when she testified that defendant had approached the boys in response to their taunting him — a fact not mentioned by Mr. Bissell, who was outside, and presumably better positioned to observe the encounter. On the other hand, the testimonies of Mr. Cole’s two friends, present alongside him at the time of the confrontation, were entirely consistent with that of the complaining witness-both saw defendant strike Mr. Cole in the manner he originally described. The hearing justice’s decision to credit the testimony of the state’s witnesses, and thus find that defendant had struck Mr. Cole, rightly led to the conclusion that defendant “failed to keep the peace and be of good behavior,” thus violating the terms of his probation. See State v. House, 889 A.2d 231, 232 (R.I.2006) (mem.) (<HOLDING>). B The Sentence Imposed The defendant’s second
holding that under statutes in effect at the time a court may not by revocation and granting a second period of probation extend the total time on probation beyond five years as the statutes do not speak of terms of probation but speak in plain language of the total time which may be spent on probation for a felony holding that a defendants aggressive conduct and shoving of another individual violated the terms of his probation holding that probation is not a sentence holding that the state must establish by the greater weight of the evidence that a defendant violated a term of his probation holding that a defendant was not constitutionally entitled to counsel at a probation revocation hearing when he admitted to violating the terms of his probation and refused the district courts offer to appoint counsel