suspended€after€the€service€of€eightÏmonths.€€On€August€22,€1994,€the€Defendant€met€with€his€probation€officer€andÏsigned€the€terms€of€his€probation€agreement.€€Two€of€the€terms€provided€that€theÏDefendant€ð ðshall€obey€the€laws€of€Tennessee€and€any€other€state,ðð€and€that€theÏDefendant€would€stay€away€from€alcohol€of€any€kind.ÌÌà àOn€the€night€of€September€11,€1994,€less€than€a€week€before€the€DefendantÏwas€to€report€to€serve€his€sentence,€he€was€a€passenger€in€a€one„vehicle€accidentÏin€Virginia.€€Because€the€driver€of€the€vehicle,€Robert€Shelton,€had€been€drinkingÍand€because€beer€was€in€the€car,€the€œdriver€of€the€vehicle€and€the€Defendant›Ïagreed€to€report€that€the€vehicle€was€stolen.€€ÌÌà àThe€next€morning,€Shelton€reported€that€the€vehicle€was€stolen.€€When€anÏinvestigating€officer€questioned€the€Defendant,€he€said€that€the€vehicle€had€been€atÏSheltonððs€residence€on€the€night€of€September€11,€but€was€€missing€when€heÏawoke€the€next€morning.€€Shelton,€however,€gave€a€conflicting€statement€to€theÏpolice.€€The€police€subsequently€issued€a€warrant€for€the€Defendant€charging€thatÏhe€gave€false€information€to€a€police€officer.€€œÌ›Ìà àAfter€being€contacted€by€the€Virginia€authorities€about€the€DefendantððsÏpending€charge,€the€probation€officer€œcalled›€the€œDefendant.€€After€discussing€theÏincident€with€the€Defendant,€the€probation€officer›€filed€the€probation€violationÏwarrant.€€Meanwhile,€the€Defendant€served€the€œeight€months›€œof€incarceration€for›€œtheÏvehicular›€homicide€and€was€released€on€March€15,€1995.ÌÌà àOn€May€5,€1995,€a€probation€revocation€hearing€was€held.€€After€hearing€theÏtestimony€of€the€Defendant,€the€probation€officer,€the€Defendantððs€mother,€and€theÏtwo€investigating€officers€from€the€Virginia€police,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏDefendant€had€violated€the€terms€of€his€probation€and€ordered€the€Defendant€toÍserve€the€remainder€of€his€three„year€sentence€in€œjail.€€It€is€from€this€order€that€theÏDefendant€appeals.›ÌÌœà àIn€deciding€whether€a€condition€of€probation€has€been€violated,€a€trial€judgeÏneed€not€find€that€a€violation€has€been€proved€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€butÏrather€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€establishes€the€violation.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(d).€€Thereafter,€the€record€must€show€that€the€trial€judgeÏhas€exercised€conscientious€judgment€in€making€the€decision€rather€than€actingÏarbitrarily.€€òòStamps€v.€Stateóó,€614€S.W.2d€71,€73€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€òòpermóó.€òòtoóóÏòòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€€(Tenn.€1981).€€"In€reviewing€the€findings€of€the€trial€judge,€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€given€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict."€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àOnce€a€violation€has€occurred,€the€decision€of€whether€to€revoke€aÏsuspended€sentence€rests€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.ÏMitchellóó,€810€S.W.2d€733,€735€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€€The€trial€judge€has€a€dutyÏat€probation€revocation€hearings€to€adduce€sufficient€evidence€to€allow€him€toÏmake€an€intelligent€decision.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àFor€an€appellate€court€to€be€warranted€in€finding€that€a€trial€judge€erred€inÏdetermining€that€a€violation€has€occurred,€it€must€be€established€that€the€recordÍcontains€no€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòStateÏv.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,€82€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€violation€is€so€supported€by€theÏrecord,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€revoking€probation€will€not€be€disturbed€onÏappeal€unless€it€appears€that€there€has€been€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€Ì›Ìà àAt€the€hearing€on€the€probation€violation€warrant,€the€Defendantððs€probationÏofficer,€John€Edens,€testified€that€he€learned€from€Virginia€police€officers€that€theÏDefendant€had€been€charged€with€giving€false€information€to€a€police€officer.€ÏEdens€said€that€he€then€called€the€Defendant.€€The€Defendant€told€him€that€he€wasÏa€passenger€in€the€car€when€the€wreck€occurred.€€The€Defendant€also€told€EdensÏthat€ð ðhe€knew€it€was€a€violation€of€his€probation€to€get€in€the€car€because€of€the€factÏthat€there€were€three€beers€in€the€car.ðð€€The€probation€officer€did€not€remember€ifÏthe€Defendant€explained€why€he€had€given€false€information€to€the€police.€€EdensÏsubsequently€issued€a€probation€violation€warrant.€€ÌÌÓ  Óà àAt€the€probation€revocation€hearing,€the€Defendant€admitted€that€he€falselyÏtold€the€police€that€the€car€had€been€stolen.€€The€Defendant€also€admitted€on€cross„examination€that€he€told€his€probation€officer€that€the€reason€he€lied€to€the€policeÏwas€to€protect€the€driver€of€the€car€who€had€been€drinking.€€œAt€the€hearing,Ïhowever,€the›€Defendant€denied€that€he€knew€beer€was€in€the€car€before€the€wreck.€ÍHe€testified€that€the€first€time€he€œrealized›€beer€was€in€the€car€was€immediately€afterÏthe€wreck€when€he€smelled€beer€from€the€broken€bottles.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€violated€œterm›€one,€that€he€obey€theÏlaws€of€this€State€and€other€œstates,›€and€œterm€ten,›€that€he€not€be€in€the€presence€ofÏalcohol.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€revoked€the€Defendantððs€probation.ÌÌà àThe€State€presented€sufficient€evidence€through€the€testimony€of€theÏDefendantððs€probation€officer€and€Virginia€police€officers€that€the€DefendantÏviolated€the€terms€of€his€probation.€€The€Defendant€admitted€that€he€gave€falseÏinformation€to€the€police€officers€investigating€the€œVirginia€accident.›€€€ÌÌà àœThe€record€indicates€that€the›€trial€court€properly€listened€to€all€of€theÏevidence€and€made€a€conscientious€decision€in€revoking€the€probation.€€TheÏDefendant€had€been€sentenced€with€probation€for€the€crime€of€vehicular€homicideÏless€than€a€month€before€he€was€involved€in€this€wreck.€€Although€he€was€only€aÏpassenger€in€the€wreck€in€this€case,€he€knowingly€gave€false€statements€to€œpolice.€ÏBy€doing€this,€he€certainly€violated€condition€one€of€his€probation€by€failing€to€obeyÏthe€laws€of€this€State€or€any€other.›€€ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€record€contains€substantial€evidence€to€support€theÏconclusion€of€the€trial€judge€that€the€Defendant€violated€the€conditions€of€hisÏprobation.€€œAlthough€the€question€presents€a€fairly€close€call,€based›€on€theÏevidence€presented€at€the€revocation€hearing,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourt€abused€his€discretion€œin€revoking€the€Defendantððs€probation.›ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€ÌÌÌÓӜǛà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE›