# FILED September 16, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE AUGUST 1998 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) No. 01C01-9710-CC-00501 Appellee, ) ) Montgomery County v. ) ) Honorable John H. Gasaway, Judge MELVIN KEITH BLACK, ) ) (Probation Revocation) Appellant. )

FOR THE APPE LLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: Collier W. Goodlett John Knox Walkup Assistant Public Defender Attorney General & Repor ter 109 South Second Street 425 Fifth Avenue, North Clarksville, TN 37040 Nashville, TN 37243-0493 OF COUNSEL: Timothy F. Behan Assistant Attorney Gener al Michael R. Jones 425 Fifth Avenue, North District Public Defender Nashville, TN 37243-0493 109 South Second Street Clarksville, TN 37040 John W. Carney, Jr. District Attorney General 204 Franklin Street, Suite 300 Clarksville, TN 37040-3420 William M. Cloud, Jr. Assistant District A

ttorney General 204 Franklin Street, Suite 300 Clarksville, TN 37040-3420

OPINION FILED: ____________________________

__ AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO R ULE 20 L. T. LAFFERTY, SPECIAL JUD GE



### OPINION2 The appellant, Melvin Keith Black, appeals as of rig ht from the trial court’s revocation of his probation sentence. The appellant contends the r ecord is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a r evocation of probation. Based on our review of the bri efs and the entire record in this cause, we conclude that this is an appropriate case for affirmance under Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
On April 13, 1995, the defendant entered t w o pleas o f guilty to the offenses of driving under

the influence of an intoxicant before the Montgomery County Circuit Court. The trial court im pose d sentences of eleven months and tw enty-nine days to be r un consecu tively, and placed the defendant on probation for el even months and twenty-nine days with a conditi on of forty-five days to be served on weekends.
On February 10, 1997, a violation of pro bation warrant was sw orn out alleging several grounds inc luding:

a new arrest by

Ofcr. L. Pearson on 10/07/96 for dri ving on a

revoked license and leavingthe scene of a traffic accident; failure to report that arrest to his probation officer; a new arrest on 10/29/96 by Ofcr. P. Ashby for driving under

the influence, implied consent and driving on a revoked license; beingout at a late or unusual hour at the time of that arrest; failure to report that arr es t to his probation officer; failure t o complete aDUI school; failure to complete educational requirements; failure to report weekly as directed since 08/28/96; failure to make satisfactory progress in the MRT program (no steps attempted); failure to pay fines and court costs total ling $3,040.42 at the rate of $100.00 per month ($500.00 paid as of 12/26/96); failure to pay pr obation fees totalling $240.00 as of 12/26/96. Followinga heari ng on th e merits , the tr ial cou rt rev

oked the

defe nd ant’s probationary status.
The revocation of

probation is committed to the s ound discretion of the

trial court. State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). If the t rial court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a probation violation has occurred, it has the ri ght to revoke probation and cause the probation er to commence the execution of judgment as originally entered . Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-310, -311(d). This C ourt will not find

that a3

trial court abused its discretion unless the record contai ns no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the probation should be revok ed. State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981). The evidenc e at the revocation hearing need onlyshow

that the trial court ex

ercised a conscientious and intelligent

judgment in making the decision torevoke probation. State v. Leach, 914 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
The defendant did notsubmit a transcript of the re vocation hearing to support his allegation of insufficient evi dence to revoke his peri ods of probation.
On May 19, 1997, the trial court entered an order rev oking the defendant’s probation and finding thedefendant had a hearing on the facts all eged in the violation w arrant. Also, the order found the facts alleged in the violation warrant were proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, based upon a reading of the entire rec ord, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, this Court finds that the tri al court’s judgment sho u ld be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appeals.

______ ________________

_________________

_ L. T. LAFFERTY, SPECIAL JUD GE CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDG E

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE