ÿWPC 4# èU>ó %1 0í7UB$4fzn­‰U:6pw@x 01¸ 0Dé 0J- 0Tw 0^Ë 0h) 0r‘ 0| 0† 0 1u• 0d Bn 0@‹ D3Ë U6þ U.4 U*b B)Œ AQµ Æ 0DÌ 0D D/T BƒDC  AMã„0v~´vÓ2˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÜÏ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiäzz!3|xx«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular dUeDfDghDi jklÓ€x(á(3LI$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ëªXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd((((7Border 1dd* /Cþÿ << Gÿÿ zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òJune€19,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€'ÔÑ7€ ¬ƒ XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ*ÙßR€01/A1-j|Ÿýå` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JUNE€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9509„CC„00267Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHenry€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€Julian€P.€Guinn,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌTIMOTHY€LEE€STUBBLEFIELD,€)à à(Probation€Revocation)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌDonald€E.€Parishà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ124€East€Paris€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌP.O.€Box€229à àà àà àà àà àandÌHuntingdon,€TN€38344à àà àà àRobin€L.€HarrisÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÏà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àRobert€RadfordÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€686Ìà àà àà àà àà àHuntingdon,€TN€38344ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÇà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€defendant,€Timothy€Lee€Stubblefield,€appeals€as€of€right€from€anÏorder€of€the€Henry€County€Circuit€Court€revoking€his€split€confinement€probation.€€HeÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€had€no€authority€to€revoke€his€probation€based€on€offensesÏhe€committed€before€he€was€convicted€and€sentenced€to€split€confinement.€€We€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àIn€November€1993,€the€defendant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€aggravatedÏassault€in€case€number€11990.€€He€was€sentenced€in€December€1993€to€a€four„yearÏsentence€that€was€to€be€suspended€with€supervised€probation€imposed€after€heÏserved€one€year.€€While€out€on€bond€before€his€trial€in€this€case,€the€defendantÏfeloniously€possessed€a€weapon€and€committed€another€aggravated€assault.€€He€pledÏguilty€to€these€charges€on€July€11,€1994,€several€months€after€he€was€sentenced€in€theÏpresent€case,€and€received€a€one„year€sentence€for€the€unlawful€possession€of€aÏweapon€conviction€and€a€three„year„four„month€sentence€for€the€aggravated€assaultÏconviction.€€The€sentences€were€to€be€served€concurrently€with€each€other€andÏconsecutively€to€the€sentence€in€this€case.€€In€May€1995,€the€trial€court€granted€theÏstateððs€petition€to€revoke€the€defendantððs€suspended€sentence€in€the€present€caseÏbased€upon€his€criminal€activity€while€he€was€on€bond€pending€trial.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€revoking€hisÏprobation€based€on€his€commission€of€aggravated€assault€and€unlawful€possession€ofÏa€weapon€before€he€was€convicted€or€sentenced€in€this€case.€€He€asserts€that€the€trialÏcourt€was€without€statutory€authority€to€revoke€his€probation€and€argues€that€revokingÏhis€probation€for€acts€committed€at€a€time€when€he€was€not€on€probation€or€under€aÏjudgment€of€conviction€violates€due€process€under€Article€I,€Section€8€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€He€cites€no€other€authority,€stating€only€that€he€is€unaware€ofÏany€authority€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€actions.€€We€disagree€with€the€defendantððsÏœcontentions.Ì›Ìà à€Trial€courts€are€granted€broad€authority€under€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„310€toÏrevoke€a€suspended€sentence€ð ðat€any€time€within€the€maximum€time€which€wasÏdirected€and€ordered€by€the€court€for€suspension,€after€proceeding€as€provided€in€ððÏ40„35„311.ðð€€The€circumstances€that€can€trigger€the€revocation€process€are€specified€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„311(a):ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àWhenever€it€shall€come€to€the€attention€of€the€trial€judge€thatÏany€defendant€who€has€been€released€upon€suspension€ofÏsentence€has€been€guilty€of€any€breach€of€the€laws€of€thisÏstate€or€who€has€violated€the€conditions€of€his€probation,€theÏtrial€judge€shall€have€the€power€to€cause€to€be€issued€underÏhis€hand€a€warrant€for€the€arrest€of€such€defendant€œas€in›€œanyÏother›€criminal€œcase.€.€.€.›ÌœÌ›ÓÓÓ  ÓUnder€this€section,€compliance€with€our€state€laws€is€an€automatic€condition€of€aÏsuspended€sentence,€and€when€a€trial€court€learns€that€a€defendant€has€violated€theÏlaw,€it€has€the€power€to€initiate€revocation€proceedings.€€ÌÌà àNotably,€the€statute€grants€a€trial€court€authority€to€begin€revocationÏproceedings€whenever€the€breach€of€law€comes€to€the€attention€of€the€trial€court.€€ItÏdoes€not€specify€that€trial€courts€are€to€consider€criminal€acts€œthat€only›€œoccur›€after€theÏimposition€of€a€suspended€sentence.€€Under€the€statute,€a€trial€courtððs€authority€toÏrevoke€a€defendantððs€suspended€sentence€is€triggered€by€its€learning€of€theÏdefendantððs€other€criminal€conduct.€€We€recognize€that€this€court€has€previouslyÏindicated€that€a€trial€court€should€not€base€revocation€of€a€defendantððs€suspendedÏsentence€on€prior€criminal€acts€that€were€known€to€it€at€the€time€it€imposed€theÏsuspended€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€of€Tennessee€v.€Shannon€Lee€Beckneróó,€No.€923,ÏSullivan€County,€slip€op.€at€9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€2,€1991).€€We€œmay€then›€presumeÏthat€the€trial€court€considered€the€prior€acts€in€its€sentencing€determinations.€€However,Ïthis€court€has€also€authorized€revocation€of€a€defendantððs€probation€for€criminal€actsÏhe€committed€before€he€received€a€probationary€sentence€if€the€trial€court€was€withoutÏknowledge€of€the€other€criminal€acts€when€it€imposed€the€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏDeloris€Jean€Click€Signoraccióó,€œNo.ÌC„2618,›€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(revocation€allowed€for€offensesÏcommitted€after€the€original€offense€and€before€probation€was€granted€when€theÏoffenses€were€not€revealed€to€the€trial€court€at€the€probation€œhearing).›ÌÌà àWe€recognize€that€a€defendant€who€is€granted€probation€has€a€libertyÏinterest€that€is€protected€by€due€process€of€law.€€òòPracty€v.€Stateóó,€œ525›€S.W.2d€œ677,›€œ680›Ïœ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).›€€Also,€it€is€fundamental€to€our€system€of€justice€through€dueÏprocess€that€persons€who€are€to€suffer€penal€sanctions€must€have€reasonable€notice€ofÏthe€conduct€that€is€prohibited.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Harrissóó,€347€U.S.€612,€617,€74€S.€Ct.Ï808,€812€(1954);€òòState€v.€Ashóó,€729€S.W.2d€275,€279€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€In€thisÏvein,€a€trial€court€would€usually€be€unable€to€revoke€a€defendantððs€suspendedÏsentence€based€on€violations€of€probation€conditions€before€those€œconditions€are€set.ÌÌà àHowever,€revoking€probation›€based€upon€criminal€acts€œa€defendant›Ïcommitted€before€œbeing›€placed€on€probation€does€not€implicate€these€due€processÏconcerns€because,€unlike€other€conditions€of€probation€œthat›€œmay€be›€œimposed,›€theÏdefendant€is€deemed€to€have€notice€that€his€or€her€conduct€must€conform€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€law€from€the€time€of€the€lawððs€enactment.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stoneóó,€880ÏS.W.2d€746€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€œ(revocation›€proper€for€criminal€acts€occurringÏbefore€probationary€period€begins).€€Also,€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989Ïputs€citizens€on€notice€that€criminal€history,€through€conduct€or€by€convictions,€mayÍenhance€a€sentence€or€result€in€imposition€of€a€sentence€to€confinement.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,ÏT.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„103€„„108,€„114(1),€and€„311.€€Similarly,€as€òòSignoraccióó€reflects,€aÏdefendantððs€criminal€conduct€after€arrest€that€is€not€disclosed€to€the€trial€court€at€theÏtime€of€the€grant€of€probation€need€not€go€unnoticed€for€revocation€purposes.€€Ô€'ôÔ€€€Ô€'XÔ€ÌÌà à€The€resolution€of€this€case€depends€upon€whether€the€trial€court€had€Ïknowledge€of€the€defendantððs€other€criminal€acts€when€it€sentenced€him€to€splitÏconfinement.€€The€transcript€of€the€revocation€hearing€is€slightly€over€five€pages€andÏconsists€only€of€arguments€by€counsel.€€The€parties€stipulated€that€the€defendantÏcommitted€aggravated€assault€and€unlawfully€possessed€a€weapon€while€he€was€onÏbond€pending€trial,€and€the€trial€court€took€judicial€notice€of€its€records€concerning€theÏdefendantððs€convictions.€€Although€the€presentence€report€reflects€three€arrests€forÏaggravated€assault€œafter›€the€defendantððs€arrest€in€this€case,€we€are€mindful€that€the€trialÏcourt€could€not€have€considered€them,€without€more,€as€evidence€of€criminal€conduct.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€674€S.W.2d€279,€284€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Newsomeóó,€798ÏS.W.2d€542,€543€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1990).€€The€report€provides€no€particulars,€notÏeven€the€dates.›€€More€significantly,€we€do€not€have€a€transcript€of€the€originalÏsentencing€œhearing.€›€We€have€no€way€of€knowing€whether€the€trial€court€was€providedÏthe€facts€involved€or€even€if€the€trial€court€specifically€delayed€consideration€until€thoseÏcases€were€ultimately€concluded.€€In€sum,€we€cannot€discern€from€the€record€before€usÍif€the€trial€court€knew€about€the€defendantððs€other€criminal€conduct€in€such€a€fashion€asÏwould€bar€that€conductððs€use€for€revocation€purposes.€€ÌÌà àThe€standard€of€appellate€review€of€a€probation€revocation€is€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,€œ82›€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Delpóó,€614ÏS.W.2d€395€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€This€means€that€if€the€record€presentsÏsubstantial€evidence€to€support€revocation,€the€trial€courtððs€action€will€be€approved.€ÏòòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€œ82.›€€In€this€respect,€the€defendantððs€subsequent€convictionsÏconstitutes€substantial€evidence.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòòÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌœà àà àà àà àà àà àóó_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judgeòò›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóóÌÌÌœ›CONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge€€