WPCp  ^,d%f X' j=jJչd0 l3+I) ZyDG J<;"HC+DHw'o ܂L˓l*y J-7|*t6l xêE)\xV A:$&Aňr^{UX>mDa36LJvBFd'tsOe~)?i zjjFJmL zcXzWof>QYèG~-=H4C'^ @[tZ7NB%T P7~Mi+\fcy ؐ3%bq[5UtrdPdpabZu]LCBHAa8ܽvy mk:Y/&:j  06'jȊ"N kN3qcO.nq}C!bR()# >UNI % 0(w@4( m*AU:U:M(U: AQB 0D 0DL 0D D/ B B D3= HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($ 1D23e45D6789ӀEn~<$73|xEU DebuhrWorshamBoxwayNabholzIsbell CrimBallardTenn.CodeHarkins S.W.Ashby,cAZ"Arial Regular, AZ"Arial Regular  !"  XxXXX'}XXx   Ad FILEDXxX'}   November2,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.(XXxAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd !  3333X_TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T X9XXX  ӜEEE99r(<,(j 8` `@E ` ttx$X rE99INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  Et(>.*jx` `@E` ttx$ tߛEATJACKSONOCTOBER1998SESSION  p   STATEOFTENNESSEE, h     )  p   `     h     ) p C.C.A.No.02C019804CC00117 `   `  Appellee, h     ) P   `     h     ) p MadisonCounty @  v. `     h     ) 0   `     h     ) p HonorableJ.FranklinMurchison,Judge   DORISMARIEDEBUHR, h     )   `     h     ) p (ProbationRevocation)   `  Appellant. h     )  FORTHEAPPELLANT: h      p FORTHEAPPELLEE: 0 C.MichaelRobbins   h      p JohnKnoxWalkup ` 46NorthThirdStreet h      p AttorneyGeneral&Reporter P Suite719    h      p 425FifthAvenue,North @ Memphis,TN38103 h      p Nashville,TN372430493 0 (OnAppeal) `     h      p DouglasD.HimesGeorgeMortonGooge h      p AssistantAttorneyGeneral "  DistrictPublicDefender h      p 425FifthAvenue,North #! DanielJ.Taylor   h      p Nashville,TN372340493 $" AssistantPublicDefender227WestBaltimoreStreet h      p JamesG.Woodall p&!$ Jackson,TN38301 h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral `'"% (AtTrial)    h      p 225MartinLutherKingDrive  P(#&  `     h      p Jackson,TN383022825 @)$'  `     h      p DonaldH.Allen `     h      p AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h      p 225MartinLutherKingDrive `     h      p Jackson,TN383022825OPINIONFILED:_______________________________AFFIRMEDL.T.LAFFERTY,SENIORJUDGE  ;`6:  gX X9  337jXdXXd7O33PINION @ # X9X g#      ` Theappellant,DorisMarieDebuhr,whowillbehereinreferredtoasthedefendant,appealsasofrightfromajudgmentoftheMadisonCountyCircuitCourtrevoking33her3333probation.33Thedefendantpresentstwoissuesforappellatereview:(1)thetrialcourterredbyreceivingexhibit1attheprobationrevocationhearing,and(2)thetrialcourterredbyorderingthedefendanttobeincarceratedafterfindingthedefendantwasinviolationofconditionsofherprobation.Afterareviewoftherecord,briefsoftheparties,andappropriatelaw,thetrialcourtsjudgmentisaffirmed.   @ FACTUALBACKGROUND      ` OnMay26,1995,thedefendantwasfoundguiltybyaMadisonCountyjuryoftheft f ofpropertyover$1,000.AfterasentencinghearingonJuly11,1995,thetrialcourtsentencedthedefendanttoatermoffouryearsintheDepartmentofCorrectionwiththeprovisionshebeplacedonimmediateprobationforaperiodoffouryears.Thetrialcourtorderedthedefendanttopay$50permonthtowardscourtcostsand$1,727.00inrestitutiontobepaidin33full.Shewasfurtherorderedto33obeyalltherulesofsupervisedprobation.Also,thetrialcourtpermittedsupervision33tobe33transferredtoShelbyCounty,thehomeofthedefendant.Therecordreflectsamotionforanewtrialwasfiled,butthemotion33had33notbeenheardasofthedateoftheprobationrevocationhearing. ` Twoprobationviolationreportswerefiledinthiscase.First,onOctober15,1996,aprobationviolationreportwasfiledbyMs.VickiWorsham,probationofficer,allegingthedefendantfailedtomakeafullandtruthfulreportandfailedtopaycourtcostsandrestitution.OnNovember13,1996,Ms.Worshamfiledasecondprobationviolationreport,allegingthedefendanthadfailedtosignnecessaryprobationpaperstobesupervisedintheStateof33Wisconsin,33andthus33shewasrejected33bytheStateofWisconsinfortransferandsupervision.Also,thedefendantfailedtopaysupervisoryfeesof$45amonth,courtcosts,andrestitution.OnNovember12,1996,thetrialcourtissuedanarrestwarrantfor F:59 violationofprobationforthedefendant.ThedefendantwasarrestedinWisconsin,inDecember,1997,andreturnedtoTennesseefortherevocationhearing.  PROBATIONREVOCATIONHEARING P      ` Ms.VickiWorsham,probationofficerfortheDepartmentofCorrection,testifiedthat `  thedefendantssupervisionwasassignedtoheronJuly12,1995.Ms.Worshamsentalettertothedefendantat1902Louisiana33Streetin33Memphis,requestingthedefendanttocontactMs.Worshamtosetupanappointmenttobesigneduponprobation.TheletterwasreturnedtoMs.Worsham.Ms.Worshamcalledaphonenumberlistedonthe33presentencereport,33andgivenbythedefendant,whichwasdisconnected.Ms.Worshamsentasecondlettertothedefendantat4440Boxway33Drivein33Memphis.Thisletterwasreturned refusedatthisaddress.Ms.33Worsham33sentathirdlettertothedefendantattheLouisiana33Streetaddress33andthedefendantrespondedtothisletter. ` ThedefendantcalledMs.Worsham33onAugust10,1995and33advised33Ms.Worshamthatshewas33nowlivinginRapids,Wisconsinwithher33sister.33Ms.WorshamrequestedthatthedefendantreturntoJackson,Tennesseetosignupforprobationandhersupervisionwould33thenbe33transferredtoWisconsin.ThedefendantindicatedshewouldreturntoTennessee,but33shenever33did.33Ms.33Worshamsentthe33necessaryprobation3333forms33totheprobationofficeinWisconsinrequestingthatofficetosignupthe33defendant33inSeptember,1995. ` OnOctober23,1995,Ms.WorshamwascontactedbyMr.EdwardHaggard,probationofficerinSalem,Wisconsin,andadvisedthedefendanthadrefusedtosignanyprobationpapersandtheStateofWisconsinwasrejectingthetransferofprobationsupervision.Ms.WorshamtestifiedsheobtainedanarrestwarrantforthedefendantonNovember12,1996forfailuretosignupforprobation,nonpaymentofsupervisory33fees,33andfailuretopaycourtcostsandrestitution.Ms.Worshamtestifiedshehadnevermet 0948 thedefendantandheronlycontactwiththedefendantwasbyphone.Asofthedateofthehearing,Ms.Worshamcouldnotverifyifanyrestitution33orcourtcostshad33beenpaidbythe33defendant.33 ` Mrs.JoColemanAdams,testifyingforthedefendant,advisedthetrialcourtshehadnevermetthedefendantuntilthedayoftherevocationhearing.Mr.MartinNabholz,amemberofMrs.Adamssprayergroup,informedMrs.Adamsofthedefendantsproblems.Mrs.Adamscontactedthedefendantspreviousemployer,BobAdams,atJitneyPremierinMemphis,and33he33hadgoodthingstosayaboutthedefendant.33The33defendantsminister33alsohad33goodthingstosayaboutthedefendant.Mrs.Adamsadvisedthetrialcourtshehadpaid$2,147.50,onthedateofthehearing,inbehalfofthedefendantforcourtcostsandrestitution.Mrs.AdamsobtainedcontributionsforthisamountfromMr.Nabholz,thedefendants33sons33andsister,andothermembersofherprayergroup.Mrs.Adams33testified33althoughshehadnotmetthedefendant,sheandthedefendanthadtalkedoverthephoneanumberoftimes. ` Mrs.PatIsbelltestifiedshefirstmetthedefendantin199133whenshelivedacrossthestreetfromherinJackson.33Mrs.Isbellalwaysconsideredthedefendantas33a33veryniceperson.Thedefendant33experiencedagreatdealof33stresswhen33financial33problemsdeveloped33duringinstallationofa33swimmingpool33atherhome.33Mrs.Isbellhadheardrumorsthatthedefendanthadbeenconvictedoftheftfromheremployer.TothebestofMrs.Isbellsknowledge,thedefendant33movedtoandbegan33workinginMemphis.Aboutthe33theftcharge,33thedefendant33nevertold33Mrs.Isbellshe33had3333ever33brokenthe33law.33 ` Mr.MartinNabholz,aresidentofMemphis,testifiedhehadknownthedefendantfor25years.ThedefendantandMr.Nabholzha4d45ve5beenfriendsformanyyears.Mr.Nabholz33assisted33thedefendantfinanciallywhenshe33wasunemployed;however,the33defendantwasusuallyemployed. 0948  ` Thedefendantdidnottestify6at66in6thishearing.Basedonth7e77is788evidence,thetrialcourtfoundthedefendanthadviolatedtheconditionsofprobationandorderedthedefendanttoservethesentenceimposed.  LEGALANALYSIS 0      ` Thedefendantcontendsexhibit1,theaffidavitofEdwardHaggard,probationofficer @  fortheStateofWisconsin,washearsayevidenceandthedefendanthadnoopportunitytorebuttheaffidavit33or3333to33investigatethematter.Thus,thedefendant33was33denieddueprocessoflawinpresentingadefense.TheStatecountersthatthedefendanthaswaivedthisissuebyfailingtoincludetheaffidavitintherecordonappealpursuanttoTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure24(b). ` Whenanaccusedseeksappellatereviewofanissueinthiscourt,itisthedutyoftheaccusedtopreparearecordwhichconveysafair,accurate,andcompleteaccountofwhattranspiredwithrespecttothe33issues33whichformthebasisoftheappeal.Tenn.R.App.P.24(b);Statev.Bennett,798S.W.2d783(Tenn.Crim.App.331990),cert.denied,500 "  U.S.915,111S.Ct.2009,114L.Ed.2d98(1991);33Statev.Roberts,755S.W.2d833,836 $" (Tenn.Crim.33App.),per.app.denied(Tenn.1988).33 p&!$  ` Thiscourtisprohibitedfromconsideringtheexhibitsappendedtovariousmotionsandsupplementstomotionsthatareinthe technicalrecord.Beforeanexhibitoranattachmenttoapleadingmaybeconsideredbythiscourt,itmusthavebeen(a)receivedintoevidence,(b)markedbythetrialjudge,clerkorcourtreporterashavingbeenreceivedintoevidenceasanexhibit,and(c)includedinthetranscripttransmittedtothiscourt.WhileRule24,Tenn.R.App.P.,abolishesthedistinctionbetweenwhatwasformerlyreferredtoasthe billofexceptionsandthe technicalrecord,creatingwhatisnowcalledthe recordonappeal,theforegoingrulegoverningexhibitswasnotabolished.Statev. P726 Cooper,736S.W.2d125,131(Tenn.Crim.App.1987). 0948 Ї ` Whentherecordisincompleteanddoesnotcontainthedocumentrelevanttotheissue,thiscourtisprecludedfromconsideringtheissue.Statev.Locke,771S.W.2d132,  138(Tenn.Crim.App.331988),per.app.denied(Tenn.1989).33Therefore,wemustpresume p therulingofthetrialcourtrelativetotheadmissibilityoftheaffidavitofEdwardHaggard,Wisconsinprobationofficer,wascorrect.33Bennett,33798S.W.2dat790;Statev.Ballard, 0  855S.W.2d557,56061(Tenn.1993);Statev.Smith,891S.W.2d922,932(Tenn.Crim. `  33App.),per.app.denied(Tenn.331994).33Wefind33the33issueastotheadmissibilityofthe @  affidavitofEdwardHaggard33hasbeenwaived.33 ` Next,thedefendantcontendsthetrialcourterredbynotconsideringanalternativesentenceinlieuofincarcerationwhenrevoking33her33probation.TheStatecountersthere33were33amplegroundsforthecourttorevokethedefendantsprobation.Attheconclusionoftherevocationhearing,thetrialcourtfound:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Ms.Debuhr,sinceJulyof1995upuntilnowuntilshewasincarceratedhasnotdoneonesinglethingtowardsbeingonprobation.Shehasevenrefusedtocomeinandsigninonprobation.Shehasnotpaidonenickelonherrestitution.ShehasnotpaidonenickelonherCourtcostsoronenickelonherprobationfees.Shehasdoneabsolutelynothing....   8 ` 8 ` (#` (#WeonlygotMs.Debuhrsattentionwhenweputherinjail,whichissometwoandahalfyearsaftershewasputonprobation.Shejustabandonedus.ShepaidabsolutelynoattentiontotheCourttothelaw.Shetreateduswithtotaldisrespect.Thatswhatshehascontinuedtodo.Shesherprobationshehasviolatedherprobationforthosereasons.ShejustIdontknowhowtoputit,exceptforsheneverhasbeenonprobationduringalloftheseyears.Shehastoberevoked.   : ` Atrialcourtmayrevokeprobationandordertheimpositionoftheoriginalsentenceuponafindingbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatapersonhasviolatedtheconditionsofprobation.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035311.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtwillnotbedisturbedonappealunlessitappearsthattherehasbeenanabuseofdiscretion.Foranappellatecourttobewarrantedinfindinganabuseofdiscretioninaprobationrevocationcase,itmustbeestablishedthattherecordcontainsnosubstantialevidencetosupporttheconclusionofthetrialjudgethataviolationoftheconditionsofprobationhas  :p59 occurred.Statev.Harkins,811S.W.2d79,82(Tenn.1991).   ` Theevidenceattherevocationhearingneedonlyshowthatthetrialcourtexercisedaconscientiousandintelligentjudgmentinmakingitsdecisiontorevokeprobation.State P  v.Leach,914S.W.2d104,106(Tenn.Crim.App.1995). 0   ` Thedefendantconcedesthattherecorddemonstratestechnicalviolationsofthetermsandconditionsof33herprobation.3333However,33duetotheevidencepresentedattherevocationhearing,thedefendant33contendssheshould3333havebeen33consideredforalternativerelief,suchasa secondchanceforprobation,inthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstorderingthedefendantintoincarcerationasasanction. ` Whenthereisachallengetothemanneroftheserviceofasentence,thiscourthasadutytoconducta denovo reviewofthesentencewithapresumptionthedetermination ` madebythetrialcourtiscorrect.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d).Thispresumptionis conditionedupontheaffirmativeshowingintherecordthatthetrialcourtconsideredthesentencingprinciplesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances.Statev.Ashby,823 "  S.W.2d166,169(Tenn.1991).TheSentencingCommissionCommentsprovidethattheburdenisonthedefendanttoshowtheimproprietyofthesentence. ` Atthisrevocationhearing,thedefendantpresentedsomevalidreasonsforthetrialcourttoconsidersomealternativesentence.Thedefendantwouldbesupportedby33friendsandaprayergroup,33includingtotalstrangerswhopaidhercourtcostsandrestitutiononthedayoftherevocationhearing,33and3333herprospects33ofemployment33were33great.Apparently,thedefendantwas60yearsoldandtheoffenseoftheftwasheronlyviolationofthelaw.However,wemustbalancethisevidencewiththereasonsastowhythetrialcourtbelieveditnecessarytorevokethedefendantsprobation.ThedefendantwasplacedonprobationonJuly11,1995foraperiodoffouryears.Thedefendantwasrequiredtocomplywiththestandardconditionsofprobationandthespecialconditionsof 0948 restitutionandpaymentofcourtcostsandsupervisoryfees.Forsomeunexplainedandunsatisfactoryreason,thedefendantwouldnotreporttotheprobationofficeinJacksonto signupforprobation.Afterthreeattemptstocontactthedefendant,thedefendantcalledMs.VickiWorsham,probationofficer,andthentheState33discovered/foundout/33thedefendanthadmovedtoWisconsin,apparentlywithouttheknowledgeandpermissionofthe330probationoffice01DepartmentofProbation1.33TheStateattemptedtoworkwiththedefendantbysendingrequeststoWisconsin,throughtheInterstateCompactAgreement,forsupervisionofthedefendantsprobationinthatstate.ThedefendantrefusedtocooperatewiththeWisconsinauthorities.Thereseems33to2be233someinferenceintheevidencethedefendantwouldnotcooperate,sinceshebelievedherconvictionwasunjust. ` Itisobviousthetrialcourt,initsruling,wasfrustratedwiththedefendantstotaldisregardoftheconditionsofprobation.Therefore,basedontheevidenceinthisrecord,wecannotfindthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninorderingthedefendanttoservethesentenceimposed. ` Thetrialcourtisaffirmed. X3XX X `     h     ________________________________________ p&!$  `     h     L.T.LAFFERTY,33SENIOR33JUDGECONCUR:___________________________________JOHNH.PEAY,JUDGE___________________________________# XXX X3kP# 3T.2 33DAVIDG.HAYES,33JUDGÈ