# FILED
July 7, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) Appellee, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9810-CC-00320 ) vs. ) HARDIN COUNTY ) PAMELA JEAN HOLLOWAY, ) No. 7488 ) Appellant. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court u pon the state’s motion to affirm the tr ial court judgment by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant is appealing the trial court’s rev ocation of her probation. On Febr uary 12, 1997, the appellant pled guilt y to manufacturing a control led substance and possession of drug paraphernalia and received an effective one year senten ce. The trial court ordered supervised proba tion after the appellant serv ed ninety days confinement. O n September 17, 1998, the appellant’s s upervised probation w as revoked.

After a heari ng, the tri al court found that the appel lant viol ated the terms and conditions of her probation by “new conviction [

shoplifting]; positiv

e drug screen [marijuana]; non-payment of costs , fines and probation fees.” The appell ant and her probation of ficer testifi ed at the hearin g.

A trial court may rev

oke probation and order the impos ition of the original sentence upon a finding by a pr eponderance of the evidence that the person has violated a condition of probation. T.C.A. § 40-35-311(e ). The decision to revoke probation rests withi n the sound discretion of the tri al court. State v. Mitchell , 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). Revoc ation of probation is subject t o an abuse of discretion standard of rev iew, rather than a de nov o standard. State v. Harkins , 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991). Discretion is abused only if the record co ntains2

no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the tr ial court that a viol ation of probation has occurred. Id. ; State v. Gregory , 946 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Proof of a violation need n ot be established beyond a re asonable doubt, and the evidence need only sho w that the trial judg e exercised a conscientious and intelligent judgment, r

ather than acting arbitr arily. Gregory , 946 S.W.2d at 832; State v. Leach , 914 S.W.2d 104, 10 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

On appeal, the appellant contends onl y that the trial court

abused its discretion in revoki ng her probation. She arg ues that “the revocation o f her probation will not subserv

e the ends of justice in the best interest of both the public and the defendant“ and that “she still s hows a potential for rehabil itation and was receiv ing therapy to help her recover.” Having reviewed the record in light of the appellant’s argument, we find that the ev idence fully supports the t rial court’s action. The appellant has simply failed to show how the trial court abused its discretion.
Accordingly, the st

ate’s motion is granted. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgement of the trial court i s affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Costs of this appeal shall be assess ed to the state.

______________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

______________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E

______________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE