WPC U(OM(e:Doe*4v:lYIvǞE t0H$.o\ >hԁÔw>y9xT++B;ڭp*>h|_?֍G\Ag兔x theauthoritytoorderhertocontinuehersupervisedprobationpendingthisappeal.Afterathorough * reviewoftherecord,wefindbothissueshavemerit;therefore,wereversethejudgmentofthetrial  court.   @$$Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtReversed;@@&  Remanded  v JoeG.Riley,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.WellesandJames N _Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.,JJ.,joined. : JohnB.Nisbet,III,_Cookeville_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,SandraBrown. b PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;JenniferL._Bledsoe_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;  : WilliamEdwardGibson,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andWilliamM.Locke,AssistantDistrict !&  AttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. "!  @66'OPINION % $   Thedefendantpledguiltytoattemptedaccessoryafterthefact,aClassAmisdemeanor,on ^'"& September3,1999,intheGeneralSessionsCourtofWhiteCountyafteranofficerobservedher J(#' drivingavehiclewithherhusband,GeorgeBrown,anescapedfelon,asapassenger.Shewas 6)$( sentencedto11monthsand29days,allsuspendedexceptfor40daysinconfinement,withthe "*r%) remainderofthesentencetobeservedonsupervisedprobation.Thegeneralsessionscourtissued +^&* anorderenumeratingthetermsofthedefendantsprobationasnumberedrules,withRule1being: +J'+   ,6(, _[Thedefendant]willnotviolateanylaw;theviolationofthelawshallbeconstrued   aviolationofprobation.Anynewviolationsaretobereportedtotheprobationofficer  within72hours.Newlawviolationsmayresultinaviolationwarrantbeingissued.  Ѐ t   InOctober1999,afterGeorgeBrownhadagainescapedfromjail,sheriffsdepartment L  officershadaconversationwiththedefendantinwhichtheyquestionedherregardingherhusbands 8  location,advisedherthathehadagainescapedfromjail,andinstructedherto bringhimin. $ t   OnDecember24,1999,thesheriffsdepartmentreceivedinformationthatGeorgeBrown  L  wasathismotherstrailer.OfficersenteredthetrailerandfoundGeorgeBrownandthedefendant  8  inabed.CorporalChrisLunaoftheWhiteCountySheriffsDepartmentchargedthedefendantwith $  beinganaccessoryafterthefact.ProbationofficerJoelColtonexecutedanaffidavitallegingthe   defendanthadviolatedRule1ofthetermsofherprobationbycommittingaccessoryafterthefact   onDecember24,1999.Thegeneralsessionscourtissuedaprobationviolationwarrantbasedon   Coltonsaffidavit.OnFebruary4,2000,thegeneralsessionscourtconductedacombined   preliminaryhearingandprobationviolationhearing.ItdismissedCorporalLunaswarrantforlack p ofprobablecause,yetrevokedthedefendantsprobation.Thedefendantthenfiledatimelyappeal \ ofherprobationrevocationtotheWhiteCountyCriminalCourt. H   OnMarch30,2000,thecriminalcourtconductedadenovoprobationviolationhearing.See  p Statev.Cunningham,972S.W.2d16,18(Tenn.Crim.App.1998).JoelColtontestifiedthatthe  \ December24,1999,chargeforaccessoryafterthefactwasthesolebasisfortheprobationviolation H warrant.CorporalLunatestifiedthatonDecember24,1999,thedefendantandherhusbandwere 4 inbedtogetherinhermotherinlawstrailer.Thecriminalcourtjudgefoundbyapreponderance   oftheevidencethatthedefendanthadviolatedherprobationandrevokedprobation. #  1      ׀Thetrialcourt   allowedthedefendanttoremainonbondandalsoorderedthedefendanttoremainonsupervised  probationpendingherappealtothiscourt.TherevocationorderwasnotentereduntilNovember  14,2000. #  2      ׀    0"    @`` I.PROBATIONVIOLATIONFOROFFENSEOFACCESSORYAFTERTHEFACT   e XAXXXA  Thedefendantcontendsthetrialcourterredinfindingthedefendanthadviolatedher  probationbycommittingtheoffenseofaccessoryafterthefact.Atrialcourtmayrevokeprobation t andordertheimpositionoftheoriginalsentenceuponfindingbya preponderanceoftheevidence ` thatthepersonhasviolatedaconditionofprobation.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035310,311(d).The L  decisiontorevokeprobationrestswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.Statev.Mitchell,810 8  S.W.2d733,735(Tenn.Crim.App.1991).Revocationofprobationissubjecttoanabuseof $ t discretionstandardofreview,ratherthanadenovostandard.Statev.Harkins,811S.W.2d79,82  ` (Tenn.1991).Discretionisabusedonlyiftherecordcontainsnosubstantialevidencetosupportthe  L  conclusionofthetrialcourtthataviolationofprobationhasoccurred.Id.;Statev.Gregory,946  8  S.W.2d829,832(Tenn.Crim.App.1997). $    Inthecasesubjudice,theprobationviolationwarrantallegedonlyoneviolation,thatthe   defendantcommittedaccessoryafterthefactonDecember24,1999.Theproofattheviolation   hearingbeforethecriminalcourtestablishedthatofficersfoundthedefendantinbedwithher   husband,afelonyescapee,inahomeownedbyherhusbandsmother.Theoffenseofaccessoryafter p thefactisdefinedas: \ eApersonisanaccessoryafterthefactwho,afterthecommissionofafelony,with 4 knowledgeorreasonablegroundtobelievethattheoffenderhascommittedthe  p felony,andwiththeintenttohinderthearrest,trial,convictionorpunishmentofthe  \ offender: H (1)Harborsorconcealstheoffender;   (2)Providesoraidsinprovidingtheoffenderwithanymeansofavoidingarrest,trial,  convictionorpunishment;or  (3)Warnstheoffenderofimpendingapprehensionordiscovery. l e!!#XAXX XA#Tenn.CodeAnn.3911411(a). D!     Aftercarefullyreviewingtherecord,wecanfindnosubstantialevidenceestablishingbya #l! preponderanceoftheevidencethatthedefendantspresencewithherescapedhusbandinhismothers $X" homemadeheranaccessoryafterthefactasdefinedbythestatute. #  3      ׀Sincethiswasthesolebasisfor $D # revokingprobation,weconcludethetrialcourterredinrevokingthedefendantsprobation. %0!$  &"%  @w w II.COURTSAUTHORITYPENDINGAPPEAL     Further,thedefendantarguesthetrialcourterredinorderingthedefendanttocontinueher t supervisedprobationwhilesheappealedthejudgmentofthetrialcourtrevokingherprobation.The ` state,initsbrief,concedesthatthetrialcourtactedimproperlyinthisrespect.Weagree,butfora L  differentreasonthanthatadvancedbythedefendantandthestate. 8    InStatev.Lyons,acasecitedbybothparties,thiscourtheldthatwhenadefendantis  ` convictedofamisdemeanorandsentencedtoprobation,thesentenceisstayedpendingtheoutcome  L  oftheappeal.29S.W.3d48,50(Tenn.Crim.App.1999).However,thisstatementinLyonsrelated  8  toadirectappealofthesentenceandnotanappealofarevocationorder.Morespecifically,weheld $  inLyonstherevocationwarrantwasissuedpriortotheexpirationofprobationsinceprobationhad   beenautomaticallystayedduringthepreviousdirectappealofthesentence.Id.     Here,theissueiswhetherthetrialcourtcanrequireadefendanttoremainonsupervised   probationduringtheappealofanorderofrevocation.Thetrialcourthasauthoritytoreleasea p defendantonbailpendingappellatereviewofarevocationofprobation.Tenn.R.Crim.P.32(g). \ Thetrialcourtcansetreasonableconditionsofbail,includingplacingthedefendant underthe H supervisionofanavailableprobationcounselororotherappropriatepublicofficial.Tenn.Code 4 Ann.4011116(b)(2).Ifadefendantviolatesaconditionofbail,bailcanberevoked.Inaddition,  p thetrialcourtretainstheauthoritytorevokeprobationbaseduponcommissionofanewoffense  \ duringadefendantsreleaseonbailpendingappeal,evenpriortothebeginningoftheprobationary H term.Statev.Stone,880S.W.2d746,748(Tenn.Crim.App.1994). 4   Inthiscase,however,thetrialcourtbothallowedthedefendanttoremainonbailpending   appealandrequiredherto remainonsupervisedprobation.Althoughthetrialcourthasauthority  underStonetoconductarevocationofprobationhearingbaseduponnewviolationsoflawduring  theappeal,thetrialcourtdoesnothaveauthoritytorequirethedefendanttoremainonsupervised  probationduringtheappealunlessreportingtoaprobationofficerisaconditionofbail.Ourreview l ofthetranscriptandorderdoesnotreflectthatsupervisedprobationwasaconditionofbail.Thus, X  thetrialcourterredinorderingacontinuationofsupervisedprobationduringtheappeal. D!  @  %CONCLUSION $X"    Accordingly,wereversethejudgmentofthecourtbelow.Thestatedidnotestablisha %0!$ violationofprobation,andthetrialcourterroneouslyorderedacontinuationofsupervisedprobation &"% duringappeal.Nevertheless,uponremandthetrialcourtwillgivethedefendantcredittoward '#& probationforalltimesduringwhichthedefendantwasincompliancewiththeconditionsof (#' probation. )$(  h+&*      m       m     u 0  _____________________________________(#(#      m     u   JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE