ÿWPC» :\ñü’áë‹ÕThÛqQbeW¢¬Ì^ä[Æ›uïÅàëàZò/sJø°É{í#d_®ÿå÷jjo”d†c3„"ƒŠPQG!7žžSZ1#.WÓŠ+wþ/ë‹ÍÞø”¦Í`¡œ6séµ¥-]o6©½%ì[ Eo=êY‰ŠQ¾MÜ4a‚— ›§„B”âÍÂpô"È!»±¬× 죠ÄÊL¿*æUSÔ€3ƒ›ŒÃû(ªW‡ &[@"Sƒ˜žÌ*#ÿ¹qq.?4hÎ(¦õ­Ù%²DöƒšQ[Æ™ÃÈÏy*’_x­„½ó·û«ù„y–½ÞºåˆëüÇaÙSh´¸(k˜¯’Tt}x¦û-iÅ µ~In€~‡ŽàÊ?y$ûªlË$ß™äe½ˆE&é=Ÿmi<¿¶P¾5h JƒïcÄûÅyz{5àôÍ^þËwX³®Úý¥6b¦t€ýyKh€s·ýš@›Ki˜ÎuI×y¶™…0¸à²„¤páXRöÍW8TRhyi÷O|½½ÿFsyÛ0¨•‡*ºmZ³Ï©Ú³Ï”3ÆpIЪ‡âF*|m»?`ËÿSV,C&b8V·•UP£ˆ¢`týæû2 Q‚ÕbUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N;I=†EŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽb ˜˜˜˜˜˜ 0븸¸¸ B££ 0¤À D3d D-— 0KÄÄ ASÆb 0¤( 0DÌ A«(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó¸†ý,s üPH,¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ?Ý ƒR+$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô‰$ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€this€regard,€we€are€constrained€to€note€that€the€entire€transcript€of€the€revocation€proceeding€encompassesÐ ° Ðonly€two€pages.€€The€factual€development€of€matters€relevant€to€every€revocation€proceeding€are€virtually€non€existent,Ð tÄ Ðincluding:€(1)€the€docket€numbers€and€offenses€before€the€court€in€which€revocation€is€sought;€(2)€the€specific€rule€orÐ 8ˆ Ðcondition€of€probation€allegedly€violated€for€which€revocation€is€sought;€(3)€a€brief€procedural€history€of€supervisionÐ üL Ðand€prior€violations;€(4)€identification€of€the€witnesses€testifying€at€the€hearing;€and€(5)€failure€to€place€witnesses€underÐ À Ðoath.€€€ - ù- Ý ƒR+$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô‰$ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€a€result€of€the€DeKalb€County€proceedings,€the€Appellant€was€convicted€of€criminal€simulation€and€receivedÐ ° Ða€three„year€sentence.(|G2+$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€2|»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô‰$ò»»Ô d(|3j$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€2|»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3j$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€2|»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€2|»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼2|»»»ÔÑ8€a0XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î'2|ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼2|»îî' #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€June€19,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡Xa0X»¼2|ÔÌò òÔ#†¼2|»XXa0#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€SHAWN€M.€BROOKSòòóóÔ‡Xa0X»¼2|Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Wilson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNos.€96„0071;€99„0432€€€€€€J.€O.€Bond,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02358„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€July€29,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ Xa0XXXa0ÔThe€Appellant,€Shawn€M.€Brooks,€appeals€from€the€judgment€of€the€Wilson€County€Circuit€CourtÐ xÈ  Ðrevoking€his€probation.€€In€May€of€1996,€Brooks€pled€guilty€to€sale€of€a€Schedule€I€controlledÐ d´ Ðsubstance,€lysergic€acid€diethylamide€(LSD),€and€received€a€split€confinement€sentence€of€eight€yearsÐ P  Ðwith€one€year€to€be€served€in€confinement€followed€by€seven€years€supervised€probation.€€Again,€inÐ <Œ ÐMay€of€1999,€Brooks€pled€guilty€to€sale€of€a€counterfeit€controlled€substance€and€received€a€two„yearÐ (x Ðsuspended€sentence€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€1996€sentence.€€Ð d ÐÌOn€April€10,€2001,€a€probation€violation€warrant€was€issued€for€only€the1996€sentence€based€uponÐ ì< Ða€new€arrest€in€DeKalb€County€for€numerous€offenses.€€At€the€probation€violation€hearing,€BrooksÐ Ø( Ðadmitted€guilt,€which€resulted€in€the€revocation€of€his€sentence€and€the€reinstatement€of€his€originalÐ Ä Ðeight„year€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Thirty€days€later,€an€amended€order€wasÐ ° Ðentered€by€the€trial€court€revoking€Brooksðð€1999€two„year€suspended€sentence€on€the€same€grounds.€Ð œì ÐOn€appeal,€he€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€consider€alternatives€to€revocation.€€AfterÐ ˆØ Ðreview,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€revoking€Brooksðð€1996€conviction.€Ð tÄ ÐHowever,€with€regard€to€revocation€of€the€1999€sentence,€we€find€that€the€proceedings€failed€toÐ `° Ðafford€fundamental€due€process€protections.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€and€vacate€the€trial€court'sÐ L œ Ðamended€order€revoking€Brooksðð€two„year€suspended€sentence€for€sale€of€a€counterfeit€controlledÐ 8!ˆ  Ðsubstance.Ô#†Xa0XX Xa0È#ÔÔ#†¼2|»XXa0•#ÔÔ‡Xa0X»¼2|ÔÐ $"t! ÐÓ¼ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€in€Part;€Reversed€andÐ ü#L# ÐVacated€in€Part.ó óÐ è$8 $ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼2|»àXa0 #ÔÔ‡Xa0X.¼2|ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Glennóó€and€òòRobert€W.Ð À&"& ÐWedemeyeróó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌMerrilyn€Feirman,€Nashville,€Tennessee;€Richard€Brodhead,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Lebanon,Ð „)Ô$) ÐTennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Shawn€M.€Brooks.Ð p*À%* Ðâ âÐ \+¬&+ý ÐPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€John€H.Ð ° ÐBledsoe,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Tom€P.€Thompson,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€DavidÐ œì ÐDurham,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ˆØ Ðâ âÔ#†¼2|»XXa0˜ #ÔÔ‡Xa0X»¼2|ÔÌÓi ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼2|»XXa0²#ÔÔ‡Xa0X»¼2|ÔÐ L œ ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ $ t ÐòòóóÔ#†¼2|»XXa0%#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xa0X»¼2|ÔÌÔ‡ Xa0XXXa0Ôà  àIn€December€1995,€the€Appellant€was€indicted€by€a€Wilson€County€grand€jury€for€theÐ ü L  Ðunlawful€sale€of€a€Schedule€I€controlled€substance,€LSD,€a€class€B€felony.€€On€May€23,€1996,€he€pledÐ è 8  Ðguilty€and,€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€was€sentenced€to€eight€years€with€one€year€to€be€servedÐ Ô$  Ðin€the€Wilson€County€jail€followed€by€seven€years€of€supervised€probation.€€On€July€7,€1997,€theÐ À  ÐAppellantððs€probation€was€amended€by€agreed€order€adding€fifty€more€hours€of€public€service€workÐ ¬ü  Ðbecause€he€was€ð ðusing€marijuana€and€alcohol.ðð€€Thereafter,€the€Appellantððs€probation€was€revokedÐ ˜è  Ðon€March€18,€1998,€€because€he€tested€positive€for€cocaine,€admitted€to€tampering€with€the€drug€testÐ „Ô  Ðð ðby€having€bleach€on€his€fingers€and€putting€that€in€the€cup,ðð€failed€to€get€alcohol€and€drugÐ pÀ Ðassessment€as€instructed,€failed€to€maintain€employment,€and€moved€without€notifying€his€probationÐ \¬ Ðofficer.€€The€Appellantððs€supervision€was€placed€with€Community€Corrections€and€his€new€releaseÐ H˜ Ðdate€was€determined€to€be€March€18,€2006.€€On€July€10òòthóó€and€August€27òòthóó€of€1998,€warrants€wereÐ 4„ Ðissued€alleging€a€violation€of€the€€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€The€Appellant€was€found€to€beÐ  p Ðin€violation€of€his€Community€Corrections€sentence€on€November€20,€1998,€and€was€ð ðordered€toÐ  \ Ðserve€one€year€split€confinement€in€the€Wilson€County€Jailðð€and,€thereafter,€ð ðreturn€to€theÐ øH Ðsupervision€of€the€15òòthóó€Judicial€District€Community€Corrections€and€abide€by€all€rules.ððÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€March€of€1999,€the€Appellant€was€indicted€for€sale€of€a€counterfeit€controlled€substanceÐ ¼  Ðrepresented€to€be€LSD,€a€class€E€felony.€€He€pled€guilty€on€May€28,€1999,€and€was€sentenced€to€twoÐ ¨ø Ðyears€of€probation€to€run€consecutively€to€the€1996€sentence.€€On€April€10,€2001,€a€warrant€wasÐ ”ä Ðissued€alleging€a€probation€violation€of€the€1996€sentence€due€to€the€Appellantððs€arrest€in€DeKalbÐ €Ð ÐCounty€for€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia,€simple€possession,€theft€under€$500.00,€and€criminalÐ l¼ Ðsimulation.׃L×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€After€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€on€August€6,€2001,€revoking€theÐ X ¨ ÐAppellantððs€1996€sentence€and€reinstating€his€original€eight„year€Department€of€Correction€sentence.€Ð D!” ÐIn€an€apparent€afterthought€and€without€explanation€in€the€record,€the€trial€court€entered€an€amendedÐ 0"€  Ðorder€on€September€6,€2001,€€additionally€revoking€the€Appellantððs€probation€on€his€1999€two„yearÐ #l! Ðsuspended€sentence€for€sale€of€a€counterfeit€substance€and€ordering€him€to€serve€a€total€of€ten€yearsÐ $X" Ðin€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€Appellant€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€on€September€24,€2001.€€€Ð ô$D # Ѐ€€€€€€€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ  Ì&"% ÐÌò òÓ  ÓANALYSISó óÐ œì ÐÌÓ¶Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€ð ðby€failing€to€consider€alternatives€to€revokingÐ tÄ Ð[his]€probation.ðð€€The€Appellant€does€not€contest€the€grounds€supporting€revocation;€but,€he€arguesÐ `° Ðthat€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€imposing€the€original€eight„year€sentence€of€incarcerationÐ L œ Ðrather€than€extending€the€period€of€probation€or€modifying€the€conditions€of€probation.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€law€concerning€revocation€of€a€suspended€sentence€is€clear.€€Upon€finding,€by€aÐ  ` Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€that€a€defendant€has€violated€the€conditions€of€probation,€a€trial€courtÐ ü L  Ðretains€the€discretion€to€revoke€the€defendant€from€a€suspended€sentence€and€cause€execution€of€theÐ è 8  Ðoriginal€judgment€as€it€was€entered.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-310,€-311(d),€„36-106(e)(4)€(1997Ð Ô$  Ð&€Supp.€2001).Ð À  ÐÌà  àThis€court€reviews€a€revocation€under€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard.€€òòSee€State€v.Ð ˜è  ÐStubblefieldóó,€953€S.W.2d€223,€226€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(citing€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2dÐ „Ô  Ð79,€82€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Delpóó,€614€S.W.2d€395,€398€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€òòperm.€to€appealÐ pÀ Ðdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1981)).€€This€means€that€the€evidence€need€only€show€that€the€trial€judge€hasÐ \¬ Ðexercised€"conscientious€and€intelligent€judgment€in€making€the€decision€rather€than€actingÐ H˜ Ðarbitrarily."€€òòSee€State€v.€Leachóó,€914€S.W.2d€104,€107€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1995)€(citing€òòStamps€v.Ð 4„ ÐStateóó,€614€S.W.2d€71,€73€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1981)).€€Thus,Ð  p Ðin€reviewing€the€trial€court's€action,€it€is€our€obligation€to€examine€the€record€and€determine€whetherÐ  \ Ðthe€trial€court€has€exercised€a€conscientious€judgment.€òòóóÐ øH ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€Appellant's€flagrant€abuse€of€his€judicially€granted€liberty€isÐ Ð  Ðindefensible.€€The€primary€goal€of€non-institutional€punishment€is€to€provide€a€period€of€grace€inÐ ¼  Ðorder€to€assist€the€rehabilitation€of€a€penitent€offender.€€òòBurns€v.€United€Statesóó,€287€U.S.€216,€220,Ð ¨ø Ð53€S.€Ct.€154,€155€(1932).€€The€record€is€undisputed€that€the€Appellant€continued€to€use€drugs€andÐ ”ä Ðviolate€numerous€conditions€of€his€probation€and€Community€Corrections€sentences.€€His€conductÐ €Ð Ðdemonstrates€that€he€is€unrepentant.€€Efforts€to€rehabilitate€the€Appellant€have€been€rejected.€€In€theÐ l¼ Ðcase€before€us,€the€trial€court€was€statutorily€authorized€to€reinstate€the€Appellant's€originalÐ X ¨ Ðeight-year€Department€of€Correction€sentence.€€Based€on€the€record€before€us,€we€cannot€concludeÐ D!” Ðthat€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€revoking€the€Appellant€from€his€non-incarcerative€statusÐ 0"€  Ðand€by€ordering€the€Appellant€to€serve€the€terms€of€his€original€sentence,€eight€years€in€theÐ #l! ÐDepartment€of€Correction.€€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€also€challenges€the€revocation€of€his€two„year€sentence€for€the€sale€of€aÐ à%0!$ Ðcounterfeit€controlled€substance.€€He€argues€that€the€amended€order€was€entered€in€error€because€(1)€Ð Ì&"% Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€have€the€authority€to€revoke€his€probation€because€the€probationary€period€hadÐ ¸'#& Ðnot€yet€begun,€and€(2)€€there€was€no€indication€in€the€record€that€a€probation€violation€warrant€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðissued€for€the€1999€sentence.€€€Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* ЇÌà  àFirst,€we€conclude€the€law€is€clear€that€the€trial€court€did€have€the€authority€to€revoke€theÐ œì ÐAppellantððs€probation€before€his€probationary€period€began.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-310,Ð ˆØ Ð-311(d),€„36-106(e)(4).€€In€òòState€v.€Stoneóó,€880€S.W.2d€746,€€748€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€this€courtÐ tÄ Ðheld€that€ð ðfrom€the€date€of€the€entry€of€a€judgment€.€.€.€a€trial€court€has€the€authority€to€revokeÐ `° Ðprobation€if€a€defendant€commits€another€crime€after€entry€of€the€judgment,€but€before€theÐ L œ Ðprobationary€term€begins.ðð€€The€court€reasoned€that€ð ðan€obligation€not€to€commit€a€criminal€violationÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€so€inherently€and€patently€a€requirement€of€our€citizens€that€it€attaches€to€any€grant€of€probationÐ $ t Ðand€that€probationers,€whether€they€be€present€or€future,€are€put€on€notice,€as€a€matter€of€law,€thatÐ  ` Ðfurther€criminal€acts€may€result€in€revocation.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€749.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àTurning€to€the€Appellantððs€second€challenge€to€the€revocation€of€his€1999€sentence,€inÐ Ô$  ÐòòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778,€786,€93€S.€Ct.€1756,€1761€(1973),€the€United€States€SupremeÐ À  ÐCourt€set€forth€the€elements€needed€to€establish€the€"minimum€requirements€of€due€process"€in€aÐ ¬ü  Ðrevocation€of€probation€proceeding:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  à(a)€written€notice€of€the€claimed€violations€of€[probation€or]€parole;ÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(b)€disclosure€to€the€[probationer€or]€parolee€of€evidence€against€him;ÐH˜Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(c)€opportunity€to€be€heard€in€person€and€to€present€witnesses€and€documentaryÐ  p Ðevidence;Ð \Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(d)€the€right€to€confront€and€cross-examine€adverse€witnesses€(unless€the€hearingÐ ä4 Ðofficer€specifically€finds€good€cause€for€not€allowing€confrontation);ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(e)€a€ð ðneutral€and€detachedðð€hearing€body€such€as€a€traditional€parole€board,€membersÐ ¨ø Ðof€which€need€not€be€judicial€officers€or€lawyers;€andДäÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(f)€a€written€statement€by€the€factfinders€as€to€the€evidence€relied€on€and€reasons€forÐ l¼ Ðrevoking€[probation€or]€parole.€€ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌ(citingòò€Morrissey€v.€Breweróó,€408€U.S.€471,€92€S.€Ct.€2593€(1972));€òòsee€also€State€v.€Wadeóó,€863Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€406,€408€(Tenn.€1993).€€We€find€none€of€the€above€minimum€due€process€requirements€wereÐ #l! Ðmet€with€regard€to€revocation€of€the€Appellantððs€1999€suspended€sentence€for€sale€of€a€counterfeitÐ $X" Ðdrug.€€No€reference€is€made€to€the€Appellantððs€two„year€suspended€sentence€in€the€probationÐ ô$D # Ðviolation€warrant.€Accordingly,€the€Appellant€was€not€placed€on€notice€by€the€warrant€nor€does€theÐ à%0!$ Ðrecord€reflect€that€notice€was€received€in€any€form€prior€to€the€hearing€that€his€two„year€probationÐ Ì&"% Ðwas€being€revoked.€€Moreover,€at€no€time€during€the€probation€violation€hearing€was€any€referenceÐ  ¸'#& Ѐmade€to€the€Appellantððs€two„year€suspended€sentence.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€These€notice€requirements€could€have€beenÐ ° Ðremedied€by€amendment€to€the€warrant€or€waiver€by€the€Appellant.€€Although€some€conditions€mayÐ œì Ðbe€so€inherent€and€founded€in€law€that€no€òòper€seóó€notice€is€required,€that€simply€is€not€the€case€here.€Ð ˆØ ÐòòóóWe€find€that€the€revocation€proceeding€violated€the€minimal€due€process€requirements€of€òòGagnonÐ tÄ Ðv.€Scarpelli.óó€€The€trial€court's€order€of€revocation€of€the€Appellantððs€1999€two„year€suspendedÐ `° Ðsentence€for€sale€of€a€counterfeit€substance€is€reversed€and€vacatedòòóó.€Ð L œ ÐÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ $ t ÐÌÓÔ>Óà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÐ ü L  Ðordering€revocation€of€the€Appellantððs€1996€eight„year€sentence.€€However,€we€do€find€that€the€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourt€abused€its€discretion€in€ordering€revocation€of€the€Appellant's€probation€with€regard€to€his€1999Ð Ô$  Ðtwo„year€sentence€for€the€sale€of€a€counterfeit€controlled€substance.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€ofÐ À  Ðthe€trial€court€revoking€the€Appellantððs€1999€suspended€sentence€is€reversed€and€vacatedòò.óó€Ð ¬ü  ÐRevocation€of€the€Appellantððs€probationary€status€and€reinstatement€of€his€original€eight„yearÐ ˜è  ÐDepartment€of€Correction€sentence€for€sale€of€a€Schedule€I€controlled€substance€is€affirmed.Ð „Ô  ÐÔ#†Xa0XX Xa0Ü#ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE