WPC .UN % 0(w@4Pds 0J{ 0T 0^ 0hw 0r 0|Q 0 0S 1u 0dXU>U*B)$ AQM 0Dd 0@ 0D DC, D/o B B D3 AM 0X v~ v(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ eEEEӀN7$3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  7Border 1dd((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd!#%C << G & !  #d#  ""     YYY FILEDX June3,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! .        \RA'\ћ75~XXdd7  ќ!R*+%A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE@ MAY1998SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, @ )@ ) NO.03C019709CR00405  Appellee,@ )@ ) KNOXCOUNTY VS. @ )@ ) HON.RICHARDR.     󀀀) BAUMGARTNER,JUDGEAUGUSTATHOMASROBINSON, @ ) @ ) Appellant.@ ) (ProbationRevocation)y FORTHEAPPELLANT:MARKE.STEPHENS DistrictPublicDefender PAULAR.VOSSJAMIENILAND AssistantPublicDefenders1209EuclidAvenueKnoxville,TN37921 FORTHEAPPELLEE:JOHNKNOXWALKUP AttorneyGeneralandReporter TODDR.KELLEY AssistantAttorneyGeneralCordellHullBuilding,2ndFloor425FifthAvenueNorthNashville,TN372430493 RANDALLE.NICHOLS DistrictAttorneyGeneral MARSHASELECMAN AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral400MainAvenueP.O.Box1468Knoxville,TN379011468 OPINIONFILED:򀀀AFFIRMEDJOEG.RILEY,JUDGE  OPINION   Thedefendant,AugustaThomasRobinson,appealstheorderoftheKnoxCountyCriminalCourtrevokinghisprobation.Onappeal,heclaims(1)therewasinsufficientevidencetosupportthetrialcourt'sruling,and(2)hewasdeniedtheminimumlevelofdueprocessrequiredinaprobationrevocationhearing.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.  FACTS   Thedefendantwasinitiallyconvictedofcriminalimpersonationandsentencedtosix(6)monthsprobation.Subsequently,thedefendantwasarrestedontwo(2)countsofburglary.Aprobationviolationwarrantwasissuedbecauseofthearrestandthefailuretoreportthecharges. Thestatepresentedthetestimonyofoneoftheautomobileburglaryvictims,PaulRussell,attherevocationhearing.RusselltestifiedheobservedthedefendantstealtoolsoutofatoolboxinthebackofRussell'struck.Russellhadpreviouslyidentifiedthedefendantinaphotolineupasthepersonwhostolehistools. Thedefendanttestifiedinhisownbehalf.Hestatedhehadnoinvolvementintheoffense. Thetrialcourtfoundsufficientproofhadbeenpresentedtoestablishthedefendantcommittedtheoffense.Thetrialcourtconcluded,therefore,thatthedefendantviolatedhisprobationandorderedhissentenceforcriminalimpersonationtobeservedincustody.  SUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCE    Atrialcourtmayrevokeprobationandordertheimpositionoftheoriginalsentenceuponafindingbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthepersonhasviolatedaconditionofprobation.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035311(d).Thedecisiontorevokeprobationrestswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.Statev.Mitchell,810S.W.2d733,735(Tenn.Crim.App.1991).Revocationofprobationissubjecttoanabuseofdiscretionstandardofreview,ratherthanadenovostandard.Statev.Harkins,811S.W.2d79(Tenn.1991).Discretionisabusedonlyiftherecordcontainsnosubstantialevidencetosupporttheconclusionofthetrialcourtthataviolationofprobationhasoccurred.Id.;Statev.Gregory,946S.W.2d829,832(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).Proofofaviolationneednotbeestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubt,andtheevidenceneedonlyshowthatthetrialjudgeexercisedaconscientiousandintelligentjudgment,ratherthanactingarbitrarily.Gregory,946S.W.2dat832;Statev.Leach,914S.W.2d104,106(Tenn.Crim.App.1995). Theevidencefullysupportsthetrialcourt'srevocationorder.Thestatepresentedtestimonythatthedefendantcommittedacriminaloffenseinviolationofthetermsofhisprobation.Thedefendantdeniedanyinvolvement.Thetrialcourtwasinapositiontojudgetheappearance,demeanorandcredibilityofthewitnesses.Therewascertainlysubstantialevidencetosupportthetrialcourtsfindings. Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  DUEPROCESS   Thedefendantcontendsthathisdueprocessrightswereviolatedbecausethestatedidnotdisclosetohimalloftheevidenceithadregardinghispendingburglarycharges.Hearguesthislackofdisclosurepreventedhimfrompresentinganadequatedefenseattherevocationhearing. Probationrevocationproceedingsaresubjecttoconstitutionallymandatedproceduraldueprocessstandards.SeeGagnonv.Scarpelli,411U.S.778,93S.Ct.1756,36L.Ed.2d656(1973)(adoptingtheproceduralrequirementsforparolerevocationsetforthinMorrisseyv.Brewer,408U.S.471,92S.Ct.2593,33L.Ed.2d484(1972)).Disclosureofthenatureoftheevidenceagainsttheprobationerisamongthesestandards.Morrisseyv.Brewer,408U.S.at489,92S.Ct.at2604,33L.Ed.2dat499.Nothinginthisrecordindicatesthestatefailedtodiscloseexculpatoryevidencetothedefendant.Noristhereashowingthatthedefendantrequestedtherighttoexaminecertainevidenceandwasdeniedthisrightbythestate.Thereisnorequirementthatthestateintroduceallproofatitsdisposal.Thestatemayproperlyintroduceonlyenoughevidencethatitbelieveswillsatisfyitsburdenofproof,provideditdoesnotwithholdexculpatoryevidence.Thedefendantwasgivenpriornoticeoftherevocationhearingwherehewasallowedcounsel,therighttocrossexaminewitnessesagainsthim,callwitnessesonhisown,andtestifyinhisowndefense.Dueprocesswassatisfied. Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  CONCLUSION   Theevidenceadducedattherevocationhearingissufficienttosupportthetrialcourt'sconclusionthatthedefendantviolatedhisprobation.Therefore,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED.       _________________________       JOEG.RILEY,JUDGECONCUR: _________________________ JOSEPHM.TIPTON,JUDGE________________________CURWOODWITT,JUDGE