WPC /U~(8 WI P{h1e\ƀim[Vk3:$ [jtLEl1\keFqJ}og'0')Zf6]âqA\=㕣'Q2۩|@# ^IcM%oZm@zEXH[w%X5u˒,V,Wbalfΰ0-`ꥁ(7--e#:CW`,YrqN [QFdž}@縝!5O[0mxLʧrT}crb:t4^V=:JNO?6AM-w^\> M/֋ڔ鉈 e+RMFBgoPGH0BxdlaKgijVRNѢqndqH82r9695 *'i=v^I8CyzƎ2b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m UN #   k 11NEb 0 B 0  D3 D- 0K ASZ 0s 0D A[ɂ-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularPH,:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2E+$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3|$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3|$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _   8Q XXdd8@tt$INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#$ #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsNovember20,2002 L XQ X #XXQ "#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.JEFFREYLYNNMURPHYXQ X  J @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforDeKalbCounty  J @@No.9977F_Lillie_ԀAnnSells,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200200984CCAR3CDFiledDecember13,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     TheDefendant,JeffreyLynnMurphy,pledguiltytoonecountoffraudandwasplacedonprobation x  forthreeyears.TheDefendantssupervisingofficersubsequentlyfiledaprobationviolationwarrant d andahearingwasheld.ThetrialcourtrevokedtheDefendantsprobationandorderedhimtoserve P hissentenceintheDepartmentofCorrection.TheDefendantnowappeals,claimingthatthetrial < courtshouldhaveextendedhisperiodofprobation,instead.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgment. (x  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtAffirmed  P   #XQ #XQ X.DavidH.Welles,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJoeG.RileyandAlanE. ( Glenn,JJ.,joined.  DavidBrady,PublicDefenderandJohnB.Nisbet,III,AssistantPublicDefender,_Cookeville_,  Tennessee,fortheappellant,JeffreyLynnMurphy.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;ThomasE.Williams,III,AssistantAttorney ` General;WilliamE.Gibson,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andWilliamLocke,AssistantDistrict L  AttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. 8!  @@OO& OPINION #XXQ # #`" XQ X    TheDefendantwasconvictedof fraud,inMarch2000,inconnectionwithobtaining %^ $ prescriptiondrugswithaforgedprescription.Hereceivedathreeyearsuspendedsentenceandwas %J!% placedonprobation.InSeptember2001,hissupervisingofficerfiledaviolationwarrantsetting &6"& forthnumerousinstancesoftheDefendantsnoncompliancewiththetermsofhisprobation, '"#' includingviolatinghishousearrest.Theviolationwarrantwassubsequentlyamendedtochargeas ($( additionalviolationsthattheDefendantdidnotnotifyhissupervisingofficerofanarrest,andthat )$) hewasconvictedinSeptember2001ofpassingaworthlesscheck.Ahearingwassubsequently *%* conductedatwhichMs.LoriSnow,theDefendantssupervisingofficer,andtheDefendanttestified. +&+ TheDefendantadmittedthathehadbeenconvictedasalleged.TheDefendantdisputedMs.Snows n,', testimonyabouthisabsencesfromhome,butthetrialcourtspecificallyfoundtheDefendants Z-(-> _testimonyonthispointtobe notcredible.BasedontheDefendantsviolationofhisprobationby  receivinganewconvictionandbynotcomplyingwiththetermsofhishousearrest,thetrialcourt  revokedtheDefendantsprobationandorderedhimtoservehissentenceintheDepartmentof  Correction.Inrenderingitsdecision,thetrialcourtnotedthattheDefendanthadpreviouslybeen t beforethecourtforviolatinghisprobation,buthadbeenpermittedtoremainonprobationbased ` uponhisrepresentationstothecourtthathewouldthereaftercomplywiththetermsofhissentence. L    TheDefendantnowcomplainsthatthetrialcourtsrevocationofhisprobationis tooharsh $ t andthatthetrialcourtshouldinsteadhaveimposedanadditionaltwoyearsofprobation.We  ` respectfullydisagree.  L   XQ XXXQ   Atrialjudgeisvestedwiththediscretionaryauthoritytorevokeprobationifapreponderance $  oftheevidenceestablishesthatadefendantviolatedtheconditionsofhisorherprobation.Tenn.   CodeAnn.4035310,311(e);Statev.Mitchell,810S.W.2d733,735(Tenn.Crim.App.1991).   Thetrialjudgemust,however,adducesufficientevidenceduringtheprobationrevocationhearing   toallowhimorhertomakeanintelligentdecision.SeeMitchell,810S.W.2dat735.     Whenaprobationrevocationischallenged,theappellatecourtshavealimitedscopeof \ review.Foranappellatecourttobewarrantedinfindingthatatrialjudgeabusedhisorher H discretionbyrevokingprobation,itmustbeestablishedthattherecordcontainsnosubstantial 4 evidencetosupportthetrialjudgesconclusionthataprobationviolationoccurredandthatbecause  p oftheviolation,probationshouldberevoked.SeeStatev.Harkins,811S.W.2d79,82(Tenn.  \ 1991);Statev.Stubblefield,953S.W.2d223,226(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).#XQ XX XQ # H   Inthiscase,therecordcontainsmorethanenoughevidencetosupportthetrialcourts   decision.Accordingly,noabuseofdiscretionhasbeendemonstrated,andtheDefendantsclaimthat   thetrialcourterrediswithoutmerit.    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.     `     h     ___________________________________ D!    `     h     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE