charged with a new offense; and that the circuit court allowed the appellant to present his reasons for refusing to take the drug test. The appellant did not request an opportunity to present witnesses or any other type of evidence. Also, because the State did not present any witnesses during the hearing, the appellant was not denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against him. Therefore, the appellant’s argument is without merit. II. The appellant also argues that he did not receive written notice of the alleged probation violations and that the State did not disclose the evidence it had against him. However, he did not present these arguments to the circuit court. Therefore, they are not properly before this court. See Puckett v. State, 680 So.2d 980 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). III. Finally, the appellant argues that the
holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence holding that probation revocation proceedings are clearly not criminal proceedings recognizing right of allocution in probation revocation proceedings holding that the general rules of preservation apply in probation revocation proceedings holding that neither rule 11 nor the protections of boykin apply to probation revocation hearings and observing that less process is due in prison disciplinary proceedings than in probation revocation hearings