### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE (Assigned

on Briefs at Jackson

Septem ber 10, 200 2) STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RANDY TYRONE CRAWFORD

Criminal Court for Sumner County

No. 656-1999

No. M2001-03063-CCA-R3-CD Filed Oct ober 11, 2002

ORDER The Appellant, Randy Ty rone Crawford, appeals from the order of t he Sumner

County Criminal Court rev oking hisprobatio n and ord ering h imto serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial cou rt pursuantto Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. On December 3, 1999, the Appellant pled guilty to one count of sale of cocaine under .5 grams, a class C felony. The Appe llantre ce iv ed a s ix -ye ar se nt en ce of sp li t c on fi ne me nt , n in et y da ys to be served in confinement and the balance on

supervis ed proba

tion. The A

ppellant subseque ntly violated the conditions of his probation and was transferred to the Department of Correction, where he was placed

in the Special Alternative Unit Prog ram, com monly known as t

he boot ca mp progr am. Following completion of the program, the Appe llant was again placed on supervised proba tion. On June 20, 2001, a probation violation warrant was issued alleging that the Appe llant had again violated the terms and conditions of his probation by: (1)failing to secure an d v erify employ ment; (2) failing to report once a week since May 30, 2001; (3) using crack cocaine on or about May 30, 2001; and (4) failing to perform public service work hours a s instructed. A revoca tion hearin g was conduct ed on November 5, 2001. The following colloquy occurred at the he aring b etween

the assist ant distri ct attorney

gener al and the Appellan t: Q. This isn’t t

he first v iolation w arrant

that has b een file d again st you, is it, Mr. Crawford? A. No, sir. Q. Last we were he

re in this very room, Judge Whea tcraft ordered you to serve y

our sentence and revoked y our probation. Is that true? A. Yes, sir. Q. You went through boot camp? A. Yes, sir.-2- Q. Well, seven months later we’re back here in cour t. Seven months af te r yo ur re le as e f

ro m b oo t c am p, an d M s. Th ar p’ s w ar ra nt sa ys basically y

ou didn’t report, didn’t provide proof of employ ment, and didn’t provide proof of the public service work, and y ou were us ing drug s? A. Yes, sir. At the clo se of the

hearing , the tria

l court e ntered t he following find

ings: THE COURT : This def endant ha s a long a

nd tortur ed histor y w ith this Court. I know him. He has been on proba tion a number of times and, unfortunately, ne

ver successfully . He has certainly no spirit of cooperation with any prog

ram that we have tried to place him in. He does have a hist ory of vio lence. . . . Hi s prob ation is rev oked yet aga in, an d I’m goin g to send him

to the Ten

nessee D epartme

nt of Corr ections. A trial court

retains t he discr etion torevoke a sentence of probation and c ause execution of the origina

l judgme nt as it wa s entere d, upon a f inding by a preponderanc e of the e vidence , that a defendant has violated the conditions of probation. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-310, -311(d) (1997). The trial court’s decision to revoke probation will be reviewed unde r an abuse of discretion standard, State v. Harkins , 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991), and will not be disturbed if the evidence shows that the trial judge has exercised “conscientious and intellige nt judgment in making the decision rather than acting arbitrarily.” State v. Leach , 914 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (citing Stamps v. State , 614 S.W.2d 7 1, 73 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1980), perm . to appeal denied , (Tenn. 1981)). On appeal, the Appel la nt argu es that the trial cou rt faile d to exerc ise “con scientiou s & intelligent

judgment” in finding by

a preponderance of the

evidence that the Appellant violated the terms and cond

itio ns of hi s probati on. This a rgumen t is without m

erit. We f

ind the record fully supports the trial court’s action. Therefore, the judg ment of the Sumner Cou

nty Criminal Court is a

ffirmed in accorda

nce with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Costs are taxed to the State.

____________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

______ ______________

________________

_ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE

____________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE