ÿWPC5 …# VU:a %› 0(¡ Éw@Ï4 # 2 0l: 0D¦ 0Jê 0T4 0^ˆ 0hæ 0rN 0|À 0†< 0 1uR U,Ç 0dó BWU,tU* B)ÊDCó AM6ãƒff D3Ìv~ÿvÓ} 0@P AOÆß 0D¥ D/é B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡HY ™ U U U E D  E  Ó€Ô¡¨ Ôô’ Ô3|x ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌSeptember€5,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÑ X ÑÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÙ€€ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑßL€'(&;+'h|` ç `€€Lß›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àJUNE€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9511„CC„00374ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCOFFEE€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€GERALD€L.€EWELL,€SR.,ÌDONNA€ARMS,€€à àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Sentencing)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òCAMPBELL€SMOOT,€JR.à àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌó óPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÌÌSHAWN€G.€GRAHAMó óà àò òà àà àà àMARY€ANNE€QUEENó óÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àLegal€AssistantÌ605€E.€Carroll€St.à àà àà àà àà àÌTullahoma,€TN€€€37388à àà àà àà àò òCHARLOTTE€H.€RAPPUHNó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€Attorney€Generalà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450ÏJames€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àó óNashville,€TN€€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òCHARLES€M.€LAYNEó ó€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àKENNETH€SHELTONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€147à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àManchester,€TN€€€37355Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌœOPINION›€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€œREVERSEDÌAND›€REMANDED€IN€PARTó óÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÇÑ7€ZXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓÓó óóóÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€aggravated€burglary€and€theft€ofÏproperty€in€excess€of€one€thousand€dollars€($1,000),€Class€C€and€D€felonies,Ïrespectively.€€She€pled€guilty€to€both€offenses€and€after€a€hearing€was€sentenced€toÏsix€years€for€the€burglary€charge,€and€to€four€years€for€the€theft€offense.€€BothÏsentences€were€to€run€concurrently.€€Probation€was€ordered€after€one€year€ofÏincarceration€with€ð ðrelease€from€custody€and€placement€on€probation€.€.€.€subject€toÏthe€verification€of€the€district€attorney€general€in€writing€that€the€defendant€hasÏcooperated€fully€in€the€investigation€and€prosecution€of€other€possible€criminalÏoffender(s)€in€this€case.ðð€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€challenges€theÏlength€of€her€sentence€and€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€considering€herÏfor€alternative€sentencing.€€She€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÏimposed,€as€a€condition€to€her€probation,€that€she€cooperate€in€the€prosecution€of€herÏaccomplice(s).€€We€find€no€error€in€the€length€of€the€sentence€or€in€the€requirementÏthat€she€be€incarcerated.€€We€do€find€error€in€the€condition€of€probation€as€imposedÏby€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àOn€January€9,€1995,€the€defendant€burglarized€the€residence€of€Mr.€andÏMrs.€Mike€Logan,€her€aunt€and€uncle€by€marriage.€€With€one€or€two€accomplices,€theÏdefendant€stole€thousands€of€dollars€worth€of€personal€property€which€was€then€sold,Ïpawned€or€discarded.€€Approximately€one€month€after€the€burglary€and€theft€tookÏplace,€the€defendant€confessed€her€involvement€in€the€crime€to€authorities€andÏexpressed€a€willingness€to€make€restitution€for€the€victimsðð€financial€loss.ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€a€òòdeÏnovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€burdenÏofÑ€)ÑÇshowing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,€however,€ð ðisÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏthe€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€œ1991).›Ìœ›Ìœ›à àà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„210€provides€that€the€minimumÏsentence€within€the€range€is€the€presumptive€sentence.€€If€there€are€enhanc‚ing€andÏmitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€andÏenhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduceÏthe€sen‚tence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€noÏmitigating€factors,€the€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€rangeÏbut€still€within€the€range.€€The€weight€to€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103€sets€out€sentencingÏconsiderations€which€are€guidelines€for€determining€whether€or€not€a€defendantÏshould€be€incarcerated.€€These€include€the€need€ð ðto€protect€society€by€restraining€aÏdefendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct,ðð€the€need€ð ðto€avoidÍdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,ðð€the€determination€that€confinement€isÏparticularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similarÏoffenses,ðð€or€the€determination€that€ð ðmeasures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€haveÏfrequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„1„3(1).ÌÌœ›à àà àIn€determining€the€specific€sentence€and€the€possible€combination€ofÏsentencing€alternatives,€the€court€shall€consider€the€following:€(1)€any€evidence€fromÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€concerning€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€natureÏand€characteristics€of€the€offense,€(5)€information€offered€by€the€State€or€theÏdefendant€concerning€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors€as€found€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113€and€„114,€and€(6)€the€defendantððs€statements€in€his€or€her€own€behalfÏconcerning€sentencing.€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210(b).€€In€addition,€the€legislature€established€certain€sentencing€principlesÏwhich€include€the€following:€€ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓÌ(5)€In€recognition€that€state€prison€capacities€and€the€funds€to€build€andÏmaintain€them€are€limited,€convicted€felons€committing€the€most€severeÏoffenses,€possessing€criminal€histories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€forÏthe€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€past€efforts€atÍœrehabilitation›€shall€be€given€first€priority€regarding€sentencing€involvingÏincarceration;€and€ÌÌ(6)€A€defendant€who€does€not€fall€within€the€parameters€of€œsubdivision›Ì(5)€and€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€aÏœClass€C,›€D€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€forÏalternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€theÏcontrary.