ÿWPCÀ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 U .H v 0J~ 0TÈ 0^ 0hz 0râ 0|T 0†Ð 0V 1uæ U,[ 0d‡ U,ë U>B)UDC~ BÁ AMÞ,+v~WvÓÕ D3¨ 0@Û AOÆj 0D0 D/t B£˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- EÀ D!"D#$%Ó€à~| 3|x0%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 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< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òApril€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€6XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ€ ŠÔÙ€€ÙßL€&'$;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌÌœJANUARY›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ïœ03C01„9508„CR„00233›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœKNOX›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œRAY€L.€JENKINSó ó›Ìò òœWARNER€D.€BRANNON,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà àœ(DUI)›ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€œFROM›€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œKNOX€COUNTYó ó›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœCHRISTOPHER€VAN€RIPER›à àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌStuart€&€Van€Riperà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ300€Market€Street,€Suite€200ÌClinton,€TN€37716à àà àà àà àTIMOTHY€F.€BEHANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„7358ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRANDALL€E.€NICHOLSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€CRABTREE€andÌà àà àà àà àà àà àZANE€SCARLETTÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€37902›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ XÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€ ŠÔà àThe€Defendant,€Warner€Brannon,€appeals€as€of€right€from€a€jury€verdictÏconvicting€him€of€œdriving›€œunder›€the€œinfluence.›€€The€jury€fined€the€Defendant€fiveÏhundred€œdollars,›€and€the€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€in€confinement€with€all€but€fifteen€days€suspended.€€The€DefendantÏnow€appeals€his€conviction€and€his€sentence.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€brings€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€That€theÏevidence€is€not€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€DUI€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€District€Attorney€in€his€closingÏargument€to€argue€that€the€Defendant€did€not€call€exculpatory€witnesses€toÏtestify€during€the€trial,€thereby€giving€the€jury€the€impression€that€the€DefendantÏhad€the€burden€of€proof;€and€(3)€that€the€Defendantððs€sentence€of€fifteen€daysÏwas€excessive.ÌÌà àAbout€two€a.m.€on€the€morning€of€May€7,€1993,€the€Defendant€wasÏreturning€to€his€home€in€Knoxville€after€leaving€a€local€bar.€€Two€officers€from€theÏKnox€œCounty›€Sheriffððs€Department,€Darrell€Wheat€and€Charles€Vance,€saw€theÍDefendantððs€white€van€weave€across€the€solid€yellow€line€numerous€times.€ÏThe€van€was€traveling€fifty„five€miles€per€hour€in€a€forty„mile„per„hour€speedÏzone.€€Officer€Wheat€followed€the€Defendant€for€approximately€a€quarter€mile,Ïthen€turned€on€the€blue€lights€and€signaled€the€Defendant€to€pull€over.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€pulled€over€on€the€shoulder,€got€out€of€his€vehicle€andÏœwalked›€towards€the€officers.€€Both€officers€testified€that€the€DefendantÏapparently€had€no€€trouble€removing€his€license€from€his€wallet,€but€that€heÏappeared€to€have€trouble€maintaining€his€balance€as€he€walked€toward€them.€ÏThe€officers€also€testified€that€the€Defendant€smelled€of€alcohol€and€his€speechÏwas€slurred.€€The€Defendant€told€the€officers€that€he€had€consumed€three€beers.€€ÌÌà àOfficer€Wheat€then€asked€the€Defendant€to€take€three€sobriety€tests.€€InÏthe€first€test,€the€heel„to„toe€walk,€Officer€Wheat€explained€that€the€DefendantÏshould€take€nine€steps€forward€touching€his€heel€to€œhis€toes›€while€looking€downÏand€counting€out€loud.€€The€Defendant€was€then€to€pivot€and€take€nine€stepsÏback€to€his€original€position,€again€while€touching€heel€to€toe.€€Officer€WheatÏtestified€that€the€Defendant€failed€this€test€by€raising€his€arms€several€times€toÏmaintain€balance,€taking€ten€steps€instead€of€nine,€and€starting€the€test€beforeÏbeing€told€to€do€so.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€did€not€pass€the€second€test,€the€ð ðlift„the„leg€test,ðð€inÏwhich€œhe›€was€to€stand€with€his€hands€down€and€feet€together€then€lift€one€footÏsix€inches€off€the€ground,€look€at€his€toe,€and€count€to€three.€€During€the€test,€theÏDefendant€dropped€his€foot€to€maintain€his€balance€and€raised€his€arms€toÏkeep€from€swaying.€€Ìà àÌà àThe€officer€last€administered€the€ð ðhorizontal€gaze€nystagmusðð€test.€€In€thisÏtest,€the€suspect€is€to€stand€with€his€feet€together€and€his€arms€by€his€side.€ÏThe€officer€holds€a€pen€above€the€œsuspectððs›€head€and€has€œhim›€touch€the€tip€ofÏthe€pen.€€Then,€while€holding€his€head€still,€the€suspect€is€to€follow€theÏmovement€of€the€pen€with€his€eyes€only.€€Officer€Wheat€testified€that€if€aÏsuspect€is€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€or€a€narcotic,€his€eyes€will€ð ðjiggleðð€orÏreflex€sideways.€€The€officer€testified€that€the€Defendant€failed€to€keep€his€headÏstill€and€move€only€his€eyes€and€that€his€eyes€jiggled,€indicating€that€he€wasÏunder€the€influence€of€alcohol.€€ÌÌà àAfter€the€Defendant€failed€the€field€sobriety€tests,€the€officers€concludedÏthat€he€was€driving€while€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€and€arrested€him.€€OfficerÏWheat€then€tried€to€administer€a€breathalyzer€test€to€the€Defendant.€€TheÏDefendant€refused€the€test.€€Officer€Wheat€then€read€the€Implied€Consent€law€toÏthe€Defendant,€explaining€that€failure€to€take€the€test€could€result€in€a€one„yearÍsuspension€of€driving€privileges€in€Tennessee.€€The€Defendant€again€refused€toÏtake€the€breathalyzer€test,€but€said€that€he€would€take€a€blood€test€to€determineÏhis€blood€alcohol€œlevel.€€A€blood€test€was€not€€taken.›€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€first€argues€that€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€to€sustain€aÏconviction€for€DUI€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïthis€court€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€during€theÏtrial€was€sufficient€"to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt."€€T.R.A.P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guiltÏpredicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€ofÏdirect€and€circumstantial€evidence.€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweighÏor€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€ofÏfact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286ÏS.W.2d€856,€859€(Tenn.€1956).€€This€court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÍas€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€fromÏthe€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Herrodóó,€754€S.W.2d€627,€632€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754ÏS.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€In€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474Ï(Tenn.€1973),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€said,€"A€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,Ïapproved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."€€òòIdóó.€at€476.Ì€€à àà àÌà àBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€òòidóó.,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€thisÏcourt€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returnedÏby€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€ThisÏcourt€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unlessÏthe€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€the€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€fromÏthe€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€theÏaccused€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€780.Ìà àÌà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€most€damaging€evidence€sustaining€hisÏconviction€was€his€failure€to€satisfactorily€pass€the€three€field€sobriety€tests.€€HeÏargues€that€these€tests€were€not€reliable€evidence€because€they€were€notÏproperly€administered.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€the€part€of€the€road€on€whichÏthe€police€stopped€him€was€under€construction€and€was€not€level.€€TheÏDefendant€contends€that€the€first€two€tests,€which€basically€gauged€balanceÏand€coordination,€were€performed€on€a€part€of€the€road€that€had€a€fifteen€toÏtwenty€degree€slope€and€was€cluttered€with€gravel.€€Thus,€these€impedimentsÏhindered€his€balance€and€coordination.€€He€also€contends€that€the€flashing€lightsÏand€floodlights€from€the€police€car€interfered€with€the€horizontal€gaze€nystagmusÏtest.€€œ›Ìà àThe€Defendant€testified€that€he€had€consumed€three€beers€in€the€courseÏof€the€evening,€one€with€dinner,€and€two€later€at€a€local€bar€where€he€wasÏplaying€darts.€€Although€the€Defendant€contends€that€he€was€not€drivingÏerratically,€the€two€police€officers€testified€that€they€saw€him€veer€across€theÏcenter€line€numerous€times€while€€€exceeding€the€speed€limit.€€The€officersÏtestified€that€the€Defendant€smelled€of€alcohol,€had€slurred€speech,€andÏapparently€had€trouble€maintaining€his€balance€when€walking€toward€the€policeÏcar.€€ÌÌà àBoth€officers€testified€that€although€the€area€in€which€the€tests€were€givenÏwas€under€construction,€the€gravel€was€sparse€and€the€slope€of€the€shoulderÏwas€not€enough€to€affect€the€outcome€of€these€tests.€€Officer€Vance€alsoÏtestified€that€Officer€Wheat€informed€the€Defendant€before€taking€the€test€that€heÏcould€move€to€which€ever€side€of€the€shoulder€he€wanted€to€take€the€tests.€€TheÏDefendant€€did€not€at€any€time€object€to€the€conditions€of€the€three€field€sobrietyÏtests.€€Officer€Wheat€also€testified€that€the€horizontal€gaze€nystagmus€test€isÏcommonly€performed€in€the€presence€of€the€police€car€lights€with€no€adverseÏeffects€on€the€result.ÌÌà àThe€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact€determines€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€theÏdetermination€of€factual€issues.€€The€jury€obviously€accredited€the€testimony€ofÏthe€two€arresting€officers€and€resolved€the€conflicting€testimony€in€favor€of€theÏState.€€The€evidence€in€the€record€supports€their€conclusion,€and€the€DefendantÏhas€not€met€his€burden€of€illustrating€that€the€evidence€shows€otherwise.€ÏTherefore,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction€ofÏDUI€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€State,Ïduring€the€closing€argument,€to€comment€on€the€Defendantððs€failure€to€call€certainÏmissing€witnesses€to€testify€on€his€behalf.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€that€a€friend€had€been€playing€œdarts€with€him›€onÏthe€night€that€he€was€arrested.€€After€his€arrest,€an€ex„girlfriend€arrived€on€theÏscene€where€the€Defendant€was€being€stopped.€€The€Defendant€did€not€callÏeither€of€these€witnesses€to€€testify€at€trial.€€The€State€commented€on€theÏDefendantððs€failure€to€call€these€witnesses€to€substantiate€his€testimony€that€heÏwas€not€intoxicated€and€had€only€had€three€beers€during€the€course€of€theÏevening.€€Defense€counsel€objected€to€the€prosecutorððs€comment,€but€the€trialÏcourt€overruled€that€objection€stating€that€ð ðthe€State€has€the€right€to€argue€theÏfacts€and€the€logical€inferences€therefrom.ððÌÌà àThe€Defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€this€commentÏover€his€objection€and€that€such€a€comment€shifted€the€burden€of€proof€to€theÏdefense.€€A€prosecutor€may€sometimes€be€allowed€to€comment€on€the€failure€ofÏa€defendant€to€call€an€available€and€material€witness€whose€testimony€wouldÏordinarily€be€expected€to€favor€that€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Francisóó,€669€S.W.2d€85,Ï88€(Tenn.€1984).€€œIf€a€party€has€the€ability€to€produce€a€witness€whoseÏtestimony€would€be€material€to€an€issue,€the€fact€that€he€does€not€do€so›€createsÏa€permissive€inference€for€the€jury€that€the€testimony€may€have€beenÏœunfavorable.€€òòId.óó€at€88;›€œòòseeóó€òòState›€v.€Jonesóó,€598€S.W.2d€209,€224€(Tenn.€œ1980);ÍòòState€v.€Philpottóó,€882€S.W.2d€394,€407€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1994).›€€ÌÌà àThree€factors,€first€espoused€in€òòDelk€v.