NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

OPINION

THOMPSON, Judge.

Wesley S. Anglin appeals his probation revocation, claiming that the lack of testimony by his probation officer violated his right to confrontation and cross examination when testimony was given by another probation officer based upon his probation officer's affidavit.

On December 11, 2007, Anglin pled guilty to complicity to commit first-degree burglary and was sentenced to thirteen-years' incarceration, probated for five years. The conditions of Anglin's probation included that he refrain from committing another offense, avoid persons of disreputable or harmful character, remain within the county and state, report to his probation officer as directed and refrain from using drugs.

Anglin was supervised by Probation Officer Livers. On June 18, 2008, Livers executed a special supervision report stating that Anglin tested positive for marijuana and was questioned about associating with Corey Vincent, a convicted felon. Livers requested that no action be taken at that time.

On March 26, 2009, Livers signed an affidavit of probation violation for the earlier violations of substance abuse and associating with a convicted felon, and new violations including absconding from supervision, associating with convicted felons, Vincent and Joseph Meredith, second degree assault, theft by unlawful taking over $300 and leaving the area of supervision without permission of the officer. Trooper Dennis Oldham filed a criminal complaint alleging that Anglin and Meredith beat Vincent until he was unconscious and then took his vehicle.

At Anglin's probation revocation hearing on May 26, 2009, the circuit court heard testimony to support revocation from Probation Officer Steven Whitehead, Probation Officer Heather Hensley and Trooper Dennis Oldham. Whitehead testified for the Commonwealth concerning information contained in Livers's affidavit and report regarding Anglin's probation violations. Hensley, who supervised Vincent, testified as of May of 2008, Vincent and Anglin were associating with one another and were aware of the other's convicted felon status. Oldham testified to the assault incident that was the basis for the new criminal complaint.

The circuit court found that Anglin had violated the terms of his probation by absconding, associating with a convicted felon and committing additional felony offenses and, on May 29, 2009, revoked Anglin's probation.

Anglin challenges his revocation claiming a violation of the confrontation clause and his right to cross examination because Livers did not testify and was not found to be unavailable. Anglin claims that Livers's absence violated Anglin's right to confrontation when Whitehead, who did not supervise him, was allowed to testify as to probation violations from Livers's affidavit and report. Anglin claims that he was denied the opportunity for cross-examination, because he could not explore Livers's credibility as the author of the affidavit and report. Anglin does not challenge the accuracy of the underlying affidavit or report, or assert that he did not violate the terms of his probation. As no objection was made to Whitehead's testimony during the probation revocation hearing, Anglin requests palpable error review under RCr 10.26.

We find no error and affirm. A probation revocation hearing is not equivalent to an original criminal proceeding. Robinson v. Commonwealth, 86 S.W.3d 54, 57 (Ky.App. 2002). It is an informal, non-criminal proceeding. Barker v. Commonwealth, 379 S.W.3d 116, 129 (Ky. 2012).

The due process required for the revocation of probation is less than that required to convict in a criminal trial. Tiryung v. Commonwealth, 717 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Ky.App. 1986). While a defendant at a probation revocation hearing is entitled certain due process rights, including the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the probation revocation process "should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters, affidavits, and other material that would not be considered admissible in an adversary criminal trial." Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2604, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). The right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses in a probation revocation hearing does not prohibit the use of appropriate substitutes for live testimony including documentary evidence. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 n.5, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1760 n.5, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973)). Kentucky courts have interpreted Morrissey and Gagnon as allowing the admission of hearsay evidence at probation revocation hearings because there is no absolute right to confront witnesses in this type of flexible, non-criminal proceeding. Barker, 379 S.W.3d at 129-130.

Anglin failed to demonstrate any error when Whitehead testified on the basis of Livers's affidavit and report. Livers's reliability could be easily ascertained and Anglin does not challenge his reliability. Anglin did not challenge Livers's absence or Whitehead's testimony at the revocation proceedings and does not dispute the accuracy of the underlying violations. Additionally, the testimony of other witnesses adequately provides a factual basis for the revocation. Accordingly, we affirm the Hardin Circuit Court's revocation of probation.

ALL CONCUR.