ÿWPCØ … 0VU <q 0W­ 0L ’P 0Câ 0C%hUNx %ÆÌ 0(Ôw@ü4< 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d-B)‘DCº Bý AMU*gÞ‘v~o D3ívÓ  0@ó AO3Æ‚ 0DH D/Œ B»<ujÿÿ:Default ParaÓ  ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ€XXXÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔô\  `$Times NewRoman0¥ÿÿ.FooterÓ Üìü!(#ÓÔ€XXXÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÓ;1Ü„¢úR ª Z² bºj #;ÓÔ€XXXÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ:j¨ÿÿ8Page NumberÔ€ôôôÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÓ>4Ü,J¢úR ª Z² bºj #>ÓÔ€XXXÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔ' IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE *Marilyn Hathaway 0 .   (2M$ªªÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(2M$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý3|xœ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular X($¡¡ ŠE‹ŒEŽDDg‘V’D“Ó€³†;$† ÷d2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌMay€29,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÓ ` Œ ¸ ‹XÓÔ€ŠÔò òÙ€€ÙßR€&($A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌAPRIL€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓ  Óó óÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà àà àAPPELLEEà àà àà à€€€€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€)à à€€€C.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9708„CR„00361Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€)€€€€€SUMNER€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€)à à€€€Honorable€Jane€WheatcraftÌWALTER€LEE€ELLISON,€JR.à à€€€€€€€€)Ìà àà àAPPELLANTà àà à€€€€€€€€)€€€€(PROBATION€REVOCATION)ÌÌÌÌÌòòÌFOR€THE€APPELLANTóóà àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEÌÌÔ€XÔóóDana€L.€Scottà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ18th€Judicial€Districtà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ117€East€Main€St.à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌGallatin,€TN€€37066Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClinton€J.€MorganÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àThomas€DeanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à113€East€Main€St.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGallatin,€TN€€37066ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€_______________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÇœÑ7€EóXXdðXXdð7ÑÔ€ŠÔOPINION›ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà à€€The€defendant,€Walter€Lee€Ellison,€Jr.,€appeals€as€of€right€from€a€ruling€of€theÏSumner€Criminal€Court€that€revoked€his€probation.€€On€June€20,€1996,€upon€a€plea€ofÏguilty,€the€same€Court€sentenced€the€defendant€in€cause€no.€9602,€Count€One,€toÏtwo€(2)€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€for€Burglary€of€a€BuildingÏin€and€in€Count€Two,€to€two€(2)€years€for€Theft€of€Property€over€$1,000€to€runÏconcurrently.€The€defendant€was€placed€on€two€years€supervised€probation€afterÏserving€four€(4)€months€in€the€Sumner€County€jail.€€The€defendant€complains€that€theÏtrial€court€failed€to€exercise€a€conscientious€and€intelligent€judgment€in€finding€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€violated€the€terms€and€conditionsÏof€probation.€€We€find€the€revocation€of€probation€justified€and€affirm€the€CourtððsÏjudgment.Ìà à€€The€standard€by€which€we€review€a€probation€revocation€case€is€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€ÌÒ Ê ÒÒ 4 ÒÓ ` N ŠXÓÓÓà àð ðIn€order€for€a€reviewing€court€to€be€warranted€in€findingÏan€abuse€of€discretion€in€a€probation€revocation€hearing,€it€mustÏbe€established€that€the€record€contains€no€substantial€evidence€toÏsupport€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€judge€that€a€violation€of€theÏconditions€of€probation€has€occurred.ðð€€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811ÏS.W.2d€79,€82€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ ` Œ ¸ ‹XÓÌÓÓà à€€We€note€that€the€trial€court€was€entitled€to€revoke€probation€upon€finding€byÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€violated€several€conditions€ofÏhis€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„311(d).Ìà à€€The€record€establishes€that€the€trial€court,€on€October€1,€1996,€issued€an€arrestÏwarrant€for€the€defendant€for€a€violation€of€probation.€€The€warrant€alleges€(1)€€theÏdefendant€was€charged€with€theft€over€$10,000,€from€the€ABC€Caulking€CompanyÍon€August€13,€1996,€(2)€€Defendant€failed€to€report€to€the€State€Probation€OfficeÏsince€being€granted€probation€on€6„2„96,€(3)€€Defendant€has€failed€to€pay€any€of€theÏCourt€ordered€restitution€and€(4)€Defendant€left€the€State€of€Tennessee€without€theÏpermission,€consent€or€authorization€of€the€State€Probation€Office.Ìà à€€The€Stateððs€evidence€consisted€of€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Marvin€Powell,€StateÏProbation€Officer.€Mr.€Powell,€assigned€supervising€officer€for€the€defendant,€neverÏmet€with€the€defendant€to€discuss€the€conditions€of€probation.€€Apparently€theÏdefendant€upon€release€from€the€Sumner€County€Jail€on€June€20,€1996,€entered€theÏBuffalo€Valley€Treatment€Center€on€June€21,€1996.€€On€June€20,€1996,€a€probationÏofficer,€Carson€Bumbalough,€talked€to€the€defendant€and€had€him€complete€a€pleaÏsheet€and€department€questionnaire€for€personal€information.€€At€this€stage,€it€isÏroutine€for€probation€officers€to€advised€defendants€upon€release€from€jail,€to€reportÏor€contact€the€probation€office€before€the€end€of€the€week.€€The€plea€sheet€andÏquestionnaire€have€the€same€cautionary€instructions.€€Since€the€defendant€did€notÏreport€upon€release€from€Buffalo€Valley,€Mr.€Powell€sent€a€letter,€dated€August€24,Ï1996,€to€the€defendantððs€address€in€Chattanooga,€Tennessee.€€There€was€noÏresponse.€€Since€the€defendant€failed€to€report,€Mr.€Powell€was€unable€to€determine€ifÏthe€defendant€made€restitution€payments€to€ABC€Caulking€Company€as€required€inÏthe€judgment€order.€€Mr.€Powell€testified€that€an€arrest€warrant€had€been€issued€forÏthe€defendant€on€September€5,€1996,€alleging€the€theft€of€a€Chevrolet€truck€ownedÏby€ABC€Caulking€Company€on€August€13,€1996.€€The€defendant€was€arrested€inÏColorado€in€this€truck,€and€was€extradited€to€Tennessee.Ìà à€€The€defendantððs€proof€reveals€that€the€defendant€entered€the€Buffalo€ValleyÏTreatment€Center€on€June€21,€1996.€€Mr.€Rusty€Graham,€defendantððs€counselor,€wasÍaware€the€defendant€was€on€probation,€although€the€defendant€did€not€know€hisÏassigned€officer.€€Mr.€Graham,€via€phone€calls,€determined€that€Mr.€Marvin€PowellÏwas€the€defendantððs€assigned€officer.€€Graham€advised€the€defendant€and€gave€himÏPowellððs€phone€number€and€permission€to€contact€Mr.€Powell.€€This€occurred€beforeÏthe€defendantððs€discharge€from€the€center€and€return€to€his€motherððs€home€inÏChattanooga.€€Mr.€Paul€Swafford,€counselor,€testified€the€defendant€was€concernedÏabout€who€his€assigned€probation€officer€was€and€to€his€knowledge€the€defendantÏattempted€to€contact€his€probation€officer.Ìà à€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€did€not€know€who€to€pay€restitution€to,€so€heÏattempted€to€contact€his€attorney,€Nancy€Myers,€but€she€was€unavailable.€€As€to€whyÏthe€defendant€did€not€contact€Mr.€Powell€upon€his€discharge€from€the€center,€theÏdefendant€returned€to€his€motherððs€home€in€Chattanooga,€due€to€some€problems€ofÏhis€son.€€While€at€the€center€and€his€home,€the€defendant€attempted€on€three€or€fourÏoccasions€to€contact€Mr.€Powell,€but€he€was€never€in.€€The€defendant€testified€he€didÏnot€know€he€could€not€leave€the€State,€since€he€was€not€a€resident€of€SumnerÏCounty.€€The€defendant€admitted€going€to€Georgia,€Colorado,€Wyoming,€andÏKnoxville,€Tennessee.€€The€evidence€is€overwhelming€the€defendant€knew€he€was€onÏsupervised€probation.Ìà à€€The€trial€court€had€found€the€defendant€violated€his€period€of€probation€in€aÏnumber€of€ways,€more€specifically,€he€left€the€state€of€Tennessee,€knowing€hisÏprobation€officerððs€name€yet€failing€to€contact€him;€and€the€defendantððs€reasons€orÏexcuses€were€not€the€least€bit€credible.€€Thus,€the€defendantððs€probation€wasÏrevoked.€€Ìà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€new€indictment€and€arrest€for€the€theft€of€aÏtruck€belonging€to€ABC€Caulking€Company,€is€a€mere€accusation€and€cannot€beÏused€to€revoke€his€probation.€€The€defendant€is€correct.€€In€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811ÏS.W.2d€79,€83€(Tenn.€1991),€our€supreme€court€held:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àA€mere€accusation,€standing€alone,€is€not€sufficient€to€justify€theÏrevocation€of€a€community€corrections€sentence.€€To€the€contrary,Ïwhen,€as€here,€the€grounds€for€revocation€...€is€the€commission€of€a€newÏoffense,€the€State€is€required€to€establish€sufficient€facts€...€to€permit€theÏtrial€judge€to€make€a€conscientious€and€intelligent€judgment€as€toÏwhether€the€conduct€in€question€violated€the€law.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€requirements€for€revoking€placement€in€a€community€corrections€programÏinvolving€"mere€accusations"€are€the€same€in€considerations€of€revoking€probation.€ÏThe€State,€in€order€to€rely€on€arrests€as€a€violation€to€revoke€probation,€must€produceÏevidence€in€the€usual€form€of€testimony€to€establish€probable€cause€a€probationer€hasÏcommitted€another€offense.€€However,€this€introduction€of€the€arrest€warrant€in€thisÏcause€would€support€not€only€a€mere€accusation,€but€would€support€the€violation€ofÏthe€defendant€leaving€the€State.€€We€believe,€in€the€facts€of€this€case,€the€trial€courtÏcould€properly€consider€this€evidence.€Ìà àà àThe€defendant€contends€he€should€not€be€revoked€on€the€ground€of€non„reporting€since€he€made€attempts€to€find€out€the€name€of€his€supervising€officer,Ïwhile€at€the€Buffalo€Valley€Treatment€Center.€€Thus,€he€was€not€aware€of€the€specificÏrules€of€probation.€€The€trial€court€found€the€defendantððs€testimony€regarding€non„reporting€not€to€be€the€least€bit€credible.€€The€facts€clearly€support€the€trial€courtððsÏconclusion.€€òòState€v.€Smith,€óó909€S.W.2d€471€(TCCA€œ1995).Ç›à à€€As€to€the€grounds€of€non„payment€of€restitution€and€leaving€the€State,€theÏdefendant€argues€that€he€was€unsuccessful€in€contacting€Mr.€Powell€and€thus€wasÏnot€made€fully€aware€of€the€rules€and€procedures€of€probation.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthis€explanation€not€worthy€of€belief.€€The€defendantððs€testimony€establishes€that€theÏdefendant€has€quite€a€history€of€criminal€behavior€and€it€is€reasonable€to€infer€thatÏthe€defendant€would€be€aware€of€ordinary€rules€of€probation.Ìà à€€In€sum,€we€conclude€that€the€record€on€appeal€clearly€justifies€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€that€the€defendant€violated€conditions€of€probation€of€which€he€was€awareÏand€its€conclusion€that€revocation€was€in€order.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœ___________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àL.€T.€Lafferty,€Special€œJudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ›ÌÌ_______________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€œJudge›Ì̛̜Ì_______________________________ÌThomas€œT.€Woodall,›€JudgeÌÔ€XÔÌ