# FILED September 26, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN T HE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPE ALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE JULY SES SION, 1997

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9611-CR-00399 ) Appell ee, ) SULLIVAN COUNTY ) ) V. ) ) HON. R. JER RY BEC K, JUDGE DAVI D WILL IA M SMITH, ) ) (AG GR AVAT ED BU RG LAR Y, Ap pella nt. ) THEFT O VER $1,000.00)

FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : LA RRY WEDD I NGTON JOHN KNOX WALKUP Att orneyat L aw Attor ney General & Reporter 200 Se ven th Stre et Bris tol , TN 37620 MARVI N E. CLEMENTS, JR. Assist ant At tor ney General 2nd Floor , Cordel l Hul l Bui ldi ng 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashvil le, TN 37243-0943 H. GREELEY WELLS, JR. Dist ri ct Attor ney General JO SE PH EU GE NE PE RR IN Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al P.O. Box 526 Blountvi ll e, TN 37617-0526 OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

The Defendant , Davi d W il li am Sm it h, appeal s as ofrigh t pu rsu an t to R ule 3 of th e T en ne sse e R ule s of Ap pe ll ate Proc edu re. On August 30, 1994, Defendantenter ed pleas of gu il ty t o thr ee charges of aggravat ed burgl ary and thr ee cha rges of the ft o ver$1,000. Defendant recei ved four years on each convi cti on to r un concurrentl y, a nd a probat ion order w as en tered tha t sam e day. De fen da nt’s probat ion was revoked on Febr uary 15, 1995, and he was ordered to serve his sentence on Com munity Correcti ons. On Ju ly14, 1995, an Order
was entered re t ur ni ng Def en da ntt o p r ob at i on ary st at us su bj ec t t o t he Com mu nit y Co rrectio ns S upe rvision Ord er. On December 1, 1995, another arres t war rant was issue d forDefendant ’s v iol ati on ofprob ation
. Foll owing a probati on heari ng in the Ci rcui t CourtofSull iv an County, Defendant ’s probati on was rev oked and he was o rd ered to se rve t he sentenc e in con fi nement. I n his s ole i ssue on ap pe al, the Defendantargues t hat t he tr ial courtabused it s disc ret ion i n revok ing De fen da nt’s probat ion and orderi ng him to s erve hi s sent ence. We aff ir m the judg m ent o f the trial c ourt.

On No vem ber 2 8, 19 95, a t app roxim ately 1 0:15 p.m ., O ff icer s D en nis Banks a nd Fred Overb y res ponded to 2207 Anderson Street i n Bris tol , Tennessee to p ick u p a run aw ay ju ven ile. W hile placi ng her i n custodythey we re met by Defendant , who was the juv enil e’s boyfri end. The Defendanthad words with the o ffi ce rs a nd m ad e th rea ts th at h e co uld ha nd le a ll of th em du e to his kara te kno wle dg e. H e sa id th at h e co uld “t ake them outanytim e he wan ted to .” The off icers left wi th t he female j uveni le and drove t o the l ocati on of 1301 Anderson S t reetwhere t hey st opped to attend t o her medical needs. The-3-

Defendanta pproache d to chec k on his gir lf ri end, and agai n thr eatened t he officers with b odily h arm . At this p oint O fficer O verb y called for ba ck u p. Of fi cers Lloyd He aton , Stev e T erry a nd K eith F eath ers re spo nde d to th e ca ll. Office rs Feathers and Terry escort ed Defendant away from the sce ne . De fen da nt to ld these offi cers t hat he had dr iv en to t he locat ion and t hat hi s car wa s pa rked in a ne arby alley.

A few m inutes later, as the o fficers were standi ng near a pat rol car on t he right s ide o f the stre et, O fficer T erry sa w a c ar ap proa ch. T he c ar turn ed o ff its headli gh t s, accel erat ed, and t hen swerv ed to t he ri ght t owards t he group of offi cers. The ca rna r r ow l y mi ss ed t he off i ce r s a nd t he n s pe d a wa y. So me of t he officers pursued t he vehi cle unt il itstr uck two uti li ty p oles and stopped. The driv ergot outof t he vehi cle and fl ed on foot . The l icense plat e on the car wa s regi ster ed to the Def endant. He was ult imatel y apprehe nded near t he scene of the wreck a sh ortti me later . Defen dant had t o be chased on f oot afterhe was recog nized b y an officer.

Defendantwas charged wi th f iv e counts of At tempted First Degree Murder in rel ati on to t he event s on November 28, 1995. A Viol ati on of Pr obati on warrant
w as issued on D ecem ber 1, 19 95, an d De fenda nt was arrested the sam e day. The probat ion viola tion alleg ed : (1) V iola tion of R ule One - fai lur e to obeythe l aw by the ar restforthe offens es of A ttemp ted First D egree Murd er (five coun ts); (2) Viol ati on of R ule Tw o - fa ilure to im m ed iate lyreport t he new arr est; (3) Viol ati on o f Rule Seven - dri nking t o excess i n rel ati on to t he event s of November 28 , 1995; and (4) V iolation of R ule E ight - failu re to pa y fee s fo r the m on ths of Ju ly 199 5 thro ugh No vem ber 1 995
.-4- At tr ial on the att empted m urder counts, the j ury ac quitted t he Defendant of Atte mpt to Commit Fi rstDegree Murder , f iv e counts, but r eached an impasse
o n all lesse r includ ed o ffens es w hich were still pen ding at the time of th e revocat ion hear ing . The dri nki ng t o exc ess v iol ati on wa s dismiss ed and the court made no finding conc erning th e failure to pa y fines or failure to rep ort new arrestcharges. The tri al j udge did f ind suffi cientevi dence thatthe Def endant
was the p erson d riving the car tha t alm os t hit th e o ffice rs, th us viola ting Ru le On e, failure to ob ey the law.

Bo th the granti ng and denial of probati on restin t he sound di scret ion ofthe tri al j udge. Sta te v. M itch ell , 810 S.W .2d 7 33, 7 35 (T enn . Crim . App . 199 1). In deter mining whetherornot to revok e the probati on, t he tr ial judge need not f ind beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat a v iol ati on of t he ter ms of probat io n has
oc curr ed. The exis tence ofa vi olat ion need onl y be supported by a prep ond eran ce o f the e viden ce. T enn . Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-31 1(d) (199 0).

The trial judg e m ust, h ow eve r, add uce sufficie nt evi de nce duri ng the probat ion revoc ati on heari ng to al low hi m to make an inte llig ent deci sion. Mitc he ll , 810 S.W .2d at735. The det erminat ion made by t he tr ial court , i f made with con scie ntiou s jud gm ent, is g iven th e we ight of a jury verd ict. Stam ps v. Sta te , 614 S.W.2d 71, 73 (T enn . Crim . App . 198 0), perm to appeal denied , id
. (Ten n. 198 1).

W hen a probation revocation i s challenged, t he appellate courts h ave a li mited scope ofrevi ew. Foran appell ate court t o be warr anted i n fi nding a t ri al j u dge erred in det ermini ng thata vi olat ion has occurr ed, i t must be e stabl ished-5-

thatthe r ecord cont ains no substant ial evi dence to s upportthe conc lusi on of t he tri al judge. State v. Har kins , 811 S. W .2d 79 , 82 (T en n. 1 99 1). If th e vio latio n is
so support ed by the r ecord, the j udgment of th e tria l cou rt rev ok ing pro ba tion will not be disturb ed on appe al unless is appe ars thatthe t ri al cou rt ac ted arb itrarily
orothe rwise abu sed its discr etion
. S tat e v. W il li amson , 619 S. W .2d 145, 146 (Te nn. C rim. A pp.), perm to appeal denied , id . (Te nn. 1 981 ).

Alt hough the evid en ce pre se nte d a t the he arin g w as m os tly circ um sta ntia l, it wa s su ff ici ent t o all ow the t ri al court t o make a conscien ti ous and i ntel li gent fi nding of a v iol ati on of probat ion bya preponderance of t he evi dence. The Defendantthr eatened the officers by making repeated comments about“t aking them ou t,” ev ide ntly in res po ns e to his g irlfrien d b ein g ta ke n in to custod y. Defendantapproach e d the offi cers agai n aft er t hey st opped on the s ide ofthe road to attend t o his gir lfr iend’s medical needs, and once agai n, Defenda nt act ed in an ext remely thr eateni ng manner towards the offi cers. Aft er bei ng escort ed
awa y fr om the scene, Defendanttol d the offi cers t hat hi s car was i n a nea rb y alley, and a few moments l atera caraccel erat ed and then s werved t owards t he officers in an attempt t o str ike t hem. The off icers pursued t he carunti l i t wre cked. It was dis covered thatthe l icense plat e on the c ar was r egist ered t o the De fend ant. A few m inutes later, the Def endant was apprehended near t he scene wh ere th e ca r wre ck o ccu rred
.

Th e tr ial courtmade the fol lowi ng fi ndings: “[ t] he act, ifthe d efendan t committed it , would I think const it ute a violation of the defe nda nt’s co ndition to probat ion because such act would be unlawf ul, ir regardl ess of t he degree ofthe
o ffense i nvol ved. The Court i s aware t hat we hav e had a ju ry t ri al on t hat-6-

off ense. The jury di d reach a f indi ng of notguil ty o f attempt t o c o mm it first degree mur der, a multi ple countinv olv ing t he off icers and theybasic all y had a hung jury on t he less er i ncluded offense. But i n thi s heari ng, this Court s[ i] ts as fi nderof f act. ” Lat erin its ru ling from the be nc h, th e tria l cou rt sta ted tha t it found beyond a reasonabl e doubt (wh il e recogni zing t hat a pr eponderance ofthe evidence was all thatwas necessary) t hat Defend ant was t he dri verof th e ve hic le that al most struck the officers.

Th ere was subst anti al ev idence s upport ing t he tr ial court ’s con clusi on that Defendantwas the d river of th e ca r. Th e tr ia l court pr operl y fo und thatthe Defendanthad engaged i n cri minal acti vi ty c onsti tut ing a vi olat ion ofa condi ti on of D efe nd an t’s prob ation . Th is issu e is w ithou t me rit. W e aff ir m the judgment of the trial cou rt.

____________________________________ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge
CONCUR:

___________________________________ DAVID H. W ELLES, Judge

___________________________________ JOHN K . BYERS, Senior Judge