the probation

order required.

       The defendant testified during the hearing. He stated he lived with an elderly

couple. The man accused him of “messing around with his wife.” According to the

defendant, he “was scared . . . to come back here and appear before [the trial

judge] and going to jail on this, so I made a bad decision.” The defendant left the

State of Tennessee and went to Illinois. The defendant further stated he had been

convicted in Illinois of two felony thefts, served time there, and was on Illinois

probation on the date of the hearing.



                              robbery conviction.” Our review of the record

indicates that the defendant was incarcerated from at least January 30, 1989, the

date of his original sentence, until November 9, 1989, the date the suspension was

granted. In addition the defendant was incarcerated from January 7, 1997, when

he was arrested on the probation violation warrant, through the date of the hearing

on March 19, 1997. The trial court apparently concluded that the partial revocation,

which recognized the time served from the date of his arrest on the probation

warrant until the date of the hearing, was a sufficient sanction under all the

circumstances. Although this Court may or may not have done the same thing, we

are not at liberty to simply substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. We

have abuse of discretion review, not de