### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 15, 200 4
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JOEL OL IN KN IGHT

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for P utnam C ounty

No. 02-0458 Lillie Ann S ells, Jud ge

No. M2003- 01751-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Janau ry 19, 2005

On appe al, the def

endant a sserts a br eac h of due pro ce s s b ased on the absenc e of the violation
war rant fr om the rec ord at the time of his probation violation hearing

. Af t er ca re fu l revie w, we c on c lud e that a

c op y of the wa rr a nt w a s a dmi ssi ble , u nd e r T e nn e sse e Rul e of Ev ide nc e 10 03 , to prove the defe ndant had notice of the c laimed violations and the evide nce a g ainst him. W e af firm the jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

Joe L . M c L e rr a n, Coo ke vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e llant, Joel Ol in Knig ht.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; John H. B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Gen e ra l; Wil liam Edward G ibson, District Attorney Gene ral; and B enjamin W. Fann, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F acts and P roce dural Hi story

Th is ap pe a l ar ise s fr om the tr ia l cou rt ’s or de r wh ic h re vo ke d the pr ob a tio n of the de fe nd a nt, J oel Olin Knig ht, and re instated his eleven month, twenty -nine day sentenc e for evading arr est. The defe ndant’s sole c ontention on appea l is that the abse nce of the violation warr ant from the r ecor d at the time of trial violates the dic tates of due proce ss. We are not persua ded bythis arg ument, thus we
a ff ir m th e fi nd ing s a ndse nte nc e imp os e d b y the tria l c ou rt

. As the first of two w itnesses wer e called at the probation violation he aring , the def endant’ s probation off

icer testified that he had supervised the defe ndant’s probation and had filed a violation-2-

war rant, whic h was iss ued and signe d on April 23, 2003. Although no w arr ant was pr esent in the file at the time of he aring , the court noted that the probation officer had in his possession a copy of the aff idavit and war

rant. The copy

showed pe rsonal service wa s made on the de fendant on May 8, 2003, and the c ourt noted this fac t; upon reque st of t he court, the cler k confirme d the date of

service

. T h e c o u rtal s o re q u es t ed t h att h e d o cu m en t b e co p i ed an d at t ac h ed t o t h e fi l e f o l l o wi n g t h e h ea ri n g. I n response , the def

ense c ounsel noted for

the re cord that the orig inal war rant was not present in the fi le ; how e ve r, he ma de no c ha lle ng e a s to the auth e nti c ity of the do c ume nt re lie d u po n b y the c ou rt

. Upon hea ring the testimony

of the probation officer

and the a rre sting off

icer , the trial court found by a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e that the de fendant had violated his p ro bation and thus
re ins ta te d h is o ri g inal se nte nc e fo r e va din g arr e st. Th e de fe nd a nt n ow app e a ls t o th is C ou rt

. Ana lys is

Th is C ou rt

ha s a do pte d sev e ra l fa c tor s, pr e vio us ly a nn ou nc e d b y

the Un ite d St a te s Su pr e me Cou rt in G a g no n v . Sc arp e lli , 4 11 U. S. 7 78 , 7 86 , 9 3 S. Ct. 17 56 , 1 76 1 ( 19 73 ), re qu isi te to e sta bli sh t h e “ m i n i m u mre q u i re m en t s o f d u e p ro ce s s ” i n a p ro b at i o n re v o ca t i o n p ro ce ed i n g: (a) written notice of

the claimed violations of [probation or] parole; (b ) dis c los ur e to the [pr ob a tio ne r o r] p aro le e of e vid e nc e a g a ins t hi m; (c) opportunity

to be hea rd in person and to prese nt witnesses and doc umentary evidenc e; (d) the rig ht to c onfront and cross-e x amine adver se witnesses (unless the hea ring office r spec ifically

finds g ood cause for not allowing confr ontation); (e) a ‘ neutral and detac hed’ he aring body such as a

traditional parole board, members of

which nee d not be judicial offic ers or lawy ers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinder s as t o the evidenc e re lied on and re asons for r evoking [probation or] parole. State v. Shawn M. Br ooks, No. M2001-02358-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 Te nn. Crim. App. LEXI S 622, at *8-9 (T enn. Crim. App., at Na shville, J uly 29, 2002) app. denied ( Tenn. 2002) ( quoting Ga g non v. Scarpe lli, 411 U.S. at 786, 93 S . Ct. at 1761) (citations omitted).

Th e de fe nd a nt ini tia lly c on te nd s tha t the fi rs t re qu ir e me nt, writt e n n oti c e of thevio la tio ns , c a nn ot b e pr ov e n f

ro m the re c or d at the tim e of the he ari ng . How e ve r, ou r R ule s o f E vid e nc e state that, “A duplicate i s admissible to the same extent as an orig inal unless a g enuine que stion is raised
a s to the auth e nti c ity

of the orig ina l.” Te nn . R. Evid . 1 00 3. Th e Ad vis ory Com mis sio n Co mme nts to that rule further state, “ Normally business people and lawy ers a cce pt machine c opies as authe ntic. There is no reason w hy

courts should not take the same approach in most instances.” Tenn. R. Evid. 10 03 , A dv iso ry

Com mis sio n Co mme nts

. Upon re viewing the transc ript of t he hearing , it appea rs that, althoug h defe nse counse l noted for the r ecor d that the orig inal war rant wa s not in the f

ile, he did not challeng e the authenticity of the copy or the fa ct that the def

endant had, in fac t, been personally serve d. As such, we conclude that the copy of the wa rra nt was admissi ble i n evidenc e as the orig inal. Further, be cause the document-3-

re fl e c te d th a t th e de fe nd a nt r e c e ive d pe rs on a l servic e of the wa rr a nt on Ma y

8, 20 03 , a ndbe c aus e the issue of service wa s uncontested, we hold that the defe ndant prope rl y re ce i ved notice of the
c la ime d v iol a tio ns , th us the re qu ir e me nts of du e pr oc e ss w e reme t.
Second, an d f

in a ll y , th e d e f

e n d a n t c o n te n d s th a t th e r e c o r d a t tria l c a n n o t p r o v e th a t the second r equire ment, the disclosure of the evidenc e ag ainst him, was met. Ag ain, the docume nt relied on by the trial court ref

lects t hat t he defenda nt was given notice of t he evidence a g ainst him. The
war rant alleg es a ne w violation of the law and includes a list of the off enses, the c ase numbe rs involved, the date of

the offenses, and the name of t he arresting office r whose testimonywas re lied upon in the probation violation hearing. We r eiterate that the issue of service was uncontested, the copy shows that the def

endant r ece ived personal service of t he document in question, and the copy is admissibl e as an orig inal pursuant to Tenne ssee Rul e of Evidence 1003. There fore , we c onclude that th e de fe nd a nt p ro perl yre c e ive d n oti c e of the e vid e nc e a g a ins t hi m a ndthat a ll d ue pr oc e ss require ments were satisfied.

Conclusion

Ba sed on the fore g oing and the rec ord as a whole, the trial court’s finding s and the sentenc e imposed are aff

irmed.

______________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J UDGE