ÿWPC]& ç…¾æe\t¦Ø]h*@Æxt³÷å´3ÂO}R;J¹ß´v3"‘áÄõ¦ÝùöÞ6^´CóTÆ%Q`;B®ÛÈßp ªDbýéƒ+Ñš8"b(“; êÆ ‡ L605WNrD ¼4òàá´"V‰`‡¸á%O†±ü«ÓV¥7{–iÿ:ra;n‰3ýÎùVŒË&_uOùko€¼gNêäÕœ•)ÁÉ÷.¤âû¦¨QanNeµÞf7R|ÃùÞRYXèCV]Æ_öýÞ£|;g¡Á,•ìä‹6áY æcÿhÞŽuO‚Ø‹G€¡ðƒ[›ÚB³Æõë§Zð(bi8qsÁLI"zƳcô_Ø\À=|Q.ktf´´iv~ôñ2uv­DíRа•û„Ž)ÓZù£‡ï@$œ›ƒo¦YÆAíg©£p_6¼î9'ª?œ‹‘eð£÷(Ò¤èþ.v5ž0xµ]_”V< ÀeøÏFõÙ™ „µËî‚ !Fë3" Çx•„b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë 1‡±N8 72:NlEn 1up 72å 0c 1‡z 72 0D3 zwÒññÃË$ÜPbP!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P! 0ëX!X!X!X! BC"C" 0¤`" D5# D-9# 0Kf#f# AS±#Æ$ 0¤Ê$ 0Dn% A«²%˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»¨‚ì( (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'bk1˜7¨ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(š½CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt þÝ ƒRµ_$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X9<X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOur€supreme€court€has€held€the€following:€ð ðGiven€the€similar€nature€of€a€communityÐ ° Ðcorrections€sentence€and€a€sentence€of€probation,€we€hold€that€the€same€principles€are€applicable€inÐ –æ Ðdeciding€whether€a€community€corrections€sentence€revocation€was€proper.ðð€€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811Ð |Ì ÐS.W.2d€79,€83€(Tenn.€1991).€€€€ Ý ƒRµ_$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X9<X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€court€has€applied€the€standard€in€òòWadeóó€to€questions€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÐ ° Ðwhere€a€community€corrections€sentence€was€revoked€based€on€hearsay€evidence.€€In€òòState€v.€ScottÐ –æ ÐAndersonóó,€No.€03C01„9703„CC„00093,€1998€WL€205919,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Apr.Ð |Ì Ð29,€1998),€we€concluded€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€revoking€appellantððsÐ b² Ðcommunity€corrections€sentence€by€relying€on€hearsay€evidence€from€the€probation€officer€becauseÐ H˜ Ðthe€appellant€made€no€effort€to€correct€the€proof€or€object€to€it.€In€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔJimmieÔ_Ô€C.€Rayóó,€No.Ð . ~ Ð01C019501CR00022,€1995€WL€464743,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€4,€1995),€weÐ  d Ðconcluded€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€revoking€appellantððs€community€Ô_ÔcorectionsÔ_ÔÐ ú J Ðsentence€by€relying€on€hearsay€evidence€concerning€the€terms€of€the€appellantððs€communityÐ à 0 Ðcorrections€sentence.€€In€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔRickerÔ_Ôóó,€875€S.W.2d€687,€689€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1994),€weÐ Æ   Ðconcluded€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€revoking€appellantððs€community€correctionsÐ ¬ ü  Ðsentence€by€relying€solely€on€an€ð ðunreliable€laboratory€test€report€without€any€good€cause€beingÐ ’â  Ðshown€or€found€to€exist€to€deny€the€defendant€the€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€a€person€withÐ xÈ  Ðknowledge€about€the€testing€done.ðð€€€€€€€€€ Ý ƒRµ_$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€X9<X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendant€testified€on€cross„examination€that€she€had€informed€her€probation€officerÐ ° Ðof€the€problems€she€had€hearing€individuals€knocking€at€her€front€door€in€the€evenings€when€she€wasÐ –æ Ðat€the€back€of€the€house.€€The€probation€officer€was€not€present€at€the€hearing€on€January€4,€1999,Ð |Ì Ðwhen€the€defendant€testified,€so€this€fact€was€never€contested. FÝ ƒRµ_$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€X9<X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€to€the€punishment€this€defendant€has€received,€we€note,€in€passing,€that€her€probationÐ ° Ðofficer€testified€that€the€defendant€was€never€required€to€participate€in€any€drug€rehabilitationÐ –æ Ðprogram€while€on€community€corrections.€€The€defendantððs€presentence€report€stated€that€theÐ |Ì Ðdefendant€admitted€to€a€problem€with€methamphetamine,€yet,€at€the€hearing,€the€defendant€testifiedÐ b² Ðon€cross„examination€that€she€did€not€think€she€had€a€problem.€€Hopefully,€this€defendant€receivedÐ H˜ Ðsome€form€of€drug€rehabilitation€assistance€during€her€period€of€incarceration€in€the€Department€ofÐ . ~ ÐCorrection.- ù-(|G2µ_$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X9<X»»Ô d(|3ÖŠ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÖŠ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[ »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼[ »»»ÔÑ8€9<XXdæ»»d8Ñà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ ¾ ÐÔ‡X9<X»¼[ ÔÌò òÔ#†¼[ »XX9 Ž  ÐÌà@® ® ìàNo.€M1999„00161„CCA„R3„CD€€„€Ô_ÔDecidedÔ_Ô€July€12,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈР3ƒ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<þ` AßÐ ÿO  Ðó óÌThe€defendant€pled€guilty€in€Sequatchie€County€to€two€counts€of€selling€a€Schedule€II€substance€andÐ ôD  Ðwas€sentenced€to€confinement€for€four€years€and€six€months.€€After€serving€six€months,€she€wasÐ Ú*  Ðplaced€in€community€corrections.€€Subsequently,€an€affidavit€was€filed€by€her€probation€officer,Ð À Ðalleging€that€she€had€violated€her€Community€Services€Behavioral€Contract€in€several€ways,Ð ¦ö Ðincluding€ð ðbreaking€house€arrest.ðð€€Following€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€agreed€that€the€defendant€hadÐ ŒÜ Ðviolated€the€house€arrest€provision€of€the€contract€and€ordered€that€she€serve€the€remainder€of€herÐ r Ðsentence€with€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€defendant€timely€appealed,€alleging€that€the€trialÐ X¨ Ðcourt€improperly€considered€certain€evidence€and€that,€if€she€was€reconfined,€she€should€have€servedÐ >Ž Ðher€sentence€at€the€local€jail,€rather€than€with€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Based€upon€our€review,Ð $t Ðwe€reverse€the€order€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€for€a€new€revocation€hearing.Ð  Z ÐÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Reversed€andÐ Ö& ÐRemanded€for€a€New€Hearing.ó óÐ ¼  ÐÌòòÔ#†¼[ »àX9<ë#ÔÔ‡X9<X.¼[ ÔGlenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòRiley,€J.,€óójoined€and€òòWitt,€J.óó,€concurred€inÐ ˆØ Ðresults.Ð n¾ ÐÌPhilip€A.€Condra,€Public€Defender,€and€B.€Jeffrey€Harmon,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Jasper,Ð : Š  ÐTennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Joyce€Newman.Ð  !p! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Lucian€D.€Geise,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð ì"<# ÐJames€Michael€Taylor,€District€Attorney€General,€and€Steven€H.€Strain,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ Ò#"$ ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¸$ % ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼[ »XX9<³ #ÔÔ‡X9<X»¼[ ÔˆÐ „&Ô!' ÐÔ#†¼[ »XX9<˜ #ÔÔ‡X9<X»¼[ ÔÌÔ#†¼[ »XX9<ð #ÔÔ‡X9<X»¼[ Ôà  àThe€defendant,€Joyce€Newman,€appeals€as€of€right€from€a€judgment€of€the€Sequatchie€CountyÐ P( #) ÐCircuit€Court€revoking€her€community€corrections€sentence€and€requiring€her€to€serve€the€balanceÐ 6)†$* Ðof€her€sentence€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€The€defendant€pled€guilty€to€two€countsÐ *l%+ Ðof€selling€Schedule€II€controlled€substances.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ +R&, Ðrevoking€her€community€corrections€sentence€solely€on€the€basis€of€inadmissible€hearsay€testimonyÐ è+8'- Ðof€her€probation€officer,€thereby€violating€her€confrontation€rights.€The€defendant€argues€further€thatÐ Î,(. Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€requiring€that€she€serve€the€balance€of€her€four„year€sentence€in€theÐ ´-)/ý ÐDepartment€of€Correction€rather€than€in€the€local€jail€with€a€lesser€required€period€of€incarceration.€Ð ° ÐAfter€reviewing€the€entire€record,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€acceptance€of€the€testimony€ofÐ –æ Ðthe€probation€officer€as€to€the€instances€of€defendantððs€violations€of€house€arrest€without€explanationÐ |Ì Ðconcerning€the€unavailability€of€the€curfew€monitors€who€prepared€the€reports€or€proof€of€theÐ b² Ðreliability€of€the€reports€denied€the€defendant€of€her€right€to€confront€those€witnesses,€and€thereforeÐ H˜ Ðwas€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€We€remand€this€case€for€a€new€hearing€to€allow€the€defendant€to€cross„Ð . ~ Ðexamine€the€curfew€monitors.Ð  d ÐÌà@%ìàò òBACKGROUNDˆÐ à 0 ÐÌó óà  àOn€May€27,€1997,€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€the€sale€of€methamphetamine,€a€ScheduleÐ ¬ ü  ÐII€controlled€substance,€in€indictments€number€3647€and€number€3648.€€On€November€4,€1997,€theÐ ’â  Ðdefendant€pled€guilty€to€the€sale€of€methamphetamine€as€charged€in€indictment€3647,€and€on€JanuaryÐ xÈ  Ð1,€1998,€the€defendant€was€sentenced€to€four€years€and€six€months€as€a€Range€I€standard€offenderÐ ^®  Ðand€fined€$2,000.€€The€method€of€service€of€sentence€was€six€months€in€the€county€jail€and€fourÐ D”  Ðyears€in€community€corrections.€€On€January€30,€1998,€the€defendant€pled€guilty€to€the€sale€ofÐ *z  Ðmethamphetamine€as€charged€in€indictment€number€3648€and€received€a€sentence€duplicating€thatÐ ` Ðin€number€3647,€the€two€sentences€to€be€served€concurrently.€€During€the€window€of€time€between€Ð öF Ðthe€defendantððs€guilty€plea€in€case€number€3647€and€the€entry€of€judgment€in€that€case,€the€defendantÐ Ü, Ðwas€arrested€in€Grundy€County€for€possession€of€methamphetamine,€a€charge€which€resulted€in€aÐ Â Ðjury€conviction€that€was€ultimately€set€aside€for€lack€of€sufficient€evidence.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àOn€November€16,€1998,€a€community€corrections€violation€warrant€was€issued,€charging€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendant€with€violating€the€terms€of€her€community€corrections€sentence€by€ð ðnew€conviction€[theÐ Zª ÐGrundy€County€conviction,€later€set€aside],€not€making€payments,€not€reporting,€not€completingÐ @ Ðcommunity€service,€breaking€house€arrest,€and€testing€positive.ðð€€A€revocation€hearing€was€held€onÐ &v ÐDecember€18,€1998,€and€continued€to€January€4,€1999.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trialÐ  \ Ðcourt€stated€the€following:Ð òB ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAll€right,€this€is€just€a€„„€basically€boils€down€to€credibility€in€thisÐ ¾ Ðsituation.€€The€probation€officer€says€that€at€least€on€three€occasionsÐ ¤ô Ðthat€there€was€no€one€at€home€after€hours€without€any€permission.€Ð Š Ú ÐMs.€Newman€says€she€canððt€remember€when€those€three€nightsÐ p!À  Ðoccurred,€but€she€knows€for€sure€she€was€there.€€She€canððt€„„€she€canððtÐ V"¦! Ðbe€specific€about€it.€€As€far€as€the€Courtððs€concerned€thatððs€proofÐ <#Œ" Ðenough.€Ð"$r#` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€.Ðî%>!%` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Court€finds€that€she€failed€to€be€at€home€when€sheððs€supposed€toÐ º' #' Ðbe€at€home€by€a€preponderance€of€the€proof.€€The€Court€believes€theÐ  (ð#( Ðtestimony€of€the€probation€officer€over€the€probationer€in€this€case,Ð †)Ö$) Ðdetermines€that€she€violated€the€terms€of€her€release€and€therefore€thatÐ l*¼%* Ðshe€should€be€revoked€on€her€probation€for€failure€to€comply€with€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðrequirements€of€the€Community€Corrections.Ð8,ˆ',` x` x ЇOn€the€Probation€Revocation€Order,€the€trial€court€listed€ð ðviolating€house€arrestðð€as€the€only€groundsÐ ° Ðfor€revocation.€€The€Community€Corrections€Order€standard€form€included€the€following:Ð –æ ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ (5h83Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.à0¸ ` x` xàThe€defendant€shall€serve€120€days€of€house€arrest.€€UponÐ b² Ðsuccessful€completion€of€house€arrest,€the€defendant€shallÐ H˜ Ðabide€by€a€curfew.€€House€arrest€may€be€extended€orÐ . ~ Ðreinstated€by€the€Community€Corrections€Program€if€theÐ  d Ðdefendant€violates€any€program€rule.€€€€Ðú J¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àThe€proof€that€the€defendant€failed€to€be€at€home€on€the€seven€occasions€during€August,Ð Æ   ÐSeptember,€and€October,€1998,€was€offered€by€Sladjauna€Pope,€the€defendantððs€probation€officer.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐHer€testimony€was€dependant€on€the€reports€of€two€curfew€monitors€who€checked€on€the€defendantÐ ’â  Ðat€night.€€The€defense€objected€to€this€testimony€as€inadmissable€hearsay€that€denied€the€defendantÐ xÈ  Ðher€right€to€question€the€monitors€who€prepared€the€reports.€€Ms.€Pope€testified€in€the€followingÐ ^®  Ðexchange:Ð D”  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€€Why€donððt€you€list€just€the€dates?€€Itððs€hard€for€themÐ ` Ðto€respond€like€that.ÐöF` x` x ÐÌÓ*°,XƒX× –X°œX*ÓÓ€ (š½88Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à × àOkay.€€She€was€checked€twice€on€8/20/98€and€was€gone.€Ð  Ð9/22/98€she€was€not€at€home.€€Then€10/5,€10/13,€10/19,€10/26.Шø` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€Do€they€give€you€the€exact€hour€that€they€check?ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à × àYes,€exact€minute,€like€18:20.Ð@` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à × àFor€those€dates,€tell€the€Judge€what€time€they€checked€and€sheÐ  \ Ðwasnððt€home.ÐòB` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à × àOn€8/20€thatððs€when€it€has,€went€to€Taco€Bell.о` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à × àWhat€time?Њ Ú` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€19:05€and€19:52.ÐV"¦!` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€When€was€she€suppose€„€„€when€did€her€curfew€say€she€wasÐ "$r# Ðsuppose€to€be€home€that€particular€day?Ð%X $` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à × àShe€was€on€house€arrest€if€she€wasnððt€at€work.ÐÔ&$"&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à × àSo€she€wasnððt€suppose€to€be€anywhere?Р(ð#(` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à × àNo.€€If€sheððs€not€at€work€or€seeing€me€„€„Ðl*¼%*` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à × àSheððs€suppose€to€be€home€period?Ð8,ˆ',` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à × àYes.а` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à × àOkay.€€Go€to€your€next€date€and€tell€the€Judge€what€time€yððallÐ |Ì Ðchecked€and€she€wasnððt€there.Ðb²` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à × à9/22.€€It€was€18:20.€€And€then€10/5€it€was€20:30.€€10/13€it€wasÐ . ~ Ð18:25.€€10/19,€18:20,€and€10/26,€19:00.Ð d` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€Let€me€see€those€sheets€that€youððre€readingÐ à 0 Ðfrom?ÐÆ  ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à × àThose€are€what€the€curfew€monitor€provides€each€month.Ð’â ` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€testified€that€she€was€at€home€every€night€of€the€months€in€question.€€She€alsoÐ ^®  Ðoffered€as€an€explanation€for€the€monitorsðð€reports€the€fact€that€she€had€no€car€to€indicate€herÐ D”  Ðpresence€at€home;€her€rented€house€had€no€doorbell;€and€she€was€at€the€back€of€the€house€in€theÐ *z  Ðevenings€and€often€did€not€hear€someone€at€the€front€door.€€Her€daughter€corroborated€her€testimony.Ð ` ÐÌà@òò&ìàò òANALYSISˆÐ Ü, ÐÌà@  ìàA.€€Standard€of€ReviewˆÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àó óA€trial€judge€may€revoke€a€sentence€of€probation€or€a€suspended€sentence€upon€a€finding€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€defendant€violated€the€conditions€of€her€probation€or€suspended€sentence€by€a€preponderance€ofÐ Zª Ðthe€evidence.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(e)€(Supp.€1999)òòóó.€€Proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÐ @ Ðis€not€required,€but€proof€ð ðis€sufficient€if€it€allows€the€trial€judge€to€make€a€conscientious€andÐ &v Ðintelligent€judgment.ðð€€òòHarkinsóó€811€S.W.2d€at€82€(citing€òòState€v.€Miltonóó,€673€S.W.2d€555,€557Ð  \ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)).€€The€determination€whether€a€defendant€has€violated€conditions€of€herÐ òB Ðprobation€or€community€corrections€sentence€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€unless€it€appears€thatÐ Ø( Ðthere€has€been€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€(ð ðWe€are€persuaded€that€an€abuse€of€discretion€methodÐ ¾ Ðof€appellate€review€is€applicable€to€issues€which€address€the€revocation€of€a€community€correctionsÐ ¤ô Ðsentence.ðð).€€For€this€court€to€find€that€the€trial€court€has€abused€its€discretion€in€revoking€aÐ Š Ú Ðcommunity€corrections€sentence,€it€must€be€established€that€the€record€lacks€any€substantial€evidenceÐ p!À  Ðto€support€the€conclusions€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€946€S.W.2d€829Ð V"¦! Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(finding€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€revoking€probation€where€the€trial€courtÐ <#Œ" Ðhad€before€it€evidence€of€two€reliable€field€tests€positive€for€cocaine).Ð "$r# ÐÌà@aaìàò òB.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó ó€€€€€ò òˆÐ î%>!% ÐÐ Ô&$"& Ðó óà  àThe€defendant€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€to€prove€house€arrestÐ ° Ðviolations,€the€sole€basis€for€the€trial€courtððs€revocation€of€her€community€corrections€sentence,Ð –æ Ðthrough€inadmissible€hearsay€testimony€of€the€probation€officer€and€that€by€so€doing,€the€trial€courtÐ |Ì Ðdenied€the€defendant€€her€constitutional€right€to€confront€witnesses€against€her.€€The€State€contendsÐ b² Ðthat€the€defendant€did€not€question€the€reliability€of€the€reports€and€that€the€defendant€was€allowedÐ H˜ Ðto€cross„examine€the€probation€officer,€which€the€State€argues€met€confrontation€requirements.€€WeÐ . ~ Ðtreat€this€issue€as€one€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.Ð  d ÐÌà  àIt€is€settled€law€that€the€procedural€requirements€in€supervised€release€revocation€proceedings€Ð à 0 Ðare€less€stringent€than€those€employed€during€adversarial€criminal€trials.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Romanoóó,€471Ð Æ   ÐU.S.€606,€613,€105€S.Ct.€2254,€2258,€85€L.Ed.2d€636€(1985)€(noting€that€the€revocation€hearingÐ ¬ ü  Ðð ðdoes€not€require€the€full€panoply€of€procedural€safeguards€associated€with€criminal€trialðð);€òòBledsoe€Ð ’â  Ðv.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€553,€387€S.W.2d€811,€814€(1965)€(noting€that€ð ða€revocation€of€a€suspendedÐ xÈ  Ðsentence€does€not€require€the€quantum€of€proof€necessary€to€convict€one€of€a€crime€in€the€firstÐ ^®  Ðinstanceðð).€€Ð D”  ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€defendantððs€freedom€interest€is€conditional,€she€must€still€be€afforded€many€ofÐ ` Ðthe€core€values€of€unqualified€liberty€of€other€citizens.€€In€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778,€786,Ð öF Ð93€S.Ct.€1756,€1761„62,€36€L.Ed.2d€656€(1973),€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€established€the€minimumÐ Ü, Ðrequirements€of€due€process€in€probation€proceedings.€€Those€requirements€in€òòGagnonóó€duplicate€theÐ Â Ðrequirements€set€out€by€the€Supreme€Court€for€parole€revocation€procedures€a€year€earlier€inÐ ¨ø ÐòòMorrisey€v.€Breweróó,€and€include:Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€written€notice€of€the€claimed€violations€of€parole;€(b)€disclosureÐ Zª Ðto€the€parolee€of€evidence€against€him;€(c)€opportunity€to€be€heard€inÐ @ Ðperson€and€to€present€witnesses€and€documentary€evidence;€(d)€theÐ &v Ðright€to€confront€and€cross„examine€adverse€witnesses€(unless€theÐ  \ Ðhearing€officer€specifically€finds€good€cause€for€not€allowingÐ òB Ðconfrontation);€(e)€a€ð ðneutral€and€detachedðð€hearing€body€such€as€aÐ Ø( Ðtraditional€parole€board,€members€of€which€need€not€be€judicialÐ ¾ Ðofficers€or€lawyers;€and€(f)€a€written€statement€by€the€factfinders€asÐ ¤ô Ðto€the€evidence€relied€on€and€reasons€for€revoking€parole.Њ Ú` x` x ÐÌòòMorrissey€v.€Breweróó,€408€U.S.€471,€489,€92€S.Ct.€2593,€2604,€33€L.Ed.2d€484€(1972).€€TheÐ V"¦! ÐòòMorrisseyóó€Court€emphasized€that€ð ðthere€is€no€thought€to€equate€this€second€[final]€stage€of€paroleÐ <#Œ" Ðrevocation€to€a€criminal€prosecution€in€any€sense.€€It€is€a€narrow€inquiry;€the€process€should€beÐ "$r# Ðflexible€enough€to€consider€evidence€including€letters,€affidavits,€and€other€material€that€would€notÐ %X $ Ðbe€admissible€in€an€adversary€criminal€trial.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€€Ð î%>!% ÐÌà  àOur€supreme€court€has€determined€that€hearsay€evidence€is€admissible€at€a€probationÐ º' #' Ðrevocation€hearing,€thus€depriving€the€probationer€of€the€right€to€cross„examination,€when€minimumÐ  (ð#( Ðconfrontation€requirements€of€òòGagnonóó€are€met.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Wadeóó,€863€S.W.2d€406,€409€(Tenn.Ð †)Ö$) Ð1993)€(quoting€favorably€òòWilson€v.€Stateóó,€521€A.2d€1257,€1260„61€(Md.€App.€1987)).€€Those€includeÐ l*¼%* Ð(1)€a€specific€finding€by€the€trial€court€of€ð ðgood€causeðð€that€would€justify€the€denial€of€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðdefendantððs€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€an€adverse€witness;€and€(2)€a€showing€that€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðinformation€contained€in€the€report€is€reliable.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€at€409.€€The€òòWadeóó€court€concluded€that€theÐ ° Ðdrug€test€report€in€that€case€was€not€admissible€into€evidence€because€there€was€no€showing€of€goodÐ –æ Ðcause€to€justify€the€absence€of€the€technician€who€prepared€the€report,€and,€further,€that€even€hadÐ |Ì Ðthere€been€such€a€showing,€the€report€contained€no€ð ðsignificant€indicia€of€reliability.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€410.׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð b² ÐÌà  àHere,€the€defendant€challenged€the€reliability€of€the€reports€of€her€curfew€monitors€for€theÐ . ~ Ðmonths€of€August,€September,€and€October,€1998,€which€her€probation€officer€brought€to€theÐ  d Ðhearing.€€These€documents€were€not€entered€as€evidence,€but€the€record€indicates€that€the€trial€judgeÐ ú J Ðdid€look€at€them€and€found€them€to€be€reliable.€€The€testimony€of€the€probation€officer€reveals€onlyÐ à 0 Ðthe€barest€information€concerning€the€content€of€the€records€and€no€information€at€all€concerningÐ Æ   Ðtheir€reliability.€€The€State€provided€no€explanation€for€the€absence€of€the€monitors,€and€thus€the€trialÐ ¬ ü  Ðcourt€found€no€ð ðgood€causeðð€for€their€absence.€€The€defendant€was,€therefore,€denied€an€opportunityÐ ’â  Ðto€cross„examine€the€monitors€to€determine€exactly€what€sort€of€check€they€performed:€€whether€theyÐ xÈ  Ðmerely€knocked€once;€whether€they€circled€the€house€looking€for€lights;€whether€they€knocked€atÐ ^®  Ðthe€back€door;€whether€they€actually€located€the€defendant€at€the€Taco€Bell€as€the€cryptic€entry€readÐ D”  Ðby€the€probation€officer€seemed€to€imply;€and€whether€they€were€informed€of€problems€with€theÐ *z  Ðdefendantððs€ability€to€hear€knocking€at€her€front€door.׃"$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р` ÐÌà  à€We€conclude€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€before€the€trial€court€to€prove€the€violationÐ Ü, Ðof€the€defendantððs€community€corrections€sentence€solely€on€the€basis€of€seven€violations€of€houseÐ Â Ðarrest€in€August,€September,€and€October,€1998.€€Even€under€the€less€stringent€evidentiary€rulesÐ ¨ø Ðapplicable€to€revocation€hearings,€the€hearsay€testimony€of€the€probation€officer,€without€a€showingÐ ŽÞ Ðof€good€cause€for€the€absence€of€the€curfew€monitors€who€prepared€the€reports,€and€without€aÐ tÄ Ðshowing€of€the€reliability€of€the€records,€denied€the€defendant€of€her€right€to€confront€the€witnesses€Ð Zª Ðagainst€her€and€cross„examine€one€or€both€concerning€the€contested€issue€of€her€presence€at€homeÐ ° Ðwhen€seven€checks€were€carried€out.€€On€this€single€issue,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abusedÐ –æ Ðits€discretion.Ð |Ì ÐÌà@««ìàò òC.€€Excessive€PunishmentˆÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àó óThe€defendant€finally€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€requiring€that€she€serve€the€balanceÐ  d Ðof€her€community€corrections€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction€rather€than€in€the€local€jailÐ ú J Ðwith€some€lesser€amount€of€time€allocated€to€incarceration.€€Pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ à 0 ÐSection€40„36„106(e)(4),€following€the€revocation,€the€trial€judge€shall€have€the€right€to€resentenceÐ Æ   Ðthe€defendant€to€incarceration.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€defendant€serve€the€balance€of€herÐ ¬ ü  Ðfour„year€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction€in€accordance€with€the€original€judgment,Ð ’â  Ðallowing€her€credit€for€time€spent€in€community€corrections€and€any€time€spent€in€jail.€€HavingÐ xÈ  Ðdetermined€that€a€new€hearing€should€be€held,€this€issue€need€not€be€addressed;€nevertheless,€weÐ ^®  Ðdetermine€now€that€this€issue€is€without€merit€and€the€trial€court€acted€within€its€authority.׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€€€Ð D”  ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ ` ÐÌà  àó óIn€accordance€with€the€foregoing€analysis,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÐ Ü, Ðdiscretion€in€revoking€the€defendantððs€community€corrections€sentence€for€violations€of€house€arrestÐ Â Ðproven€solely€by€inadmissable€hearsay€evidence€that€denied€the€defendant€her€right€to€confrontÐ ¨ø Ðwitnesses€against€her.€€We€remand€for€a€new€hearing€in€light€of€this€opinion.€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ŽÞ Ðà  àÌà  àÔ#†¼[ »XX9<3 #ÔÔ‡X9<X»¼[ ÔÌà  àà ` àà × àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌÔ#†¼[ »XX9<Ç^#ÔÔ€X9<X»¼[ Ô