ÿWPCj L¥HP‹¦mS›{y¦ÏÞ‚ò–J¡˜$wµCÅ—iŠïDt‰ƒA¶p.zF·Hm·‰R±ÝéÙA`eîe-ŒdA õø4Ò•/ТP õÛx~ƒr\q,²\¹d·ЭH:™Eƒ³‘z´Ú)ʼnß#´Ùõ ß*Ýö¤öÎt ˵$ñYòÒ0zjð™U±DÚHÚ¬¯„ñPÝ>aú’Ì£mqTqGÙ}¥ïùÓ<YÓ3Àú¢"«I:gì ûáÄz­sG‹¦—pØ$Û"?2WYÈv6gš.‹ßB«BÇžÂÿ~”<ª/ kcÖ/êäV^>…ÿYŠK¦Ò[;Í ±ŒÎ¥Ï'Ðpü´–*3½4Âç@´no³Íi(<·t~åÕb2c¨à~W‰É†$Ou98’Ou´ûÿ•^ܹâqNºüì„æšY$b±HJ€»Ýå µ ÇKéê©ÖÂ8´#‰Ð\FŠ=ºðíéð»ÁÀ«$̼ÝR .‹ em³‹´w˜ð ÚåÒ }ýI~dÐ=šI9vîÀó åeÐÇ¢cÐ7Ê‹ûBävbW4æD9´`ï6Ýá?d‡þÓ)á›4Ìb ã*ıûù‚ÀßÃLÿ`8‘éºñð[çmb7b %\UNb 0Ÿ°UNO^ w©4­ zÁÒ;   m #Á5 Æö Ƽ Æ‚ ÆHNEb 0"""" B$$ 0»A D3ü D-/ 0K\\ AS§Æú 0»À 0D{ A«¿»(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(w×$¡¡Ô  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€..ÑÑ8€m»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ýý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÜ„()â q\;'ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - ù-(“G2af$¤¤Ý ƒ×!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€ó¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôšŒò»»Ô d(“3þã$££Ý ƒ×!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€ó¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(“3þã$¢¢Ý ƒ×!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€ó¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ×!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€ó¤»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ó¤»»»ÔÑ8€êSXXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î Wó¤ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ó¤»îî W#ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡XêSX»¼ó¤ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ó¤»XXêS#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€HELEN€I.€Ô_ÔCUMBERBATCHÔ_ÔÔ‡XêSX»¼ó¤Ôó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€21683€€€€€€Rebecca€J.€Stern,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„00047„CCA„R3„CDÐ ×'  ÐSeptember€8,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ Ç  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€trial€court's€revocation€of€her€community€correctionsÐ ¶ Ðsentence.€€She€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€revoking€her€community€corrections€sentence€basedÐ ¦ö Ðon€unreliable,€undocumented€hearsay€evidence€that€she€had€failed€a€drug€screen.€€The€State€assertsÐ –æ Ðthat€the€Defendant€has€waived€appellate€review€of€the€admission€of€the€hearsay€evidence€becauseÐ †Ö Ðshe€failed€to€object€at€the€hearing.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€judge€properly€considered€the€hearsayÐ vÆ Ðevidence,€and€she€did€not€abuse€her€discretion€in€revoking€community€corrections€because€theÐ f¶ Ðevidence€was€sufficient€to€establish€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€Defendant€hadÐ V¦ Ðviolated€the€conditions€of€community€corrections€by€using€cocaine.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€theÐ F– Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€revoking€the€Defendant's€community€corrections€sentence.Ð 6† ÐÓÙÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ f ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ó¤»àXêS¬#ÔÔ‡XêSX.¼ó¤ÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€and€òòRobertÐ öF ÐW.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð æ6 ÐÌÔ_ÔArdenaÔ_Ô€J.€Garth,€District€Public€Defender;€Donna€Robinson€Miller,€Assistant€District€PublicÐ Æ  ÐDefender,€for€the€appellant,€Helen€I.€Ô_ÔCumberbatchÔ_Ô.Ð ¶!  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Mark€A.€Ô_ÔFulksÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€BillÐ –#æ" ÐCox;€District€Attorney€General,€and€Yolanda€D.€Mitchell,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€forÐ †$Ö# Ðthe€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð v%Æ $ ÐÓr ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ó¤»XXêS¡ #ÔÔ‡XêSX»¼ó¤ÔÐ V'¦"& ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ó¤»XXêS< #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XêSX»¼ó¤Ôà  àOn€September€29,€1998,€the€Defendant,€Helen€I.€Ô_ÔCumberbatchÔ_Ô,€pleaded€guilty€in€HamiltonÐ 6)†$( ÐCounty€to€theft€in€an€amount€over€$1,000.00.€€She€received€a€four„year€sentence€to€be€served€onÐ &*v%) Ðprobation,€and€she€was€ordered€to€pay€restitution€and€to€submit€to€random€drug€screens.€€As€a€resultÐ +f&* Ðof€failed€drug€screens,€the€Defendant's€probation€was€revoked€on€June€14,€1999,€and€she€was€orderedÐ ,V'+ Ðto€serve€her€sentence€in€the€Hamilton€County€Community€Corrections€Program.€€She€remainedÐ ö,F(, Ðsubject€to€random€drug€screens.€€On€October€5,€1999,€the€community€corrections€program€filed€aÐ æ-6)-ý ÐÔ_Ô"Request€for€Capias,"€alleging€that€the€Defendant€had€failed€a€drug€screen€on€September€30,€1999.€Ð ° ÐThe€community€corrections€officer,€Brayton€Floyd,€requested€that€the€court€either€incarcerate€theÐ  ð ÐDefendant€for€thirty€to€sixty€days€and€then€require€drug€treatment€upon€release€or€remove€theÐ à ÐDefendant€from€the€community€corrections€program.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àOn€December€13,€1999,€a€hearing€was€held€to€determine€whether€the€Defendant's€communityÐ ` ° Ðcorrections€sentence€should€be€revoked.€€The€only€witness€was€Brayton€Floyd,€the€Defendant'sÐ P   Ðcommunity€corrections€officer.€€He€testified€that€the€program€administered€four€random€drug€screensÐ @  Ðto€the€Defendant€between€June€14,€1999€and€September€30,€1999,€and€all€four€screens€were€returnedÐ 0 € Ðnegative€for€drug€use.€€However,€on€September€30,€1999,€the€program€again€administered€a€drugÐ  p  Ðscreen,€which€"was€returned€positive€for€cocaine€use."€€This€testimony€was€the€only€evidence€of€anyÐ `  Ðdrug€use€by€the€Defendant.€€The€Defendant€did€not€object€to€the€testimony€or€challenge€this€evidenceÐ P  Ðin€any€way.€€Mr.€Floyd€further€testified€that€the€Defendant€had€not€been€charged€with€any€newÐ ð@  Ðoffenses,€that€she€had€not€violated€curfew,€that€she€was€paying€restitution,€and€that€she€hadÐ à0  Ðmaintained€full„time€employment.€€The€State€then€requested€that€the€court€revoke€the€Defendant'sÐ Ð  Ðcommunity€corrections€sentence€and€require€her€to€serve€her€sentence€in€confinement.€€The€defenseÐ À Ðattorney€stated€that€the€Defendant€"obviously€has€a€drug€problem"€and€requested€a€period€of€shockÐ ° Ðincarceration€and€then€release€again€into€the€community€corrections€program.€€After€hearing€theÐ  ð Ðevidence,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€had€violated€the€conditions€of€her€communityÐ à Ðcorrections€sentence€and€revoked€that€sentence.€€The€Defendant€now€argues€that€the€revocation€wasÐ €Ð Ðerror.Ð pÀ ÐÌÔ‡Xv¨ XXXêSÔÔ‡GùJ F XXv¨Ôà  àÔ#†Xv¨ X FGùJv#ÔThe€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€revoke€a€community€corrections€sentence€upon€findingÐ P  Ðby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€has€violated€the€conditions€of€the€agreement;Ð <Œ Ðthe€trial€court€may€then€order€the€defendant€to€serve€his€or€her€sentence€in€confinement.€€òòState€v.Ð (x ÐHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,€82„83€(Tenn.€1991).€€However,€before€a€trial€court€may€revoke€aÐ d Ðcommunity€corrections€sentence,€the€record€must€contain€sufficient€evidence€to€permit€the€trial€courtÐ P Ðto€make€an€intelligent€and€conscientious€decision.€€òòId.óó€€When€revoking€a€community€correctionsÐ ì< Ðsentence,€the€trial€court€must€place€its€findings€of€fact€and€the€reasons€for€the€revocation€on€theÐ Ø( Ðrecord.€€òòSeeóó€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778,€786€(1973).€€€Ð Ä ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard€of€appellateÐ œ!ì Ðreview€should€be€used€to€consider€an€appeal€from€the€revocation€of€a€community€correctionsÐ ˆ"Ø  Ðsentence.€€òòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€82„83.€€In€order€for€a€reviewing€court€to€be€warranted€in€findingÐ t#Ä! Ðan€abuse€of€discretion€in€a€probation€revocation€case,€it€must€be€established€that€the€record€containsÐ `$°" Ðno€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€judge€that€the€defendant€violated€theÐ L%œ # Ðterms€of€the€community€corrections€program.€€òòId.óó€€The€proof€of€a€violation€of€community€correctionsÐ 8&ˆ!$ Ðneed€not€be€established€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€and€it€is€sufficient€if€it€allows€the€trial€judge€toÐ $'t"% Ðmake€a€conscientious€and€intelligent€decision.€€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Miltonóó,€673€S.W.2d€555,€557€(Tenn.Ð (`#& ÐCrim.€App.€1984).Ð ü(L$' ÐÌà  àIf€the€evidence€at€the€revocation€proceeding€is€insufficient€to€establish€that€a€violationÐ Ô*$&) Ðoccurred,€the€trial€court€should€dismiss€the€proceeding.€€Conversely,€if€the€evidence€is€sufficient,€theÐ À+'* Ðtrial€court€may,€within€its€discretionary€authority,€revoke€the€sentence€and€require€the€accused€toÐ ° Ðserve€the€sentence€in€confinement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(e)(3).Ð œì ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€establish€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÐ tÄ Ðthat€the€Defendant€was€in€violation€of€the€conditions€of€her€community€corrections€sentence€due€toÐ `° Ðdrug€use.€€Mr.€Floyd€testified€that€the€Defendant€had€failed€a€drug€screen€by€testing€positive€forÐ L œ Ðcocaine€use,€and€the€Defendant€did€not€object€or€in€any€way€challenge€that€testimony.€€In€fact,€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐDefendant's€attorney€stated€to€the€court,€"Ms.€Cumberbatch€obviously€has€a€drug€problem,"€therebyÐ $ t Ðapparently€conceding€that€the€Defendant€had€used€drugs.€€We€cannot€conclude€from€this€record€thatÐ  ` Ðthe€revocation€of€community€corrections€was€an€abuse€of€discretion.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant,€however,€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€relying€on€the€hearsay€testimonyÐ Ô$  Ðof€Mr.€Floyd€that€she€had€failed€a€drug€screen.€€She€relies€on€òòState€v.€Wadeóó,€863€S.W.2d€406€(Tenn.Ð À  Ð1993),€in€which€the€admission€of€a€drug€screen€report€was€challenged€as€a€violation€of€the€right€toÐ ¬ü  Ðconfront€and€cross„examine€witnesses.€€In€òòWadeóó,€a€drug€screen€report€was€entered€into€evidence€overÐ ˜è  Ðthe€defendant's€objection.€€òòId.óó€at€407.€€The€State€did€not€call€the€laboratory€technician€who€performedÐ „Ô  Ðthe€test€and€prepared€the€report.€€òòId.óó€€Both€the€defendant€and€his€wife€testified€that€the€defendant€hadÐ pÀ Ðnot€used€illegal€drugs€but€that€he€had€been€taking€Advil,€which€could€have€caused€false€results.€€òòId.óó€Ð \¬ ÐRelying€solely€on€the€drug€screen€report,€the€trial€court€revoked€the€defendant's€probation.€€òòId.óó€€TheÐ H˜ Ðsupreme€court€found€that€the€admission€of€the€report,€which€was€clearly€hearsay,€violated€theÐ 4„ Ðdefendant's€due€process€rights€because€there€was€no€evidence€that€it€was€reliable€and€because€the€trialÐ  p Ðcourt€did€not€find€"good€cause"€to€justify€the€failure€to€call€the€technician€and€have€him€or€herÐ  \ Ðavailable€for€cross„examination.€€òòId.óó€at€409„10.€€The€court€also€noted€that€the€validity€of€the€reportÐ øH Ðwas€put€at€issue€by€the€testimony€of€the€defendant€and€his€wife€that€he€had€not€used€illegal€drugs.€Ð ä4 ÐòòId.óó€at€409.€€It€then€held€that€"the€State€is€not€entitled€to€revoke€probation€based€on€an€unidentifiedÐ Ð  Ðlaboratory€test€admitted€into€evidence€without€a€finding€of€good€cause€and€proof€of€the€reliability€ofÐ ¼  Ðthe€test€report."€€òòId.óó€at€410;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€946€S.W.2d€829,€831€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);Ð ¨ø ÐòòState€v.€Anthen€Lee€Parkeróó,€No.€02C01„9111„CC„00245,€1994€WL€34632,€at€*€1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð ”ä ÐJackson,€Feb.€9,€1994).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àHad€the€Defendant€challenged€the€results€of€the€drug€screen€at€the€revocation€hearing,€thisÐ X ¨ Ðissue€would€be€presented€in€a€different€light.€€However,€we€find€òòWadeóó€to€be€inapplicable€to€the€factsÐ D!” Ðof€this€case.€€Here,€unlike€in€òòWadeóó,€the€Defendant€never€objected€to€the€hearsay€testimony€of€Mr.Ð 0"€  ÐFloyd.€€Here,€unlike€in€òòWadeóó,€the€Defendant€never€put€the€validity€of€Mr.€Floyd's€testimony€at€issue.€Ð #l! ÐIndeed,€the€Defendant€conceded€through€her€attorney€that€she€had€used€illegal€drugs.€€As€a€generalÐ $X" Ðrule,€"[w]hen€no€objection€to€[hearsay]€testimony€is€interposed,€it€may€properly€be€considered€andÐ ô$D # Ðgiven€its€natural€probative€effect€as€if€it€were€in€law€admissible."€€òòState€v.€Harringtonóó,€627€S.W.2dÐ à%0!$ Ð345,€348€(Tenn.€1981).€€Rule€36(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€likewise€provides:€Ð Ì&"% Ð"Nothing€in€this€rule€shall€be€construed€as€requiring€relief€to€be€granted€to€a€party€responsible€for€anÐ ¸'#& Ðerror€or€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonably€available€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmfulÐ ¤(ô#' Ðeffect€of€an€error."€€Failure€to€make€a€contemporaneous€objection€waives€consideration€by€this€CourtÐ )à$( Ðof€the€issue€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó;€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760,€S.W.2d€228,€235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€Ð |*Ì%) ÐThus,€the€Defendant€cannot€now€complain€of€the€admissibility€and€reliability€of€the€hearsayÐ h+¸&* Ðtestimony€of€Mr.€Floyd€when€she€did€not€challenge€it€below€and€when€she€conceded€that€she€had€aÐ ° Ðproblem€with€drugs.€€The€trial€court€properly€considered€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Floyd€as€substantiveÐ œì Ðevidence€that€the€Defendant€failed€a€drug€screen.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€revoking€the€Defendant's€community€correctionsÐ `° Ðsentence€is€affirmed.€€€€€€€€€Ô#†XêSX XXv¨W#Ô€€€€Ð L œ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð , | Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE