### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A s s i gne d on B r i e f s J ul y 21, 2004
S T AT E OF T E NN E S S E E v . RO B E RT L E E MAL L AR D
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Rutherford Coun ty

No. 46763 J. Steve Daniel, Jud ge

No. M2003- 00953-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Augu st 31, 2004

Th e de fe nd a nt, Rob ert L ee M a lla rd , a pp e a ls the re vo c a tio n o f h is p ro batio n r e la tin g to h is convictions for attempting to t amper with evidenc e and resisting arr est. On appeal, the def endant contends: (1) the trial court erre d in revoking his probation; (2) the dr ug tests administered by

the probation off

icer s constituted improper body cavity sear ches; a nd (3) the drug tests violated his right to p ri va c y . We a ff

ir m th e 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 Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
J OE G. R I L EY , S P . J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.
Dar win K. Colston (on appea l) and John H. Bake r, I I I (at he aring ), Murfr eesbor o , T en n es s ee , for the appe llant, Robert L ee Ma llard.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam C. W hitesell, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and Thomas F. Jackson, J r., Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION
The de fenda nt was convic ted of attempting to ta mper with evide nce, a Class D felony , and resist ing a

rre st, a Class B misdemea nor. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39- 16-503(a )(1) (evide nce tampering ); -602(a ) (r esisting a rre st). He r ece ived an e ffe ctive sente nce of four y ear s probation. A p ro b at i o n v i o l at i o n wa rr an t wa s s u b s eq u en t l y i s s u ed aga i n s tt h e d ef

en d an t

. Fo l l o wi n g a h ea ri n g, the tr ia l c ou rt

re vo ke d the de fe nd a nt’ s pro batio n an d ord e re d him t o s e rv e his orig ina l se nte nc e in confine ment. During the re vocation hearing, Che ry l J ackson, the defe ndant’s probation officer , testified the def endant violated the terms of his probation by testing positi ve for cocaine. AEGI S L aboratory confirme d the re sults of the defe ndant’s drug scre en. Jackson stated the de fenda nt further violated the terms of pr obation by failing to pay probation fe es, fa iling to pay court c osts and fines, fa iling to obtain a drug and alcohol assessment from the Guidance C enter , and failing to perf orm 100 hours of communi ty service at a r ate of eig ht hours per month. Jackson acknow ledg ed the de fenda nt had succe ssfully

completed a n extensive substance a buse treatment prog ram a t the “VA.”-2-

J ackson te stified the def

endant wa s found to be in violation of t he terms of his probation on a prior oc c a sio n. Th e de fe nd a nt’ s la st v iol a tio n o rd e r s ta te d h e wou ld be re qu ir e d to se rv e his orig inal sentenc e in conf

inement if he inc urre d any further violations.
I n revoking the def

endant’ s probation, the trial c ourt found the de fenda nt failed a drug scre en; did not pay

the re quired fe es, fines, a nd court c osts; and did not perf orm the re quired a mount of community

service

. I. P RO BA TIO N R EV OC AT ION
Th e de fe nd a nt c on te nd s the e vid e nc e is ins uf fi c ie nt to e sta

bli sh that he vio lated th e ter ms of his probation and tha t the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. We disag ree wi th the de fe nd a nt’ s c on te nti on s. A trial court may

revoke probation and or der the imposit i o n o f t h e orig inal sentenc e upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated a c ondition of probation. Tenn. C o d e An n
. § § 40-35-310, - 311. The de cision to revoke pr obation rests within the sound discretion of the t ri al court. State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W .2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

. Revocation of probation is subject t o an abuse of di scre tion standard of revie w, rather than a de novo standard. State v. H arkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991).
Jac ks on , the de fe nd a nt’ s pr ob a tio n of fi c e r, te sti fi e d th e de fe nd a nt v iol a te d th e te rm s o f h is probation by

testing posi t ive for c ocaine ; failing to pay require d fee s, fines, and c ourt costs; and failing to perform the require d amount of community service . The de fenda nt did not testi fy at the revoc ation hearing. Furthermor e, no evide nce was pre sented c ontradicting the proba tion officer ’s testimonyas to these thre e violations. W e co n cl u de the e vidence establishes by a pre pondera nce of the e vid e nc e that th e de fe nd a nt vio la te d the te rm s of his pr ob a tio n. Th e re fo re , the tr ia l cou rt did not abuse its discretion in re voking the defe ndant’s probation.
II. RE M AI NI NG ISSU ES
The defe ndant maintains the drug scre ens administered by probation office rs co n s tituted impermissible body

cavity sear ches and violated his right to privacy

. Howeve r, the defe ndant fa iled to c ite to any

a uth ority in h is b ri e f t o s up po rt

his a sse rt ion s. He c on c e de s he wa s u na ble to l oc a te a ny su c h auth ority . We are a lso un able to l oc a te a uth ority su pp ortin g the de fe nd a nt’ s c on te nti on s. Thus, this iss ue is waive d. Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(b); State v. Schaller, 975 S.W.2d 313, 318 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)

. Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

____________________________________ J OE G. RILEY, SPECI AL J UDGE