In 2001, James Gaddis was convicted of two counts of child molestation and was sentenced to serve seven years in confinement, followed by 13 years on probation. In 2010, the trial court revoked Gaddis’ probation on the ground that he had tested positive for marijuana and thereby violated the special condition of his probation which prohibits him from taking into his body any controlled substance or mind altering drug. Gaddis appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court having taken judicial notice of another court’s ruling that the drug test in question is of verifiable certainty. Because there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s ruling and the trial court did not err in taking judicial notice of another court’s decision, we affirm. 1. “It is well settled law that the quality and quantum of evidence necessary for revocation of probation is not that demanded for conviction of crime.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Carlson v. State , 280 Ga. App. 595, 598-599 2 634 SE2d 410 2006. “The evidence produced at the revocation hearing must establish the violations of probation only by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Parker v. State , 275 Ga. App. 35, 36 619 SE2d 750 2005. “On appeal, we will not interfere with a lower court’s revocation of probation absent manifest abuse of discretion.” Citation omitted. Milanovich v. State , 278 Ga. App. 669 1 629 SE2d 556 2006.
In this case, two witnesses testified at the revocation hearing. Gaddis’ probation officer, Dain Dias, testified that he has been trained to administer the OnTrak TesTstik drug test. On May 11, 2010, Officer Dias administered the test to Gaddis, testing a urine sample for the presence of cocaine, amphetamine and marijuana. The test results were negative for cocaine and amphetamine, but positive for marijuana. The probation officer had previously told Gaddis that he had the right to an independent test, and Gaddis signed an “Instructions to Offenders” form which, among other things, stated that after a positive test he had the right to request an independent test by an approved laboratory. There is no evidence that he requested another test.
