ÿWPC* 0 %°w@¶ 0ÜöU:Ò4  / 0 7 0DW 0J› 0Tå 0^9 0h— 0rÿ 0|q 0†í 0s 1u 0dx U *Ü B AQ# Æt 0D: 0@~ 0D¾ B) D/+DCZ B D3º AMíÎ:]tev~ÙvÓWX 01E23E45E67D8+9Ó€(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularÌqæ$3|xD(Ð(3„ $¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€|¤XXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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`(Arial d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó% Line 7 d(('÷ÿ dxd%%%%7Border 1ddüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd!#'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÄÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òAu…gustÏ14,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó SÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À|¤XXdæXXdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAt€the€revocation€hearing,€the€case€officer€and€the€trial€court€referred€to€the€appellantððsÏresidence€as€the€ð ðarrest€house.ððÌ jÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóOur€supreme€court€has€equated€a€Community€Corrections€sentence€with€one€ofÏprobation€in€terms€of€the€same€principles€being€applicable€when€deciding€whether€a€revocation€ofÏthe€sentence€was€proper.€€òòState€v.€Parkeróó,€No.€02C01„9111„CC„00245€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏJackson,€Feb.€9,€1994)€(citing€òòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€83).€€Thus,€the€same€due€process€concernsÏexpressed€in€òòWadeóó€exist€within€the€revocation€of€a€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€òòIdóó.ÌPtPtHHÚ(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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÙ€!Ùò òßR€*+'A1-j|` e `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àJUNE€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9710„CR„00432Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Gary€D.€Gerbitz,€JudgeÌœRODNEY›€E.€SMART,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Revocation€of€CommunityÌà àAppellantà àà àà à)à àCorrections)ÌÌÌó óÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òArdena€J.€Garthó óà àà àò òà àà àJohn€Knox€Walkupó óÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌà àÌò òDonna€Robinson€Milleró óà àà àà àò òClinton€J.€Morganó óÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà à710€Cherry€Streetà àà àà àà àCriminal€JusticeÏDivisionÌChattanooga,€TN€€37402à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Cox€IIIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€Dennyó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€300,€Courts€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€€37402ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Rodney€E.€Smart,€appeals€the€revocation€of€his€CommunityÏCorrections€sentence€by€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court.€€FollowingÏrevocation,€the€trial€court€reinstated€the€appellantððs€effective€sentence€of€eight€yearsÏin€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€appellant€argues€thatÏthe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€relying€on€unreliable€hearsay€evidence€toÏsupport€the€revocation.ÌÌà àAfter€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌà@ àò òBackgroundó óÌÌà àOn€March€25,€1996,€the€appellant€entered€guilty€pleas€to€four€counts€of€theÏsale€of€cocaine€and€received€an€effective€eight€year€sentence.€€On€March€27,€1996,Ïthe€court€placed€the€appellant€in€the€Hamilton€County€Community€CorrectionsÏProgram.€€Six€months€later,€the€appellant€tested€positive€for€cocaine€use€whichÏconstituted€a€violation€of€the€ð ðCourtððs€Guidelines€and€Regulations.ðð€The€appellantÏsuccessfully€argued€that€the€positive€drug€screen€results€arose€from€ð ðpassiveÏinhalation.ðð€€Although€the€court€initially€removed€the€appellantððs€ð ðassignmentðð€toÏCommunity€Corrections,€the€court€reconsidered€and€reinstated€the€CommunityÍCorrections€sentence.€€Subsequently,€in€February€1997,€as€a€result€of€a€secondÏpositive€drug€screen€and€leaving€the€ð ðarrest€houseðð× ƒ, ××  ×€without€permission,€theÏappellant€was€again€charged€with€violating€conditions€of€the€CommunityÏCorrections€program.€€A€revocation€hearing€was€held€on€March€10,€1997.ÌÌà àAt€the€revocation€hearing,€the€State€presented€the€testimony€of€David€Gann,Ïthe€Community€Corrections€case€officer€assigned€to€supervise€€the€appellant.€ÏGann€testified€that€the€appellant€suffered€from€a€heart€condition€and€was€requiredÏto€take€numerous€medications.€€On€February€24,€Gann,€the€appellant€€and€GannððsÏsupervisor,€Wright,€met€to€discuss€the€appellantððs€medical€condition€and€his€workÏstatus.€€During€this€conference,€Gann€requested€a€drug€screen,€but€the€appellantÏwas€unable€to€provide€a€specimen€as€he€had€completed€a€drug€screen€earlier€thatÏday€at€his€health€care€facility.€€The€appellant€returned€on€February€28th€andÏprovided€a€specimen€for€testing.€€ð ðOn€March€the€5th,€the€drug€screen€.€.€.€wasÏreturned€positive€for€cocaine€use.ðð€€When€confronted€with€the€positive€drug€screen,Ïthe€appellant€informed€Gann€that€ð ðthere€was€a€possibility€that€he€had,€you€know,Ïhad€passive€contact€with€[cocaine]€.ðð€€Gann€explained€that€the€ð ðcutoffðð€point€is€set€atÏ150€nanograms€per€milliliter€to€prevent€passive€intake€from€resulting€in€a€falseÏpositive.€€Nonetheless,€Gann€stated€that€another€condition€of€the€CommunityÏCorrections€program€was€that€the€appellant€not€associate€with€drug€users€or€beÍaround€drugs€while€they€are€being€used.€€Gann€also€testified€regarding€anÏadditional€violation€that€occurred€on€March€1st.€€Specifically,€the€appellant,€ð ðat€1:45Ïp.m.,€left€the€ð ðarrest€houseðð€without€permission€of€the€on„call€officer€and€returned€atÏ3:38€p.m.ðð€€The€only€witness€called€by€the€State€was€Case€Officer,€Gann,€whoÏintroduced€into€evidence€a€copy€of€the€lab€report€from€the€February€28th€drugÏscreen.ÌÌà àIn€his€own€defense,€the€appellant€took€the€stand€and€adamantly€denied€anyÏuse€of€cocaine.€€The€appellant€explained€that€the€positive€drug€screen€was€theÏresult€of€passive€intake€which€occurred€the€preceding€Monday€when€he€was€givenÏa€ride€by€his€aunt€and€her€boyfriend,€who€were€at€the€time€smoking€cocaine.€€WhenÏthe€appellant€realized€what€they€were€doing,€he€demanded€to€be€let€out€of€the€car.€ÏThe€appellant€further€contended€that€his€doctors€had€been€switching€hisÏmedications;€he€indicated€that€the€medications€could€have€resulted€in€a€falseÏpositive€drug€screen.€€ÌÌHe€also€asserted€that€his€drug€screens€completed€by€his€health€care€facility€onÏFebruary€24€and€26th€were€negative.à àÌÌà àRegarding€his€unexplained€absence€from€his€ð ðarrest€house,ðð€the€appellantÏstated€that€he€left€to€pay€his€telephone€bill.€€While€he€was€out€of€the€house,€heÏtelephoned€Mr.€Stanson,€the€officer€on€call,€and€notified€him€that€he€had€left€theÍhouse€in€order€to€pay€his€telephone€bill.€€Mr.€Stanson€instructed€the€appellant€toÏimmediately€return€to€the€house.€€The€appellant€essentially€conceded€that€he€hadÏnever€obtained€permission€before€leaving€his€house.Ìà àÌà àBased€on€this€evidence,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€appellant€€violated€theÏconditions€of€his€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€Specifically,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€appellant€left€his€ð ðarrest€houseðð€without€permission€and€that€he€testedÏpositive€on€a€drug€screen.ÌÌà@ àò òAnalysisó óÌÌà àIn€his€sole€issue,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€by€considering€unreliable€hearsay€evidence€to€justify€revoking€theÏappellantððs€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€Specifically,€relying€on€òòState€v.ÏWadeóó,€863€S.W.2d€406€(Tenn.€1993),€the€appellant€argues€that€his€due€processÏrights€were€violated€in€that€(1)€the€lab€report€was€not€reliable€because€the€labÏtechnician€was€not€presented€as€a€witness;€and€(2)€Mr.