WPC& m9%qf&*cAWlаߵpQTې-3/d,qUB\#$ΈW6=u/kyhcnHiUk!u^L(*/9C%T2"e2pY je8͒wqfwIW֣A:~Nq^Ӗ#40$[wgo4P#`(@9fa:3FX#C=>L%~'I Ǎޑ% 0=$ \?ٓ NFt5ٺrwA&`7\\0[P,Q'HgrtcJo!LtPMT2Pc`L52LTJ450?2U L=q᝻-Q 3 R4ODG 3}.bUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m # 1    j 0c0N 1UNEj 1ul 72b 0#### B 0+ D3 D- 0K// ASz 0 0D7 A{(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    $Q-s PH,ĨѪ3|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.wptUHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0(CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) - -(|G2v$ !.8$,dd8         0  T d(|3\$ !.8$,dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3\$ !.8$,dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8%dd8     _H    %8pXXdd8@tt2U%INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#%2U#Ԉ & @K K (AssignedonBriefsatJacksonSeptember10,2002) L XpX% #%XXp-#  STATEOFTENNESSEEv.RANDYTYRONECRAWFORDXpX%  J s@  CriminalCourtforSumnerCounty  J @$No.6561999  6 @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @ No.M200103063CCAR3CDFiledOctober11,2002   AV) ` dE<|` A }   #%XXp#XpX%@( ORDER #%XXp#XpX%Ԉ x  #%XXp#XpX%#%XXp}#XpX% XpXXXp  TheAppellant,RandyTyroneCrawford,appealsfromtheorderoftheSumnerCounty P CriminalCourtrevokinghisprobationandorderinghimtoservehissentenceintheDepartmentof < Correction.WeaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtpursuanttoRule20oftheRulesofthe (x TennesseeCourtofCriminalAppeals. d   OnDecember3,1999,theAppellantpledguiltytoonecountofsaleofcocaineunder.5 < grams,aclassCfelony.TheAppellantreceivedasixyearsentenceofsplitconfinement,ninetydays ( tobeservedinconfinementandthebalanceonsupervisedprobation.TheAppellantsubsequently  violatedtheconditionsofhisprobationandwastransferredtotheDepartmentofCorrection,where  hewasplacedintheSpecialAlternativeUnitProgram,commonlyknownasthebootcampprogram.  Followingcompletionoftheprogram,theAppellantwasagainplacedonsupervisedprobation.    OnJune20,2001,aprobationviolationwarrantwasissuedallegingthattheAppellanthad ` againviolatedthetermsandconditionsofhisprobationby:(1)failingtosecureandverify L  employment;(2)failingtoreportonceaweeksinceMay30,2001;(3)usingcrackcocaineonor 8!  aboutMay30,2001;and(4)failingtoperformpublicserviceworkhoursasinstructed. $"t!   ArevocationhearingwasconductedonNovember5,2001.Thefollowingcolloquyoccurred #L# atthehearingbetweentheassistantdistrictattorneygeneralandtheAppellant: $8 $  (83! !"3"     ` 3 2  Q  .3  0   Thisisntthefirstviolationwarrantthathasbeenfiledagainst3 ݌&"& (# (# Ќ     `  you,isit,Mr.Crawford? '"' ! ! (88 "3"     ` 32  A  .3  0   No,sir.3݌(#( (# (# Ќ     ` Q.0 Lastwewerehereinthisveryroom,Judge_Wheatcraft_Ԁordered)$) (# (#    `  youtoserveyoursentenceandrevokedyourprobation.Isthat p*%*    `  true? \+&+    ` A.0 Yes,sir.H,', (# (#    ` Q.0 Youwentthroughbootcamp?4-(- (# (#    ` A.0 Yes,sir. # .p). (# (# #   ` Q.0 Well,sevenmonthslaterwerebackhereincourt.Sevenmonths (# (#    `  afteryourreleasefrombootcamp,andMs._Tharp_swarrantsays     `  basicallyyoudidntreport,didntprovideproofofemployment,     `  anddidntprovideproofofthepublicservicework,andyou t    `  wereusingdrugs? `    ` A.0 Yes,sir.L  (# (# Atthecloseofthehearing,thetrialcourtenteredthefollowingfindings: $ t    ` THECOURT:Thisdefendanthasalongandtorturedhistorywiththis  L     ` Court.Iknowhim.Hehasbeenonprobationanumberoftimesand,  8     ` unfortunately,neversuccessfully.Hehascertainlynospiritofcooperation $     ` withanyprogramthatwehavetriedtoplacehimin.Hedoeshavea      ` historyofviolence....Hisprobationisrevokedyetagain,andImgoing      ` tosendhimtotheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrections.     Atrialcourtretainsthediscretiontorevokeasentenceofprobationandcauseexecutionof p theoriginaljudgmentasitwasentered,uponafindingbyapreponderanceoftheevidence,thata \ defendanthasviolatedtheconditionsofprobation.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035310,311(d)(1997). H Thetrialcourtsdecisiontorevokeprobationwillbereviewedunderanabuseofdiscretionstandard, 4 Statev._Harkins_,811S.W.2d79,82(Tenn.1991),andwillnotbedisturbediftheevidenceshows  p thatthetrialjudgehasexercised conscientiousandintelligentjudgmentinmakingthedecision  \ ratherthanactingarbitrarily.Statev.Leach,914S.W.2d104,106(Tenn._Crim_.App.1999)(citing H Stampsv.State,614S.W.2d71,73(Tenn._Crim_.App.1980),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1981)). 4   Onappeal,theAppellantarguesthatthetrialcourtfailedtoexercise conscientious&   intelligentjudgmentinfindingbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethattheAppellantviolatedthe  termsandconditionsofhisprobation.Thisargumentiswithoutmerit.Wefindtherecordfully  supportsthetrialcourtsaction.    Therefore,thejudgmentoftheSumnerCountyCriminalCourtisaffirmedinaccordancewith X  Rule20oftheRulesoftheTennesseeCourtofCriminalAppeals.Costsaretaxedtothe_State._ D! #XpXXXp#   `     h     ____________________________________ $X"    `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE $D #    `     h     _____________________________________ '#&    `     h     JOSEPHM._TIPTON_,JUDGE (#'    `     h     ____________________________________ h+&*    `     h     JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE