WPC `U>DU3DFcbbU^ Z R ?mkxm7X*M4k*@M:mGP7zBl_,yV6q(gdCO;T|Pwm-8Q|L4x Ei?a06spOqlfgip[G R52wFlur~(Sy3k3dl!T:FȈ|Z詩(/dm-Hz%!iVvM? i*Lh!Y2 ž{aKI?/]āIZ+B:Iʓan X[|ؓeaR\2V߽M>6R_~y34j3(M0\7[^/$cm Ԃ`LVXw!(_pjs0d-Qs>FڊG,x!`y7]ꠢp)B(3l"U> 0 0< 0< 0.2 0Y, 0< 0_ 0 D+ A' @ o @ _ oi B- B# @ 0P # UN %M( N3b5^ =wI4Ma mc^z\  `&Times New Roman'  AOCUSER0AOCUSER .   6e j4Heading 1  XXX   &p x (#&       8.` hp x (#8 XXX<:Default Para<:Footnote Ref<Vh :Body Text In  X   &p x (#&    8.` hp x (#8 X 64Hyperlink    64pmterms11 <:FollowedHype    6J\ 4Body Text    &p x (#&    8.` hp x (#8'dxd &Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK WPC i K513%)+-51d~ - WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -)Hairline d  d#|x(r $..      XeXXXXeXXXe\\IB01S01\CLERK4NASV,,,,V0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX- -\1 lz/:i+00U nesitation T]hemisdemeanantAtty  !..      Xf6XXXXf6XXXf6  _         0p x (#X0HXXf68f6XXdd8  Qhh HINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  Q$ATH NASHVILLE    H.` hp x (#X(#HAssignedonBriefsOctober13,2004 > Xf6XHHXXf6 STATEOFTENNESSEEv.WILLIAMH.MORRIS,JR.Xf6XH  0  DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDeKalbCounty  "   3p x (#X(#3Q No.02011LilleAnnSells,Judge   H.` hp x (#X(#H3p x (#X(#3Q*H.` hp x (#X(#H-  XXf6  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEj K Kj2 -  Xf6X 3p x (#X(#3Q No.M200303001CCAR3CDFiledOctober28,_2004_Ԉ P  H.` hp x (#X(#H-  XXf6  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE K K2 -  Xf6X    Thedefendant,WilliamH.Morris,Jr.,challengestherevocationofhisprobation,specifically a  contendingthat:(1)thetrialcourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoreinstatehissentencebecausehis G probationaryperiodhadexpired,(2)thetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninreinstatinghis - previoussentence,and(3)thetrialcourterredinfailingtograntthedefendantsrequestforbond  pendingappeal.Aftercarefulreview,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.      Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  u     JohnEverettWilliams,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichGaryR.Wade,_P.J._, A andDavidH.Welles,J.,joined. 'w DavidN.Brady,DistrictPublicDefender,andJohnB.Nisbet,III,AssistantPublicDefender,for C theappellant,WilliamH.Morris,Jr. ) PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;BrentC.Cherry,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;  WilliamE.Gibson,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andWilliamM.Locke,AssistantDistrict  AttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. q    3p x (#X(#3Q55' OPINION ="!      6p x (#X(#6   X B  InMay2002,thedefendantpledguiltytodrivingonarevokedlicense,secondoffense.  $Y# Hewassentencedtoelevenmonths,twentyninedays,allsuspendedexceptfortyfivedays,and $? $ wasplacedonprobation.InJuly2002,thedefendanttestedpositiveformarijuanaandadmitted %%!% tohisprobationofficerthathewasusingbothmarijuanaandalcohol;awarrantforviolationof & "& probationwasthereafterissuedonthesegrounds.Followingahearingontheprobation '"' violation,thetrialcourtorderedthedefendanttoservefourteendaysinjailandextendedhis (#( probationsixmonths,untilNovember8,2003.AlthoughthejudgesignedtheorderinMarch m)$) 2003,theoriginaldocumentwasnotfiledwiththeclerksofficeatthattime.InJune2003,the S*%* defendantwasarrestedfor,andpledguiltyto,publicintoxication;hewassentencedtothirty 9+&+ daysonthischarge.Again,inJuly2003,awarrantforviolationofprobationwasissuedfor ,o', failuretoreport,failuretopaycourtcosts,failuretoprovideverificationofemployment,andfor -U(- anewlawviolation.Atthesecondprobationviolationhearing,thetrialcourtdiscoveredthat -;). thepreviousorder,extendingthedefendantsprobation,hadnotyetbeenfiled.Thereafter,the  courtobtainedacopyoftheorder,foundittobetrueandexact,andenteredtheorderintothe  recordthesameday.Further,uponfindingthedefendanttohaverepeatedviolations,thecourt | revokedthedefendantsprobationandreinstatedtheprevioussentenceofelevenmonths, b twentyninedays. B݌ H Ќ    *X(#X(#*       6p x (#X(#6      p݌ . ~ Ќ    *X(#X(#*       6p x (#X(#6     Thedefendantobjectedtothereinstatementbecause,hecontended,withouttheoriginal  d orderextendingtheprobationonfile,thecourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoreinstatetheprevious  J sentenceduetotheexpirationoftheprobationaryperiod.Attheconclusionofthehearing,the  0 defendantrequestedthatbondbesetpendingthepresentappeal;however,thecourtdeniedthe    request.ThedefendantthenfiledatimelyappealtothisCourt. ݌    Ќ    *X(#X(#*       6p x (#X(#6   h  X  h݌̌    *X(#X(#*    Xf6XXXf6  6p x (#X(#6    &    AnalysisA  Ԍ x  Ќ    *X(#X(#* Xf6XXXf6    _'x5_  X  6p x (#X(#6  [  Thedefendantinitiallycontendsthatthetrialcourtsearlierorder,extendinghis D  probationatthetimeofhisfirstviolation,isinvalidbecausetheoriginaldocumentwasnotfiled *z  withtheclerkafterbeingsubscribedbythejudge.Therefore,thedefendantcontendsthathis ` probationaryperiodexpiredandthecourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoreinstatehissentence.We F disagree.ThedefendantcorrectlystatesthatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4035311(e) , allowsatrialjudgetorevokeprobation byorderdulyenteredupontheminutesofthecourt.  However, anorderisnotdivestedofitsvitalitybyadelayinitsplacementupontheminutes.  Statev.Howell,1989Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS99,at*9(Tenn.Crim.App.Feb.9,1989),perm.  app.denied(Tenn.1989).Moreover,failuretofile doesnotinvalidatetheactiontakenona t certaindate;theminuterecord,whenprepared,isarecordofthethingsdoneonthedateshown Z bytherecord,andmeredelayinpreparingtherecorddoesnotcauseittospeakasofalater @ date.Id.(quotingSouthernContinentalTelephoneCo.v.Alley,72S.W.2d555,55657 &v (Tenn.1934)).Intheinstantmatter,thedefendantdoesnotrefutethatthejudgedid,infact,  \ revokethedefendantsprobationatthehearingorthatthedocumentultimatelyfiledwiththe B clerkwasanexactcopyoftheoriginalsignedbythejudge.Thus,theorderreflectingthe ( courtsfindingswasenteredupontheminutes,albeitdelayed.Therefore,weholdthattheorder  relatesbacktothedateshownontherecordandthatthedelayinfilingdoesnotinvalidatethe  actiontakenbythetrialcourt.[݌   Ќ    *X(#X(#* X    X  6p x (#X(#6  '  'V(݌ p!  Ќ    *X(#X(#* X    X  6p x (#X(#6  )  Next,thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourtacted arbitrarilyandharshlyin V"! orderinghimtoservethebalanceofhisoriginalsentence.Uponfindingbyapreponderanceof <#" theevidencethatthedefendanthasviolatedthetermsofhisprobation,atrialcourtisauthorized "$r# toorderadefendanttoservethebalanceofhisoriginalsentenceinconfinement.SeeTenn. %X $ CodeAnn.4035310and!311(d)(1997);Statev.Harkens,811S.W.2d79,82(Tenn.1991). %>!% Furthermore,probationrevocationrestsinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourtandwillnotbe &$"& overturnedbythisCourtabsentanabuseofthatdiscretion.Statev.Leach,914S.W.2d104,106 ' #' (Tenn.Crim.App.1995).Anabuseofdiscretionexistswhen therecordcontainsnosubstantial (#( evidencetosupportthetrialcourtsconclusionthataviolationhasoccurred.Statev.Conner, )$) 919S.W.2d48,50(Tenn.Crim.App.1995)(emphasisadded).))݌ l*%*      *X(#X(#* X    X  6p x (#X(#6  .  ./݌ R+&+ Ќ    *X(#X(#* X    X  6p x (#X(#6  E0  Inthecasesubjudice,thetrialcourtnotedthatthedefendantviolatedhisprobationon   twoseparateoccasions.Inthefirstinstance,thedefendanttestedpositiveformarijuanaand  admittedtohisprobationofficerthathewasusingmarijuanaandalcohol.Forthisviolation,the | defendantreceivedfourteendaysinjailandasixmonthextensionofhisprobation.Thecourt b foundthatthedefendantfailedtotakeadvantageofthecourtsleniencyandagainviolatedhis H probationwhenhewasarrestedfor,andpledguiltyto,publicintoxication.Thetrialcourthad, . ~  nonesitation[sic]whatsoeverinfinding,basedontheproof,thatthedefendanthasviolatedhis  d probationandhasnohesitationwhatsoeverinorderinghimtoservethebalanceofthissentence  J inthiscase.Weagreewiththetrialcourtandconcludethereisampleevidencetosupportthe  0 trialcourtsfindings.E00݌    Ќ    *X(#X(#* X    X  6p x (#X(#6  5  56݌    Ќ    *X(#X(#* X    X  6p x (#X(#6  ?7  Finally,thedefendantcontendsthatthecourterredinfailingtograntbondpendingthis   appeal.Tenn.R.Crim.P.32(g),byitsspecificlanguage,squarelyaddressesthisissue.Itstates x  inpertinentpart: Probationshallonlyberevokedafterahearingconductedaccordingtolaw, ^  andthejudgmentuponsuchahearingisappealablebythelosingparty.Thedefendantmaybe D  releasedpursuanttoapplicablelawpendingsuchhearingand/orsuchappeal.Tenn.R.Crim.P. *z  32(g)(emphasisadded).Thus,theplainlanguageofthestatuteindicatesthatthedefendantin ` theinstantcasewasnotentitledtobondasamatterofright.Moreover,theAttorneyGeneralof F thisstatehasopinedthat,?77݌ , Ќ    *X(#X(#* X    X  6p x (#X(#6   X X X3p x X(#3;  [T]helanguageofTenn.R.Crim.P.32(d)[deemingbailamatterofright]  exhibitsanintenttolimitthemisdemeanantsrighttobailtothoseprocedures  arisingasadirectresultofcriminalproceedings,i.e.,directappealsfrom  conviction,denialofmotionfornewtrial,orsentencing.;<݌ t Ќ    *X(#X *     X  6p x (#X(#6   X3p x X(#3?  ??݌̌    *X(#X *     X  6p x (#X(#6   X3p x X(#3@  NoTennesseestatutoryorcaselawhasestablishedthatamisdemeanantis @ entitledtobailpendingsuchahearingunderTenn.R.Crim.P.32(d). &v Furthermore,thelanguageofRule32doesnotspecificallygrantthe  \ misdemeanantarighttobailpendingarevocationhearingorappealof B revocation.@aA݌ ( Ќ    *X(#X *     X  6p x (#X(#6  C  X X XOp.AttyGen.No.99199,*23(1999).C1D݌  Ќ    *X(#X(#*     X  6p x (#X(#6  @E  WearepersuadedthattheAttorneyGeneraliscorrectinthisopinion.Therefore,the   decisiontograntbondpendinganappealofprobationrevocationlieswiththesounddiscretion p!  ofthetrialcourt.@EE݌ V"! Ќ    *X(#X(#* X    X  6p x (#X(#6  G  Inthepresentmatter,thedefendantknowinglydisregardedthecourtsordersonmultiple "$r# occasionsandviolatedhisprobationtwice.BecausethelanguageofRule32doesnotgranta %X $ righttobondpendingappealofrevocationofprobationandbecausethedefendantshistory %>!% supportsitsfindings,thetrialcourtwaswellwithinitsdiscretionindenyingtheappellants &$"& requestforbondpendingthisappeal,andthisCourtwillnotdisturbthatdecision.G%H݌ ' #' Ќ    *X(#X(#* X   8,',  Conclusion     X  6p x (#X(#6  @K  Basedontheforegoingandtherecordasawhole,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtis | affirmed.@KK݌ b Ќ    *X(#X(#* X    X  6p x (#X(#6   M   MM݌  0 Ќ    *X(#X(#* X  h__________________________________    JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JUDGE    h