# FILED
September 4, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMIN AL APPEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE AUGUST 1997 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. # 03C0 1-9610-CC- 00382 Appellee, * BLOUN T COUN TY VS. * Hon. D. Ke lly Thom as, Jr., Ju dge STEVEN L. RAUHUFF, * (Probation R evocation) Appellant. *

For Appellant : For Appellee: Mack Garner Charles W. Burson Distric t Public Defender Attorney Gen eral & Repor ter 419 High Str

eet Maryv ille, TN 37801 Peter M. Coug hlan Assistant Attorney Gener al 450 James Roberts on Parkway Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 Philip Mor

ton Assistant D istrict A

ttorney Gener

al 363 Court Street Maryv ille, TN 37804

OPINION FILE D:__________________

AFFIRMED- -RULE 20 OR DER

PER CURIAM1 The record i ndicat es thatthe def endant was gi ven ful l pr obati on because hi s sentence was co ns ec utiv e to a s ec on d, u nr ela ted se nte nc e s er ve d in cu sto dy. 2 OPINION The defendant, Steve R auhuff, appeals as of rig ht the judgment of the Blou nt County C ircuit Co urt revok ing his pr obation. Decl ared a habitual motor vehicle offender, the defendant was convicted of violations of the order in 1992 an d 1993 and served a portion of both sentences in custody. I n 1994, the defendant was again conv icted of viol ating the or der and sentenced to full probation 1 . He filed thi s appeal. While released on probation in th is case, the d efendant was charged wit h a fourth viol ation of the habitual motor

vehicle offender order and w ith resist ing arrest. Thereafter, the tri al court rev oked probation.
When a probation revocation is challeng ed, the appellate courts have a limi ted scope of rev iew. If the t rial judg e finds by a preponderance of the evidence "that the defendant has v iolated the condi tions of his pr obation," probation may be revoked. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-311(d). Thi s decision to revoke a

suspended sentence rests in the sound discret ion of the trial court. The Sentenc ing Commiss ion Comments to Sec tion 40-35-310 p rovide that "[u]pon revocation, the or iginal s entence imposed can be placed into effect." T he determination by the trial court, if conscientiously made, is entitled to an aff irmance; the record must me rely demonstrate that there is substantial ev idence to suppor t its concl usions. State v. Delp , 614 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1980); see also State v. Williamson , 619 S.W.2d 145, 147 (Tenn. Crim. Ap p. 1981). On appeal, the findings of the trial court are entitled to the weig ht of a jury verdict, and the appellant has the burden to demonstrate that therecord contai ns no substantia l evidenceto support the3 finding of the tri al court that a violati on of the conditions of probation has occurred. State v. W all , 909 S.W.2d 8,9-10 (Tenn. Crim. A pp. 1994); Stat e v. Harkins , 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). Up on a violat ion of the terms of probation, "the tr ial judge shall havethe right by order d uly enteredupon the minutes of [the] court, to revoke the probation and susp ension of senten ce and cause the defendant to commence the exec ution of the judgment as original ly entered, or otherw ise in accor dance with § 40-35-310 .... " Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 311(d).

In our view, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked the appellant's probatio n and ordered his incarceration. Th e record supports the tr ial court' s findings that the defendant had not compl ied with the terms of his prob ation by ( 1) failing to pay fees w hen employed; (2) failing to pay court costs when employed; (3) failing to attend required AA m eetings; and (4) failing to perform his required com munity service. The trial court did not consider t he defendant's pendingcharges as a basis for the revocatio n.
Accordingl y, the judg ment of the trial court is affirmed pur suant to Rule 20 of the Tenness ee Court of Cri minal Appeals.

PER CURIAM