ÿWPC— …# VUNa %¯ 0Dµ4ù  0ˆ$ 0D¬ w@ð 0J0 0Tz 0^Î 0h, 0r” 0| 0†‚ 0 1u˜ 0d  BqU>ŽU*ÌB)öDC D3b AM•%â 0@GÍÔv~¡vÓ AOòÆA 0D D/K Bz˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ñÄ$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒX°Ò³†;$ppppdp3|xW(8(3Åå$¤¤Ý ƒñÄ!ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó EUFDGDHDIPJDKDLDMDNÓ€2 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌJuneÏ30,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ƒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔThe€appellant€began€his€probation€in€1991€while€living€in€Colorado.€€In€February€1992,€heÏmoved€back€to€Tennessee€and€took€up€residence€at€Asbury›€Court€in€Williamson€County.€Ì ÃÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔÔ€'ÔIn€his€brief,€the€appellant€points€to€eight€statements€made€by€the€trial€judge€during€theÏrevocation€hearing€which€he€contends€show€bias€and€prejudice.€€We€have€thoroughly€reviewed€thoseÏstatements€and€note€that€five€of€the€eight€statements€were€made€after€the€close€of€the€evidence€whenÏthe€trial€judge€was€issuing€her€findings€and€conclusions€of€fact.€€The€statements,€when€read€in€theÏcontext€of€the€entire€record,€fail€to€show€bias€or€prejudice€so€as€to€require€a€recusal›.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÑ7€vyXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€'ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ ` °œXÓÙ€€ÙßR€+,)A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àFEBRUARY€1998€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àœNO.›€01C01„9703„CR„00077Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àœDAVIDSON›€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHON.›€ANN€LACY€JOHNS,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœJUDGE›€ÌDOMINIC€JUDE€AMARI,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœ(Probation›€Revocation)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à à€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌà àÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àœòòFOR›€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌClark€Lee€Shawà àà àà àà àà àœJohn›€Knox€WalkupÌ2525€Lebanon€Roadà àà àà àà àœAttorney›€General€and€ReporterÌNashville,€Tennessee€37214Ì(at€trial€and€on€appeal)à àà àà àà àœEllen›€H.€PollackÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAssistant›€Attorney€GeneralÌLionel€R.€Barrett,€Jr.à àà àà àà àœ450›€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌWashington€Square€Two€à àà àà àà àœNashville,›€Tennessee€œ37243„0493ÏSuite›€417€à àà àà àà àà àà àœÌNashville,›€Tennessee€37201à àà àà àœVictor›€S.€Johnson,€IIIà àÌ(at€trial)à àà àà àà àà àà àœDistrict›€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœ›à àà àà àà àà àœà àà àà àà à›à àà àà àRoger€MooreÌà àà àà àà àœ›à àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àœ›à àà àà àWashington€Square€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àœ›à àà àà àSuite€500Ìà àà àà àà àœ›à àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________à àÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÓÓòòÌÌà@ àOPINIONóóÌà àThe€appellant,€Dominic€Jude€Amari,€appeals€from€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€revoking€his€probation€and€sentencing€him€to€one€(1)€year€and€six€(6)€months€inÏthe€Metro„Davidson€County€Detention€Center,€with€the€appellant€being€required€toÏserve€thirty€days€of€that€sentence€at€100%,€day€for€day.€€The€appellant€raises€twoÏissues€for€our€consideration€on€appeal.€€First,€he€contends€that€the€evidenceÏintroduced€at€the€€probation€revocation€hearing€was€insufficient€to€support€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€to€revoke€his€probation.€€Second,€he€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€failing€to€recuse€herself€from€the€revocation€proceeding.€€Ìà àFollowing€our€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€there€is€no€reversibleÏerror€and,€accordingly,€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ìà àThis€case€had€its€beginnings€in€a€protracted€and€bitterly€contested€divorce€andÏcustody€proceeding€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County.€€The€appellantððs€formerÏwife€was€awarded€custody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€son.€€The€appellant,€in€defiance€of€theÏcustody€order,€took€his€minor€son€and€fled€from€the€State€of€Tennessee,€using€falseÏidentification€papers.€€He€was€ultimately€arrested€and€custody€of€the€minor€child€wasÏreturned€to€the€appellantððs€former€wife.€€Following€his€arrest,€the€appellant€wasÏindicted€in€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court€for€the€violation€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€39„2„303,€which€was€the€child€kidnapping€statute€in€effect€at€thatÏtime.€€Ìà àSubsequently,€the€appellant€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€to€the€offense€as€charged,Ïand€was€sentenced€to€immediate€probation€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„35„313,€sometimes€referred€to€as€the€ð ðjudicial€diversionððÏstatute.€€Ìà àAs€a€part€of€his€judicial€diversion,€the€appellant€was€placed€upon€a€term€ofÏprobation€for€thirteen€(13)€years€when€appellantððs€child€would€attain€the€age€ofÏeighteen€(18)€years.€€In€addition,€the€appellant€was€required€to€ð ðabide€by€all€orders€ofÏany€court€with€domestic€jurisdiction.ðð€€Ìà àSubsequently,€in€July€1996,€the€appellant,€in€the€presence€of€his€minor€son,Ïgave€a€television€interview€to€a€local€television€station€in€Nashville.€€The€interviewÏapparently€focused€on€the€appellantððs€belief€that€fathers€generally€do€not€receive€fairÏtreatment€from€the€courts€with€respect€to€custody€issues.€€Ìà àOne€of€the€provisions€of€the€appellantððs€divorce€decree€was€that€he€wasÏenjoined€from€discussing€ð ðmatters€pertaining€to€the€[appellantððs]€divorce€[from€hisÏwife]€and€legal€matters€.€.€.€in€the€presence€of€[the€coupleððs]€son.ðð€€Accordingly,€afterÏappellant€gave€the€television€interview,€he€was€ordered€to€appear€in€the€circuit€courtÏto€show€cause€why€he€should€not€be€adjudged€in€contempt€for€violating€that€portionÏof€the€courtððs€order.€€Following€the€show€cause€hearing,€the€circuit€court,€which€hadÏdomestic€jurisdiction€over€the€appellant,€found€him€to€be€in€criminal€contempt€of€itsÏorder€and€sentenced€him€to€a€ten€(10)€day€suspended€sentence.€€Ìà àThereafter,€on€July€17,€1996,€a€probation€revocation€warrant€was€issuedÏalleging€that€the€appellant€had€violated€a€condition€of€his€probation€by€having€beenÏfound€in€contempt€of€the€circuit€courtððs€order.€€Ìà àOn€September€11,€1996,€a€revocation€hearing€was€conducted.€€During€theÏcourse€of€that€hearing,€the€trial€court€received€evidence€regarding€the€interview€that€Ïappellant€had€given€to€the€television€station€which€prompted€the€contempt€hearing€inÏthe€circuit€court.€€The€trial€court€was€also€concerned€about€whether€the€appellant€hadÏalso€violated€other€conditions€of€his€probation€by:€€(1)€living€outside€of€DavidsonÍCounty€without€the€trial€courtððs€permission;€(2)€traveling€out€of€the€State€of€TennesseeÏwithout€the€trial€courtððs€permission;€and€(3)€maintaining€self„employment.€€The€trialÏjudge,€therefore,€continued€the€matter€until€September€25,€1996,€in€order€to€cause€aÏsecond€probation€revocation€warrant€to€issue€and€be€served€upon€the€appellantÏgiving€him€notice€of€the€additional€allegations.€€However,€no€additional€probationÏviolation€warrant€appears€in€the€record€on€appeal,€and€none€was€served€upon€theÏappellant.€€Counsel€for€the€appellant,€nevertheless,€announced€that€he€was€ready€toÏproceed€with€both€probation€revocation€warrants€when€the€September€25,€1996,Ïhearing€commenced.€€Ìà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€September€25,€1996,€the€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€appellant€had€violated€the€terms€and€conditions€of€his€probationÏby:€€(1)€violating€the€order€of€the€circuit€court€respecting€his€domestic€case;€(2)€livingÏin€Williamson€County€without€having€obtained€permission€of€the€trial€court;€(3)€Ïtraveling€out€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€without€first€obtaining€the€permission€of€theÏtrial€court;€and€(4)€being€self„employed.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€revokedÏappellantððs€judicial€diversion,€fixed€his€sentence€at€eighteen€(18)€months,€andÏordered€that€he€serve€thirty€(30)€days€of€that€eighteen„month€sentence€at€100%,€dayÏfor€day,€in€the€Metro„Davidson€County€Detention€Center.€€Ìà àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€first€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€revoke€his€probation.€€With€respect€to€appellantððsÍresidence€in€Williamson€County,€his€business€travel,€and€his€employment,€we€agreeÏthat€the€record€fails€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€appellant€violated€theÏterms€of€his€probation.€Ìà àWe€have€reviewed€the€record€on€appeal€and€find€nothing€in€the€order€ofÏprobation€which€would€have€required€the€appellant€to€first€obtain€permission€of€theÏtrial€court€to€live€in€Williamson€County,€rather€than€Davidson€County,€to€travel€out„of„state€on€business,€and€to€be€self„employed.€€The€evidence€indicates€that€since€1992,Ïthe€appellant€has€lived€at€Asbury€Court,€just€across€the€Davidson€County€line€inÏWilliamson€County,€he€has€traveled€out„of„state€on€business€trips€as€an€engineeringÏconsultant,€and€he€has€been€both€self„employed€and€employed€through€variousÏconsulting€businesses.× ƒ. ××  ×€€Appellant€notified€his€probation€officer€about€his€addressÏand€his€means€of€employment,€and€he€received€permission€for€each€trip€that€he€tookÏin€the€course€of€his€business.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€appellant€complied€with€theÏconditions€of€his€probation€in€those€respects.Ìà àNevertheless,€the€trial€court€correctly€found€that€the€appellant€violated€hisÏprobation€when€he€was€adjudged€to€be€in€contempt€of€the€circuit€courtððs€order.€€TheÏterms€of€appellantððs€probation€required€him€to€observe€any€special€conditionsÏimposed€by€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court,€including€compliance€with€allÍorders€of€any€court€with€domestic€jurisdiction€over€him.€€The€circuit€court€found€him€inÏcriminal€contempt€for€giving€the€television€interview€in€the€presence€of€his€minor€son.€ÏBy€failing€to€abide€by€the€circuit€courtððs€order,€the€appellant€was€in€violation€of€hisÏprobation.€€€€€€€€€€à àA€trial€court€is€empowered€to€revoke€a€defendantððs€probationÏwhenever€the€court€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€hasÏviolated€the€conditions€of€his€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(d)€(Supp.Ï1990).€€The€revocation€of€a€probationary€sentence€is€committed€to€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge€and€will€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€unless€it€appearsÏthat€there€was€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œHarkins›óó,€811€S.W.2d€79,€82Ï(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€619€S.W.2d€145,€146€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981),Ïòòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1981).€€To€sustain€the€revocation,€the€evidence€need€notÏshow€a€violation€of€the€terms€of€probation€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt;€it€is€sufficient€ifÏthe€proof€allows€the€trial€judge€to€make€a€conscientious€and€intelligent€judgment.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Miltonóó,€673€S.W.2d€555,€557€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€evidence€of€appellantððs€contempt€order€was€sufficient€toÏsupport€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€revoke€his€probation.€€Therefore,€although€weÏconclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€probation€violations€concerningÏappellantððs€€residence,€his€travel,€and€his€self„employment,€we€hold€that€theÏprobation€revocation€was€proper.Ìà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€judge€committed€fundamental€errorÏwhen€she€failed€to€recuse€herself€from€the€probation€revocation€proceeding.€€HeÏargues€that€the€judge€was€biased€against€him€due€to€an€òòex€parteóó€communication€withÏone€Marilyn€Anderton.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€€Ìà àOn€the€evening€before€appellantððs€probation€revocation€hearing,€the€trial€judgeÏwas€approached€at€her€home€by€Marilyn€Anderton€concerning€appellantððs€case.€ÏUnknown€to€the€judge€at€that€time,€Ms.€Anderton€knew€the€appellant€and€wasÏformerly€married€to€appellantððs€ex„wifeððs€present€husband.€€Ms.€Anderton€attemptedÏto€give€the€judge€a€letter€and€discuss€the€appellantððs€case.€€The€judge€refused€toÏhave€any€conversation€about€the€substance€of€appellantððs€case€and€Ms.€AndertonÏwas€asked€to€leave.€€Ìà àThe€appellant€testified€at€the€revocation€hearing€that€he€knew€Ms.€Anderton,Ïbut€had€no€knowledge€about€her€attempt€to€discuss€the€case€with€the€trial€judge.€€TheÏjudge€addressed€the€matter€on€the€record€and€indicated€that€she€was€unhappy€aboutÏthe€encounter.€€However,€there€was€no€showing€that€she€was€biased€or€prejudiced€byÏthe€incident€and€neither€the€appellant€nor€the€State€requested€a€recusal.€Ìà àThe€appellant€relies€on€the€òòex€parteóó€communication€with€Ms.€Anderton€andÏcomments€made€by€the€trial€judge€at€the€revocation€hearing€to€contend€that€a€recusalÍwas€necessary.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€appellant€raises€this€issue€for€the€first€time€in€this€appeal.€€HeÏmade€no€objection€in€the€earlier€proceeding,€but€instead€allowed€the€trial€judge€toÏpreside€over€the€revocation€hearing€without€any€challenge€that€the€judge€was€biasedÏand€unable€to€preside€impartially€over€the€case.€€Appellantððs€failure€to€request€aÏrecusal€at€the€revocation€hearing€constitutes€waiver.€€òòSeeóó€òòWoodson€v.€Stateóó,€608ÏS.W.2d€591,€593€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1980);€òòState€v.ÏJackie€H.€Martinóó,€No.€œ02C01›„9512„CR„00374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Dec.€2,Ï1996).Ìà àNevertheless,€even€when€addressed€on€the€merits,€the€record€fails€to€showÏbias€or€prejudice€that€would€have€required€the€trial€judge€to€recuse€herself.€€A€recusalÏis€proper€whenever€the€trial€judge€has€any€doubt€concerning€her€ability€to€presideÏimpartially€in€a€criminal€case€or€whenever€her€impartiality€can€reasonably€beÏquestioned.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œHines›óó,€919€S.W.2d€573,€578€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€decision€ofÏwhether€to€grant€a€recusal€is€left€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge€and€will€notÏbe€overturned€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€906ÏS.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Ìà àIn€appellantððs€case,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€harbored€a€bias€orÏprejudice€sufficient€to€mandate€a€recusal.€€The€trial€judge€acknowledged€on€theÏrecord€that€she€had€been€approached€by€Ms.€œAnderton›€in€connection€with€appellantððsÏcase.€However,€the€judge€stated€that€she€prevented€any€discussions€or€exchanges€ofÏinformation€related€to€the€substance€of€the€case.€€The€record€fails€to€show€anyÏresulting€bias€and€we€are€confident€that€the€trial€judge€rendered€a€proper€andÏimpartial€judgment.Ìà àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà à€€€€€€€€€€ÌÑ  ÑÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌGARY€R.€WADE,€Presiding€Judge€ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJ.€œCURWOOD›€œWITT›,€JR.,€œJUDGE›œ›