€Stanson€was€not€called€toÏtestify€as€to€the€March€1st€events.ÌÌà à€The€State€responds€that€the€appellant€has€waived€any€challenge€to€hisÏrevocation€because€he€failed€to€include€a€complete€record€of€the€revocationÏproceedings.€€Specifically,€the€State€complains€that€the€appellant€failed€to€includeÍthe€petition€for€revocation,€the€report€of€the€Community€Corrections€case€officer,€orÏthe€lab€report.€€We€acknowledge€that€it€is€the€appellantððs€duty€to€ensure€that€theÏrecord€on€appeal€contains€all€of€the€evidence€relevant€to€those€issues€which€areÏthe€bases€of€the€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Worleyóó,€No.€03C01„9608„CR„00322€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€at€Knoxville,€Aug.€29,€1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994)€(citingÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874€S.W.2d€73,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);ÏòòState€v.€Gladishóó,€No.€02C01„9404„CC„00070€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,ÏNovember€21,€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€May€6,€1996)).€€However,€inÏthe€present€case,€it€does€not€appear€that€these€items€were€ever€included€as€part€ofÏthe€official€record.€€We€admonish€counsel€to€prepare€a€complete€record,€however,Ïin€this€instance,€we€do€not€find€this€evidence€essential€to€a€fair€and€completeÏdetermination€of€the€issues€raised€by€the€appellant€on€appeal.€€As€such,€we€elect€toÏproceed€with€our€review.ÌÌà àAlthough€a€revocation€hearing€is€characterized€as€an€informal€proceedingÏduring€which€an€accused€is€not€entitled€to€ð ðthe€full€panoply€of€proceduralÏsafeguards€associated€with€a€criminal€trial,ðð€certain€basic€rights€are€still€required.€ÏòòSeeóó€€€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778,€786,€93€S.Ct.€1756,€1761„1762€(1993);ÏòòBlack€v.€Romanoóó,€471€U.S.€606,€613,€105€S.Ct.€2254,€2258,€òòrehððg€deniedóó,€473€U.S.Ï921,€105€S.Ct.€3548€(1985);€òòWadeóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€408.€€Due€process€requires€(1)Ïwritten€notice€of€the€violation€be€provided;€(b)€disclosure€of€evidence€that€supportsÏthe€alleged€violation;€(c)€the€opportunity€to€be€heard€and€present€evidence;€(d)€theÍright€to€confront€and€cross„examine€witnesses;€(e)€a€neutral€and€detachedÏfactfinder;€and€(f)€a€written€statement€by€the€finder€of€fact€as€to€the€evidence€reliedÏon€and€the€reasons€for€revoking€the€€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€òòWadeóó,€863ÏS.W.2d€at€408€(citing€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€at€786,€93€S.Ct.€at€1761„62)).× ƒ- ××  ×ÌÌÌà àIn€addition€to€these€constitutional€safeguards,€the€State€bears€the€burden,€inÏa€revocation€proceeding,€of€establishing€the€violation(s)€alleged€in€the€notice€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,€82€(Tenn.€1991).€ÏThe€State€may€introduce€hearsay€and€documentary€evidence€at€the€revocationÏhearing,€provided€that€the€State€prove€to€the€satisfaction€of€the€trial€court€that€suchÏevidence€is€reliable.€€òòState€v.€Rayóó,€No.€01C01„9501„CR„00022€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏNashville,€Aug.€4,€1995)(citing€òòWadeóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€409„410;€òòState€v.€Rickeróó,€875ÏS.W.2d€687,€688€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)).€The€trial€court€retains€the€discretion€toÏdetermine€whether€the€accused€has€violated€the€conditions€of€the€CommunityÏCorrections€sentence.€€òòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€82;€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€810€S.W.2dÏ733,€735€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€If€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€violationÏof€the€condition(s)€and€the€trial€court,€exercising€its€discretion,€decides€to€revoke€theÍCommunity€Corrections€sentence,€the€court€must€place€its€findings€of€fact€and€theÏreasons€for€the€revocation€on€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Hardyóó,€No.€02C01„9503„CC„00074€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Feb.€7,€1996);€òòRayóó,€No.€01C01„9501„CR„00022€(citing€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€at€786,€93€S.Ct.€at€1761„62).€€OnÏappeal,€the€reviewing€court€must€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€absent€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion,€òòi.e.óó,€ð ðthe€record€contains€no€substantial€evidence€to€support€theÏconclusion€of€the€trial€[court]€that€a€violation€of€the€conditions€.€.€.€has€occurred.ðð€ÏòòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€82.Ìà à€€€€Ìà àAgain,€the€appellant,€relying€upon€òòState€v.€Wadeóó,€alleges€a€denial€of€dueÏprocess.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€State,€by€not€presenting€theÏtestimony€of€the€lab€technician€who€performed€the€drug€screen€or€the€actual€labÏreport,€failed€to€prove€the€reliability€of€that€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòWadeóó,€863€S.W.2d€atÏ409.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€did€not€make€a€ð ðfinding€of€good€cause€and€proof€ofÏreliability€of€the€test€reportðð€to€justify€denying€the€appellantððs€right€to€confront€andÏcross„examine€the€adverse€witness,€the€lab€technician.€€òòSeeóó€€òòWadeóó,€863€S.W.2d€atÏ409.€€The€State€offered€no€explanation€as€to€why€the€lab€technician€was€notÏpresented€as€a€witness.€€Nor€did€the€State€present€any€proof€indicating€theÏreliability€of€the€report,€òòe.g.óó,€technicianððs€qualifications,€method€of€testing€used,Ïscientific€reliability€of€the€method€used,€and€whether€the€testing€was€conductedÏunder€established€and€reliable€procedures.€€òòParkeróó,€No.€02C01„9111„CC„00245.€ÏòòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€946€S.W.2d€829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(findingÍno€denial€of€due€process€because€affidavit€admitted€to€support€reliability€of€labÏreport).€€Thus,€the€results€of€the€drug€screen€introduced€by€the€CommunityÏCorrections€case€officer€must€be€deemed€unreliable.€€òòSeeóó€€òòParkeróó,€No.€02C01„9111„CC„00245€(citing€òòWadeóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€409„410).€€Accordingly,€revocation€ofÏthe€appellantððs€Community€Corrections€sentence€based€upon€the€February€28thÏdrug€screen€violated€due€process€under€our€state€constitution.€€òòSeeóó€€òòParkeróó,€No.Ï02C01„9111„CC„00245.à àÌÌà àNotwithstanding€our€finding€of€the€due€process€violation€regarding€theÏpositive€drug€screen,€we€find€that€no€such€violation€is€attributed€to€the€secondÏviolation,€òòi.e.óó,€the€appellantððs€absence€from€his€ð ðarrest€houseðð€without€permission.€ÏSpecifically,€the€appellant€admitted€that€he€had€left€his€house€without€permission.€ÏOnly€after€the€appellant€had€already€left€the€residence€did€he€call€the€on„duty€caseÏofficer.€€Thus,€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Stanson€was€unnecessary.€€The€trial€court,€in€itsÏfindings€of€fact,€observed:ÌÓÓà8 àNow,€itððs€my€understanding€from€the€testimony€that€he€didnððt€getÏpermission€to€be€out€of€the€arrest€house€but€he€contacted€when€heÏwas€out€of€the€arrest€house,€he€contacted€someone€and€they€said€goÏback€to€the€house.€€Thatððs€different€than€getting€permission€to€leave.ÌÓÓÌà àWe€find€that€substantial€evidence€exists€indicating€that€the€appellant€left€theÏð ðarrest€houseðð€without€permission€thereby€violating€a€condition€of€his€CommunityÏCorrections€sentence.€€We€also€believe€the€record€contains€sufficient€evidenceÍwhich€permitted€the€trial€court€to€make€an€intelligent€and€conscientious€decision.€ÏBased€on€the€evidence,€we€conclude€that€it€was€within€the€discretionary€authority€ofÏthe€trial€judge€to€revoke€the€appellantððs€sentence€and€require€the€appellant€to€serveÏthe€sentences€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€ÌÌà àFor€these€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€Judge