# FILED August 5, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE JULY 1998 SESSION STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C

01-9710-CR-00446 Appellee, ) ) SUMNER COUNTY VS. ) (No. 9862 Belo w) ) STEVE WAYDE B ONNER, ) The Hon. Jane Wheatcraft ) Appellant. ) (Revocation of Probation)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : DANA L. SCO

TT JOHN KNOX WALKUP Assistant Public Defender Attorney General and Repor ter 18th Judicial District 117 East Main Street GEORGIA BLYTHE FELNER Gallatin, TN 37066 Assistant Attorney Gener al Cordell Hull Buildi ng, Second Floor 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 LAWRENCE RAY WHITLEY District Attorney General THOMAS B. DEAN Assistant District A

ttorney General 18th Judicial District 113 West Main Street Gallatin, TN 37066

OPINION FILED _______________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO R ULE 20 PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

### -1- O P I N IO N The appellant , Steve Wayde Bonner, appeals as of right from the trial cour t’s revocati on of his probati on sentence. He contends that the tri al court

failed to exerci se a conscienti ous and intel ligent judgment in f inding by a preponderan ce of the evi dence that he violated the terms and conditions of probation. The appella nt also conten ds that th e trial court failed to give him cred it for time served. Based on our review ofthe bri efs and of the entire record i n this cause, we conclude t hat this is an appropri ate case for affi rmance under Rule 20, Tennesse e Court of Cr iminal Appeal s Rules.

On April 15, 1997, the appell ant pled gui lty to driv ing under t he influ ence and was sentenced to 11 months and 29 da ys, al l of which was suspended after service of 60 days in jail with work r elease. The a ppellant ’s dri ver’s l icense was suspendedfor a peri od of two years, and he was alsoordered to pay rest ituti on and court costs. On May 20, 1997, a p robation violation warrant w as filed, alleging failure to pay costs a nd restituti on a s ordered by the trial court and driving while on wo rk release without a va lid license. After a hearing, the tri al court revoked the

appellant’s probat ion and i mposed his origi nal sentence. The trial court further ordered t hat the appel lant be given credit for jai l time fr

om May 24, 1996, to May

25, 1996, andfrom April 15, 1997, to June 13, 1997.

At the revocat ion heari ng, the appel lant’s p robatio n officer

testif ied that

the violat ion warrant was si gned on May 20, 1997, all eging that the appe llant violated a conditi on of probati on by fai ling to paycosts and rest ituti on as ordered by the Court a nd by losing work rele ase privi leges for drivi ng on work release w ithout a valid license. A deputy sherifftestif ied that

he watched as the app ellant lef t the jail one morning. The deputy sheri ff saw the appella nt walk to the pa rking lot , get in a truck, and drive to the edge o

f the parki ng lot. When two of the wheels were on t he street, the deputy sheriff stopped the ap pellant and told hi m to get out of t he truck. The jai l a dministrator testi fied that the appell ant was removed from work rel ease because he had driven w ithout a valid license while on w ork release. The appell ant presented the testi mony of two wit nesses who receive d telephone calls from the ap pellant on the sam e day the deputy sheriff sa w him driving the truc k. Both witnesses testifie d that the appellant

had calle d regardi ng a ride t o work. Based on t he

### -2-

proof, t he trial

court rev

oked the appel lant’s

probati on.

The re vocatio n of pro bation is committed to the s ound discret ion of the trial court. State v. Mitch ell , 810 S .W .2d 73 3, 735 (Tenn . Crim . App. 1 991). If the trial cour t finds by a prep onderance of t he evidencethata probati on viol ation has occurred, it has the right to revoke p robation and cause the probat ioner to commence the executi on of judgment as originally entered. T.C.A. § 40-35 -310, -311(d). This Court will not find that a trial court has abused its discret ion unless the recor

d containsno substanti al evid ence to support the trialcourt's

conclusion that the probatio n should be revoked. State v. Harkins , 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1981). The evidence a t the rev ocation hearing need onl y show that the tri al court

exerciseda cons cientio us and intelligen t judgm ent in making the deci sion to revoke probation
. State v. Leach , 914 S.W .2d 104, 106 (T enn. Crim. A pp. 1995).

Based on the record bef ore us, the trial court was jus tif ied in r evoking th e appe llant’s probati on, and the pr oof that t he appella nt viol ated the conditions of his rel ease was suff icient to allow th e trial cou rt to m ake a c onsc ientiou s and in telligent decisio n . Finall y, it appear

s from a revi ew of the tr ial court’s order, t hat the appel lant was gi ven credit forjailtime served. Accordingl y, based up on a readingof the entire record, t he briefs of the parties, and the applica ble law, this Court f inds th at the ju dgm ent of th e trial cou rt shou ld be affirmed pur

suant to Rul e 20, Tennessee Cour t of Cri minal Appeals Rul es.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the jud gment of the tr ial court i s affirmed pursuant to Ru le 20.

_______________________ _________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE CONCUR:

_______________________ _________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

_______________________ _________ JERRY L . SMI TH, JU DGE