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102.ÌÌà àà àAfter€reviewing€the€statutes€set€out€above,€it€is€obvious€that€the€intent€ofÏthe€legislature€is€to€encourage€alternatives€to€incarceration€in€cases€whereÏdefendants€are€sentenced€as€standard€or€mitigated€offenders€convicted€of€œC,€D,›€or€EÏfelonies.€€However,€it€is€also€clear€that€there€is€an€intent€to€incarcerate€thoseÏdefendants€whose€criminal€histories€indicate€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€andÏmorals€of€society€and€a€failure€of€past€efforts€to€rehabilitate.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€contends€first€that€the€length€of€her€sentence€isÏexcessive.€€She€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender.€€The€minimumÏsentence€for€a€Range€I€standard€offender€on€a€Class€C€felony€is€three€years,€with€aÏmaximum€of€six.€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„112€(a)(3)€(1990€Repl.).€€The€minimum€sentence€for€a€Range€I€standardÍoffender€on€a€Class€D€felony€is€two€years,€with€a€maximum€of€four.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„112€(a)(4)€(1990€Repl.).€€The€record€reveals€that€the€defendant€has€a€prior€criminalÏrecord€of€numerous€misdemeanor€offenses€including€two€previous€convictionsÏrelating€to€theft€of€property.€€Charges€of€driving€with€a€revoked€license€in€two€differentÏcounties€were€also€pending€at€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing.€€In€addition,€theÏdefendant€had€twice€violated€her€probation€on€earlier€sentences.€€In€consideration€ofÏthese€facts,€the€trial€court€properly€applied€two€enhancing€factors:€a€previous€historyÏof€criminal€convictions€or€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏrange,€and€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€aÏsentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(8)€(1990ÏRepl.).€€The€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors.€€The€record€supports€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings,€and€it€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€setting€the€defendantððsÏsentences€at€the€maximum.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÏconsider€the€defendant€for€alternative€sentencing.€€However,€the€trial€court€not€onlyÏconsidered€alternative€sentencing,€but€imposed€one:€€probation,€albeit€following€aÏyear€of€incarceration.€€The€trial€courtððs€actions€satisfy€the€1989€Sentencing€ReformÏActððs€requirements€that€probation€be€automatically€considered€for€those€defendantsÍconvicted€of€these€offenses€and€who€receive€an€actual€sentence€of€eight€years€orÏless,€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„303(a),€and€that€qualifying€defendants€such€as€Ms.€Arms€be€presumed€aÏfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€Moreover,Ïgiven€the€defendantððs€ð ðextensive€criminal€historyðð€and€her€repeated€violations€of€pastÏprobation,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€requiring€a€year€of€theÏdefendantððs€sentence€to€be€served.€€The€defendant€has€not€carried€her€burden€ofÏdemonstrating€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌà àà àIn€her€third€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€judge€erredÏwhen€he€imposed€as€a€condition€to€her€release€on€probation€that€she€cooperate€inÏthe€investigation€and€prosecution€of€her€accomplice(s)€in€the€offenses.€€We€agreeÏwith€the€defendant€on€this€issue.€€The€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989Ïprovides€that€ð ð[w]henever€a€court€sentences€an€offender€to€supervised€probation,€theÏcourt€shall€specify€the€terms€of€the€supervision€and€may€require€the€offender€toÏcomply€with€certain€conditions.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„303€(d).€€Various€specific€conditionsÏare€then€enumerated€followed€by€a€ð ðcatch„allðð€provision€permitting€ð ðany€otherÏconditions€reasonably€related€to€the€purpose€of€the€offenderððs€sentence€and€notÍunduly€restrictive€of€the€offenderððs€liberty,€or€incompatible€with€the€offenderððs€freedomÏof€conscience,€or€otherwise€prohibited€by€this€chapter.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„303€(d)(9)Ï(1995€Ô% € ÔSupp.).€€In€other€words,€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€permits€the€sentencingÏcourt€to€impose€conditions€òòofóó€probation,€but€not€conditions€precedent€òòtoóó€probation.€€InÏthis€case,€the€sentencing€court€required€that€the€defendant€satisfy€the€condition€priorÏto€being€released€on€probation.€€In€addition,€it€gives€to€the€prosecutor€the€authorityÏand€power€to€determine€if€the€condition€has€been€met.€€The€Sentencing€Reform€ActÏdoes€not€provide€for€this€scenario.ÌÌà àà àWe€are€also€concerned€about€the€substance€of€the€condition€imposed.€ÏWhile€we€recognize€that€plea€bargains€often€involve€favorable€sentencing€terms€inÏexchange€for€cooperation€in€the€prosecution€of€others,€this€is€not€a€plea€bargainedÏcase.€€Moreover,€requiring€the€defendant€to€choose€between€incarceration€andÏbecoming€an€informant€strikes€us€as€incompatible€with€the€defendantððs€freedom€ofÏconscience€in€contravention€of€the€statute.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2dÏ301,€306€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(ð ðrequiring€the€appellant€to€participate€inÏundercover€activities€under€the€facts€as€presented€was€outside€the€scope€of€theÏSentencing€Act€as€it€was€clearly€not€voluntary,€was€not€reasonably€related€to€anyÏform€of€rehabilitation€and€was€unduly€restrictive€of€appellantððs€liberty.ðð)ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€above,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÏimposed€on€the€defendant€a€condition€precedent€to€probation,€and€in€creating€aÏcondition€that€does€not€comport€with€the€requirements€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„303(d).€ÏTherefore,€we€reverse€that€portion€of€the€defendantððs€sentence€and€remand€thisÏmatter€for€the€trial€court€to€reconsider€the€conditions€of€probation€in€accordance€withÏthis€opinion.€€The€remainder€of€the€defendantððs€sentence€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌœÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judge