ÿWPCà TYYWßÚ(±dÏ-,ê8”©´Ri²nKQ›LJŸ©°è{|·š¼Š*"hj‹ Ý{M:s›d¾ý~mÖP{ºÉ0V“û!VÔÒºGT¬Rß*ú´Çobâ“Ú“-9`üÞRÉãÉ9r÷†ÒQà—2ÂO€g…8èÅšVÆ\•÷¤V`–>e6'Îe7G\Ðgœê„Á%¦ÁTÒ)1hÎK;éy(50µ©ãÍMÂ( Q‘—¢|8EMñ-tݨթµë!0TwÂ'‚JIåÌ®º½•Œ[ùE4ØÝ ` Yi$ót0”GÔFN…Q¦1åL)—r³ðEÐÛãÂÂuƒ""ýWq×2E¼0Ñ,XŽ"ž|Ù™ÐAäÂZ2<œ‚L^÷hòP5àŃðjp”fÐ4sÅ*Ã"õüö#O'ëË׳‘ãÑtŠA ~ìQ,Ä)ŒîNÿ÷" &ì ¤•øÎÐ:Ð}e Ôy7­öq`ÜdÞ*žÚ¤Ã‹–ÖÑWSÜnùd²Ë/ÇÀî÷AxÄþž5•Ç'L©Ó> <{·üsûs4VX[ær°9טÙLG-Ö•Ò®Ã\Ì¢ö%ŸÐ¡*¢6-ßW·¼ìøÕØ\ã I£EOpÓŸ*‚)bßb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë UN±Nÿo 0DpE´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´b¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ 0ë¾¾¾¾ B©© 0¤Æ D5j D-Ÿ 0KÌÌ ASÆj 0¤0 0DÔ A«˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»³-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularüPH,2,Úf€9\¤ ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular eÝ ƒR‰À$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôì-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€A€transcript€of€the€Defendantððs€guilty€plea€proceeding€is€not€included€in€the€record.€€However,€the€trial€court€Ð ° Ðindicated€at€the€probation€revocation€hearing€that€it€had€given€the€Defendant€such€a€warning.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2‰À$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôì-ò»»Ô d(|3†$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3†$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]u»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼]u»»»ÔÑ8€iXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îP4]uÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼]u»îîP4 #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Ó€Assigned€on€Briefs€June€19,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XiX»¼]uÔÌò òÔ#†¼]u»XXi#ÔòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóDERRICK€S.€CHANEYÔ‡XiX»¼]uÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€II„22„201€€€€€€Timothy€L.€Easter,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„00057„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€July€31,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant€pleaded€guilty€to€first€offense€DUI,€for€which€he€was€sentenced€to€eleven€months€andÐ xÈ  Ðtwenty„nine€days€incarceration,€suspended€after€service€of€forty„eight€hours;€and€to€driving€with€aÐ d´ Ðsuspended,€cancelled,€or€revoked€license,€for€which€he€was€sentenced€to€six€months€incarceration,Ð P  Ðsuspended€after€service€of€forty„eight€hours.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€two€sentences€be€servedÐ <Œ Ðconcurrently.€€The€Defendant€was€subsequently€arrested€for€probation€violation,€and€the€trial€courtÐ (x Ðconducted€a€hearing€to€determine€whether€the€Defendantððs€probation€should€be€revoked.€€At€theÐ d Ðconclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€the€Defendant€serve€the€remainder€of€hisÐ P Ðsentences€in€custody.€€The€Defendant€appeals€this€decision,€arguing€that€the€State€failed€to€prove€byÐ ì< Ða€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€he€had€violated€his€probation€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ Ø( Ðordering€him€to€serve€his€full€sentence€in€custody.€€We€conclude€that€sufficient€evidence€wasÐ Ä Ðpresented€at€the€hearing€to€support€revocation€of€the€Defendantððs€probation€and€that€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðdid€not€err€by€ordering€the€Defendant€to€serve€his€sentence€in€custody.€€We€thus€affirm€the€judgmentÐ œì Ðof€the€trial€court.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ `° ÐÓ ÓÌòòÔ#†¼]u»àXi€#ÔÔ‡XiX.¼]uÔRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€andÐ 8!ˆ  ÐòòAlan€E.€Glenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð $"t! ÐÌGene€Honea,€Assistant€Public€Defender€(on€appeal),€and€John€H.€Henderson,€Jr.,€District€PublicÐ ü#L# ÐDefender,€Franklin,€Tennessee€(at€trial),€for€the€Appellant,€Derrick€S.€Chaney.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kim€R.€Helper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð À&"& ÐRonald€L.€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Derek€K.€Smith,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ¬'ü"' ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼]u»XXi) #ÔÔ‡XiX»¼]uԈРp*À%* ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼]u»XXi2#ÔÔ€XiX»¼]uÔà  àÔ‡XiXXXiÔIn€August€2001,€the€Defendant,€Derrick€S.€Chaney,€pleaded€guilty€to€first€offense€DUI€andÐ H,˜', Ðto€driving€with€a€suspended,€cancelled,€or€revoked€license.€€For€the€DUI€conviction,€the€trial€courtÐ 4-„(-ý÷ Ðsentenced€the€Defendant€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€incarceration,€suspended€afterÐ ° Ðservice€of€forty„eight€hours.€€The€trial€court€ordered€the€Defendant€to€pay€a€$350€fine€and€to€attendÐ œì ÐAlcohol€Safety€School;€the€court€also€suspended€the€Defendantððs€license€for€a€period€of€one€year.€Ð ˆØ ÐFor€the€driving€with€a€suspended,€cancelled,€or€revoked€license€conviction,€the€trial€court€sentencedÐ tÄ Ðthe€Defendant€to€six€months€incarceration,€suspended€after€service€of€forty„eight€hours.€€The€trialÐ `° Ðcourt€ordered€that€the€two€sentences€be€served€concurrently.€€€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àOn€November€9,€2001,€a€warrant€issued€against€the€Defendant,€alleging€that€he€had€violatedÐ $ t Ðthe€conditions€of€his€probation€by€testing€positive€for€cocaine€use€on€October€2,€2001.€€A€probationÐ  ` Ðviolation€hearing€was€subsequently€held€on€December€17,€2001,€at€which€the€following€evidence€wasÐ ü L  Ðpresented:€Julie€Ô_ÔOdenÔ_Ô,€the€Defendantððs€probation€officer,€testified€that€she€began€supervision€of€theÐ è 8  ÐDefendant€on€August€30,€2001.€€She€stated€that€she€completed€an€initial€interview€of€the€Defendant,Ð Ô$  Ðat€which€time€she€explained€the€rules€of€probation€to€the€Defendant€and€gave€him€a€written€copy€ofÐ À  Ðthe€rules€of€probation.€€Ô_ÔOdenÔ_Ô€stated€that€one€of€the€rules€expressly€prohibited€the€Defendant€fromÐ ¬ü  Ðusing€intoxicants€of€any€kind€to€excess€and€from€using€or€possessing€narcotic€drugs€or€marijuana.€Ð ˜è  ÐAccording€to€Ô_ÔOdenÔ_Ô,€the€Defendant€signed€a€document€indicating€his€agreement€to€adhere€to€the€rulesÐ „Ô  Ðof€probation.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àÔ_ÔOdenÔ_Ô€reported€that€on€October€2,€2001,€the€Defendant€tested€positive€for€cocaine€use€duringÐ H˜ Ða€random€drug€screen.€€Ô_ÔOdenÔ_Ô€testified€that€the€test€was€performed€by€Redwood€ToxicologyÐ 4„ ÐLaboratory€in€California,€and€an€affidavit€by€the€chief€toxicologist€of€the€laboratory,€in€which€theÐ  p Ðtoxicologist€stated€that€cocaine€was€found€in€the€Defendantððs€urine,€was€entered€into€evidence€at€theÐ  \ Ðhearing.€€Ô_ÔOdenÔ_Ô€stated€that€the€Defendant€denied€having€a€drug€problem,€and€she€reported€that€priorÐ øH Ðto€taking€the€test,€the€Defendant€denied€in€writing€that€he€had€ever€used€drugs€of€any€kind.€€Ô_ÔOdenÔ_ÔÐ ä4 Ðtestified€that€on€November€9,€2001,€she€swore€out€a€warrant€for€the€Defendantððs€arrest€for€violationÐ Ð  Ðof€the€conditions€of€probation.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  à€The€Defendant€testified€on€his€own€behalf€at€the€probation€revocation€hearing.€€He€reportedÐ ”ä Ðthat€he€was€twenty„nine€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€hearing.€€He€also€testified€that€he€was€divorcedÐ €Ð Ðand€that€he€had€a€four„year„old€daughter.€€The€Defendant€stated€that€at€the€time€of€his€arrest€forÐ l¼ Ðviolation€of€probation,€he€was€working€for€a€temporary€agency,€but€planned€to€start€work€at€hisÐ X ¨ Ðfatherððs€business.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€maintained€that€he€had€never€used€cocaine,€marijuana,€or€other€illegal€drugs.€Ð #l! ÐHe€stated€that€he€could€not€explain€the€results€of€his€drug€screen.€€The€Defendant€also€complainedÐ $X" Ðthat€although€he€had€asked€his€probation€officer€for€a€second€drug€test,€she€refused€to€conduct€aÐ ô$D # Ðsecond€test.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€that€he€had€been€arrested€several€times,€but€he€maintained€that€onÐ ¸'#& Ðeach€occasion,€he€was€innocent.€The€Defendant€admitted€that€he€had€twice€been€convicted€of€DUI.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐHe€stated€that€he€was€first€charged€with€DUI€after€a€car€accident€which€rendered€him€unconscious.€Ð )à$( ÐHe€reported€that€hospital€employees€obtained€a€blood€sample€from€him€while€he€was€unconscious.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐHe€maintained€that€he€did€not€feel€that€he€was€drunk€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€but€he€stated€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðhe€pled€guilty€to€DUI€because€he€did€not€have€enough€money€to€contest€the€charge.€€The€DefendantÐ ° Ðreported€that€prior€to€his€second€arrest€for€DUI,€he€drank€ð ða€couple€of€beers,ðð€but€he€againÐ œì Ðmaintained€that€he€did€not€feel€that€he€was€guilty€of€the€charged€offense.€€He€claimed€that€he€passedÐ ˆØ Ða€sobriety€test€on€this€occasion,€but€refused€blood€and€breath€tests.€€He€stated€that€his€attorney€toldÐ tÄ Ðhim€that€his€was€ð ðnot€a€very€strong€caseðð€and€that€he€could€either€pay€more€money€to€fight€the€chargeÐ `° Ðor€ð ðplead€out.ðð€€The€Defendant€testified€that€he€had€no€more€money€and€therefore€opted€to€pleadÐ L œ Ðguilty€to€the€charged€offense.€€€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€the€Defendant€admitted€that€he€was€arrested€for€writing€bad€checks€in€1999.€Ð  ` ÐHowever,€he€claimed€that€the€checks€were€written€on€his€own€account,€and€he€stated€that€he€had€paidÐ ü L  Ðoff€all€outstanding€amounts€when€he€was€taken€into€custody€for€the€charges€in€this€case.€€TheÐ è 8  ÐDefendant€also€admitted€that€in€1999,€he€was€arrested€for€possession€of€a€Schedule€IV€controlledÐ Ô$  Ðsubstance€and€for€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia.€€He€explained€that€when€a€police€officer€pulledÐ À  Ðhim€over€while€he€was€driving,€his€wifeððs€prescription€for€what€he€believed€was€Ô_ÔLoritabÔ_Ô€was€foundÐ ¬ü  Ðin€the€console€of€his€car,€and€a€lighter€and€ð ðcrack€pipeðð€were€also€found€in€his€vehicle.€€He€stated€thatÐ ˜è  Ðthe€drug€paraphernalia€was€not€his€and€claimed€that€a€woman€who€was€with€him€at€the€time€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðarrest€threw€the€lighter€and€pipe€into€the€seat€when€he€was€pulled€over.€€The€Defendant€claimed€thatÐ pÀ Ðthe€charge€for€possession€of€a€Schedule€IV€controlled€substance€was€later€dismissed.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€further€testified€that€in€1991,€while€he€was€under€the€legal€drinking€age,€heÐ 4„ Ðwas€arrested€after€officers€found€alcohol€in€a€car€that€the€Defendant€and€his€brother€were€driving.€Ð  p ÐThe€Defendant€maintained€that€the€alcohol€did€not€belong€to€him€and€stated€that€the€charges€wereÐ  \ Ðlater€dismissed.€€Finally,€the€Defendant€testified€that€he€had€been€involved€in€two€personal€injuryÐ øH Ðautomobile€accidents€where€someone€had€been€hurt€and€that€he€had€been€involved€in€threeÐ ä4 Ðautomobile€accidents€involving€property€damage.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÔ#†XiXXXi¼#ÔÔ‡XiXXXiÔ€thatÐ ¨ø Ðthe€Defendant€was€guilty€of€violating€the€terms€of€his€probation€and€ordered€that€the€Defendant€serveÐ ”ä Ðthe€remainder€of€his€sentence€in€custody.€€The€Defendant€now€appeals€this€finding€by€the€trial€court,Ð €Ð Ðarguing€that€the€prosecution€failed€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€he€had€violatedÐ l¼ Ðthe€terms€of€his€probation€and€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€ordering€him€to€serve€hisÐ X ¨ Ðsentence€in€custody.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àÔ#†XiXXXi,#ÔWe€begin€our€analysis€with€several€well„settled€principles€of€law€pertaining€to€the€revocationÐ #l! Ðof€a€probated€sentence.€€When€a€trial€court€determines€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€aÐ $X" Ðprobationer€has€violated€the€conditions€of€his€or€her€probation,€the€trial€court€has€the€authority€toÐ ô$D # Ðrevoke€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(e).€€Once€the€trial€court€makes€such€a€finding,€itÐ à%0!$ Ðis€vested€with€the€statutory€authority€to€ð ðrevoke€the€probation€and€suspension€of€sentence€and€causeÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€defendant€to€commence€the€execution€of€the€judgment€as€originally€entered€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€€WhenÐ ¸'#& Ðprobation€is€revoked,€ð ðthe€original€judgment€so€rendered€by€the€trial€judge€shall€be€in€full€force€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðeffect€from€the€date€of€the€revocation€of€such€suspension€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„310.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€decision€to€revoke€probation€is€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.Ð ° Ðâ âMitchellóó,€810€S.W.2d€733,€735€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€to€revokeÐ œì Ðprobation€will€be€upheld€on€appeal€unless€there€has€been€an€abuse€of€discretion.€òòóó€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,Ð ˆØ Ð811€S.W.2d€79,€82€(Tenn.€1991).€€To€find€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€a€probation€revocation€case,€theÐ tÄ Ðrecord€must€be€void€of€any€substantial€evidence€that€would€support€the€trial€courtððs€decision€that€aÐ `° Ðviolation€of€the€conditions€of€probation€occurred.€€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Grearóó,€568€S.W.2d€285,€286€(Tenn.Ð L œ Ð1978);€òòState€v.€Delpóó,€614€S.W.2d€395,€398€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Proof€of€a€probation€violationÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€sufficient€if€it€allows€the€trial€court€to€make€a€conscientious€and€intelligent€judgment.€€òòState€v.Ð $ t ÐMiltonóó,€673€S.W.2d€555,€557€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).Ð  ` ÐÌÔ‡XiXXXiÔà  àThe€Defendantððs€probation€officer€testified€at€the€probation€revocation€hearing€that€theÐ è 8  ÐDefendant€tested€positive€for€cocaine€use€in€a€random€drug€screen.€€An€affidavit€from€the€laboratoryÐ Ô$  Ðwhich€conducted€that€test€supported€the€probation€officerððs€testimony€and€was€entered€into€evidence.€Ð À  ÐThis€is€sufficient€proof€to€allow€the€trial€court€to€make€a€conscientious€and€intelligent€judgment.€Ð ¬ü  ÐAlthough€the€Defendant€denied€taking€any€kind€of€illegal€drugs,€the€trial€judge€obviously€discreditedÐ ˜è  Ðthe€Defendantððs€testimony.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Defendant€challenges€the€accuracy€and€reliability€of€the€drug€screeningÐ \¬ Ðprocess.€€We€note,€however,€that€the€laboratory€test€was€introduced€pursuant€to€and€in€complianceÐ H˜ Ðwith€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„311(c)(1),€which€sets€forth€specific€requirements€for€theÐ 4„ Ðadmissibility€of€laboratory€reports€regarding€a€defendantððs€drug€test€in€a€probation€revocationÐ  p Ðproceeding.€€At€the€hearing,€the€Defendant€presented€no€evidence€contesting€the€accuracy€andÐ  \ Ðreliability€of€the€drug€screening€process€other€than€his€denial€of€drug€usage.€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ øH Ðmerit.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€further€argues,€however,€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€him€to€serve€hisÐ ¼  Ðfull€sentence.€€He€relies€upon€a€comment€by€the€trial€judge€that€once€it€was€shown€by€aÐ ¨ø Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€Defendant€had€violated€probation,€the€judgeððs€ð ðhands€wereÐ ”ä Ðtied.ðð€€The€Defendant€contends€that€this€comment€indicates€that€the€court€proceeded€under€theÐ €Ð Ðassumption€that€it€had€no€discretion€in€ordering€the€Defendant€to€serve€his€sentence€in€custody.€€WeÐ l¼ Ðrespectfully€disagree.€€In€commenting€that€its€ð ðhands€were€tied,ðð€the€trial€court€apparently€referredÐ X ¨ Ðto€a€prior€warning€it€had€given€the€Defendant€that€if€he€violated€his€probation,€he€would€be€orderedÐ D!” Ðto€serve€the€remainder€of€his€sentence€in€custody.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€heard€evidence€pertaining€to€theÐ 0"€  ÐDefendantððs€prior€criminal€history,€including€evidence€of€a€history€of€alcohol€and€drug€abuse€by€theÐ #l! ÐDefendant.€€The€court€then€acted€well€within€its€discretion€in€revoking€the€Defendantððs€probation€andÐ $X" Ðordering€the€Defendant€to€serve€his€sentence€in€custody.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trialÐ ô$D # Ðcourt.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€AFFIRM€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€€€Ô#†XiXXXi¿6#ÔÐ ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Їà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGE