WPC >HwG˨Z7n$jpZ!t]` K1/-O@ѝIɁGky,UAU'KK \Sci)+FsX B!_n}׉K;!nX-#> M/OL.豛5/q%AY֠7j7lbnqLg{q7??|F|:0A %~Xə޹.@JEmmLR抃>( Dn29r7/] J(De|l|h@D l1Q֫fZq'm :rA:Eqp mvscwș1UcgvY(lU,Ё_ʵR?~0>Cp=KV9%mb#\ % 0D# 0g UN N= ? zG  z  ^   w=wN4 E,. m0000000000000000000000bGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0OOOO B:: 0W D3 D-. 0K[[ AS 0 AcHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 60($$   1  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt"ru-s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Yo)+003|xU- -(|G24$ !.8ZUdXXd8         0   d(|3Z$ !.8ZUdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_XYE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Z$ !.8ZUdXXd8     X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ZUdd8     __   ZU8 XXdd8@ttGZUINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#ZUG#Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsAugust6,2002 L X XZU #ZUXX -#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.JASONALLEN_MOBLEY_X XZU  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHenryCounty  J @@No.12908JulianP._Guinn_,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200102022CCAMR3CDFiledNovember15,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thedefendant,JasonAllen_Mobley_,appealsasofrightfromtheHenryCountyCircuitCourts x  revokinghiseightyearprobation.Thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourterroneouslyrevoked d hisprobationwithoutsufficientproofthathewasusingdrugs.Weaffirmthetrialcourt. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  (x   #ZUX #X X.ZUJosephM._Tipton_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichThomasT._Woodall_andJohn P EverettWilliams,JJ.,joined. < VictoriaL._DiBonaventura_,Paris,Tennessee(attrial);GuyT.Wilkinson,DistrictPublicDefender;  andW.Jeffery_Fagan_,AssistantDistrictPublicDefender(onappeal),fortheappellant,JasonAllen  _Mobley_.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;JohnH._Bledsoe_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;G. t Robert_Radford_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andStevenL._Garrett_,AssistantDistrictAttorney ` General,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. L  @@OO& OPINION #ZUXX /#X XZU $"t!     Thedefendantpledguiltytopossessionofcocainewithintenttomanufacture,deliver,orsell, #L# aClassBfelony,andpossessionofmarijuanawithintenttomanufacture,deliver,orsell,aClassE $8 $ felony.Pursuanttohispleaagreement,hereceivedconcurrentsentencesofeightyearsandtwo %$!% years,respectively,tobeservedonsupervisedprobation.#ZUXX #X XZUԀThedefendantbeganhiseffectiveeight &"& yearprobationarytermonSeptember28,1999.OnMay3,2000,aprobationviolationwarrant '"' issuedstatingthatalaboratoryanalysisofthedefendantsurinesamplesubmittedonApril14,2000, (#( confirmeduseofmarijuanaand_hydrocodone_. )$)   Attheprobationrevocation#ZUXX #X XZUԀhearing,defensecounselstatedthatthedefendantwasbeforethe \+&+ court becausehesmokedmarijuanaanddidsomeotherdrug.Shearguedthatthedefendantwas H,', addictedtodrugs,wasunabletostopusingthemonhisown,andshouldbeplacedinlongtermdrug 4-(- _treatmentinsteadofincarcerated.Thestatenotedthatthedefendanthadbeenconvictedofother  drugrelatedchargesandthatdrugscreensrevealedthathehadcontinuedtousedrugs.Defense  counselstatedthatshecouldhavethedefendanttestifyandthathisreasonforsellingdrugswasto  getmoneytosupporthisowndrugaddiction.Thetrialcourtrevokedthedefendantsprobation, t findingbeyondareasonabledoubtthatheusedcontrolledsubstanceswhileonprobation.Itordered ` thedefendanttoservehiseffectiveeightyearsentenceintheDepartmentofCorrectionand L  recommendedthatthedefendantbeevaluatedfordruguseandaffordedanynecessarytreatment. 8    Onappeal,thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourterroneouslyrevokedprobationwithout  ` takingappropriateproofregardinghisdrugscreentestresults.Henotesthatnotechniciantestified  L  regardingthelaboratoryreportnordidthestatesubmitanaffidavitcertifyingtheresultsinthereport.  8  Thestatecontendsthatthedefendanthaswaivedthisissuebyfailingtochallengethelaboratory $  resultsattheprobationrevocationhearing.Italsoarguesthatthedefendantadmittedthroughhis   attorneythathehadviolatedhisprobationbyusingdrugs.Weagreewiththestate.     Atrialcourtmayrevokeprobationuponfindingbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthe   defendanthasviolatedaconditionofprobation.Tenn.CodeAnn.40-35-310,-311(e).Ifthe p trialcourtrevokesprobation,itcan (1)orderincarceration;(2)causeexecutionofthejudgmentas \ itwasoriginallyentered;or(3)extendtheremainingprobationaryperiodforaperiodnottoexceed H twoyears.Statev.Hunter,1S.W.3d643,648(Tenn.1999).Thedecisiontorevokeprobationis 4 withinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt,anditsjudgmentwillbereversedonlyuponashowing  p ofanabuseofdiscretion,reflectedintherecordbyanabsenceofsubstantialevidencetosupportthe  \ trialcourtsfindings.Statev.Gregory,946S.W.2d829,832(Tenn.Crim.App.1997)(citation H omitted). 4   Oursupremecourthasheldthatprobationrevocationbasedupondruguseasrevealedbya   laboratoryreportviolatesdueprocesswhenthetechnicianwhopreparedthereportdidnottestify  attherevocationhearing,thestatemadenoshowingofgoodcauseinfailingtocallthetechnician,  andnosignificantindiciaofthereliabilityofthereportexisted.Statev.Wade,863S.W.2d406,410  (Tenn.1993).ThepresentcaseisdistinctfromthecircumstancesinWade.Here,thedefendantdid l notchallengethelaboratoryreportattherevocationhearing,andcounselacknowledgedthatthe X  defendanthaduseddrugswhileonprobation.Becausehedidnotobjectonthesegroundsatthe D! revocationhearing,hecannotprevailonthisissueonappeal.T.R.A.P.36(a). 0"    Wenotethatthelaboratoryreportinquestionwasnotenteredintoevidenceattherevocation $X" hearing.Instead,theonlyevidencebeforethecourtwasdefensecounselsstatementsregardingthe $D # defendantsuseofdrugswhileonprobation.Wetakethesestatementsasproffersandadmissions %0!$ onthepartofthedefendant.Wealsonotethatalthoughthestatedidnotpresentproofthatthe &"% defendantwastorefrainfromusingillegaldrugsasaconditionofprobation,thedefendantis '#& deemedtobeonnoticethathisconductmustconformtotherequirementsofthelaw.SeeStatev. (#' Stubblefield,953S.W.2d223,225(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).Inanyevent,dueprocessrequiresthe )$( evidenceagainstadefendantinarevocationproceedingbedisclosedtothedefendant,whohasthe |*%) righttoconfrontandcrossexamineadversewitnessesunlessgoodcauseisshownfordisallowing h+&* confrontation.SeeGagnonv.Scarpelli,411U.S.778,786,93S.Ct.1756,176162(1973);Wade,  863S.W.2dat408.Inotherwords,therevocationmustbebaseduponevidenceintherecordand  nottheargumentsoftheparties.#ZUXX #X XZU    Inthepresentcase,itisapparentthatthedefendantchosetoadmithissubstantialdrug ` problemthroughcounselinthehopethatthetrialcourtwouldsentencehimtoanalternativeto L  incarcerationcombinedwithdrugtreatment.Thetrialcourtscommentsattherevocationhearing 8  revealthatthetrialcourtbelievedthedefendantssuddendesirefordrugtreatmenttobe $ t disingenuousandlongoverdue.Suchcredibilitydeterminationsarewithintheprovinceofthetrial  ` court.Thedefendantsadmitteddruguseprovidessubstantialevidencebaseduponwhichthetrial  L  courtmayrevokeprobation.Wediscernnoabuseofdiscretiononthetrialcourtsbehalf.  8    Basedupontheforegoingandtherecordasawhole,weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgment   revokingprobation.   #ZUXX p$#X XZU   `     h   ___________________________________ \    `     h   JOSEPHM.TIPTON,JUDGE#ZUXX (#