ÿWPCN  …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0DH 0„Œ 0J 0TZ 0^® 0h 0rt 0|æ 0†b 0è 1ux 0dí U>QU *B)¹ BâDCÿ AMB»¡‰\ D3åv~vÓ– 0@i AO©Æø 0D¾ D/ B1 ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- DEFEGHDIJEKLUMÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|xV(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(;!2{æ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÓÓ€€€€€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  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌSeptember€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÔ€"ÔThe€original€order€issued€by€the€Rutherford€County€Circuit€Court€filed€on€February€28,€1995Ïstates€that€Appellant€is€sentenced€to€serve€35€days€in€the€Rutherford€County€Workhouse.€ÏHowever,€the€court€issued€an€amended€order€dated€March€31,€1995€which€states€that€Appellant€isÏsentenced€to€40€days€in€the€county€workhouse.€€€In€the€brief€for€the€State€of€Tennessee,€theÏState€refers€to€the€March€31€order€sentencing€Appellant€to€40€days€but€notes€that€AppellantÏutilizes€the€March€31€order€sentencing€Appellant€to€45€days.€€Finally,€following€his€probationÏrevocation€hearing,€the€order€issued€on€November€20,€1995€sentenced€Appellant€to€45€days€inÏthe€Rutherford€County€Work€House.€Ô€!ÔÔ€!XÔÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€"ÔÔ€"ôÔThis€arrest€warrant€further€avers€that€Appellant€has€violated€the€terms€of€his€probation€byÏfailing€to€pay€his€fine€on€April€1,€1995.€€This€refers€to€a€$2,000€fine€which€the€trial€court€ordered€toÏbe€paid€by€Appellant€in€two€installments€of€$1,000€each€and€which€were€due€on€April€1€and€May€1,Ï1995.€€Ultimately,€Appellant€paid€the€$2,000€fine€on€May€26€of€that€same€year.€€Ô€"XÔÔ€!ÔÌ$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€"ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€æBXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€&'%A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9604„CC„00134Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àRUTHERFORD€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JAMES€K.€CLAYTON,€JR.ó óÌò òRICHARD€MCADAMS,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌGUY€R.€DOTSON,€JR.à àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ102€South€Maple€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLISA€A.€NAYLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBILL€WHITESELLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PRICE,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à303€Rutherford€County€Judicial€Bldg.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€"„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€"ŠÔÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àÔ€"XÔAppellant€Richard€McAdams€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€in€the€RutherfordÏCounty€Circuit€Court€to€one€count€of€possession€of€marijuana€for€resale.€€As€aÏRange€I€standard€offender,€the€Appellant€received€a€sentence€of€one€year€and€sixÏmonths€of€incarceration€with€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction,€all€of€whichÏwas€suspended€with€the€exception€of€35€days€to€be€served€in€the€RutherfordÏCounty€Workhouse.€€Appellant€also€received€a€fine€of€$2,000.€€While€in€theÏworkhouse€Appellant€was€placed€on€work€release€status.€€On€April€18,€1995,€aÏprobation€revocation€warrant€issued€for€Appellant.€€Appellant€allegedly€violatedÏworkhouse€rules€in€that€he€endeavored€to€bring€contraband€into€the€workhouseÏupon€returning€to€that€facility€from€work.€€Following€a€probation€revocation€hearing,ÏAppellant€was€removed€from€work€release€and€ordered€to€serve€45€days€of€straightÏincarceration€at€the€Rutherford€County€Jail€beginning€January€8,€1996,€and€to€serveÏthe€remainder€of€his€sentence€on€supervised€probation.€€In€this€direct€appeal,ÏAppellant€contends€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€to€support€the€trial€court'sÏruling€revoking€Appellant's€probation.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌà àThe€proof€shows€that€on€March€4,€1994€officers€of€the€LaVergne€PoliceÏDepartment€arrested€Appellant€for€possession€of€marijuana€for€resale.€€During€aÏsearch€of€Appellant's€vehicle,€the€police€recovered€a€plastic€bottle€containingÏXanax€and€a€set€of€triple€beam€scales.Ìà àOn€September€6,€1994,€a€Rutherford€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€AppellantÏfor€possession€of€a€Schedule€VI€controlled€substance€(marijuana)€with€intent€to€sellÏor€deliver€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„17„417.€€AppellantÏwas€also€indicted€for€possession€of€a€Schedule€IV€controlled€substance€in€violationÏof€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„17„417.€Finally,€Appellant€was€indictedÏfor€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏ49„17„425.€€On€February€28,€1995,€Appellant€pleaded€guilty€to€the€reduced€chargeÏof€possession€of€a€Schedule€VI€controlled€substance€with€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€ÏThe€second€and€third€counts€of€the€indictment€were€dismissed.€€As€part€of€€a€pleaÏagreement€dated€February€28,€1995,€Appellant€received€a€sentence€of€35€days€inÏthe€Rutherford€County€Workhouse€and€a€suspended€sentence€of€one€year€and€sixÏmonths.€€Appellant€was€further€ordered€to€pay€a€fine€of€$2,000.€€Following€a€hearingÏon€Appellantððs€alleged€violation€of€workhouse€rules,€the€Rutherford€County€CircuitÏCourt€revoked€Appellant's€suspended€sentence€and€ordered€Appellant€to€serve€45Ídays€in€the€county€workhouse€and€to€serve€the€remainder€of€the€sentence€onÏsupervised€probation.× ƒ( ××  ×ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€REVOCATION€OF€PROBATION:€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„310€authorizes€the€trial€judge€toÏrevoke€a€defendant's€suspended€sentence€whenever€that€judge€determines€thatÏthe€defendant€has€violated€the€conditions€of€his€probation.€€Evidence€of€a€probationÏviolation€need€not€be€demonstrated€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Rather,€it€isÏsufficient€to€prove€the€existence€of€a€violation€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(d)€(1990);€òòState€v.€Wallóó,€909€S.W.2d€8,€9€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).€€Moreover,€all€that€the€evidence€need€show€is€that€the€trial€judgeÏacted€conscientiously,€rather€than€arbitrarily,€in€determining€whether€or€not€toÏrevoke€the€defendant's€probation.€€òòWallóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€10;€òòStamps€v.€Stateóó,€614ÏS.W.2d€71,€73€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€On€review,€the€conclusions€of€the€trialÏjudge€in€a€probation€revocation€proceeding€are€accorded€the€weight€of€a€juryÍverdict.€€òòWallóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€10;€òòStampsóó,€614€S.W.2d€at€73€(citing€òòCarver€v.€Stateóó,Ï570€S.W.2d€872€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)).€€This€Court€employs€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€standard€when€reviewing€the€decision€of€a€trial€court€revoking€probationÏor€a€suspended€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,€82€(Tenn.€1991)€(citingÏòòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€619€S.W.2d€145,€146€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)).€€"For€this€CourtÏto€find€an€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court€in€a€probation€revocation€case,€aÏdefendant€must€demonstrate€`that€the€record€contains€no€substantial€evidence€toÏsupport€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€judge€that€a€violation€of€the€conditions€ofÏprobation€has€occurred.'"€òòWallóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€10€(quoting€òòState€v.€Delpóó,€614ÏS.W.2d€395,€398€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)).Ìà àÌà àThe€record€is€replete€with€testimony€and€discussion€regarding€severalÏinstances€where€Appellant€allegedly€returned€to€the€Rutherford€County€WorkhouseÏin€an€intoxicated€condition.€€However,€because€the€probation€violation€warrantÏdoes€not€allege€a€violation€of€probation€based€on€alleged€intoxication,€this€CourtÏcannot€condone€the€trial€court's€decision€to€revoke€Appellant's€probation€insofar€asÏthat€decision€is€premised€on€evidence€of€Appellant's€alleged€intoxication.€€òòSeeÏPracty€v.€Stateóó,€525€S.W.2d€677,€680,€682€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).Ìà àIn€òòPractyóó,€this€Court€enunciated€the€constitutionally„mandated€proceduralÏdue€process€standards€as€applied€to€a€probation€revocation€proceeding.€€òòId.óó€at€679„80€(citing€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778,€93€S.Ct.€1756,€36€L.Ed.2d€656€(1973)Ïand€òòMorrissey€v.€Breweróó,€408€U.S.€471,€92€S.€Ct.€2593,€33€L.Ed.2d€484€(1972)).€ÏThe€òòPractyóó€ÌÌÌÌÌCourt€then€enumerated€the€"`minimum€requirements€of€due€process'"€as€first€setÏforth€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòMorrisseyóó:ÓÓÌÌà8 àà0 à`(a)€written€notice€of€the€claimed€violations€of€[probation€or]Ïparole;€(b)€disclosure€to€the€[probationer€or]€parolee€ofÏevidence€against€him;€(c)€opportunity€to€be€heard€in€personÏand€to€present€witnesses€and€documentary€evidence;€(d)€theÏright€to€confront€and€cross„examine€adverse€witnesses€(unlessÏthe€hearing€officer€specifically€finds€good€cause€for€notÏallowing€confrontation);€(e)€a€"neutral€and€detached"€hearingÏbody€such€as€a€traditional€parole€board,€members€of€whichÏneed€not€be€judicial€officers€or€lawyers;€and€(f)€a€writtenÏstatement€by€the€factfinders€as€to€the€evidence€relied€upon€andÏreasons€for€revoking€[probation€or]€parole.'ÌÌòòId.óó€at€680€(quoting€òòMorrisseyóó,€92€S.Ct.€2604)ÌÌÓÓà àSince€the€probation€violation€warrant€fails€to€give€notice€that€allegedÏintoxication€is€a€basis€upon€which€probation€revocation€is€sought,€due€processÏprohibits€the€use€of€evidence€of€intoxication€as€a€basis€for€revocation.× ƒ) ××  ×€Ìà àIn€the€probation€revocation€warrant,€Appellant€did€receive€adequate€notice€ofÏhis€alleged€violation€of€workhouse€rules€in€the€attempt€to€bring€contraband€into€theÏfacility.€€The€trial€court€found€that€on€at€least€two€occasions,€Appellant€endeavoredÏto€bring€contraband€(cigarettes)€into€the€Rutherford€County€Workhouse.€The€recordÏamply€buttresses€this€conclusion.€€On€March€22,€1995,€Appellant€entered€theÏworkhouse€while€smoking€a€cigarette.€€Additionally,€on€that€same€date,€AppellantÏsurrendered€a€pack€of€cigarettes€to€the€officers€searching€him€upon€his€return€to€theÏworkhouse.€€òòId.óó€€On€March€31,€Appellant€again€attempted€to€bring€three€packs€ofÏcigarettes€into€the€workhouse€by€concealing€them€in€his€socks€and€shirt.€€We,Ïtherefore,€affirm€the€ÌÌÌÌjudgment€of€the€trial€court€revoking€Appellant's€suspended€sentence€€with€respectÏto€Appellant's€violation€of€the€workhouse€rules€prohibiting€the€bringing€of€cigarettesÏinto€the€facility.Ìà àÔ€"ŠÔÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE