T he p o l i cy o f thi s C o urt o n d i rect ap p eal i s t o s t at e an ap p el l ant ’ s nam e as i t ap p ears i n t he i nd i ct m ent

. I n 1 t hi s ca s e, t he t wo i ndi ct ment s ar e di ver gen t i n r ef er enc e t o t he appel l ant : one i ndi ct ment l i s t s t he appel l ant as “ Jaquec e F i t zg era l d , A l i as,” the se co nd i nd i ctm en t l i st s t he ap p ell an t as “Ja q ue ce G ere m aine F i t zg era l d .” T he ap p ell an t i s also l i s t ed as “ Ja qu ec e G

. Fi t zg er al d, ” “ Ja qu ec e G er mai n e Fi t zg er al d, ” “ Ja qu ec e J. Fi t zg er al d, ” an d “ Ja cw u ec e Fi t zg er al d” in th e re c o rd . T h is o p inio n w ill re fer to the a p p e llan t as “J a q u e c e F itzg e ra ld .” 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 5, 200 5 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JAQU ECE FITZ GER ALD
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Willi am son Coun ty No. II-8402 / II-302-109-A R.E. Lee Davies, Judge

No. M2004- 02441-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jun e 8, 2005

Th e app e llant, Jaqu e c e F itzg e ra ld, app e a ls the re vo c a tio n o f h i s p r o b ati o nb y

th eW ill ia mso n Co un ty 1 Cir c uit Cou rt . O n a

pp e a l, the app e llant p re se nts thesin g le iss ue of wh e the r the tria l c ou rt e rr e d in revoking his probation without hearing the testimony of def ense w itnesses. After

revie wing the issue, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed J.C. M C LIN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined. F. Shayne B rasf

ield, Fr anklin, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, J acque ce F itz g era ld. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Gen eral an d Re po rt e r; B lin d A kr a wi , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Ronald L

. Davis, Dist rict Att orney Gene ral; and Mary Katherine White, Assist ant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee .
OP IN ION

F acts and P roce dural Hi storyA ltho u g h the ind ic tm e n t state s “.5 g ra m s o r m o re ” a n d the S ta te ’s b rie f says tha t t h e a p p e llan t “p le d gu ilt y 2 t o t he i nd i ct m ent as charged , ” we p res um e t hat the ap p el l ant p l ed guil t y t o t he sal e o r del i very of co cai ne i n an am o unt l es s t han

. 5 g r ams be ca u s e t h e j u dg men t for m i n di ca t es t h at t h e appe l l an t pl ed g u i l t y t o a c l as s C fel on y . Se e T en n . Code A n n . § 3 9 -1 7 -4 1 7 (c )( 2 )( A ).

D u e t o t h e con s u mpt i on of pr es cr i p t i o n me di ci n e t o a l l ev i at e a medi ca l c on di t i on , t h e appe l l an t di d n ot 3

c o m p le te d ru g c o u rt a s o rd e r e d

. H o w e v e r, the trial c o u rt g ra n te d him a “sp e c ia l co n sid e ra tio n ” a n d a llo w e d him to re m a in o n inte n siv e p ro b a tio n d e sp ite n o n c o m p lian c e w ith d ru g c o u rt.

-2- On Octobe r 29, 2002, the appellant pled g uilty to the sale or delivery of coc aine in an amount of less than .5 g rams, a class C f elony

. The trial c ourt ordered the a ppellant to pay

a $2000 fine and 2 serve a thre e-y ear

sentenc e, suspende d on i ntensive probation after sixtyday s incarc eration. There afte r, on Aug ust 15, 2003, the appellant pled g uiltyto an additional count of the sale of cocaine in an amount of less than .5 g rams, a class C f elony

. I nstead of incar cer ating the appellant for the offe nse and r einstating his orig in al sentenc e, the tria l court imposed an a dditional six -y ear suspended sentenc e to beserve d consec utively in Comm unity

Correc tions and fined the a ppellant $3000. The app e llant w a s a lso or de re d to se rv e on e y e ar in dru g c ou rt , w ithe lig ibi lit y fo r f ur lou g h a ft e r n ine ty day s o f s e rv ic e or

up on fu rthe r o rd e rs of

thedr ug c ou rt

. 3
I n J une 2004 the a

ppellant’s probation office r filed a violation of pr obation war rant, stating that the appe llant: (1) was a rre sted on J une 8, 2004, for DU I , violation of the implied consent law, failu reto c arry

a drive r’ s li c e ns e , a ndun la wf ul re mov a l of a lic e ns e plate ; (2 ) ha d no t re po rt e d h is arr est for the J une 8, 2004 cha rg es; (3) ha d never verifie d employ ment; ( 4) had pre sumably moved without notification because his probation re port and a rre st warr ant addre sses differ ed; and ( 5) wa s deli n q u en t i n fi ne and f ee pay ment. The wa

rrant was ame nded in Aug ust 2004 to include an alleg ation that the appe llant had not reported to his probation office r since June 3, 2004.
I n a probation revocation hearing h e ld in Sep te mb e r

of 2004, the a

ppellant’s probation officer testified that the appellant was spec ifically informed of

and sig ned the r

ules of his probation. The appellant a dmitted that he vi o l at ed his probation by : (1) re ceiving a new criminal cha rg e; (2) not ma int a ini ng e mpl oyme nt; (3 ) n ot r e po rt ing to h is p ro batio n of fi c e r; a nd(4 ) n ot p a y ing fi ne s a ndfe e s. The trial c ourt then interjec ted:

Well . . . I ’m not sure why we’ re ha ving this hea

ring to be honest with y ou.

. . . . We g ot a situatio n . . . wh e rey ou we re in dr ug c ou rt wh ic h is kin d o f the la st s t o p . M o s tp eo p l e w h e n t h eygeto u t , i f t h eyd o n ’tm ak e i tt h ro u gh d ru g co u rt , go direc tly to jail. You kind of g ot a spec ial consid er at i on beca use of y our medica l condition. But y ou, I mean, y ou elec ted for whateve r rea son that y ou couldn’t stand the pain, so y ou had to have [m edication] so y ou couldn’t complete the prog ram.-3- A l l y o u ’ v e d o n e f

r o mt h a tp o i n tf

o r w ar d i s t o g e ti n t o tr o u b l e , d r i n k i n g , D U I, no t r e po rt ing to [the pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r], no t pay ing , n ot ve ri fying e mpl oyme nt. You’ve just spiraled down and the re’ s no rea son for me not to revoke y our probation, it justisn’t.
I ’m so rry that, y ou kn ow , y ou ma y no t thin k that’ s th e be st w a y to d e a l w ith y our addi ct i on, but I

can de al with it very

easily and that’s to send y ou to jail and that’s what I ’m g oing to do. Probation is revoked. At this point , the following colloquy ensued: Defense Counsel : Your Honor, y es, I h ad more witnesse s to call, and I would like to be hea rd. The Court : I

don’t nee d to hear them. I ’ve hear d from him and I ’ve he ard e noug h. Defense Counsel : Then I ’m g oing to a sk for a bond for an appea l. I

believe [the app e llant] h a s a

ri g ht t o h a ve wi tne sses heard at hi s c a se . We a dmi tte d to c e rt a in violations - - The Court : He’s admitted to the vi olations and nothi ng that - - who are y ou g oing t o c a l l , h i s p ar e n t s ? Defense Counsel : His mother and his aunt and I want - - The Court : His mother and his aunt, now how is that g oing to c hang e my mind? Defense Counsel : Well, Your Honor, what I wanted to point out about our lux urious drug court is that [the appellant] was order ed by a medica l doctor af

ter - - The Court : You’r e m i s s i n g, y ou missed my entire point. He had a c hanceout of drug court a nd I

didn’t hold it ag ainst him and he we nt ahea d and violated a fter dr ug court on intensive pr obation. That’s why he’s g oing to jail, not because he couldn’t cut it in drug court. This hearing is ove r, bond, $25,000. The app e ll a n t n o w b r in g s th is ap p e a l t o ar g u e th a t th e tria l c o u rt’ s r e f u s a l t o h e ar

h is w itnesses vio late d h is d ue pr oc e ss rig hts

.P rel ud i ng our anal y si s, we caut i o n that the app el l ant has f ai l ed t o ci t e t o any po rt i o n of t he ap p el l at e reco rd 4 in h is b rie f. T e n n e sse e C o u rt o f C rim ina l A p p e a ls R u le 1 0 (b ) sta te s tha t “[i]ss u e s w h ic h a re no t sup p o rte d b y a rg u m e n t, ci t at i on t o a u t h or i t i es , or a ppr opr i at e r ef er en ce s t o t h e r ec or d wi l l be t r ea t ed as wa i v ed i n t h i s cou r t

. ” I n t h e i n t er es t of ju stice , w e ha v e c h o se n to a d d re ss th e m e rits o f t h is a p p e a l. -4- Ana lys is 4
I nit ia lly , w e no te that r e vo c a tio n o f p ro batio n a nd a Com mun ity Cor re c tio ns se nte nc e is subject to an a

buse of discr etion standard of revie w, rather than a de novo stand ard . St a te v. Ha rkins , 811 S.W .2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991) . Discret i o n is abused only if the re cord c ontains no substantial e vid e nc e to s up po rt

thetr ial cou rt’ s c on c lus ionthat a vio latio n o f p ro batio n o r a Com mun ity Correc tions sentence ha s occur red. I d.; State v. Greg ory , 946 S.W .2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Proof of a

violation need not be established bey ond a re asonable doubt; the evidenceneed only sho w that the trial judg e exerc ised a c onscientious and intellige nt judgment and did not act arbitra rily . Gre g ory , 946 S.W .2d at 832; State v. L eac h, 914 S.W .2d 104, 106 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Onc e the tria l court has fo u n d b ya pre ponderance of the evidenc e that a de fendant has violated the conditions of probation, the court is g rante d the broad authority to revoke the suspended se nte nc e a ndre ins tate theorig ina l sen te nc e . State v. Mit c he ll, 81 0 S. W.2 d 7 33 , 7 35 (T e nn . Crim. App. 1991); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-310, - 311. Thus, the re vocation of pro b at i o n i s within the sound discretion of the trial court. Mitchell, 810 S.W.2d at 735.
T h i s Court has previously determined that a def

endant who ha s been g rante d a suspende d se nte nc e a ndpr ob a tio n h a s a lib e rty int e re st, a lth ou g h c on dit ion a l, that is pr ote c te d b y du e pr oc e ss of law. See State v. Merriweathe r, 34 S.W.3d 881, 884 (Tenn. Crim. App. 20 0 0 ); State v. Stubblefield, 953 S.W .2d 223, 225 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) ; Practy v. State, 525 S.W .2d 677, 680 (T e nn . Crim . App . 197 4)

. Ho we ve r, the re vo c a tio n of a de fe nd a nt’ s p ro batio n d oe s n ot i mpl ic a te thefu ll a rr a y of pr oc e du ra l pr ote c tio ns a tta c he d to a c ri min a l pr oc e e din g . Se e Ga g no n v . Sc arp e lli , 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973). Instead, a defe ndant facing revoc ation of probation is entitled only to the “minimum require ments of due proce ss,” including : (1) written notice of the c laimed violations of probation; (2) disclosureto the probationer of the e vidence ag ainst h i m; (3) the opportunity to be he ardin p e rs on a nd pr e se nt wit ne sse s and do c ume nta ry e vid e nc e ; (4) the ri g ht to co nf ro nt an d c ro sse x a m i n e a d v e r s e w i t n e s s e s ( u n l e s s g o o d c au s e i s s h o w n ) ; ( 5 ) a n e u tr a l a n d d e t a c h e d h e ar i n g b o d y; and (6) a written statement by the fact-finde rs as to the evidenc e re lied upon and re asons for r evoking probation. I d.; see a lso Morrissey v. Br ewe r, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972) ( aff ording these limited protec tions to t he re vocation of pa role).
I n the instant case , the appe llant arg u es t h at , s i n ce G ag non ensure s the “opportunity to be he ard in pe rs on a ndpr e se nt w itn e sse s, ” thetria l c ou rt inf ri ng e d u po n h is l imi te d d ue pr oc e ss rig hts by refusi ng to hear

de fe ns e wi tne sse s. What th is a rg ume nt o ve rl oo ks is that th e he ari ng pr oc e ss envisioned in Gag non aff ords the “minimum r eq u i re m ents of due pr ocess” so as to justlyresolve contested issues and disp u t ed fac ts. See Morrissey , 408 U.S. at 490 (“If it is determined that [the appellant’ s] admit ted par ole [probation] violations . . . are f ound to be re asonable g rounds for revoking parole [probation] under state standards, that would end the matter.” ). The pur pose of the-5-

hearing is “ to determine w hether there is probable c ause to be lieve [that the appellant] has committed a par ole [probation] violation.” I d. at 486-87. After the appellant admitted to violating his probation in various way s, no disputed fac ts or contested issues r emained to be resolve d t h roug h additional witnesses. Ac cording ly , we de termine that the a ppellant’s due pr ocess rights we re not violated by the trial court. Additionally , afte r considering the former unsucce ssful eff orts to place the appellant in alternative sentenc ing and his admissions of viol ation, we c onclude that the trial court did not abu se its dis c re tio n inre ins tatin g theapp e llant’ s se nte nc e s. Conclusion The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ J .C. McL IN, J UDGE