On March 4, 1971, appellant, Raymond Earl Pietsch, entered a plea of guilty to a charge of armed robbery. Imposition of sentence was suspended on March 24, 1971 and appellant was placed on probation with one of the cоnditions being that he serve one year in the county jail. During his confinement the appellant was accused of smuggling hacksaw blades into the jail which he obtained whilе working as a trus-tee and passed to other prisoners for their use in an unsuccessful attempt to escape from the county jail. A criminal complaint was filed against the defendant, but immediately before a preliminary hearing was to be held the complaint was dismissed. Thereafter, a hearing for the revocation of probation was ordered. This hearing resulted in probation being revoked and аppellant being sentenced to a prison term of 5 to 6 years.
This appеal is brought raising 3 questions: (1) was there sufficient evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding that a condition of probation had been violated? (2) was the appellant subjеcted to double *263 jeopardy in his revocation hearing after a criminal сharge on the same subject matter had been dismissed? (3) was appellant deprived of the effective assistance of counsel ?
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
The petition for revocation of appellant’s probation accused him of smuggling contraband into the Pima County Jail. The contraband consisted of hacksaw blades which had been used by prisoners in the county jail in an attempted escape from the jail.
In order for probation to be revoked, A.R.S. § 13-1657, subsec. B provides, in part, that the сourt must have “reason to believe” that the defendant is engaged in criminal prаctices. The “reasonable belief” required by the statute is established by a preponderance of the evidence presented.
At the revocation hearing the testimony of two fellow trustees was presented. They testified that the аppellant had taken part in the smuggling of the hacksaw blades into the Pima County Jail. Other evidence was introduced which established that an escape attеmpt had been made using hacksaw blades to cut certain cell bars in the jail. The evidence submitted was sufficient to support the finding of the trial court that the terms оf appellant’s probation had been violated.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Appellant states that the county attorney recognized that the case was insufficient to support a criminal conviction, so the preliminary hearing was dismissed by the prosecutiоn. Subsequently a probation revocation hearing was ordered by the superior court. It is argued that the special facts of this case dictate that it be rеcognized that, as a practical matter, this procedure required the appellant to answer twice for the same offense. Clearly this argument is without mеrit. A preliminary hearing is not a proceeding at which jeopardy attachеs. Skinner v. Superior Court,
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF' COUNSEL
Appellant’s sole allegation in suppоrt of his argument that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is that his trial attorney did not call as witnesses two persons allegedly involved in the smuggling of the hacksaw blades. Questions concerning an attorney’s judgment in regard to trial tactics will not support a finding that counsel’s representation was inadequate. Stаte v. Streett,
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.