William Jason Grinstead appeals the revocation of his first offender status and related probation arising out of a charge of possession of cocaine. Revocation was based on new allegations that he violated his probation by possessing firearms and testing positive for methamphetamine and morphine. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the results of an unproven test that was used to show that he had the two drugs in his system. He also contends that without evidence of drug use, the court’s determination that he had used proscribed substances was erroneous. Construed in favor of the trial court’s ruling, the evidence shows that in February 2001, Grinstead pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and was placed on probation for three years under the first offender law. See OCGA § 42-8-60. In October 2003, a petition for revocation was filed based on allegations that Grinstead violated the conditions of his probation by possessing ammunition and by testing positive for illegal drugs in violation of a special condition. At the revocation hearing, Grinstead’s probation officer testified that Grinstead was found to be in possession of four types of ammunition and that Grinstead tested positive for morphine and methamphetamine.
Grinstead objected to the latter evidence on the ground that the state failed to offer a foundation for introducing any drug test results and on the ground that the probation officer was not qualified to present that information. In colloquy, counsel for the state and the defendant discussed the test as if it were the same one at issue in Cheatwood v. State , 248 Ga. App. 617 548 SE2d 384 2001. In Cheatwood , the trial court heard evidence by one expert that, based on his past studies of different on-site testing devices, in his opinion the “Roche Diagnostic Corporation’s ‘OnTrack TesTstik’ drug test”. . . “was 100 percent reliable for testing marijuana or cocaine.” Id. at 618. Grinstead also objected on the ground that Cheatwood was inapplicable. The trial court reviewed Cheatwood and decided that the evidence was admissible. Prior to the court’s ruling, the probation officer had not yet identified the specific test that he used.
