### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs O ctober 6, 200 9 ST A TEOFTE N N ES SE E v . KE V INREI D
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu itC o u rt fo r M a d ison C o u n ty N o. 06- 351 R oger A . P age, Judge

N o. W 2009- 00288- C C A - R 3- C D - F i l ed M arch 1, 2010

T he D ef endant

- A ppel l ant , K evi n R ei d, appea l s t he r evoca t i on of hi s i nt ens i ve pr obat i on by t he C i r cui t C our t of M adi s on C ount y, forw hi ch hi s or i gi nal four - yeart er m of pr obat i on w as re -in sta ted a fte r th e se rv ice o f ele v e n m o n th s a n d tw e n ty -n in e d a y s in th e c o u n ty jail. R e id o ri g inally p led g u il ty to a tt em p ted a g g rav ated assa u lt , a C la s s D felon y , p o sses sion o f a deadl y w eapon w i t h t he i nt ent t o em pl oy i n t he com m i s s i on of a f el ony, a C l as s E fel ony, and r eck l e s s e n d a n g e r m e n t , a Cl a s s E fe l o n y . Fo r t h e a t t e m p t e d a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t , R ei d w as s ent ence d t o fouryear s i nt ens i ve pr obat i on, af t ert hi r t y days conf

i nem ent , and as s es s ed a $1 50 fi ne. F or t he possess i on of a dead l y w eapo n and r eckles s endan germ ent conv i ct i on s, R ei d w as s ent ence d t o concur ren t tw o yeart er m s of i nt ens i ve pr obat i on, t o be s er ved co n cu rren tl y w ith the a tt em p ted a g g rav ated assa u lt

. O n ap p ea l, R eid c lai m s the tr ial co u rt err ed by re voki ng hi s i nt ens i ve proba t i on and orde r i ng t hat he ser ve 11 m ont hs and 29 days in ja il. U p o n re v ie w , w e a ffir m th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt
. T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C i rcui t C ourt A f

f i rm ed
C AMI LLE R. M C M ULL EN , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch A LAN E. G LEN N and D. K ELLY T HO MAS , J R ., J J

. , j oi ned.
G eor ge M

. G ooge, D i s tr i ctPubl i c D ef ender ; Paul E

. M eyer s , A s s i s t antPubl i c D ef ender , for t he D ef endant

- A ppel l ant , K evi n R ei d.
R ober tE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al an d R epor t er ; M at t hew B

. H as kel l , A s s i s t ant A t t or ney G ener al ; J am es G

. W oodal l , D i s tr i ctA tt o rney G ener al ; and J i m T hom ps on, A s s i s t antD i s tr i ctA t t or ney G ener al , fort he A ppel l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. OP I NI ON Backg r ound

. R ei d pl ed gui l t y t o t he above char ged of fens es on O ct ober31, 2006. U nd er hi s guil t y p l eas, R ei d w as r equ i red t o co m ply w i t h cert ai n special con dit i on s.-2-

Speci f i cal l y, R ei d w as r equired t o s ucce s s f ul l y under go and com pl et e al cohol and dr ug tr ea tm en t as reco m m en d ed , p ay $ 7 5 p er m o n th m inim u m p ay m en ts tow ard s fi n es a n d co u rt cos t s , s ubm i tt o m ont hl y dr ug s cr eens , and have no cont actw i t h t he vi ct i m ’ s fam i l y or n e ig h b o rh o o d . R e id a lso sig n e d a P ro b a tio n O rd e r th a t se t fo rth th e c o n d iti o n s o f h is i nt ens i ve pr obat i on. A s r el evantt o t hi s appea l , t he P r obat i on O r derr equi r ed R ei d t o abi de b y th e fo llo w in g : (1 ) to o b e y th e la w s o f th e U n ited S tate s; (2 ) to re p o rt a ll arr e sts im m e d iate ly to h is p ro b a tio n o ffic e r; (3 ) to w o rk a t a la w fu l o c c u p a tio n ; (4 ) to re p o rt to h is pr obat i on of

f i ceras i ns tr uct ed; ( 5) t o pay al l r equi r ed fees ; ( 6) t o obs er ve s peci al condi t i ons i m pos ed by the C our t ; and ( 7) t o notengage i n any as s aul t i ve, abusiv e, thr eat eni ng or in tim id a tin g b e h a v io r o r b e h a v e in a m a n n e r t h a t p o s e s a th re a t to o th e rs o r h im s e lf

. A pr obat i on vi ol at i on r epor tw as i s s ued on D ece m ber15, 2008, by D ar l ene M i l l s on, R ei d ’ s p r o b a t i o n o f

f i c e r . M i l l s o n r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t Re i d ’ s p r o b a t i o n b e r e v o k e d

. T he re p o rt a lleg e d th e fo llo w in g v io latio n s: R ul e 1: O n orabout12/ 13/08, J acks on Pol i ce [ O f f i cer s ] w er e ca l l ed t o t he Ja c k so n M a d iso n C o u n ty G e n e ra l H o sp ital e m e rg e n c y ro o m a n d sp o k e w ith vi ct i m , C hr i s t opherL l oyd A dam s , w ho advi s ed thathe had been a s s aul t ed by Ke v i n R e i d

. Ad a ms h a d v i s i b l e i n j u r i e s , a n d h i s l e f

ta r m w a s b r o k e n . Ad a ms advi s ed the as s aul toccur red at 5 7 I ngr am and thatbot h he and Rei d l i ved at 5 7 In g ra m . R ul e 2: O f

fender fai l ed t o r epor thi s arr es tof 12/ 13/ 08 t o hi s pr obat i on of f i cer w i t hi n 24 hou rs, o ffen d er w as r el eas ed on a $7, 500. 00 bond at1: 25 pm on 12/ 15/ 08 and fai l ed t o r epor thi s arr es ton t hatdat e. R ul e 4: O f

fender fai l ed t o obt ai n em pl oym ent or pr ovi de pr oof of em pl oym ent dur i ng t he m ont hs of

Sept em ber , O ct ober , N ovem berand D ece m ber [ ] 2008.
R u le 6 : O ffe n d e r faile d to b e p re se n t o r co n tac t th is offic e r r e g a r d in g h is m i s s i ng hi s appoi nt m entof 11/ 10/ 2008.
R u le 9 & 1 0 : O ffe n d e r fa iled to m a k e m o n th ly p a y m e n ts o f $ 7 5 .0 0 p e r m o n th on docket# 06- 351, even w hen em pl oyed. O f fenderpai d on a M adi s on C o. G en era l Se ssion s d o ck et # 0 1 -03 -59 2 (C o n tr ibu ti n g to the D eli n q u en cy o f a M i nor ) , of

fenderm ade a paym entt o t he G S docketon 2/ 07 and di d notm ake anotherpaym entunt i l 11/ 06 /07

. O ffenderf i nal l y pai d of

f t he G S docketon 3/ 5/ 08 and af

t erw ar ni ngs of

a vi olat ion w arr ant , of fenderm ade a $50. 00 p a y m e n t o n 3 /2 5 /0 8 , le a v in g a b a lan c e o f $ 9 0 1 .5 0 o n h is c irc u it co u rt d o c k e t. A tof fender ’ s l as tpaym entm ade on 8/ 5/ 08, t he bal ance w as [ ] $750. 00.-3-

R ul e 14: O f

fenderengage d i n as s aul t i ve, t hr eat eni ng and i nti m idat i ng b e h a v io r, ca u sin g se rio u s in ju ry to C h risto p h e r L lo y d A d a m s, c a u sin g h im to obt ai n a br oken ar m and otheri nj ur i es on 12/ 13/ 08.
T h e P r o b a t i o n Vi o l a t i o n Re p o r ta l s o i n c l u d e d a s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d “ HI S T OR Y OF S U P E R V ISIO N , ” w hich st at es: O f fenderhas r eporte d on i nt ens i ve pr obat i on s uper vi s i on s i nce 10/ 12/ 06. O ffe n d e r d id re p o rt a s s c h e d u led , m iss in g 1 to 2 a p p o in tm e n ts. O ffe n d e r d id nott es tpos i t i ve on any of h is d rug s cr eens . O f fendercom pl et ed A nger M anage m ent , butw i t h hi s t em per , i t di d nothel p of fender

. T hr ough out[ s i c] o ffe n d e r’s su p e rv isio n , h e h a s b e e n d iffic u lt t o su p e rv is e b e c a u se o f h is c a v a lier a tti tu d e . O ffe n d e r w a s fire d fro m h is jo b a t T a c o B e ll b e c a u se h is angeri n r es pondi ng t o [ an] unhappy cus t om er , by t hr ow i ng a bag of [ t acos ] at t he cus t om erand hi t t i ng hi m i n t he face . O f fender ’ s r es pons e w as t hati tw as
“ s e l f

- d e fe n s e . ” Of

fe n d e rwa s f

i r e d f r o m a n o t h e r j o b a tt h e S p e e d y L u b e o n N. H i ghl and, beca us e he w al ked of f f r om hi s j ob, af

t er hi s em pl oyercont act ed [ Pr obat i on and Par ol e O f f i cer ] r egar di ng of

fender ’ s t aki ng of

f w or k and advi s i ng hi s em pl oyer t hat [ Pr obat i on and Par ol e O f f i cer ] coul d ver i f

y w hy he t ook of f and [Pr obat i on and Par ol e O f f i cer ] coul d not

. O f

fenderw as r epor t ed by ot her[ em pl oyees ] as s t at i ng, “h e coul d notw or k foranyone w ho di d not b e liev e h im .” T h e e m p lo y e r w a s a d v ise d se v e ra l h o u rs a fte r o ffe n d e r le ft, w h e n h e w e n t to fin d o ffe n d e r to a ss ist a c u sto m e r. O ffe n d e r h a s n o t b e e n a b le t o geta j ob t o dat e. Pro bati on R e vo c at i on H e ar i ng . A tthe pr obat i on r evoca t i on hear i ng, M i l l s on te s tif ied th at R eid v iolated h is pro b ati o n b yfa il ing to rep o rtan arrest i n a ti m elym an n er. R ei d w as arr es t ed foraggr avat ed domest i c as s aul t on D ece m ber 13, 2008, and w as booked i nt o the M adi s on C ount y j ai l

. H e w as r el eas ed aft er pos t i ng a $750 bond on D ece m ber15 at1: 25 p. m . M i l l s on s ai d R ei d di d notr eportthe arr es t unt i l the fol l ow i ng day , D ece m ber 1 6

. M i l l s o n f

u r th e rt e s t i f

i e d th a tRe i d wa s a l s o r e qu i r e d t o s h o w p r o o f o f f u l l

- t i me e mp l o yme n ta s a c o n d i t i o n o f h i s i n t e ns i v e p r o b a t i o n . He wa s e mp l o y e d “ f o rq u i t e s o me t i m e” a ta Taco B el l , buthe w as fi r ed af t era di s put e w i th a cus t om er . M i l l s on s ai d a cus t om erbeca m e u p s etw i th R ei d, and R ei d r es ponded bythr ow i ng a bag of t acos att he c u sto m e r’s h e a d . R e id f o u n d n e w e m p lo ym e n t at a S p e e d yL u b e ; h o w e v e r, h e w a s a g a in f ire d a f ter “ se v e ra l in c id e n ts.” In d e sc rib in g th e las t o f th e se “ in c id e n ts,” M ill so n sa id R e id m iss e d a d a y o f w o rk a n d e x p lain e d to h is s u p e rv iso r th a t h is a b se n c e w a s d u e to th e d e a th of hi s gr andmot her

. R ei d t ol d hi s s upervi s or that M i l l s on coul d ver i fyhi s w her eabout s . T he-4-

s upervi s orcont act ed M i l l s on w ho knew nothi ng of the abs ence . M i l l s on w as l at eri nform ed th a t R e id w a lk e d o f

f th e jo b a n d w a s n o lo n g e r p e rm itte d to w o rk th e re . M i l l s on s ai d R eid d id notobt ai n fur therempl oym entbefor e hi s pr obat i on w as re v o k e d . H e d id , h o w e v e r, sh o w p ro o f th a t h e w a s try in g to o b tain f u ll-ti m e e m p lo ym e n t. M i l l son sai d she recei ved a p h o n e cal l from an ag encyabo ut a possi ble j ob i n A rkansas; h o w e v e r, M ills o n d e n ie d R e id p e rm is s io n to le a v e M a d is o n C o u n ty f o r w o rk

. M i l l s on t es t i fi ed t hat R ei d m i s s ed a sc hedul ed appoi nt m enton N ovember10, 2008. T he a pp oi ntmentw a s or i gi na l l ys e tfo rN ov e mber11 , bu ti tw a s r e s c he du l e d b ecause N ovember11 fel l on V et er ans ’ D ay . M i l l s on s ai d R ei d cl ai m ed he w as n o t told of the change , buts he s ai d he w as i nform ed of the new appoi nt m entdat e. M i l l s on t es t i fi ed thatt he N o v e m b e r 1 0 a p p o in tm e n t w a s th e o n ly ap p o in tm e n t R e id e v e r m is s e d

. M i l l s on al s o s ai d R ei d w as “s l ow i n pay i ng” r es t i tut i on and courtcos t s . H e di d not begi n r epaym entunt i l 2008 beca us e he w as m aki ng paym ent s on a pas tconvi ct i on. M i l l s on t est i fi ed thatthere w as a peri od w hen R ei d w as w orki ng , had the ab i l i tyt o m ake p aym ents , b u t d id n o t d o s o . S h e s a id , “ H e w a s p a y in g v e ry sp o ra d ic a lly.”
O n cr os s - exami nat i on, M i l l s on t es t i fi ed thatR ei d di d notfai l a drug t es tand mi s s ed one off i ce vi s i t dur i ng the tw o- y earpr obat i on per i od. She s ai d R ei d r emai ned unempl oy ed forfourm onths aft erbei ng fi r ed fr om Speedy L ube. R ei d r eport ed ats om e poi ntthathe had an i nt ervi ew at M cD onal d’ s , al though s he re cei ved not hi ng i n w r i t i ng. M i l l s on t es t i fi ed that dur i ng the pr obat i on per i od, R ei d compl et ed ange rm anage m entand al s o att ended a t echni cal sc h o o l. R e g a rd in g R e id ’s a rre st f o r a g g ra v a ted d o m e stic a ss a u lt, M ill so n sta ted th a t “h is instruction s w h en h e g ets o n p rob ati o n is no t th at he ca n w aitu n ti l h e’s release d b u t th at he ’s s uppos ed t o not i fym e w i thi n tw enty - fourhour s of anyarr es tor ques t i on - - bei ng ques t i oned b yp o lic e .”
T he r evoca t i on hear i ng w as carr i ed overt o a s econd da ybeca us e the vi ct i m of the char ged aggr avat ed domest i c as s aul tdi d nots how up the fi r s t day

. A tthe s t artof the s econd day , the vi ct i m agai n w as not pr es ent

. T he tr i al court ques t i oned R ei d aboutthe di s pos i t i on of the cha r ged aggr avat ed domest i c as s aul t

. R ei d i nform ed the tr i al court that the cha r ge w as di s m i s s ed. T he tr i al courtthen s t at ed:

W ell , o f co u rse, I h ea rd th e rev o ca ti o n m att er on F ri d ay, a n d th ere ’s so m e a lleg a tio n s y o u f

a iled to re p o rt y o u r a rre st f o r y o u r a g g ra v a ted d o m e stic a s s a u lt. A n d th e re ’s o th e r m in o r p ro b le m s , b u t th e yw e re m in o r.-5- A nd w hat I ’ m goi ng t o do i s fi nd thatther e’ s a fa ctual bas i s upon w hi ch yo u s h o u l d b e r e v o k e d , th e S t a t e h a s p r o v e n yo u s h o u l d b e r e v o k e d b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e . Y o u ’l l b e re v o k e d a n d re in s ta te d

. I a m g o in g to s ta rt th is s e n te n c e . . . overand pl ace y ou back on pr obat i on.
T he tr i al courtal s o s t at ed, “I ’ m goi ng t o or dery ou t o go back t o P athw ay s foran as s es s m entand compl et e any r ecomm endat i ons that they gi ve y ou as faras tr eatm entoranger m anage m ent

. ” The t r i al courtadded that R ei d m us ts t ayaw ayfr om the vi ct i m of the al l eged a s s a u lt.
T h e tr i a l c o u r t was th e n i n f o r me d th a t th e v i c t i m, Chr i s t o p h e r Ll o y d Ada ms, w as p re se n t. A d a m s te stif

ied th a t h e liv e d w ith R e id a t th e tim e o f th e a lleg e d a ss a u lt. A d a m s s a id ar ound 2: 30 p. m . o n D ec em b er13, 2008, he w as aboutt o l eave hi s hom e w hen he w as c o n f ro n ted b y R e id o u tsid e . R e id a sk e d , “‘W h a t is th is a b o u t? I h e a rd y o u sa yy o u g o in g to k ill m e .’” A d a m s te stif ied th a t h e d id n o t k n o w w h a t R e id w a s ta lk in g a b o u t. A d a m s s a id R ei d w al ked behi nd hi m and w hen A dams turned ar ound, R ei d hi thi m i n the fa ce tw o ort hr ee t i me s . Ad a ms s a i d h e g r a b b e d R e i d i n d e f e n s e , b u tf

e l l t o th e g r o u n d a n d b r o k e h i s a r m. W hi l e on the gr ound, A dams s ai d he w as hi tagai n. R ei d then gotup and ki cked A dams “a coupl e t i m es ” bef

or e goi ng i nt o the hous e. E ventual l y , A dams ca l l ed hi s m other, an d s he gave hi m a r i de t o the emer gencyr oom . A t the emer gency r oom , A dams w as t ol d he had a c o mp o u n d f

r a c tu r e t o h i s r i g h t f

o r e a r m. He s t a t e d , “ T h e y d i d s u r g e rya n d i n s t a l l e d

. . . t wo p late s w ith sc re w s, a n d th e yp u t itin a c a st la ter .” A d a m s s a id h e d id n o t th in k R e id i nt ent i onal l ybr oke hi s arm . A dams t es t i fi ed thathe cont act ed the pol i ce a tthe emer gency roo m an d told them w h at h ap p en ed

. A d am s d en ied b eing co n tacted b ythe p o li ce there af ter. H e e x p e c ted th a t ch a rg e s w o u ld b e p re ss e d a g a in s t R e id ; h o w e v e r, h e m a d e n o e f f o rt to f o llo w u p o n th e m a tter. A d a m s s a id h e is c u rre n tlyo n p ro b a tio n f o r f o rg e rya n d sim p le pos s es s i on of coc ai ne and mar i j uana. A f ter A d a m s te stif

ied , the trial c o u rt m a d e th e f o llo w in g f

in d in g s:
B ased on the evi den ce before m e, as I sai d, I’ m go i ng t o find t here’ s a fac tu al bas i s upon w hi ch he s houl d be r evoked bya pr eponder ance of the evidence, based o n the cr edibi l i tyof the w i tnesses.
H e’ l l be r evoked, r ei ns t at ed, h is se nt ence t o s t artoveraft ers ervi ng e lev e n m o n th s a n d tw e n ty -n in e d a y s in th e c o u n tyjail.-6- A nd he musts t ayaw ay fro m C hr i s t opherA dams and c om pl et e any c o u n s e l i n g p r o g r a m s a s o r d e r e d b y h i s p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e ra f t e ra P a th w a ys a s s e s s m e n t.
T he fi ndi ngs of t he t r i al court w er e re fl ect ed i n the P r obat i on R evoca t i on O r der that w as fi l ed o n J a n u a ry 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 . R e id f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l.
A N A L Y S IS
R ei d cl ai m s t he t r i al cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n r evoki ng hi s pr obat i on. H e does not di s put e t he t es t i m ony at t he r evoca t i on hear i ng, buthe cont ends t he pr oof does nots how t hat he vi ol at ed hi s pr obat i on. R eid al s o as s er t s t he tr i al cour terr ed by or der i ng hi m t o s er ve e lev e n m o n th s a n d tw e n ty -n in e d a y s in jail. T h e S tate a rg u e s th e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n b e c a u se R e id v io late d h is p ro b a tio n in se v e ra l w a y s. U p o n re v iew , w e a g re e w ith t he St at e. T e n n e ss e e C o d e A n n o tate d S e c tio n 4 0 -3 5 -3 1 0 g iv e s th e trial c o u rt sta tu to rya u th o rity t o r evoke pr obat i on w heneve ri tfi nds thata pr obat i oner h as vi ol at ed the condi t i ons of pr obat i on. St at e v. M i t chel l , 810 S. W

. 2d 733, 735 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1991)

. I f a pr obat i oner i s arr es t ed foranybr eac h of the l aw s of t hi s St at e or vi ol at es the condi t i ons of pr obat i on, t he tri al j ud ge sh a ll h a v e the po w er t o d et erm i ne w hethera viol at i on occu rr ed at a due p rocess h e a rin g , an d , if th e c o u rt f in d s b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t a p ro b a tio n e r is g u ilty o f th e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n , th e tr i a l c o u r tma y c a u s e e x e c u t i o n o f th e o r i g i n a l j u d g me n t

. T

. C. A. § 4 0-35-31 1 (200 8). M oreove r, w hen probati on i s r evo ked , “t he o ri g in a l ju d g m ent s o r ender ed bythe tr i al j udge s hal l be i n ful l for ce a nd eff ectfr om the dat e of the r evoca t i on of s u c h s u s p e n s io n .” T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -3 1 0 (2 0 0 8 ).
T he r evoca t i on of a s us pended s ent ence i s w i thi n the s ound di s cr et i on of the tr ia l j udge. M i t chel l , 810 S. W

. 2d at 735 ( ci t i ng Fi nl ey v. St at e, 378 S. W

. 2d 1 6 9 , 1 7 2 (T enn. 1964) )

. A tthe pr obat i on rev o ca t i on hear i ng, the cr edi bi l i tyof the w i tnes s es i s t o be d e t e r mi n e d b yth e tr i a l j u d g e . I d

. ( c i t i n g Ca r v e rv . S t a t e , 5 7 0 S

. W

. 2 d 8 7 2 , 8 7 5 ( Te n n . Cr i m. A pp. 1978) )

. T he tr i al j udge mustr ece i ve s uffi ci entevi dence t o al l ow hi m t o m ak e an i n t e l l i g e n td e t e r mi n a t i o n . I d

. ( c i t i n g Ba r k e rv . S t a t e , 4 8 3 S

. W

. 2 d 5 8 6 , 5 8 9

- 9 0 ( Te n n . Cr i m. A p p . 1 9 7 2 ))

. I n det erm i ni ng w hethert o r evoke pr obat i on, the tr i al judge nee d notfi nd a v io latio n o f

th e ter m s o f

p ro b a ti o n h a s o c c u rre d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. T he evi dence need onl ys how the tr i al j udge has exer ci s ed consc ientious ju d g m e n t in m a k in g th e d e c is io n ra th e r t h a n a c tin g a rb itr a ri ly.-7-

St at e v. L eac h, 914 S. W

. 2d 104, 106 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1995) ( quot i ng St amps v. St at e, 614 S .W .2 d 7 1 , 7 3 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ))

. T he j udgm entof the tr i al courtw i l l notbe di sturbed on appe al abs entan abus e of di s cr et i on. L eac h, 914 S. W

. 2d at106. Foran appe l l at e courtt o be w arr ant ed i n fi ndi ng an ab u se o f d iscreti o n in a p rob ati o n rev o ca ti o n ca se, it m u s t be e stab li sh ed that the re co rd cont ai ns no s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor t the concl us i on of the tr i al j udge thata vi ol at i on of t he c o n d i t i o n s o f

p r o b a t i o n h a s o c c u rr e d

. St a t e v . Hark i n s , 8 1 1 S. W

. 2 d 7 9 , 8 2 ( Te n n. 1 9 9 1 ).
O nce a tr i al j udge has det erm i ned a vi ol at i on of pr obat i on has occurr ed, the tr i al j udge re tain s d isc re tio n a rya u th o rityto o rd e r th e d e f e n d a n t to : (1 ) se rv e h is s e n ten c e in inca rce rati o n ; ( 2 ) s e rve the p rob ati o n aryterm , b eg inn ing an ew ; or (3) se rve a p rob ati o n ary per i od thati s ext ended f oru p to an ad d i t i onal tw o y ear s . St at e v. H unt er , 1 S. W

. 3d 643 ( T enn. 1999)

. T hi s det erm i nat i on of the pr opercons equenc e of the pr obat i on vi ol at i on embodi es a s epar at e exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on. I d. at647; St at e v. R eams, 265 S. W

. 3d 423, 430 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ).
H e re , ou r revi ew i s som ew hat hindered by the tri al cou rt ’s fai l ure t o s pecifyin its fi ndi ngs how R ei d vi ol at ed the t erm s of hi s pr obat i on. W e t her efor e m us t deci de w hethert he recor d contai ns subst anti al evidence i n s up po rt of the tri al cou rt ’s con cl usi on . S ee H arki ns, 8 1 1 S .W .2 d a t 8 2

. U p o n re v iew o f th e re c o rd , w e c o n c lu d e th e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in f in d in g th a t R e id v io late d h is p ro b a tio n . T h e P ro b a tio n V io latio n R e p o rt sh o w e d th a t R e id viol at ed P robat i on R ule 14, w hich st at es:
I w i l l noteng ag e in anyas s aul t i ve, abus i ve, thr eat eni ng ori nt i m i dat i ng behavi or . N orw i l l I part i ci pat e i n any cr i m i nal s tr eet gang re l at ed ac t i vi t i es as defi ned byT C A 40- 35- 121. I w i l l not behave i n a m anner that pos es a thr eat to o th e rs o r m y s e lf

. R ei d’s r oo m m at e, A dam s, t est i fi ed thatR ei d h i tand kicked h i m m ult i ple t i m es on D ece m ber 13, 2008 , re su lti n g in a b ro k e n a rm th a t re q u ire d su rg e ry . R e id ’s b rie f d o e s n o t d isp u te th is t es t i m ony, as s er t i ng onl y t hatt he r es ul t i ng char ge of aggr av ated dom es t i c as s aul tw as di s m i s s ed bec aus e of A dam s ’ “bl at ant di s r egar d for t he j udi ci al s ys t em . ” C er t ai nl y, bas ed on A dam s ’ t es t i m ony, s ubs t ant i al evi dence w as pr es ent ed thatR ei d engage d i n “ as s aul t i ve, abus i ve, thr eat eni ng ori nt i m i dat i ng behavi or . ” B as ed on the above evi dence , w e conc l ude th a t R e id ’s p ro b a tio n w a s p ro p e rl yre v o k e d b yth e tr ia l c o u rt

.-8-

R ei d al s o as s ert s i n a headi ng t o hi s br i ef that the tr i al court err ed i n “o rde ri n g t hat A ppel l ants erve 11 mont hs and 29 day s i n the countyj ai l

. ” R ei d’ s br i ef, how ever , cont ai ns no further a rgum ent regardi ng the po st -r evo cat i on sent encing; therefore, this i ssue i s w ai ved. S e e T e n n . C t. C rim . A p p . R . 1 0 (b ) (“ Iss u e s w h ich a re n o t su p p o rte d b y a rg u m e n t, citatio n to au tho ri ti es, or a p p rop ri ate refe ren ce s to th e reco rd w il l b e trea ted as w aive d in this co u rt
. ”). W ai vernot w i t hs t andi ng, w e conc l ude thatt he r ecor d s uppor t s t he t r i al cour t ’ s r ei ns t at em ent of R ei d’ s fouryeari nt ens i ve pr obat ion sen t ence , af t ert he s er vi ce of

el even m ont hs and t w ent y- ni ne days conf

i nem ent i n t he count y j ai l

. R ei d i s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on t hi s i s s ue. CO NC L US I ON
B a s e d o n th e fo re g o in g , th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt is a ffir m e d

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ____________________ CA M I L L E R. M c M UL L E N, J UDGE