ÿWPC % …# VUNa %¯ 0Ƶ{ 4ƒ — wä¦ 0 Š 0D” 0JØ 0T" 0^v 0hÔ 0r< 0|® 0†* ° 0¶ 1uF 0d» BU><U*zB)¤DCÍ AM D3]ª°: 0@êv~*vÓ¨ AO{#ÆÊ# 0D$ D/Ô$ B%˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÔ¡¨ 3|xP¼E½¾¿EÀÁDÂÃDÄÅDÆÇÈDÉEÊËÌDÍÎDÏÐÑDÒÓDÔÕEÖ×EØÙDÚEÛDÜÝDÞDßàáDâEãäDåEæDçHeèDéPêëDìíïðDñòDóôDõDö÷øEùúDûDüýDþDÿ)e{EEEE  E  Ó€(º(2eB$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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  ÔH2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌOctoberÏ30,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó ¦Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÓÓÔ€&ÔAlthough€not€mentioned€by€either€party,€it€is€doubtful€the€trial€court€had€the€authority€to€orderÏthe€incarceration€period€of€a€sentence€consecutive€and€the€probation€period€concurrent.€€In€òòState€v.ÏConnorsóó,€924€S.W.2d€362,€363€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),€the€trial€court€ordered€"the€periods€ofÏincarceration€...€to€run€concurrently,€while€the€periods€of€probation€were€to€run€consecutively."€€TheÏdefendant€appealed,€arguing€his€sentence€was€excessive.€€Our€court€held€that€that›€form€ofÏsentencing€"is€not€permissible€under€the€Act."€€òòId.óó€at€364.€€If€probation€is€made€part€of€a€sentence,€itÏmust€be€imposed€in€the€same€manner€as€incarceration:ÌÌÒ ä ÒÒ  Ò[œI]f›€the€trial€court€orders€the€defendant's€sentences€to€runÏconsecutively,€each€portion€of€his€sentence€must€be€so€served.€ÏLikewise€if€the€defendant€is€ordered€to€serve€his€sentencesÏconcurrently,€his€periods€of€probation€will€also€run€concurrently.€€TheÏSentencing€Act€makes€no€provision€for€ordering€different€portions€ofÏthe€same€sentence€to€run€in€different€manners.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒòòId.óóÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ý›Ñ7€(XdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ќԀ&ÔÙ€€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLE€óóÌà@ àAPRIL€1997€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€01C01„9608„CC„00334Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà à*à àWILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Cornelia€A.€Clark,€Judge€ÌJEFFREY€D.€HUNTER,à àà à*à à(Revocation€of€Probation)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà à*ÌÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓJohn€S.€Colley,€IIIà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌColley€&€Colley,€Attorneys€à àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€1476€ÌColumbia,€TN€€38402„1476à àà àLisa€A.€Naylor€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€Division€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJeff€Burks€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937€à àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓò òòòÓ  ÓOPINIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant,€Jeffrey€D.€Hunter,€appeals€the€trial€court's€revocationÏof€his€probation.€€The€trial€court€ordered€the€defendant€to€serve€consecutive€termsÏof€two,€two,€one,€and€eight€years,€a€total€of€thirteen€years,€and€directed€a€transfer€toÏthe€Department€of€Correction€Special€Needs€Facility€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„314(e).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€raises€questions€about€his€sanityÏat€the€time€of€his€probation€violations€and€his€competency€to€stand€trial€at€the€timeÏof€his€revocation€hearing;€he€also€argues€that€two€of€the€four€sentences€had€expiredÏbefore€the€violation.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€as€modified.€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€probation€revocation€is€challenged,€the€appellate€courts€haveÏa€limited€scope€of€review.€€If€the€trial€judge€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€"that€the€defendant€has€violated€the€conditions€of€his€probation,"Ïprobation€may€be€revoked.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(d).€€This€decision€toÏrevoke€a€suspended€sentence€rests€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€TheÏSentencing€Commission€Comments€to€Section€40„35„310€provide€that€"[u]ponÏrevocation,€the€original€sentence€imposed€can€be€placed€into€effect."€€TheÏdetermination€by€the€trial€court,€if€conscientiously€made,€is€entitled€to€an€affirmance;Íthe€record€must€merely€demonstrate€that€there€is€substantial€evidence€to€support€itsÏconclusions.€€òòState€v.€Delpóó,€614€S.W.2d€395,€398€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€619€S.W.2d€145,€147€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€entitled€to€the€weight€of€aÏjury€verdict,€and€the€appellant€has€the€burden€to€demonstrate€that€the€recordÏcontains€no€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€finding€of€the€trial€court€that€aÏviolation€of€the€conditions€of€probation€has€occurred.€€òòState€v.€Wallóó,€909€S.W.2d€8,Ï9„10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€€79,€82€(Tenn.€1991).€ÏUpon€a€violation€of€the€terms€of€probation,€"the€trial€judge€shall€have€the€right€byÏorder€duly€entered€upon€the€minutes€of€[the]€court,€to€revoke€the€probation€andÏsuspension€of€sentence€and€cause€the€defendant€to€commence€the€execution€ofÏthe€judgment€as€originally€entered,€or€otherwise€in€accordance€with€ðð€40„35„310Ï...."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(d).€€ÌÌà àà àStrict€rules€of€evidence€do€not€apply€to€a€probation€hearing;Ïconsequently,€reliable€hearsay€is€admissible€under€certain€conditions.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Carneyóó,€752€S.W.2d€513€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòBarker€v.€Stateóó,€483€S.W.2dÏ586€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).€€The€defendant€has€a€qualified€due€process€right€toÏconfront€witnesses.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Miltonóó,€673€S.W.2d€555€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);ÍòòStamps€v.€Stateóó,€614€S.W.2d€71€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Due€process€alsoÏdemands€that€a€defendant€have€"an€opportunity€to€present€mitigating€evidence€andÏto€argue€that€alternatives€to€imprisonment€are€appropriate."€€òòBlack€v.€Romanoóó,€471ÏU.S.€606,€614€(1985).€€ÌÌà àà àOn€September€3,€1991,€the€defendant€entered€guilty€pleas€to€twoÏcounts€of€possession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€sell.€€Later,€the€sentencing€courtÏimposed€consecutive,€Range€I€sentences€of€two€years€each;€œprobation€for€a€periodÏof€two€years›€was€granted€on€each€count.€€On€the€same€day,€the€defendant€enteredÏguilty€pleas€to€reckless€driving,€a€misdemeanor,€which€resulted€in€a€concurrent,Ïsupervised€probation€of€six€months,€and€to€felony€bail€jumping,€for€which€heÏreceived€a€one„year€probationary€sentence€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€otherÏsentences.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€November€of€1991,€and€again€in€February€of€1993,€probationÏviolation€warrants€were€issued€against€the€defendant.€€Neither€resulted€in€aÏDepartment€of€Correction€sentence.€€The€1993€violation€was€based€upon€anÏaggravated€assault€conviction€for€which€the€defendant€received€a€fully€suspendedÏRange€II€sentence€of€eight€years€with€a€probationary€period€of€fifteen€years.€€TheÏjudgment€form€provided€as€follows:€€"Consecutive€to:€€Williamson€County€CasesÍ989„210€and€989„212€and€Maury€Co.€3156€...€€To€serve€75€days,€day€for€dayÏconcurrent€with€probation€violation:€€Probation€concurrent€with€other€cases:€€...."× ƒ, ××  ×€ÏThe€defendant€served€seventy„five€days€before€being€placed€back€on€probation.ÌÌà àà àA€third€probation€violation€warrant€was€issued€in€June€of€1994.€€ItÏresulted€in€revocation€of€probation,€a€ninety„day€sentence€in€November€of€that€year,Ïand€reinstatement€to€probation€thereafter.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€April€1,€1996,€a€final€probation€revocation€warrant€was€issuedÏagainst€the€defendant,€mostly€based€upon€threats€he€had€made€to€his€family,€hisÏuse€of€alcohol€(specifically€prohibited€by€the€probationary€rules),€and€erraticÏbehavior€at€least€partially€connected€to€the€recent€death€of€his€wife.€€The€defendantÍwas€sent€to€the€Vanderbilt€Medical€Center€for€an€evaluation.€€After€a€hearing€in€MayÏof€1996,€the€trial€court€revoked€the€defendant's€probation€on€all€of€the€felonyÏconvictions,€thereby€ordering€an€effective€sentence€of€thirteen€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€After€a€motion€to€correct€the€sentence€was€filed€by€theÏdefendant,€the€trial€court€made€detailed€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€ÏEach€of€the€three€contentions€raised€in€this€appeal€were€specifically€addressed.€€ÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àInitially,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€defendant€had€failed€toÏpresent€an€insanity€defense€at€any€time€prior€to€or€during€the€revocationÏproceeding;€while€acknowledging€that€the€defendant's€mental€condition€had€beenÏa€matter€of€concern€in€prior€hearings,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€no€testimonyÏcould€sustain€an€insanity€defense€at€the€time€of€the€events€resulting€in€theÏrevocation€of€his€probation.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant,€who€had€been€diagnosed€as€having€a€history€ofÏbipolar€disorder€and€manic€depression,€claimed€that€he€had€heard€voices,€hadÏseen€things,€and€did€not€understand€why€he€had€been€jailed.€€He€contended€thatÏhis€stress€was€due€to€the€death€of€his€wife,€who€had€apparently€died€from€a€drugÏoverdose.€€A€letter€from€a€physician€dated€April€18,€1996,€indicated€that€theÍdefendant€had,€in€fact,€suffered€a€relapse€due€to€the€death€of€his€wife,€increasingÏdepressive€symptoms€and€rendering€him€incapable€of€distinguishing€right€fromÏwrong€or€conforming€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€law.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€law,€however,€presumes€the€sanity€of€an€accused.€€òòBrooks€v.ÏStateóó,€489€S.W.2d€70,€72€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).€€It€is€only€when€the€evidenceÏraises€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€sanity€of€the€defendant,€that€the€burden€shifts€toÏthe€state€to€establish€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€appreciatedÏthe€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€and€had€the€capacity€to€conform€his€conduct€to€theÏrequirements€of€law.€€òòState€v.€Claytonóó,€656€S.W.2d€344,€345€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€theÏcontext€of€a€probation€violation,€however,€the€majority€view€is€that€insanity€or€aÏmental€disorder€or€defect€may€only€be€considered€as€mitigating€evidence.€€òòState€v.ÏClarence€Stevensóó,€No.€03C01„9412„CR„00442€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,ÏMay€3,€1995);€òòState€v.€Glen€R.€Gregoryóó,€No.€89„157„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏNashville,€Mar.€8,€1990).€€Here,€the€trial€court€met€its€obligation€by€specificallyÏconsidering€the€defendant's€mental€condition€in€mitigation€of€his€use€of€alcohol€andÏthreat€to€others,€the€actions€which€resulted€in€the€revocation€of€his€probation.€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€insists€that,€because€he€was€on€medication€at€theÍtime€of€his€hearing,€he€was€not€competent€to€proceed.€€The€trial€court,€in€addressingÏthe€second€issue,€concluded€that€the€defendant€had€understood€"the€nature€of€theÏ[revocation]€proceedings€and€was€able€to€present€a€defense[,]€...€testif[ying]Ïcoherently€and€present[ing]€other€witnesses."€€The€trial€court€determined€that€theÏdefendant€was€able€to€assist€his€counsel€in€the€defense€with€a€reasonable€degreeÏof€rational€understanding€and€that€he€understood€the€proceedings€against€him.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòMackey€v.€Stateóó,€537€S.W.2d€704€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€ÌÌà àà àStated€simply,€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€those€findings.€€Thus,€we€could€not€grant€relief€on€this€ground.ÌÌà@ àIIIÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€contends€that€he€had€served€"3€full€years,€11Ïfull€months,€and€87€days"€on€probation€before€the€April€1,€1996,€revocation.€€WhileÏacknowledging€that€the€October€30,€1991,€order€placed€him€on€"five€years€ofÏintensive€supervised€probation,"€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€subsequentÏjudgments€entered€by€the€trial€courts€reflected€consecutive€probationary€periods€ofÏœtwo€two›„year€terms€and€one€one„year€term.€€He€reasons€that€his€first€two„yearÏsentence€expired€January€12,€1994,€and€his€second€two„year€sentence€expiredÏFebruary€6,€1996.€€He€thus€contends€that€the€trial€court€could€have€only€imposed€aÍnine„year€sentence€to€the€Department€of€Correction.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€two€drug€felony€sentences,€totalingÏfour€years,€and€the€consecutive€bail€jumping€sentence€of€one€year€had€not€expiredÏat€the€time€the€last€probation€violation€warrant€was€issued€on€April€1,€1996.€€TheÏtrial€court€ruled€that€the€effective€sentence€was€five€years€and€that€by€order€enteredÏin€October€of€1991,€over€sixty€days€after€the€original€guilty€pleas€were€entered,€theÏdefendant€was€placed€on€a€period€of€five€years€intensive€probation,€subject€toÏconditions,€rather€than€successive€terms€of€two,€two,€and€one€years.€ÌÌà àà àWe€agree€that€the€defendant's€sentences€had€not€expired€yet€reachÏthis€conclusion€on€different€grounds€than€the€trial€judge.€€It€is€true€that€the€recordÏcontains€an€order,€dated€October€28,€1991,€stating€the€defendant€would€be€placedÏon€five€years€of€intensive€probation.€€The€individual€judgment€forms€for€each€of€theÏsentences,€however,€provide€only€that€the€defendant€is€to€be€placed€on€two€years,Ïtwo€years,€and€one€year€of€probation,€all€to€be€served€consecutively.€€The€judgmentÏforms€were€filed€after€the€order€and,€in€our€view,€are€controlling€as€to€the€terms€ofÏthe€defendant's€probation.€€Each€sentence€must€be€treated€individually€andÏexecuted€according€to€the€terms€of€its€judgment€form.€€ÌÌà àà àOnce€the€defendant€completed€his€two€years€of€service€on€the€firstÏconviction,€the€trial€judge€would€be€without€authority€to€revoke€the€probation€on€thatÏsentence.€€"The€trial€judge€shall€possess€the€power,€at€any€time€òòwithin€theÏmaximum€time€which€was€directed€and€ordered€by€the€court€for€such€suspensionóó€...Ïto€revoke€and€annul€such€suspension."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„310€(emphasisÏadded).€€The€fact€that€the€defendant€was€to€serve€a€total€of€five€years€of€probationÏdoes€not€mean€that€the€trial€court€has€the€authority€to€revoke€probation€on€aÏsentence€that€has€been€fully€served,€simply€because€the€defendant€is€still€servingÏprobation€on€a€subsequent€sentence.ÌÌà àà àThe€problem€with€the€defendant's€argument,€however,€is€that€he€neverÏfully€served€any€of€his€sentences.€€The€detailed€findings€of€fact€indicate€that€aÏprobation€revocation€warrant€was€filed€in€the€latter€part€of€1991;€that€probation€wasÏrevoked€and€then€reinstated€on€January€13,€1992.€€When€the€trial€judge€revokesÏprobation,€"the€original€judgment€so€rendered€by€the€trial€judge€shall€be€in€full€forceÏand€effect€from€the€date€of€the€revocation€of€such€suspension,€and€shall€beÏexecuted€accordingly."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„310.€€Thus,€after€a€revocation,Ïservice€of€the€sentence€begins€anew€on€the€"date€of€the€revocation."€€In€òòYoung€v.ÏStateóó,€539€S.W.2d€850,€854€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976),€our€court€held€"[b]yÏTennessee€law,€where€an€individual's€suspended€sentence€is€revoked,€hisÍsentence€commences€to€run€from€the€date€of€revocation."€€The€fact€that€the€trialÏjudge€should€again€decide€to€suspend€the€sentence€does€not€alter€our€conclusionÏthat€once€a€trial€judge€revokes€probation,€the€original€sentence€begins€on€the€dateÏof€the€probation€revocation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gill€Austinóó,€No.€01C01„9512„CC„00431,Ïslip€op.€at€4,€n.€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Oct.€17,€1996)€(After€a€probationÏrevocation,€"[t]he€trial€judge€obviously€retains€the€authority€to€again€suspend€all€orÏany€portion€of€the€sentence€and€set€reasonable€conditions€of€probation€inÏconjunction€therewith.")€€ÌÌà àà àProbation€on€the€first€two„year€sentence€was€again€revoked€in€April€ofÏ1993.€€On€the€date€probation€was€revoked,€service€of€the€first€two„year€sentenceÏbegan€anew.€€This€pattern€has€continued,€such€that€the€defendant€has€yet€to€haveÏcompletely€served€his€first€two„year€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€distinguishing€factor€about€time€served€on€probation€is€that€theÏprobationer€"is€not€entitled€to€[partial]€credit€on€his€sentence€for€time€spent€onÏprobation."€€òòYoungóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€855.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòAustinóó,€slip€op.€at€4€(citing€òòYoungóóÏwith€approval).€€Based€upon€that€ruling,€we€must€conclude€that€the€sentences€hadÏnot€expired€when€the€trial€judge€revoked€probation.ÌÌà àà àWe€note€that€the€order€of€the€trial€court€in€revoking€probation€does€notÏprovide€credit€for€the€time€of€jail€service.€€The€findings€of€fact€indicate€that€theÏdefendant€served€seventy„five€days€when€his€probation€was€revoked€in€1993€andÏthen€ninety€days€when€his€probation€was€revoked€in€1994.€€Certainly,€theÏdefendant€is€entitled€to€credit€for€this€time€served.€€In€òòState€v.€George€Watkinsóó,€No.Ï5,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Dec.€6,€1989),€the€defendant€wasÏplaced€on€probation€after€service€of€nine€months€in€jail.€€When€the€trial€courtÏrevoked€probation,€it€declined€to€give€him€credit€for€the€time€served€in€custody.€€ThisÏcourt€held€the€defendant€was€entitled€to€credit€for€the€time€served€in€custody.€€òòId.óó€ÏThe€order€revoking€probation€is,€therefore,€modified€to€reflect€that€the€defendant€willÏreceive€credit€for€time€served€in€custody.€€Otherwise,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÔ% € ÔÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌCurwood€Witt,€Judge€ÓÓ