ÿWPC£ 83üÐ×™tÌ{§ù¥ŽEäíéBþçBZ§Iùú»›Ê ç ý#«*’Œ438™ú·ƒbr*`‹`k8yþ9¥Ø3/7ÊV}•ƒSÚþâîû¯Ô@Tu×PZbªAÏ^ ŒS!ÜÂûÁ5/÷3„Ë´Î98YS,³*Ì/§zûFÈóu ®þå±â#)ÎãFWHrMRg#]gæÁÐÌôΉ2% Ô¶gï6ò;jprçßá.z!›e[þ‚{sj/{§5ƒ2;ö_Ôc¿@m¹™×Û¦µ!ÿ⟟Ûj"ÜñKÖŠ},ƒËÕäì?.àPÖ'Ãÿ¦b¶p”,fE>’ÐÞéÁ²Sü™ÁÞ§@c¨ƒå¼Í_¶j¨DÐYÏ»U8¼*s:é/NK1ÉAl›Ñïž'ŽŽ;%øW¡ü!çµ™7h0aoÔéC#0$–¤Å¼ÝM Ö©Lf`Ñ Ð$Y-ßAÒ+ÊÕøöÊö›Ö·åN5ƒg«­Æàù÷¾[MJ8Ê^7¸yî´F³¸¡/‰“ˆç+]ÒŽUÏ6M{á›|Fsš{xô‡s2~¾ñ:w É*룵ºhª1ïï.Ÿ±}£$óÝDùï||uë¿Ö\…# F %Q UNW 0Æ¥ k 4s ‡  – U:¶ w@ð U:00000000000000000000000000 Bjjjjj D3‡‡‡ 0Dºººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººº AOþÆMM 0D D/W B†˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐX(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓƒƒ '3|xw Ô€ XãöXXXÔÔ€ îX XãöÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ ÆÍî ÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€26,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ô^Ùô ÆÍÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular cDdefEghDi•jDklÓ€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýñlñ›ñlñÑ7€çXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ XãöXXXÔñlñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@Ehf  tt0" ` ¨Ørß›ñlñà@g g ÚàòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóˆÐ `  Ðà@*ÚàòòAT€KNOXVILLEóóˆÐ , Ì Ðà@(ÚàJULY€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌGERALD€œH.€SCHAFFER,›€à ” àà ì à*à D àC.C.A.€#€03C01„9807„CR„00226Ð 0 Ðà Œ àà ä àAppellant,à ” àà ì à*à D àKNOX€COUNTYÐ \ü  ÐVS.à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à*à D àHon.€Richard€Baumgartner,€JudgeÐ (È  ÐÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ” àà ì à*à D à(Probation€Revocation)Ð ô”  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAppellee.à ” àà ì à*Ð À` ÐÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à < àà ” àà ì àà D àòòFor€Appelleeóó:Ð $Ä ÐÌœMark€E.€Stephensà < àà ” àà ì àà D àPaul€G.€Summers€Ð ð ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà ” àà ì àà D àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ Öv Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àÌJim€Owen€à ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àTodd€R.€Kelley€Ð ¢!B ÐAssistant€District€Public€Defenderà D àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ ˆ"( Ð1209€Euclid€Avenue€à ” àà ì àà D à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ n# ÐKnoxville,€TN€€37921à ” àà ì àà D àSecond€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÐ T$ô Ð(at€trial€and€on€appeal)à ” àà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð :%Ú ÐandÌPaula€R.€Voss€€à < àà ” àà ì àà D àMarsha€Selecman€Ð '¦! ÐAssistant€Public€Defender€à ì àà D àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ ì'Œ" Ð1209€Euclid€Avenueà ” àà ì àà D à400€Main€AvenueÐ Ò(r# ÐKnoxville,€TN€€37921à ” àà ì àà D àCity€County€BuildingÐ ¸)X $ Ð(on€appeal)à ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àñcñÐ ž*>!% Ðà œ àà œ àà œ àà œ àà œ àà œ àñcñKnoxville,€TN€€37902Ð ž*>!% ÐÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ  f5,1S ÐÓÓà@33-ÚàòòOPINIONóóˆÐ `  Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant,€Gerald€ñeñHñeññfññeñ€ñeññfññgñ.€ñgñSchaffer,€entered€pleas€of€guilt€toÏaggravated€burglary€and€theft€of€property€less€than€$1,000.00.€€On€April€20,€1992,Ïthe€trial€court€imposed€Range€I,€three„€and€one„year€sentences,€respectively.€€TheÏdefendant€was€placed€on€probation.€€On€July€31,€1992,€the€state€filed€a€warrantÏclaiming€a€violation€of€the€terms€of€probation.€€Two€and€one„half€months€later,€theÏtrial€court€entered€an€order€placing€the€case€in€ñhñ"ñhñthe€ñjññiñÌñiññjññkñ"ñkñinactive€file."€€On€March€23,Ï1993,€the€trial€court€appointed€defense€counsel€and€ñdñsome€ñdñfive€years€and€one€monthÏlater,€the€warrant€seeking€revocation€was€amended€to€include€two€additionalÏgrounds.€€In€June€of€1998,€the€trial€court€revoked€probation€and€ordered€a€three„yearÏsentence€to€be€served€in€the€department€of€correction.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erredÏby€allowing€the€1998€amendment€which€alleged€grounds€arising€after€the€1992Ïwarrant.€€We€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€original€revocation€warrant€was€issued€based€upon€theÏdefendant's€arrest€for€aggravated€assault€on€June€19,€1992.€€That€charge€was,Ïhowever,€dismissed€on€March€2,€1993.€€Because€the€defendant,€who€had€beenÏreleased€on€his€own€recognizance,€failed€to€appear€before€a€probation€revocationÏhearing€on€June€4,€1993,€a€capias€was€issued€for€his€arrest.€€The€additionalÏgrounds,€as€specified€below,€were€not€filed€until€1998:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(1)€€The€failure€of€the€defendant€to€procure€the€consentÏof€his€probation€officer€before€a€change€of€address,€aÏchange€of€employment,€or€a€departure€of€the€county€orÏthe€state;€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(2)€€The€failure€to€obey€the€laws€of€the€United€States€byÏthe€commission€of€a€robbery€in€Maryland€in€1997.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÌÐ þ8ž/5 ÐÓÓà Œ àà ä àWhile€determining€that€the€defendant€was€entitled€to€three€hundredÏtwenty„three€days€of€jail€time€credit,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€defendant€hadÏviolated€the€conditions€of€his€probation€and€ordered€revocation.€€The€evidentiaryÏhearing€established€that€the€defendant€left€the€state€on€or€about€April€20,€1993,€andÏdid€not€return€until€shortly€before€the€hearing€in€1998.€€It€was€uncontested€that€theÏdefendant,€who€had€clearly€left€Tennessee€without€permission€from€the€authorities,Ïhad€subsequently€robbed€an€elderly€Maryland€woman€of€a€purse.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€this€appeal,€€the€defendant€complains€that€the€amendments€cannot€Ïrelate€back€to€the€July€31,€1992,€revocation€warrant.€€He€asserts€that€the€stateÏshould€have€amended€the€warrant€immediately€after€he€left€the€jurisdiction€in€1993.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(a)€authorizes€the€issuance€of€a€warrantÏfor€the€arrest€of€a€defendant€who€has€violated€the€conditions€of€his€probation€orÏbreached€the€laws€of€the€state.€€Upon€revocation€of€probation,€the€trial€court€has€theÏdiscretionary€authority€to€reinstate€the€original€€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Dukeóó,€902Ð T$ô ÐS.W.2d€424€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€statute€of€limitations€is€tolled€by€theÏissuance€of€a€warrant€and€not€by€the€service€of€the€warrant€on€the€defendant.€€òòAllenÐ ì'Œ" Ðv.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€715,€717€(Tenn.€1974).€€Ð ¸)X $ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThis€case€is€not€distinguishable€from€the€opinion€filed€by€this€court€inÏòòState€v.€Clarkóó,€970€S.W.2d€516€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998),€wherein€it€was€held€thatÐ /¼%* Ðbecause€there€was€a€pending€revocation€warrant€on€other€grounds€filed€prior€to€theÏexpiration€of€the€probationary€term,€the€trial€court€had€authority€to€revoke€probationÏfor€a€criminal€offense€which€occurred€after€the€expiration€of€the€term.€€In€òòClarkóó,€thisÐ €4 +0 Ðcourt€ruled€that€a€revocation€warrant,€which€was€filed€before€the€probation€periodÏwould€have€ended,€tolled€the€time€limitations€because€there€had€been€no€dispositionÐ 8¸.4 Ðbefore€the€amendment.€€A€probation€violation€occurring€after€the€original€term€of€theÏsentence€was,€therefore,€deemed€a€proper€basis€for€revocation.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThere€is€a€distinction€between€this€case€and€those€in€òòClarkóó€that€favorsÐ Äd Ðthe€position€of€the€state.€€Here,€the€revocation€was€based€at€least€in€part€on€theÏdefendant's€unauthorized€departure€from€the€state,€a€ground€documented€by€theÏissuance€of€a€capias€in€1993.€€That€violation€arose€within€the€original€term€ofÏprobation€and€in€association€with€the€initial€ground€alleged€in€the€revocation€warrant.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€917€S.W.2d€251€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€Ð À` ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€makes€the€argument€that€this€court€should€not€followÏthe€rule€in€òòClarkóó.€€Had€all€of€the€grounds€for€revocation€arisen€after€the€expiration€ofÐ $Ä Ðthe€original€term,€that€assertion€may€have€been€more€persuasive.€€This€courtÏnonetheless€chooses€to€follow€its€own€precedent.€€In€our€view,€the€trial€court€had€theÏauthority€to€revoke€probation€and€did€not€abuse€its€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811Ð ˆ"( ÐS.W.2d€79€(Tenn.€1991).€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à________________________________Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJoe€G.€Riley,€Judge€