€Stateóó,€590€S.W.2d€435,€440€(Tenn.Ï1979),€must€œbe€established›€in€the€record€before€a€party€can€comment€on€aÏmissing€witness:€(1)€The€witness€œmust€have›€knowledge€of€material€œfacts;›€(2)€aÏrelationship€exists€between€the€witness€and€the€party€that€would€naturallyÏincline€the€witness€to€favor€the€œparty;›€and€(3)€the€missing€witness€wasÏavailable€to€the€process€of€the€court€for€the€trial.€€òòId.óó€€€Additionally,€the€prosecutorÏmust€get€an€advance€ruling€from€the€trial€judge€before€arguing€the€adverseÏwitness€inference.€€òòFrancisóó,€669€S.W.2d€at€90.ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€all€three€òòDelkóóÏrequirements€were€met.€€Nor€does€the€record€show€that€the€prosecution€soughtÏan€advance€ruling€from€the€court€that€he€could€argue€the€missing€witnessÏinstruction.€€Although€the€record€tenuously€establishes€that€factors€one€and€twoÏwere€satisfied€for€each€witness,€neither€witness€was€proven€to€be€within€theÏcourtððs€jurisdiction€for€service€of€process.€€Because€the€requirements€outlined€inÏòòDelkóó€and€òòFrancisóó€were€not€met,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowingÏthe€prosecutor€to€comment€on€the€Defendantððs€refusal€to€œcall€the›€two€witnesses.€ÏœTo€so€argue€was€prosecutorial€misconduct.›ÌÌà àUpon€concluding€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€prosecutor€toÏargue€the€missing€witness€inference€to€the€jury,€we€must€now€determine€whetherÏthe€error€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€Defendant.€€In€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2dÏ340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976),€this€court€set€forth€five€factors€to€determineÏwhether€œprosecutorial›€misconduct€during€the€closing€argument€prejudiced€theÏdefendant€or€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€These€factors€are:ÌÌÓÓà8 à1.€€The€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€context€and€in€light€of€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.ÌÌà8 à2.€€The€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€theÏprosecution.ÌÌà8 à3.€€The€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€statement.ÌÌà8 à4.€€The€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€otherÏerrors€in€the€record.ÌÌà8 à5.€€The€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.ÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€€ÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€only€improper€comments€made€by€theÏprosecutor€during€closing€arguments€related€to€the€missing€witness€inference.€ÏBecause€the€comments€were€improper,€the€trial€judge€should€have€instructed€theÏjury€to€disregard€that€part€of€the€Stateððs€argument.€€œHowever,€the›€StateððsÍreference€to€the€missing€witnesses€œwas›€not€œrepeated›€or€extensive,€nor€did€theÏprosecutor€make€any€other€improper€comments.€€The€prosecutor€did€not€appearÏto€be€intentionally€trying€to€unfairly€prejudice€the€Defendant.€€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€judge€overruled€the€Defendantððs€objections,€we€do€not€knowÏif€he€took€any€curative€measures€in€instructing€the€jury€because€the€judgeððsÏcharge€to€the€jury€was€not€transcribed€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€The€party€whoÏbrings€an€appeal€has€a€duty€to€prepare€an€adequate€and€complete€record€toÏallow€meaningful€review€of€the€issue.€€T.R.A.P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855ÏS.W.2d€557,€560€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Bunchóó,€646€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.Ïœ1983).€€The€judge€did€explain€to€the€jury€before€closing€arguments€that€the€StateÏhad€the€burden€of€proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€In›€œthe€absence›€of€the€juryÏinstructions€in€the€record,€we€must€presume€that€the€trial€court€fully€andÏaccurately€instructed€the€jury€on€the€burden€of€proof€of€each€party€and€theÏdifference€between€evidence€and€argument.€€œWe,›€thus,€cannot€conclude€that€theÏcomment€in€any€way€shifted€the€burden€of€proof€from€the€State€to€theÏDefendant.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€record€does€not€reflect€other€errors€or€misconduct€that€would€unfairlyÏprejudice€the€Defendant.€€Based€on€the€strength€of€the€Stateððs€case€against€theÏDefendant,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€prosecutorððs€comment€on€the€missingÍwitnesses€unfairly€affected€the€verdict.€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€although€theÏcomment€was€improper,€this€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏT.R.A.P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà àFinally,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trialÏcourt€was€excessive.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€$500€fine€and€sentenced€theÏDefendant€to€serve€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€in€confinement,€withÏall€but€fifteen€days€of€the€sentence€suspended.€€The€court€further€explained€thatÏthe€Defendant€had€the€option€œto€serve›€the€fifteen€days€on€weekends.ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€"ÔððÔ€ Ô€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌà àThe€minimum€sentence€for€a€first€offense€DUI€is€forty„eight€hours€inÏconfinement€and€a€three€hundred€and€fifty€dollar€fine.€€The€maximum€sentence€isÏconfinement€for€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€and€a€fine€of€fifteenÍhundred€dollars.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€his€jail€sentence€should€have€beenÏsuspended,€except€for€the€mandatory€minimum€sentence€of€forty„eight€hours,Ïand€probation€granted.€€ÌÌà àAs€a€basis€for€his€argument,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€court€foundÏno€enhancement€factors,€but€made€his€ruling€based€on€the€Defendantððs€failureÏto€pass€the€sobriety€tests€and€his€refusal€to€take€the€breathalyzer€test.€€TheÏDefendant€submits€that€the€record€shows€that€he€was€only€affected€by€alcoholÏby€a€slight€degree€and€his€driving€posed€no€threat€to€other€motorists.€€TheÏDefendant€also€contends€that€he€had€no€prior€criminal€record€and€had€a€steadyÏemployment€record,€thus€only€the€minimum€sentence€should€have€beenÏimposed.€ÌÌà àMisdemeanor€sentencing€is€controlled€by€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€40„35„302,€which€provides€in€part€that€the€trial€court€shall€impose€aÏsentence€consistent€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€CriminalÏSentencing€Reform€Act.€€In€determining€the€correct€sentence,€the€trial€court€shouldÏexamine€the€case€in€the€light€of€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.ÏGilboyóó,€857€S.W.2d€œ884,€889›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€ÌÌà àApparently€no€presentence€report€was€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.ÏThe€record€does€show€that€the€Defendant€had€no€prior€record€and€wasÏemployed€at€the€time€of€the€offense€and€œat€the€time€of€the›€sentencing€hearing.€ÏHowever,€the€misdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumptionÏof€a€minimum€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏœApp.),›€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€œ1994).›€€ÌœÌ›à àContrary€to€the€Defendantððs€assertions,€he€was€more€than€minimallyÏimpaired.€€He€was€speeding,€driving€across€the€center€line,€smelled€of€alcohol,Ïand€failed€to€pass€three€sobriety€tests.€€Fortuitously€for€the€Defendant,€theÏcircumstances€were€not€particularly€aggravated€here;€however,€they€are€seriousÏenough€to€be€a€contributing€factor€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€order€the€fifteen„day€period€of€confinement.€€In€light€of€the€need€to€protect€society€from€impairedÏdrivers€and€to€deter€others€from€driving€while€intoxicated,€we€cannot€œconclude›Ïthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€a€sentence€greater€than€the€minimum€forty„eight€hours€mandated€by€the€statute.€€€€ÌÌà àBased€on€œthis›€record,€we€cannot€œconclude›€that€the€trial€judge€œerred€orÏabused›€his€discretion€in€requiring€the€Defendant€to€serve€fifteen€days€œofÏincarceration.›€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is,€therefore,€affirmed.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE›