ÿWPCÍ ÚŠßÒDs‚) ½DÕ©î 2м£'£Vþbê„sOƒØj\7-©ou#&04G¶cÅœv4 Âj Ò;ø€”…Åýñþmë+XúSü·ÂBçû€ÀÿVRq™³˜uË(! ¬­íÄ©ú+Šä'eó÷µ¿B?Óg‹‰ü¢§–ȽÍÎ¥¾¨å„õC5·’Ïê=|Ã%½nG£cw»Rï°]Àð`ïyø»©_ò›b%‘"Ux½Cjµ”SÊt¦ LJÁAÔ¨½ÿSj çÖ ÌþïÇ.=±†×X›0`||BB-Ôê‰ D[Þ ‚¶²Ÿäëw&~U¸?Ú§2öþ¾ÎÊ’)V¿ÅxöMÀP|I£±$ÞܦP*׌¡5oOó¿NÎ_0Y͵8ŸÕ¿ÉioXÓnñz)cöú¯þû$˜+É®î×€.‰û)8@JFšj…ãª{ƒ ËÀ”îKåÈ“á]P&²hõþ“ Óa¶êu[áŒnÛÒº¿ô¼Áßµ¦R1M¬Hÿ…ð¹«#xÝj³C««aS(Æìj¹s† Gq³vïÅHs6º7Ó(dØa<RÜkz7Š¿üäq+£TÙµ‹Nzôz”™ˆÐï§Æ¾ kU=àb %\^ b 0ˆnU NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ 1‘ Æ Æä ƪ Æp 0D6Nz| 72„E¶ 1u¸ 72- 0c_____________________b 0ëÊÊÊÊ Bµµ 0¤Ò D3v D-© 0KÖÖ AS!Æt 0¤: 0DÞ A«"»6ru-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularYo†)ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(× CEMU]emu}AutoList1(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  (a)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à- ù-(|G2 ¿$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¡­ò»»Ô d(|3A4$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A4$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dXXdì8ÑÑ 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_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€E XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î”î»»ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ Ö& ÐÔ#†»»îî”ñ#Ôà@x x ìàAssigned€on€Briefs€August€6,€2002ˆÐ üL ÐÌà@\ \ ìàò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€OPAL€Ô_ÔGAUSEÔ_Ôó óˆÐ  p ÐÌà@ñ ñ ìàò ò€Ô€XE X»»ÔDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔHaywoodÔ_Ô€CountyˆÐ F – Ðà@o o ìàNos.€4504€and€4560€€€€€€Ô_ÔClayburnÔ_Ô€L.€Ô_ÔPeeplesÔ_Ô,€Judge€ˆÐ Z ª ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` A߈Ð n  ÐÌà@? ? ìàNo.€W2002„01225„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€14,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ԈРi  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<ð` Aßó óÐ ñA  ÐÌDefendant,€Opal€Ô_ÔGauseÔ_Ô,€entered€a€guilty€plea€to€two€counts€of€aggravated€assault.€€The€trial€courtÐ ì< Ðsentenced€Defendant€to€two€consecutive€three„year€terms,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€six€years.€TheÐ Ø( Ðsentences€were€suspended,€and€Defendant€was€placed€on€probation€for€the€length€of€his€originalÐ Ä Ðsentences.€€A€violation€warrant€was€subsequently€issued€alleging€Defendant€had€failed€to€meet€theÐ ° Ðconditions€of€his€probation.€€Following€a€hearing,€Defendantððs€probation€was€revoked,€and€he€wasÐ œì Ðordered€to€serve€his€original€sentence€with€credit€for€time€served€pre„trial.€€Defendant€now€challengesÐ ˆØ Ðthe€revocation€of€his€probation.€€Following€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trialÐ tÄ Ðcourt.Ð `° ÐÌà@——ìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó ó.ˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌòòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,óó€and€òòJohnÐ d ÐEverett€Williams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð P ÐÌTom€W.€Ô_ÔCriderÔ_Ô,€District€Public€Defender;€and€Joyce€Diane€Ô_ÔBlountÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Public€Defender,Ð Ø( ÐÔ_ÔTentonÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Opal€Ô_ÔGauseÔ_Ô.Ð Ä  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€John€H.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð œ"ì! ÐGarry€G.€Brown,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Larry€Ô_ÔHardisterÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð ˆ#Ø" Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð t$Ä# ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ L&œ!% ÐÌò òI.€€Backgroundó óà ¸ àÐ $(t#' Ðà  àÌà  àThree€days€after€Defendant€was€placed€on€probation€on€March€1,€2001,€he€was€arrested€forÐ ü)L%) Ðpublic€intoxication€and€sentenced€to€serve€ten€days.€€On€March€16,€2001,€Defendant€was€arrestedÐ è*8&* Ðagain€for€harassment,€but€the€charges€were€subsequently€dismissed.€€In€July,€Defendantððs€probationÐ Ô+$'+ Ðâ âofficer€filed€a€probation€violation€report€alleging€that€Defendant€was€three€months€in€arrears€onÐ À,(,ý ÐÔ_Ôpayment€of€his€supervisory€fees.€€Two€months€later,€Defendant€was€arrested€for€assault,€but€theseÐ ° Ðcharges€were€also€dismissed.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€September,€Defendantððs€probation€officer€received€a€call€from€Defendantððs€sisterÐ tÄ Ðconcerning€threats€he€had€made€to€his€mother,€Hattie€Gause.€€As€a€result,€a€board€disciplinaryÐ `° Ðmeeting€was€held€with€Defendant€on€September€19.€€At€this€time,€€Defendant€was€instructed€to€moveÐ L œ Ðfrom€his€mother's€house,€and€enroll€in€counseling€at€Pathways€for€mental€health€and€substance€abuseÐ 8 ˆ Ðtreatment.€€Defendant€was€also€ordered€to€abstain€from€any€further€drug€or€alcohol€use,€and€refrainÐ $ t Ðfrom€driving€without€a€license.€€In€addition,€he€was€told€to€catch€up€on€payment€of€his€fees.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àOn€October€10,€2001,€Defendant€was€again€arrested,€this€time€for€simple€assault€and€publicÐ è 8  Ðintoxication,€found€guilty€and€sentenced€to€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days,€all€suspended€but€thirtyÐ Ô$  Ðdays.€€A€second€arrest€for€public€intoxication€occurred€on€October€13,€2001,€resulting€in€anotherÐ À  Ðconviction€and€a€thirty€day€sentence.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àA€second€probation€violation€report€was€filed€on€November€9,€2001€alleging€that€DefendantÐ „Ô  Ðhad€failed€to€(1)€obey€the€laws,€(2)€follow€his€parole€officer's€rules€of€supervision,€(3)€abstain€fromÐ pÀ Ðexcessive€use€of€intoxicants,€and€(4)€pay€supervisory€fees,€all€in€direct€violation€of€the€terms€of€hisÐ \¬ Ðprobation.€€Based€on€Defendantððs€actions€since€his€probation€commenced,€probation€revocation€wasÐ H˜ Ðrecommended.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àAt€the€revocation€hearing,€€Defendantððs€probation€officer€testified€that€Defendant€had€notÐ  \ Ðcomplied€with€any€of€the€conditions€of€his€probation€other€than€checking€in€as€required€and€reporting€Ð øH Ðhis€arrests.€€€Between€the€time€Defendant€was€placed€on€probation€and€the€filing€of€the€secondÐ ä4 Ðprobation€violation€report,€he€had€been€arrested€five€times,€and€convicted€on€three€of€the€charges.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àMr.€Hughes,€Defendantððs€counselor€at€Pathways,€testified€that€he€had€known€Defendant€forÐ ¨ø Ðapproximately€fifteen€years.€€During€that€time,€Defendant€periodically€attended€counseling€sessionsÐ ”ä Ðfor€a€few€weeks,€then€disappeared€for€extended€periods€of€times,€often€for€years.€€After€a€meetingÐ €Ð Ðwith€Defendant€on€October€1,€Mr.€Hughes€thought€Defendant€had€a€good€chance€at€succeeding€inÐ l¼ Ðthe€treatment€program,€and€that€he€would€benefit€from€Pathways'€intensive€outpatient€counselingÐ X ¨ Ðprogram.€€Mr.€Hughes€testified,€however,€that€Defendant€missed€his€next€scheduled€meeting€becauseÐ D!” Ðhe€was€in€jail.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àHattie€Gause,€Defendantððs€mother,€testified€that€her€son€had€never€assaulted€her,€and€he€couldÐ $X" Ðcome€live€with€her€if€his€probation€were€not€revoked.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àDefendant€testified€that€he€inadvertently€paid€his€supervisory€fees€to€the€General€SessionsÐ Ì&"% ÐCourt€instead€of€the€Circuit€Court,€and€did€not€discover€his€mistake€until€the€disciplinary€meeting.€Ð ¸'#& ÐDefendant€also€denied€that€he€had€an€alcohol€problem.€€He€claimed€€that€his€problems€resultedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinstead€from€his€bouts€with€depression€and€his€temper.€€Defendant€testified€that€he€visited€theÐ )à$( ÐLighthouse€Ministries€in€Memphis,€Tennessee,€to€see€what€treatment€programs€were€offered.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐHowever,€the€patients€at€the€facility€appeared€to€be€mostly€drug€addicts€and€alcoholics€and€he€"didn'tÐ h+¸&* Ðwant€to€be€around€that."€€Defendant€testified€that€he€next€tried€to€enroll€in€the€rehabilitation€programÐ ° Ðat€Buffalo€Valley,€but€the€center€would€not€take€him€because€he€was€on€medication€for€depression.€Ð œì ÐFinally,€Defendant€stated€that€he€returned€to€his€former€Pathways€counselor,€Calvin€Hughes.€Ð ˆØ ÐDefendant€said€he€attended€one€meeting€in€October,€but€missed€the€next€scheduled€visit€because€heÐ tÄ Ðwas€in€jail€at€the€time.€€€Defendant€testified€that€he€would€attend€Pathways'€outpatient€counselingÐ `° Ðprogram€in€the€future€if€his€probation€was€not€revoked.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àDefendant€admitted€that€he€had€been€convicted€three€times€since€the€commencement€of€hisÐ $ t Ðprobation,€but€alleged€at€the€hearing€that€the€arrests€either€had€no€grounds€or€only€insubstantialÐ  ` Ðgrounds.€€He€did€admit€he€had€been€drinking€on€one€of€the€public€intoxication€charges,€butÐ ü L  Ðmaintained€that€he€had€not€been€drinking€when€the€other€arrest€occurred.€€Defendant€also€testifiedÐ è 8  Ðthat€the€police€misunderstood€the€events€leading€up€to€his€assault€conviction.€€However,€he€did€notÐ Ô$  Ðappeal€any€of€his€convictions.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€testimony,€the€trial€court€revoked€Defendantððs€probation€and€orderedÐ ˜è  ÐDefendant€to€serve€his€two€consecutive€sentences€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€withÐ „Ô  Ðcredit€for€time€already€spent€in€the€county€jail.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€Defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€and€violated€his€rightsÐ H˜ Ðof€due€process€when€the€trial€court€(1)€revoked€Defendantððs€probation€without€consideringÐ 4„ Ðalternatives€other€than€incarceration,€(2)€failed€to€state€the€reasons€upon€which€it€based€itsÐ  p Ðdetermination€to€revoke€Defendantððs€probation,€and€(3)€failed€to€allow€Defendantððs€counsel€to€makeÐ  \ Ða€statement€on€his€behalf€before€the€trial€court€issued€its€ruling.Ð øH ÐÌò òII.€€Due€Process€Claimsó óÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àDefendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€and€violated€Defendantððs€dueÐ ¨ø Ðprocess€rights€when€the€court€failed€to€make€specific€findings€as€to€the€basis€for€the€revocation€ofÐ ”ä Ðprobation,€and€failed€to€allow€Defendantððs€counsel€to€make€a€statement€on€behalf€of€the€DefendantÐ €Ð Ðbefore€ruling€on€this€matter.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àA€defendant€who€has€been€granted€a€suspended€sentence€and€probation€has€a€liberty€interest,Ð D!” Ðalthough€conditional,€that€is€protected€by€due€process€of€law.€€òòState€v.€Merriweather,óó€34€S.W.3d€881,Ð 0"€  Ð884€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000);€òòState€v.€Stubblefield,€óó953€S.W.2d€223,€225€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);Ð #l! ÐòòPracty€v.€State,óó€525€S.W.2d€677,€680€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974)€òòcert.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1975).€€Therefore,Ð $X" Ðthe€termination€of€the€defendantððs€probation€requires€some€form€of€orderly€procedure.€òòId.óó€at€482Ð ô$D # Ðòòciting€Morrisseyóó€òòv.€Breweróó,€408€U.S.€471,€489,€92€S.Ct.€2593,€2604,€33€L.Ed.2d€484€(1972).€€WhileÐ à%0!$ Ðnot€afforded€the€full€array€of€procedural€protections€attached€to€a€criminal€proceeding,€a€defendantÐ Ì&"% Ðfacing€revocation€of€probation€is€entitled€to€the€following€minimum€due€process€requirements:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  à(a)à0` Ð Ð àwritten€notice€of€the€claimed€violations€of€[probation€or]€parole;Ð)à$(` Ð ` Ð  Ðâ âà8  à(b)à0` Ð Ð àdisclosure€to€the€[probationer€or]€parolee€of€evidence€against€him;Ð|*Ì%)` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à(c)à0` Ð Ð àopportunity€to€be€heard€in€person€and€to€present€witnesses€and€documentaryÐ ° Ðâ âevidence;Мì` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à(d)à0` Ð Ð àthe€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€adverse€witnesses€(unless€the€hearingÐ ˆØ Ðofficer€specifically€finds€good€cause€for€not€allowing€confrontation);ÐtÄ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à(e)à0` Ð Ð àa€ððneutral€and€detachedðð€hearing€body€such€as€a€traditional€parole€board,Ð `° Ðmembers€of€which€need€not€be€judicial€officers€or€lawyers;€and€ÐL œ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à(f)à0` Ð Ð àa€written€statement€by€the€factfinders€as€to€the€evidence€relied€on€and€reasonsÐ 8 ˆ Ðfor€revoking€[probation€or]€parole.Ð$ t` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌòòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778,€786,€93€S.Ct.1756,€1761„1762,€36€L.Ed.2d€656€(1973)€òòcitingÐ ü L  ÐMorrissey,€óó408€U.S.€at€489,€92€S.Ct.€at€2604.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€hearing€process€envisioned€in€òòGagnonóó€provides€the€defendant€with€notice€as€to€theÐ À  Ðviolations€alleged€and€the€opportunity€to€present€evidence€and€witnesses€on€disputed€facts€andÐ ¬ü  Ðinsures€that€contested€issues€are€resolved.€€òòMorrisseyóó,€408€U.S.€at€484,€92€S.Ct.€at€2602.€€The€processÐ ˜è  Ðalso€assures€the€defendant€that€the€trial€court€has€before€it€sufficient€facts€upon€which€to€make€aÐ „Ô  Ðconscientious€and€informed€decision.€€òòState€v.€Harkins,óó€811€S.W.2d€79,€82€(Tenn.€1991).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àOur€state€legislature€has€vested€the€trial€judge€with€the€sole€authority€to€revoke€a€defendantððsÐ H˜ Ðprobation€whenever€the€trial€judge€learns€that€a€defendant€has€either€(1)€been€guilty€of€the€breach€ofÐ 4„ Ðany€law€or€(2)€violated€the€conditions€of€his€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(a).€€FollowingÐ  p Ða€defendantððs€arrest€for€a€violation€of€probation,€the€trial€judge€must€inquire€as€to€the€charges€andÐ  \ Ðdetermine€if€a€violation€has€occurred.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(b).€€The€defendant€must€beÐ øH Ðpresent€at€the€inquiry,€is€entitled€to€representation€by€counsel,€and€may€present€testimony€on€hisÐ ä4 Ðbehalf.€€òòId.óó€€If€the€trial€judge€determines€that€a€violation€has€occurred€by€the€preponderance€of€theÐ Ð  Ðevidence,€he€may€revoke€the€defendantððs€probation€and€suspension€of€sentence€and€order€theÐ ¼  Ðdefendant€to€serve€the€judgment€as€originally€entered.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(c).€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€has€the€right€to€appeal€any€revocation€of€probation.€€òòId.óóÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àThis€Court€has€determined€that€the€statutory€procedures€for€the€revocation€of€probation€setÐ l¼ Ðforth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311€comply€with€the€minimum€due€process€standards€required€forÐ X ¨ Ðrevocation€hearings€under€òòGagnonóó.€€òòSee€Practy,€óó525€S.W.2d€at€682;€òòMerriweatheróó,€34€S.W.3d€atÐ D!” Ð884.€€As€part€of€this€procedural€framework,€the€trial€court€must€issue€a€statement€setting€forth€theÐ 0"€  Ðevidence€and€factors€relied€upon€in€making€the€determination€to€revoke€probation.€€òòState€v.€Delp,óó€614Ð #l! ÐS.W.2d€395,€397€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1981).€€Although€the€trialÐ $X" Ðcourtððs€findings€may€be€written€or€oral,€a€statement€in€some€form€must€be€made.€òòId.óóÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€Defendantððs€revocation€hearing€in€this€matter,€the€following€dialogÐ Ì&"% Ðoccurred:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àMS.€BLOUNT€[defense€counsel]:à0ÀÐ Ð àThatððs€all€the€proof€weððre€going€to€present,Ð )à$( ÐYour€Honor.Ð|*Ì%)ÀÐ ÀÐ  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà0  àTHE€COURT:à0(#(#àà0h(#(#àAny€rebuttal,€General?аh(#h(# ÐÌà0  àGENERAL€HARDISTER:à0h(#(#àNo,€Your€Honor.ЈØh(#h(# ÐÌà0  àTHE€COURT€à0(#(#àà0h(#(#àAny€comments?Ð`°h(#h(# ÐÌà8  àGENERAL€HARDISTER:à0hÐ Ð àWeððll€submit€the€matter€without€a€statement,€YourÐ 8 ˆ ÐHonor.Ð$ thÐ hÐ  ÐÌà0  àTHE€COURT:à0(#(#àà0h(#(#àMr.€Gause,€your€probation€in€each€case€is€revoked.Ðü L h(#h(# ÐÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€order€stated€that€Defendantððs€suspended€sentence€was€revoked€ð ðfor€failureÐ Ô$  Ðto€abide€by€their€[the€State€of€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction,€Division€of€Probation]€rules€andÐ À  Ðregulations.ðð€€Clearly,€the€transcript€of€the€hearing€and€the€trial€courtððs€order€revoking€the€suspendedÐ ¬ü  Ðsentence€gave€Defendant€only€scant€notice€of€the€evidence€and€factors€relied€upon€by€the€trial€judgeÐ ˜è  Ðin€reaching€his€determination€that€revocation€was€proper.€€òòDelp,óó€614€S.W.2d€at€397òò.óóÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€written€or€oral€findings€are€an€integral€and€indispensable€part€of€the€hearingÐ \¬ Ðprocess€when€the€revocation€involves€disputed€facts€and€contested€issues.€€òòSee€Id.€óó€€However,Ð H˜ ÐDefendantððs€revocation€was€based,€at€least€in€part,€on€convictions€by€a€court€of€competentÐ 4„ Ðjurisdiction.€€Although€Defendant€disputes€some€of€the€factors€surrounding€his€arrests,€he€admits€thatÐ  p Ðhe€was€charged€and€convicted€for€offenses€committed€while€he€was€on€probation.€€A€revocation€ofÐ  \ Ðprobation€can€be€based€on€only€one€violation,€and,€in€this€case,€Defendant€has€admitted€to€at€leastÐ øH Ðthree€violations.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€trial€judge€has€broad€discretion€in€formulating€the€conditions€of€the€defendantððsÐ ¼  Ðprobation,€so€that€the€punishment€meets€both€the€interests€of€society€and€the€interests€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(9)(d);€òòState€v.€Burdinóó,€924€S.W.2d€82,€85€(Tenn.€1996);Ð ”ä ÐòòPractyóó,€525€S.W.2d€at€681.€€Therefore,€these€conditions€must€be€clearly€relayed€to€the€defendant€inÐ €Ð Ðorder€that€he€may€have€reasonable€notice€of€the€prohibited€conduct€and€the€opportunity€to€conformÐ l¼ Ðhis€actions€to€the€restrictions€placed€against€his€liberty.€òòStubblefield,óó€953€S.W.2d€at€225,€òòcitingÐ X ¨ ÐUnited€States€v.€Harriss,€óó347€U.S.€612,€617,€74€S.Ct.€808,€812,€98€L.Ed.2d€989€(1954).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àHowever,€€revoking€a€defendantððs€probation€based€on€the€commission€of€criminal€offensesÐ #l! Ðdoes€not€implicate€the€same€due€process€requirements€since€the€defendant,€as€a€matter€of€law,€ð ðisÐ $X" Ðdeemed€to€have€notice€that€his€or€her€conduct€must€conform€to€the€requirements€of€the€lawðð€theÐ ô$D # Ðmoment€he€or€she€is€placed€on€probation.€€òòStubblefield,€óó953€S.W.2d€at€225;€òòState€v.€Stoneóó,€880Ð à%0!$ ÐS.W.2d€746,€749€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€The€commission€of€a€crime€alone€justifies€the€issuanceÐ Ì&"% Ðof€a€warrant€for€Defendantððs€arrest€for€violation€of€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€40„35„311(a).Ð ¸'#& ÐWhen€a€defendant€pleads€guilty€and€is€convicted€of€a€crime€while€on€probation,€there€are€no€disputedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfacts€or€contested€issues€that€warrant€due€process€protection.€€òòStoneóó,€880€S.W.2d€at€749.€òòSeeÐ )à$( ÐMorrissey,óó€408€U.S.€at€490,€92€S.Ct.€at€2605€(ð ðIf€it€is€determined€that€petitioners€admitted€paroleÐ |*Ì%) Ð[probation]€violations€to€the€Parole€Board,€as€respondents€contend,€and€if€those€violations€are€foundÐ h+¸&* Ðto€be€reasonable€grounds€for€revoking€parole€[probation]€under€state€standards,€that€would€end€theÐ ° Ðmatter.ðð)€Further,€the€record€of€a€conviction€does€not€depend€on€an€evaluation€of€the€credibility€ofÐ œì Ðwitnesses€which€is€best€left€to€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€810€S.W.2d€733,€735€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ˆØ ÐApp.€1991).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àDefendantððs€convictions€constitute€an€independent€basis€for€revocation€of€probation.òò€SeeóóÐ L œ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(a);€òòState€v.€Robinson,€óó2000€WL€546209€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000).€Ð 8 ˆ ÐTherefore,€€it€is€unnecessary€to€address€the€issues€surrounding€the€other€alleged€probation€violations.€Ð $ t ÐThe€only€question€that€remains€is€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€when€it€revokedÐ  ` ÐDefendantððs€probation€on€the€basis€of€his€convictions.€€This€court€has€previously€determined€that€aÐ ü L  Ðcrime€committed€during€probation€constitutes€substantial€evidence€that€a€violation€of€probation€hasÐ è 8  Ðoccurred.€€òòState€v.€Gabelóó,€914€S.W.2d€562,€564€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòsee€Stoneóó,€880€S.W.2d€atÐ Ô$  Ð749€(Revocation€was€warranted€even€when€the€offenses€were€committed€prior€to€the€commencementÐ À  Ðof€the€defendantððs€probationary€period);€òòDelp,€óó614€S.W.2d€at€398€(Revocation€may€be€proper€evenÐ ¬ü  Ðwhen€the€defendant€is€later€acquitted€of€the€crime).€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€didÐ ˜è  Ðnot€abuse€its€discretion€in€revoking€Defendantððs€probation.€€òòStubblefieldóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€226;€òòsee€Ð „Ô  ÐHarkins,óó€811€S.W.2d€at€82.€€We€note,€however,€if€the€revocation€in€this€matter€did€not€include€aÐ pÀ Ðcharge€that€Defendant€had€breached€the€laws€of€this€state,€we€might€be€compelled€to€reach€a€differentÐ \¬ Ðresult.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àDefendant€also€alleges€that€the€trial€court€violated€his€due€process€rights€when€his€counselÐ  p Ðwas€not€permitted€to€make€a€statement€on€his€behalf€before€the€trial€court€issued€its€ruling.€€As€aÐ  \ Ðresult,€Defendant€argues€that€he€was€denied€the€opportunity€to€ask€for€intensive€probation€as€anÐ øH Ðalternative€to€incarceration.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€record€does€not€clearly€indicate€that€Defendantððs€counsel€was€prohibited€from€makingÐ ¼  Ða€statement,€especially€since€counsel€did€not€notify€the€trial€court€of€any€desire€to€argue.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðtranscript€merely€shows€that€the€trial€judge€asked€for€statements,€the€state€replied€negatively,€andÐ ”ä ÐDefendantððs€counsel€was€silent.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àA€revocation€hearing€is€not€a€criminal€proceeding€but€rather€an€informal€hearing€which€doesÐ X ¨ Ðnot€include€ð ðthe€full€panoply€of€rights€and€procedural€safeguards.ððòò€€State€v.€Wade,€óó863€S.W.2d€406,Ð D!” Ð407„408,€(Tenn.€1993)òò;€State€v.€Miltonóó,€673€S.W.2d€555,€557€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);€òòBarker€v.Ð 0"€  ÐState,óó€483€S.W.2d€586,€589€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972),€òòcert.€deniedóó€(Tenn.1972);€òòMorrisseyóó,€408€U.S.Ð #l! Ðat€480,€92€S.Ct.€at€2600.€€The€procedure€under€which€revocation€hearings€are€conducted€is€governedÐ $X" Ðby€statute,€and,€as€noted€above,€the€statutory€framework€fully€protects€the€defendantððs€due€processÐ ô$D # Ðrights.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311;€òòPracty,€óó525€S.W.2d€at€682.€€During€the€revocation€hearing,Ð à%0!$ Ðthe€defendant€has€the€right€to€be€present,€the€right€to€counsel,€and€the€right€to€present€testimony€onÐ Ì&"% Ðhis€behalf.€€In€this€matter,€Mr.€Hughes,€Defendantððs€counselor€at€Pathways,€testified€that€he€believedÐ ¸'#& ÐDefendant€would€benefit€from€an€intensive€outpatient€alcohol€abuse€treatment€program.€€DefendantððsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcounsel€then€asked€Defendant€if€he€would€be€willing€to€go€into€this€program€if€he€were€given€anotherÐ )à$( Ðchance€at€probation,€and€Defendant€answered€affirmatively.€€Defendant,€therefore,€had€sufficientÐ |*Ì%) Ðopportunity€during€the€hearing€process€to€present€evidence€that€he€would€be€a€suitable€candidate€forÐ h+¸&* Ðalternative€sentencing€should€the€trial€court€revoke€his€probation.€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€reliefÐ ° Ðon€this€issue.Ð œì ÐÌò òIII.€€Imposition€of€Sentencingó óÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àDefendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€violated€his€due€process€rights€when€it€ordered€that€theÐ L œ Ðbalance€of€his€sentence€be€served€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€without€consideringÐ 8 ˆ Ðwhether€Defendant€was€a€suitable€candidate€for€intensive€probation.€€Defendant€argued€in€the€trialÐ $ t Ðcourt€that€his€participation€in€Pathwayððs€outpatient€substance€abuse€treatment€program€would€resultÐ  ` Ðin€his€successful€rehabilitation.€€Mr.€Hughes€also€testified€that€he€felt€Defendant€was€at€lastÐ ü L  Ðcommitted€to€seeking€help€for€his€problem,€and€that€a€successful€completion€of€the€program€wouldÐ è 8  Ðprovide€Defendant€with€the€chance€to€remain€sober.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àOnce€a€defendantððs€probation€has€been€revoked,€the€trial€judge€is€granted€broad€discretionÐ ¬ü  Ðin€determining€the€defendantððs€sentence.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„311(e),€40„35„310,€and€40„Ð ˜è  Ð35„308(c).€€€The€trial€court€may€order€the€defendantððs€incarceration,€cause€execution€of€the€originalÐ „Ô  Ðjudgment,€or€modify€the€defendantððs€probationary€period,€including€extending€the€€defendantððsÐ pÀ Ðprobation€for€no€more€than€two€years.€€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Hunteróó,€1€S.W.3d€643€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àDefendant€initially€pled€guilty€to€two€counts€of€aggravated€assault.€€In€the€nine€monthsÐ 4„ ÐDefendant€was€on€probation,€he€was€arrested€two€times€for€assault,€once€for€harassment€and€twiceÐ  p Ðfor€public€intoxication.€€The€harassment€charge€and€one€of€the€assault€charges€were€subsequentlyÐ  \ Ðdismissed.€€Defendant€pled€guilty€to€the€other€charges,€and€served€the€sentences€imposed€by€theÐ øH Ðcourt.€€Both€Defendantððs€probation€officer€and€his€counselor€at€Pathways€testified€that€Defendant€hadÐ ä4 Ða€problem€with€alcohol,€and€that€alcohol€was€generally€the€root€of€his€criminal€offenses.€€Defendant,Ð Ð  Ðhowever,€denied€that€he€had€an€alcohol€problem,€admitting€only€that€he€ð ðmight€drink€a€little€bit€tooÐ ¼  Ðmuch.ðð€€€Defendant€made€one€effort€to€inquire€about€the€treatment€program€at€Lighthouse€Ministries,Ð ¨ø Ðbut€he€decided€not€to€stay€since€the€patients€looked€like€drug€and€alcohol€addicts,€and€he€did€not€feelÐ ”ä Ðhe€was€in€the€same€category.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àDefendantððs€counselor€testified€that€he€had€counseled€Defendant€for€approximately€fifteenÐ X ¨ Ðyears.€€During€that€time,€Defendant€would€come€in€for€a€few€weeks,€then€disappear,€sometimes€forÐ D!” Ðyears.€€The€counselor€stated€that€it€was€his€understanding€that€Defendant€primarily€came€in€forÐ 0"€  Ðcounseling€when€he€was€under€pressure€to€do€so€by€some€court.€€The€counselor€saw€Defendant€inÐ #l! ÐOctober€and€testified€that€he€saw€signs€of€a€sincere€desire€for€rehabilitation€in€Defendant.€€Defendant,Ð $X" Ðhowever,€missed€the€next€scheduled€meeting€because€he€was€in€jail€for€public€intoxication.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àBased€on€a€review€of€the€record,€it€is€apparent€that€Defendant€has€made€little€effort€to€assistÐ Ì&"% Ðin€his€rehabilitation.€€During€his€probation,€Defendant€continued€to€commit€the€same€types€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðoffenses€that€led€to€his€initial€convictions.€€He€made€some€minimal€effort€to€seek€counseling€duringÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhis€probation,€but€over€the€past€fifteen€years€has€shown€little€progress€in€dealing€with€his€problems.€Ð )à$( ÐIn€fact,€Defendant€denied€he€even€had€a€problem€with€alcohol€abuse€despite€his€counselorððs€guidanceÐ |*Ì%) Ðand€recommendations.€€The€repeated€unsuccessful€efforts€towards€rehabilitation€indicate€thatÐ h+¸&* ÐDefendant€has€little€potential€for€success€during€another€probationary€period.€€Defendant€urged€theÐ ° Ðcourt€not€to€interrupt€his€efforts€at€rehabilitation,€yet€the€only€indication€that€Defendant€receivedÐ œì Ðcounseling€during€his€probation€was€one€meeting€in€October€with€Mr.€Hughes.€€Mr.€Hughes€testifiedÐ ˆØ Ðhe€was€optimistic€after€this€session,€but,€during€the€two€weeks€following€the€meeting,€Defendant€wasÐ tÄ Ðarrested€once€for€simple€assault€and€public€intoxication€and€once€for€public€intoxication.€Ð `° ÐDefendantððs€actions€give€little€assurance€that€an€intensive€probation€will€meet€with€any€more€success.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àGiven€these€facts,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€orderingÐ $ t ÐDefendant€to€serve€his€sentence€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€Defendant€is€notÐ  ` Ðentitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð ü L  ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð „Ô  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE