ÿWPC¸ >By©ìa< J0IÎí¼ÇPPtÝnBr`#5k »°Ù=Ôë&^ .ì 5¯ü<®R³o¸ÿMl)¾8JÀÏ*f(~À‚…ïVÝ (Âãô3&Ò¨ ²;Q–׃ïƒ÷Á}!1ÿ›J2èªF™³˜B&žW„;ó¡è3uûŒ Þ3ཡ#lœyµ©Y¾CGA8¥Ù2δêMfëDúÿ¢4—µf(Gg4ÜmmqË=9¢èlAS“[ŠYÛ#ùÁŠÝ$wao•‚óÑS©NE¸+b×Ùºøá=·:”j9ùׯÄàÏ’úàc°Ÿ`Àfºe1²o‚”s8€‡¬ôyMá]Ó (J¸ðN¼j¯¡CªM4D…g?ä10JÃi9–Ô35³}#d±ß0ØœóÃj£Ý“ 4ÚGä#媟¨7þZìÝ/û…î×=z A©ã{gS1F½jõc/jÕŒa;Âæk“œ"ç)Æ„œ¬/RßÅä.ÞÈŽA±tÙ©ëO24ËÊ¥Üô$œÑéáC{ñMÍàOJsb £ìN_—ÝòDB©{H?O/¿äƒoaÍðNˆ€Ûå]ÔΟ„ça(€TêI¹È¶Ô̯†Šqʽ5°‚]Ã]h«Üb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ Ð Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã ã N©©©E««««««««««««««««««««««««b­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 0ëµµµµ B   0¤½ D3a D-” 0KÁÁ AS Æ_ 0¤% 0DÉ A« »8rŠ-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularYo†)ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2×^$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»Ô d(|3a$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3a$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ »»»ÔÑ8€@1XXdì»»d8ÑÔ‡» »»¼ Ôà@ttìàÔ#†¼ »»» ú#ÔÔ‡î ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼ »îîN#ÔÔ‡» »»¼ ԈРÖ& Ðà@x x ìàAssigned€on€Briefs€August€6,€2002ˆÐ üL ÐÌà@« « ìàò òÔ#†¼ »»» ï#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€DARREN€A.€Ô_ÔDEWALTÔ_Ôó óˆÐ  p ÐÌÔ€X@1X»¼ Ôà@0 0 ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyˆÐ F – Ðà@' ' ìàNo.€W98„00077€€€€€James€C.€Ô_ÔBeasleyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JudgeˆÐ 2 ‚ ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<õ` A߈Ð öF  ÐÌà@d d ìàNo.€W2001„02778„CCA„R3„CD€€Ô_Ô„Ô_Ô€Filed€December€9,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ԈРñA  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<È` AßÐ É  Ðó óÌDefendant,€Darren€A.€Ô_ÔDewaltÔ_Ô,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€trial€court's€order€revoking€his€probationÐ Ä Ðand€reinstating€his€original€sentence€to€be€served€in€the€Shelby€County€Correction€Center.€€DefendantÐ ° Ðcontends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€revoking€his€probation€based€upon€an€unidentified€andÐ œì Ðunsubstantiated€laboratory€report€indicating€that€Defendant€had€used€drugs€in€violation€of€hisÐ ˆØ Ðprobation.€€Based€upon€a€review€of€the€entire€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð tÄ ÐÌà@DDìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3,€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óˆÐ Lœ ÐÌòòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,óó€and€òòJohnÐ $t ÐEverett€Williams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ` ÐÌAC€Wharton,€Jr.,€Shelby€County€Public€Defender;€Garland€Ô_ÔErgudenÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Public€Defender;Ð è8 ÐPhyllis€Ô_ÔAlukoÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Public€Defender;€and€Marty€McAfee,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Memphis,Ð Ô$ ÐTennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Darren€A.€Ô_ÔDewaltÔ_Ô.Ð À ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ˜ è ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€Karen€Cook,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General;Ð „!Ô  ÐScott€Gordon,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General;€and€Kevin€Ô_ÔRardinÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ p"À! ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð \#¬" ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ 4%„ $ ÐÌà  àOn€February€4,€1998,€Defendant€pled€guilty€to€aggravated€burglary,€a€Class€C€felony.€€He€wasÐ  '\"& Ðsentenced€as€a€Range€I€offender€to€three€years,€fined€$500.00,€and€placed€on€probation€for€theÐ ø'H#' Ðduration€of€his€sentence.€€As€special€conditions€of€his€probation,€Defendant€agreed€to€pay€restitutionÐ ä(4$( Ðto€the€victim,€acquire€his€Ô_ÔG.E.D.Ô_Ô,€perform€150€hours€of€community€service,€obtain€employment,€andÐ Ð) %) Ðreport€daily€to€the€Day€Reporting€Center€until€he€found€employment.€€In€addition,€Defendant€agreedÐ ¼* &* Ðto€obey€all€laws,€communicate€with€his€probation€officer€as€required,€and€refrain€from€using€narcoticÐ ¨+ø&+ Ðdrugs,€including€marijuana.Ð ”,ä', ÐÐ €-Ð(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àA€probation€violation€report€was€filed€on€August€15,€2000€alleging€that€Defendant€hadÐ ° Ðviolated€his€probation€by€failing€to€(1)€report€in€as€required;€(2)€make€payments€on€his€court€costs,Ð œì Ðsupervisory€fees€and€restitution;€(3)€report€his€arrest€for€driving€without€a€license;€(4)€presentÐ ˆØ Ðverification€of€employment;€(5)€present€verification€of€G.E.D.€class€attendance;€and€(6)€complete€hisÐ tÄ Ðrequired€community€service.€€Following€a€hearing,€Defendant€was€allowed€until€December€11,€2000Ð `° Ðto€come€into€compliance.€€Thereafter,€Defendant€was€granted€several€more€extensions€to€give€himÐ L œ Ðtime€to€fulfill€his€obligations€until€October€19,€2001,€when€Defendantððs€probation€was€revoked.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àDuring€this€time,€Defendant€completed€his€G.E.D.€and€community€service€hours.€€He€alsoÐ  ` Ðmade€some€payments€on€his€financial€obligations,€but€remained€significantly€in€arrears.€€DefendantÐ ü L  Ðwas€also€arrested€and€convicted€a€second€time€for€driving€without€a€license.€€On€August€23,€2001,Ð è 8  ÐDefendant€submitted€to€an€in„house€drug€screen€that€tested€positive€for€amphetamines,€cocaine,€andÐ Ô$  Ðmarijuana.€€A€second€in„house€drug€screen€performed€on€September€20,€2001€tested€positive€forÐ À  Ðcocaine€and€marijuana.€€Both€drug€screens€were€sent€to€Aegis€Analytical€Laboratories€for€analysis,Ð ¬ü  Ðand€were€returned€positive€for€marijuana€and€negative€for€the€other€drugs.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àAt€Defendantððs€probation€revocation€hearing€on€October€19,€2001,€testimony€concerning€theÐ pÀ Ðlaboratory€reports€was€introduced€over€Defendantððs€objection€that€the€State€did€not€properly€lay€theÐ \¬ Ðfoundation€for€the€introduction€of€the€tests.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€Defendantððs€probationÐ H˜ Ðwas€revoked.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€basing€its€decision€to€revokeÐ  \ ÐDefendantððs€probation,€for€the€most€part,€on€Defendantððs€positive€drug€tests.€€Specifically,€DefendantÐ øH Ðcontends€that€the€State€failed€either€to€present€the€technicians€who€prepared€the€drug€analyses€orÐ ä4 Ðshow€good€cause€why€such€persons€did€not€testify,€and€did€not€provide€any€testimony€on€the€typesÐ Ð  Ðof€tests€used€or€the€testsðð€reliability€as€required€by€òòState€v.€Wadeóó,€863€S.W.2d€406€(Tenn.€1993).€Ð ¼  ÐAccordingly,€Defendant€asks€this€Court€to€reverse€the€revocation€of€his€probation.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€òòWadeóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€probation€may€not€be€revoked€solely€uponÐ €Ð Ðthe€basis€of€an€unidentified€laboratory€report,€without€a€showing€of€good€cause€as€to€why€theÐ l¼ Ðtechnician€preparing€the€report€did€not€personally€appear€at€the€hearing€and€without€proof€as€to€theÐ X ¨ Ðreliability€of€the€report.€€òòId.€óóat€409;€òòsee€also€State€v.€Rickeróó,€875€S.W.2d€687€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð D!” Ð1994).€€In€this€instance,€Defendantððs€probation€officer€testified€that€she€administered€two€drugÐ 0"€  Ðscreens€to€Defendant€in„house€and€forwarded€the€screens€to€the€Aegis€Analytical€Laboratories€forÐ #l! Ðanalysis.€€The€laboratory€report€indicates€that€the€screens€tested€positive€for€marijuana.€€The€StateÐ $X" Ðdid€not€produce€the€technician€who€prepared€Defendantððs€drug€analyses€nor€offer€any€reason€as€toÐ ô$D # Ðwhy€the€person€was€not€available€to€testify€at€trial.€€There€also€was€no€testimony€regarding€theÐ à%0!$ Ðreliability€of€the€tests.€Based€on€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€follow€theÐ Ì&"% Ðmandates€established€in€òòWade,€óóand€accordingly€erred€in€admitting€testimony€concerning€theÐ ¸'#& Ðlaboratory€report.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àHowever,€unlike€the€situations€in€òòWade€óóand€òòRickeróó,€Defendantððs€probation€in€this€instanceÐ |*Ì%) Ðwas€not€revoked€solely€on€the€basis€of€his€drug€screens.€€The€record€shows€that€Defendant€continuedÐ h+¸&* Ðto€fall€behind€on€payments€for€his€court€costs,€supervisory€fees,€and€restitution.€€Defendant€cited€hisÐ ° Ðlack€of€employment€as€the€reason€why€he€was€not€able€to€make€his€payments€on€a€regular€basis.€€TheÐ œì Ðtrial€court€declined€to€accept€this€reason.€€Additionally,€Defendantððs€failure€to€secure€steadyÐ ˆØ Ðemployment,€in€and€of€itself,€was€a€violation€of€probation.€The€trial€court€had€the€opportunity€toÐ tÄ Ðevaluate€Defendantððs€credibility€and€demeanor€at€trial.€€In€probation€revocation€hearings,€theÐ `° Ðcredibility€of€witnesses€is€left€to€the€trial€courtððs€determination.€€òòState€v.€Wallóó,€909€S.W.2d€8,€10Ð L œ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€òòciting€Bledsoe€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€553,€387€S.W.2d€811,€814€(1965).€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðrecord€shows€that€the€trial€court€inquired€into€the€reasons€why€Defendant€had€failed€to€make€hisÐ $ t Ðpayments,€and€concluded€that€Defendant€had€not€made€a€bona€fide€effort€to€reduce€his€obligations.Ð  ` ÐòòSee€State€v.€Dyeóó,€715€S.W.2d€36,€40€(Tenn.€1986).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€Defendant€was€arrested€on€January€4,€2001€for€driving€with€a€suspended,Ð Ô$  Ðrevoked,€or€canceled€license€and€violation€of€the€vehicle€registration€law.€€He€pled€guilty,€and€wasÐ À  Ðsentenced€to€serve€five€days.€€This€action€constitutes€a€direct€violation€of€Defendantððs€agreement€toÐ ¬ü  Ðobey€all€laws.€€The€commission€of€a€crime€during€probation€constitutes€sufficient€evidence€that€aÐ ˜è  Ðviolation€of€probation€has€occurred.€€òòState€v.€Gabelóó,€914€S.W.2d€562,€564€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àA€trial€judge€is€vested€with€the€discretion€to€revoke€a€sentence€of€probation€if€it€determinesÐ \¬ Ðby€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€conditions€of€probation€have€been€violated.€€Tenn.Ð H˜ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(e).€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtððs€decision€will€be€upheld€on€appeal€unlessÐ 4„ Ðthere€has€been€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Shafferóó,€45€S.W.3d€553,€554€(Tenn.€2001).€€To€findÐ  p Ðan€abuse€of€discretion€in€a€probation€revocation,€the€record€must€be€void€of€any€substantial€evidenceÐ  \ Ðthat€would€support€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€revoke€probation.€€òòId.;€State€v.€Delpóó,€614€S.W.2d€395,Ð øH Ð398€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àBecause€there€is€sufficient€evidence€that€Defendant€violated€the€terms€of€his€probation,€theÐ ¼  Ðrecord€fully€supports€the€revocation€of€Defendantððs€probation.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àBased€upon€a€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÐ X ¨ Ðdiscretion€in€revoking€Defendantððs€probation.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð D!” ÐÌÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à___________________________________€Ð$X"(#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE