WPC 0# UN %  0(7w@?4 0J 0T 0^@ 0h 0r 0|x 0 0z 1u  0d AQ4 0D 0@> 0D~ U> D/ B/ BL D3i U* B) DC AM2  v~ vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ U U EDDgӀn~<$dddd3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  <  9p`(&Times New Roman''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd "+C << G !$  !"  ))   YYY FILED)X June4,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.)AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ellan Geneva  ellan Geneva ! . $     )\RA'\ћ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE ٜR,-+A1-j|V`  `@Rߛ@ @ ATJACKSON@ MARCH1998SESSION  STATEOFTENNESSEE ,   )      ) NO.02C019707CC00236  Appellant,    )      ) MADISONCOUNTY v.      )      ) HONORABLEWHITLAFON, ERICDEFORRESTWHORTON,  ) JUDGE       )  Appellee.    ) (RevocationofProbation) FORTHEAPPELLANT:    FORTHEAPPELLEE:JOHNKNOXWALKUP    CLIFFORDK.MCGOWN,JR. AttorneyGeneral&Reporter   AttorneyatLaw       113NorthCourtSquare       Waverly,TN37185         (AppealOnly) KENNETHW.RUCKER AssistantAttorneyGeneral   STEPHENP.SPACHER 425FifthAvenue,North    AssistantPublicDefenderNashville,TN372430493    227WestBaltimoreStreet       Jackson,TN38301 JAMESG.WOODALL     (TrialOnly)DistrictAttorneyGeneral       OFCOUNSEL: JAMESW.THOMPSON     GEORGEMORTONGOOGE AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral  DistrictPublicDefenderP.O.Box2825     227BaltimoreStreetJackson,TN383022825    Jackson,TN38301 OPINIONFILED:________________________________AFFIRMED JOEG.RILEY, JUDGE   ) 7XdXXd7ќOPINION   )X Theappellant,StateofTennessee(state),appealsasofrightfromajudgmentofthetrialcourtdenyingitspetitiontofullyrevoketheprobationofthedefendant,EricDeforrestWhorton.InthisCourt,thestatecontendsthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionby failingtorevokethedefendantsprobation.Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,itistheopinionofthisCourtthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtshouldbeaffirmed.@ I. OnJanuary30,1989,thedefendantenteredapleaofguiltytotheoffenseofarmedrobbery.Thetrialcourtsentencedthedefendanttoten(10)yearspursuanttoapleaagreement.OnNovember9,1989,anagreedorderwasenteredcorrectingtheoffensetosimplerobberyratherthanarmedrobbery.Onthesamedatethetrialcourtsuspendedthedefendantssentenceandplacedhimonintensiveprobationforthebalanceofhissentence. OnJune6,1990,aprobationviolationreportwasfiled.Therecordisunclearastowhetheranarrestwarrantwasissuedshortlythereafter.However,anarrestwarrantwasissuedonAugust9,1996,allegingthedefendantabscondedonoraboutMay23,1990.Anotherarrestwarrantwassubsequentlyissued,anddefendantwastakenintocustodyonJanuary7,1997.Thewarrantsessentiallyallegedthatthedefendantabscondedfromsupervisionin1990,failedtopayappropriatefeesandcostsanddidnotreportasordered. ThetrialcourtheldanevidentiaryhearingonMarch19,1997.TheprobationofficerestablishedthatthedefendantlastreportedonMarch29,1990.Subsequently,thedefendantleftMadisonCountyandtheStateofTennesseewithoutpermission.Thedefendantmadenoefforttocontactorreporttotheprobationofficerafterleavingthestate.̜Furthermore,thedefendantdidnotpaythecostsandfeeswhichtheprobationorderrequired. Thedefendanttestifiedduringthehearing.Hestatedhelivedwithanelderlycouple.Themanaccusedhimof messingaroundwithhiswife.Accordingtothedefendant,he wasscared...tocomebackhereandappearbefore[thetrialjudge]andgoingtojailonthis,soImadeabaddecision.ThedefendantlefttheStateofTennesseeandwenttoIllinois.ThedefendantfurtherstatedhehadbeenconvictedinIllinoisoftwofelonythefts,servedtimethere,andwasonIllinoisprobationonthedateofthehearing.@ II. Therulingofthetrialcourtissomewhatconfusingsincethetrialjudgestatedhewas goingtorevokehisparolehere,andImgoingtogivehimtimeservedandlethimgotoIllinois(emphasisadded).Uponfurtherquestioningbytheprosecutor,thetrialcourtclarifiedthatthedefendantwasbeingplacedbackonprobation.Althoughnotstatedintheseterms,theessenceofthetrialcourtsrulingwasthat:(1)thedefendantviolatedthetermsofhisprobation;(2)apartialrevocationwasordered;(3)defendantwascreditedwithtimeservedfromthedateofhisarrestonJanuary7,1997,throughthedateofthehearingonMarch19,1997,withnootherjailtimerequired;and(4)defendantwasplacedbackonregularprobationforthebalanceofthesentence.@ III. Thestatecontendsthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionandshouldhavefullyrevokedprobation.Revocationofprobationissubjecttoanabuseofdiscretionstandardofreview,ratherthanadenovostandard.Statev.Harkins,811S.W.2d79(Tenn.1991).Discretionisabusedonlyiftherecordcontainsnosubstantialevidencetosupporttheconclusionofthetrialcourtthataviolationofprobationhasoccurred.Id.;Statev.Gregory,946S.W.2d829,832(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).Proofofaviolationneednotbeestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubt,andtheevidenceneedonlyshowthatthetrialjudgeexercisedaconscientiousandintelligentjudgment,ratherthanactingarbitrarily.Statev.Gregory,946S.W.2dat832;Statev.Leach,914S.W.2d104,106(Tenn.Crim.App.1995). AlmostallappealstothisCourtfromprobationrevocationshavebeenbydefendants.Thiscaseisuniqueinthatitinvolvesanappealbythestate.Nevertheless,thestandardofreviewbythisCourtisthesame.However,wenoteinthiscasethattheissueisnotwhethertherewassufficientevidencetowarrantarevocation.Clearly,therewassufficientevidence.Thetrialcourtdid,infact,partiallyrevokeprobation.Therefore,therealissueinthiscaseiswhetherthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninfailingtoorderatotalrevocation.@ IV. Theessenceofthestatesargumentisthatthedefendantreceived absolutelynopunishmentforhisrobberyconviction.OurreviewoftherecordindicatesthatthedefendantwasincarceratedfromatleastJanuary30,1989,thedateofhisoriginalsentence,untilNovember9,1989,thedatethesuspensionwasgranted.InadditionthedefendantwasincarceratedfromJanuary7,1997,whenhewasarrestedontheprobationviolationwarrant,throughthedateofthehearingonMarch19,1997.Thetrialcourtapparentlyconcludedthatthepartialrevocation,whichrecognizedthetimeservedfromthedateofhisarrestontheprobationwarrantuntilthedateofthehearing,wasasufficientsanctionunderallthecircumstances.AlthoughthisCourtmayormaynothavedonethesamething,wearenotatlibertytosimplysubstituteourjudgmentforthatofthetrialcourt.Wehaveabuseofdiscretionreview,notdenovoreview.Wedonotfindthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninorderingthepartialrevocationinsteadofafullrevocation. Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.     _____________________________________     JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE CONCUR:_______________________________GARYR.WADE,PRESIDINGJUDGE______________________________JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE $