WPC ]赗('$Kԋ{Z&hB"UQ!F=gyxTk7&V^*ieD42;@·U6x[h<{a) nŨ$ly)j#ƙ>!+MJLM 4̌!ѕZcCe 3 5NV,!I@HUGI+*Uѭ\6r~*ݯ r!I+{ `n_TlE.6=8zH6Usy;[6"y]n"Qbyf6d՟x[rcM݋^ 0FSTOr(o' SG״#3.VQN%K!7VLf#Ċ Wuk;;pIA.Nzs!Nb#\ %% 0+ 0 UNx 0 0 zJ  0 0CUNU>2p6 0N/ 01 0Ea 1uc 72^ w4.= m?jVVVVVVVVVVVVVVb 0Y 1e!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 0N 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K AS+~ 0D 0D A,HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0*AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular*GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt*55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular\  `&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)m/ lk.*:i+003|xU HargroveFarberYarbrough T.R.i]nherentHarkinsStubblefield DelpCannabinoidsCarboxymLT.D.O.C.T.C.A.TIPTONd]efendantMorrisseyFNng- -64Hyperlink       35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  < d(|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _   8'XXdd8@hho^INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE#o^ #Ԉ #    @  @` AssignedonBriefsJuly16,2003 F X'X #XX'#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.JOHNBREWERX'X  ? @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMauryCounty  9 @@Nos.12425,12864StellaHargrove,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200202749CCAR3CDFiledNovember13,_2003_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^    @  (03?+ ` hp x X? XYXXX'  Thedefendantpledguiltytoaggravatedburglary,theftover$1000,andvandalismandwas V  sentencedtofiveyearsprobation.Subsequently,afterthedefendanttestedpositiveformarijuana ? andhisprobationofficerfiledaprobationviolationreport,thetrialcourtrevokedhisprobation (x followingahearing.Thedefendantappeals,arguingthatthetrialcourterredinrelyingupona a laboratoryreportshowingmarijuanainhisurinebecausetheaccompanyingaffidavithadnotbeen J executedbythetechnicianwhoperformedthetestbutbytheassistantlaboratorydirector. 3 Followingourreview,weaffirmtheorderofthetrialcourtrevokingthedefendantsprobation.  #X'XX XYv##XX'#X'X Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed     #X'( #X'X.AlanE.Glenn,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJoeG.RileyandThomasT. q _Woodall_,JJ.,joined. Z ClaudiaS.Jack,DistrictPublicDefender,andRobinFarber,AssistantPublicDefender,forthe ,| appellant,JohnBrewer. e PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;HelenaWaltonYarbrough,AssistantAttorney  7  General;T.MichelBottoms,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andChristiL.Thompson,AssistantDistrict ! ! AttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.#XX' #X'XԀ " "  @@OO& OPINION #XX' #X'X $$ #XX'5 #  X'X XYXXX'  FACTS  ^&!&    OnAugust13,2001,thedefendant,JohnBrewer,pledguiltytoaggravatedburglaryand 1(#( theftover$1000inexchangefortwo,threeyearpostpleadiversionstobeservedconcurrently.On )j$) February11,2002,thedefendantsdiversionwasrevokedbecausehefailedtoreporttohis *S%* probationofficerandtestedpositiveformarijuana,andhewasplacedonsupervisedprobationfor *<&+ threeyears.Onthisdate,thedefendantalsopledguiltytovandalism,forwhichhereceivedatwo +%',  yearsuspendedsentencetobeservedonsupervisedprobation.Thistwoyearprobationaryperiod ,(- _wasorderedtobeservedconsecutivelytohispreviousthreeyearprobationarysentenceforatotal  offiveyearsofprobation.     OnApril2,2002,ChristieDickey,thedefendantsprobationofficer,filedaprobation k violationreportbecausethedefendanttestedpositiveformarijuana.Aprobationrevocationhearing T washeldonOctober7,2002,duringwhichDickeytestifiedthatthedefendanthad fieldtested =  positiveformarijuana.DickeystatedthatsheforwardedtheresultstoAegisAnalytical & v Laboratoriesfortesting.Thelaboratoryreport,whichwasadmittedintoevidence,showedthatthe  _ defendanthadinfacttestedpositiveformarijuana.  H   Atthehearing,thedefendantobjectedtotheintroductionofthelaboratoryreportandthe    accompanyingaffidavitbecausethetestwasconductedbyMarkYoung,alaboratorytechnician,   andtheaffidavitcertifyingtheresultswasexecutedbyDr.TimothyA.Robert,AssistantLaboratory   Director.Thetrialcourtadmittedthisreportoverthedefendantsobjectionsandrevokedthe   defendantsprobation. n     ANALYSIS @  o#X'XX XY # XYXXX'  #X'XX XY#Thedefendantarguesthatthecourterredinrevokinghisprobation.Atrialcourtisgranted c broadauthoritytorevokeasuspendedsentenceandtoreinstatetheoriginalsentenceifitfindsby L thepreponderanceoftheevidencethatthedefendanthasviolatedthetermsofhisorherprobation 5 andsuspensionofsentence.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035310,311.Therevocationofprobationlies  withinthesound  discretionofthetrialcourt.Statev.Harkins,811S.W.2d79,82(Tenn.1991);  Statev.Stubblefield,953S.W.2d223,226(Tenn.Crim.App.1997);Statev.Mitchell,810S.W.2d  733,735(Tenn.Crim.App.1991).Toshowanabuseofdiscretioninaprobationrevocationcase,   adefendantmustdemonstratethattherecordcontainsnosubstantialevidencetosupportthe r conclusionofthetrialjudgethataviolationoftheconditionsofprobationhasoccurred.Statev. [ Wall,909S.W.2d8,10(Tenn.Crim.App.1994)(quotingStatev.Delp,614S.W.2d395,398 D (Tenn.Crim.App.1980)).Theproofofaprobationviolationneednotbeestablishedbeyonda -} reasonabledoubt,butitissufficientifitallowsthetrialcourttomakeaconscientiousandintelligent f judgment.Harkins,811S.W.2dat82(citingStatev.Milton,673S.W.2d555,557(Tenn.Crim. O App.1984)).Wereviewthisissue,therefore,foranabuseofdiscretion.  8   TheaffidavitofDr.RobertsetsoutthatheistheassistantlaboratorydirectorofAegis " ! AnalyticalLaboratoriesanddetailshiseducationandcredentials,statingtheninpertinentpart: #" 8  8`    Thisaffidavitismadeofmyownpersonalknowledgeandis u% $ trueandcorrectandaccurateinallrespects....Thespecimenand ^&!% allportionsthereofwerehandledwithstrictchainofcustody G'"& documentationandalltestingwasperformedaccordingtoaccepted 0(#' laboratorypractices.Confirmationtestingbygas )i$( chromatography/massspectrometry(GC/MS)forCannabinoids *R%) (Marijuana)byMarkYoungonMarch26,2002waspositivefor *;&* CarboxyTHCataconcentrationof88ng/mL.Afterreviewand +$'+ certification,theseresultswerereportedonMarch26,2002.These  resultsareconsistentwithuseofmarijuanawithin5dayspriorto  specimencollection.` x` x 8  8`    I,TimothyA.Robert,certifythatallestablishedAegis T AnalyticalLaboratoryandT.D.O.C.procedures,protocols,andchain =  ofcustodywerefollowedinthetestingofthisspecimen.Themethod & v oftestingusedisthemostaccurateforthisparticulardrugandthe  _ resultswerereliableandaccurate.Ifurtheraffirmthatthe  H informationprovidedinthisaffidavitistrueandfactualtothebestof  1  mybeliefandknowledge.Iunderstandthatsubmissionoffalse    informationinthisaffidavitmaysubjectmetoprosecutionforthe   criminaloffenseofperjurypursuanttoT.C.A.3916702. ` x` x    ThedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourtsadmissionoftheaffidavitofDr.Robertand n  relianceuponittorevokehisprobationviolatehisrightsbothtoconfrontthewitnessesagainsthim W  andtodueprocess.Wewillreviewtheseclaims. @  XYXXX'#X'XX XY&# XYXXX'  TosupporthisargumentthatthetrialcourterredinrelyingupontheaffidavitofDr.Robert, b thedefendantcitesStatev.Wade,863S.W.2d406,40910(Tenn.1993),inwhichoursupreme K courtdeterminedthattherevocationofthedefendantsprobationcouldnotbebasedupona 4 laboratoryreportwithoutafindingofproofthatthereportwasreliableandgoodcauseastothe  absenceofthetechnicianwhohadtestedthesample.Subsequently,inStatev.Gregory,946S.W.2d  829,832(Tenn.Crim.App.1997),thiscourtconcludedthatanaffidavitandlaboratoryreportwere  admissibleintheabsenceofawitnesstestifyingastothetestresultswhentheaffidavit,unlikethat  inWade,identifiedthepersoncertifyingthedrugtestandstatedhisqualifications;specifically q describedthemethodoftestingandstatedthatitwasthemostaccuratemethodforidentifyingthe Z particulartypeofdrugwhichwasfound;certifiedthattheresultsofthetestwereaccurateand C reliable;anddeclaredthatestablishedproceduresandprotocolswerefollowedinthetestingprocess. ,| In1998,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4035311wasamendedtoaddthefollowingsection e regardingadmissionofalaboratoryreportataprobationrevocationproceeding: N #X'XX XY('#8  8`    Alaboratoryreportregardingadefendant'sdrugtestmaybe !   admissibleinprobationrevocationproceedings,eventhoughthe " ! laboratorytechnicianwhoperformedthetestisnotpresenttotestify, #" whenaccompaniedbyanaffidavitcontainingatleastthefollowing $# information:t% $` x` x 'X/ hXX'8  8`    (A)0/ ` x` xTheidentityofthecertifyingtechnician;F'"&/ x/ x 8  8`    (B)0/ ` x` xAstatementofqualificationsfromthecertifying /(#' technician;)h$(/ x/ x 8  8`    (C)0/ ` x` xAspecificdescriptionofthetestingmethodology;*Q%)/ x/ x 8  8`    (D)0/ ` x` xAstatementthatthemethodoftestingwasthemost *:&* accuratetestforthisparticulardrug;+#'+/ x/ x 8  8`    (E)0/ ` x` xAcertificationthatthetestresultswerereliableand  accurate;/ x/ x 8  8`    (F)0/ ` x` xAdeclarationthatallestablishedproceduresand  protocolswerefollowed;and p k/ x/ x 8  8`    (G)0/ ` x` xAstatementofacknowledgmentthatsubmissionoffalse T informationintheaffidavitmaysubjecttheaffiantto =  prosecutionforthecriminaloffenseofperjurypursuant & v to39-16-702. _/ x/ x Tenn.CodeAnn.4035311(c)(1).  1    Thedefendantarguesboththatthisstatuteisunconstitutionalandthatitsrequirementswere   notsatisfiedbecausetheaffiantwastheassistantlaboratorydirector,ratherthanthetechnicianwho   performedthetest. XYXXX'Werespectfullydisagreewiththesearguments.AstheUnitedStatesSupreme   CourtexplainedinMorrisseyv.Brewer,408U.S.471,489,92S.Ct.2593,2604,33L.Ed.2d484 n  (1972),thedefendantatarevocationhearinghas therighttoconfrontandcross-examineadverse W  witnesses(unlessthehearingofficerspecificallyfindsgoodcausefornotallowingconfrontation). @ Additionally,thecourtexplainedthat theprocessshouldbeflexibleenoughtoconsiderevidence )y includingletters,affidavits,andothermaterialthatwouldnotbeadmissibleinanadversarycriminal b trial.Id. K #X'XX XY#6#  WebelievethattherequirementssetoutinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4035  311(c)(1)areintendedtocomplywiththeholdinginMorrissey,tobalancethedefendantsrights  todueprocessandtoconfrontwitnesseswiththeneedforcertainflexibilityatarevocationhearing.  Accordingly,thestatuteisnotunconstitutional.Additionally,sincethisstatuteisintendedtomake  certainthatonlyreliableevidenceisallowedatarevocationhearing,includingthatappropriate q testingmethodsandprotocolswereutilized,knowledgewhichwouldnotappeartobelimitedtothe Z technicianwhoperformedthetests,wedisagreethatonlythispersonmaybetheaffiantofan C affidavitsubmittedpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4035311(c)(1). ,|   CONCLUSION  N     Basedontheforegoingreasoningandauthorities,weaffirmtheorderofthetrialcourt !!  revokingthedefendantsprobation. " ! 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0/ (# (#0h/ (#/ (#0h(#h(#0(#(#____________________________________u% $(#(#    `   /  h     ALANE.GLENN,JUDGE