WPC  =P"r)H&' r[ #hXf%stRU"{8#Rb!`KO1"C4(T%!qi+xHеUOmձ$c>ߴEQQmT8Km19wze>)*U:'䙀#(yR n:=! ͉_kՓ)}Gsr0H02[M +jϣ*B*gkWWO RlE_/1=dīhpsE'RRt <1r\sFOZz;,nE?@2m惯u \4԰2urkM= Ѣ=:5 yJUD4ǮN&3DbN&g&(ٜ4팓%rs%ͤt Q(2j0+-^T;gUD@e[*UBL %U.nX 0P*4z 0 0D*w@nU: 0D),U:U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U AQ  0D 0D B. . D/K K Bz D3 <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%2A`ArialTT|X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  q$(D(3$ !D      0  (#$  0   opDq[rstuvwxӀ"Arial Regular($$   1    ""  XBXXX`XXB   Ad FILEDXBX`   September9,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.8 XXBAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular!"# &C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !   d((' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd !D   xx` XPD7BXXdXXd7  TR[A'Legal3'A'redline3'T  XiXXXxr )<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$"` rߛx  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE `  @oo:MATKNOXVILLE  @7MMARCH1998SESSION STATEOFTENNESSEE,     ` )  p     X      ` )   C.C.A.NO.03C019709CR00417  `    Appellee,  򀀀   ` ) P     X      ` )  KNOXCOUNTY  @  VS.   X      ` ) 0     X      ` )  HON.MARYBETHLEIBOWITZ,   RUSSELLA.BURRIS,     ` )  JUDGE p    X      ` )  Appellant.      ` )  (Resentencing)  P  FORTHEAPPELLANT:     `   FORTHEAPPELLEE:   ROBERTT.VAUGHN     `   JOHNKNOXWALKUP  М and  X      `   AttorneyGeneral&Reporter   p JERREDA.CRESSY      `    !`  176SecondAve.,North 򛀀   `   ELIZABETHB.MARNEY "P М Suite500  X      `   Asst.AttorneyGeneral #@ Nashville,TN37201     `   JohnSevierBldg. $0 Ѐ   X      `   425FifthAve.,North !  p#  %     X      `   Nashville,TN372430493   X      X      `   RANDALLE.NICHOLS  P(!    X      `   DistrictAttorneyGeneral   X      `   ROBERTL.JOLLEY,JR.   +!$    X      `   Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral   X      `   CityCountyBldg.   !  -#&    X      `   Knoxville,TN37902   X      `     ̛   X      `      X      `      X   OPINIONFILED:____________________ AFFIRMEDINPART,REVERSEDANDMODIFIEDINPART  P7-1  JOHNH.PEAY,  09/3 Judge  ;15S X7 i XXdXXd7  @:M ' XXiOPINION#XiX' #Ԉ `     Thisisthesecondappealinthiscase.Thedefendantcontendsthatthe V  trialcourterredinsentencinghimtoatermofconfinementratherthanprobation.Thedefendantalsocontendsthatthetrialcourterredinorderinghimtopayrestitutioninconjunctionwithasentenceofconfinement.Weaffirmthedefendantssentenceofconfinement,butreversethetrialcourtsrestitutionorder.  In1995,thedefendantpledguiltytovoluntarymanslaughtercommittedin1980.Afterahearing,thetrialcourtsentencedhimtoanindeterminatesentenceoffourtotenyears,thefirstthirtydaystobeservedinwthewcountyjail,thenextfivemonthsonworkrelease,andtheremainingnineyearsandsixmonthsonprobation.Asaconditionofprobation,thetrialcourtorderedthedefendanttopayrestitutionofapproximatelyninetyfivethousanddollars($95,000)inmonthlyinstallments.Inthedefendantsfirstappeal,hechallengedthetrialcourtsorderofrestitution,arguinginteraliathatthetrial "v courtlackedtheauthoritytoorderrestitutioninavoluntarymanslaughtercaseandthatthetrialcourterredindeterminingtheamountofrestitution.TheStatechallengedthedefendantssplitsentence.Applyingthelawineffectatthetimetheoffensewascommitted,thisCourtdeterminedthatthedefendantssplitsentencewasillegalandheldthatthetrialcourtschoicesinsentencingthedefendantwereeitherincarcerationorprobation,butnotboth.Statev.Burris,950S.W.2d42,43(Tenn.Crim.App.1996). .$' ThisCourtalsoheldthatrestitutionmaybeorderedinavoluntarymanslaughtercaseasaconditionofprobationsolongastheamountisreasonablyandrealisticallylinkedtothedefendantsabilitytopay.Id.Subjecttotheseholdings,thisCourtremandedthecase 3V*- backtothetrialcourtforresentencing.Id.at44. 56,/  v7.1   Onremand,thetrialcourtheldanotherhearing,atwhichthedefendanttestified.Bythistime,thedefendanthadalreadycompletedtheconfinementtermpreviouslyorderedaswellasalmosttwoyearsofprobation.Thedefendanthadnot,however,paidtheamountofrestitutionthecourtorderedhimtopayonamonthlybasis,claimingthathedidnothavesufficientfundstopaytheamountordered.Oncrossexamination,thedefendantadmittedhereceivedmoremonthlyincomethanhehadreportedtothecourtandthathehadchosentopayforothermonthlyexpensesratherthanpayinghiscourtorderedrestitution.Thetrialcourtfoundthatwhilethedefendantmayhavebeenagoodprobationer,heliedtothecourtabouttheamountofhismonthlyincome.Thetrialcourtalsonotedconcernthatthedefendanthidthevictimsdeathformanyyears,didnotcomeforwardvoluntarily,andhadchosentopaynumerousotherbillsbutnothiscourtorderedrestitution.Basedonthesefindings,thetrialcourtorderedthedefendanttopayonehundredthousanddollars($100,000)plussixthousandtwohundreddollars($6200)infuneralexpensestothevictimsfamilyasrestitution.Thetrialcourtalsoorderedthedefendanttoserveanindeterminatesentenceoffourtosixyearsincustody,minustimealreadyserved.  PROBATION  @)"     Thedefendantarguesseveralreasonswhythetrialcourterredinsentencinghimtoatermofconfinementratherthanprobation.Primarily,thedefendantcontendsthatthereisapresumptionfororderingprobationandthattheStatefailedtocarryitsburdenofshowingwhyheshouldnotbesentencedtoprobation.Thisargumentisgroundedinlawinapplicabletothiscase.Aswestatedonthefirstappealofthiscase,neitherthelawoftheCriminalSentencingReformActof1982northeCriminal `6-0 SentencingReformActof1989applieswhensentencingthedefendantinthiscase.ϜBurris,950S.W.2deatee42ef,f43h.hgghhg(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).g񛀀Rather,theapplicablelawinthiscaseisthelawthatwasin X6,2 effectwhenthedefendantcommittedthecrimein1980.T.C.A.4035117(c).Underthislaw,thedefendantcarriedtheburdenofshowingexceptionalcircumstancesthatwouldentitlehimtoprobation.SeeStatev.Smith,662S.W.2d588,590(Tenn.1983);   Kilgorev.State,588S.W.2d567,568(Tenn.Crim.App.1979).Attheresentencing d hearing,thetrialcourtdeterminedthatthedefendantfailedtocarryhisburden.Weagree.Thisargumentiswithoutmerit.  Thedefendantalsocontendsthatbecausethesentenceforvoluntarymanslaughternowcarriesalesserpenaltythanunderthe1980sentencingstatute,thetrialcourterredinfailingtoapplythelesserpenalty.Itisclearthisargumentlacksmerit,consideringweheldinourprioropinionthatthedefendantmustbesentencedunderthelawineffectatthetimethecrimewascommitted.Burris,950S.W.2dat43. $ Nevertheless,webrieflyaddressthedefendantsargument.  ThedefendantreliesuponStatev.Pearson,858S.W.2d879(Tenn.1993), "( МbutPearsondoesnotsupporthiscontentions.InPearson,theTennesseeSupreme T$ Courtdeterminedthatwhenatrialcourtimposesasentenceaftertheeffectivedateofthe1989sentencingstatuteforacrimecommittedbeforethatdate,thetrialcourtmustcalculatetheappropriatesentenceunderboththe1982sentencingstatuteandthe1989sentencingstatuteandimposethelessersentenceofthetwo.Id.at880.Asstated +$"& above,neitherthe1982northe1989sentencingstatutesapplytothiscase,thusdistinguishingthiscasefromPearson.Moreover,theholdingofPearsonwaspremised /%* uponiiexiijjpostkjjkllmmnnofactooonnonnlfactolmkkmconcerns,whichtheinstantcasefailstoimplicate.Inattemptingto 0', relyuponPearson,thedefendanturgesthisCourttocomparethefirstsentenceimposed 2T). withthesentenceimposedonremand,whichisadmittedlymoreharshthanthesplitsentenceoriginallyordered.This,however,isnottheproperanalysis,asthelawsin L6,2 effectatthetimethecrimewascommittedmustbecomparedwiththelawsineffectatthetimeofsentencing.Inthiscase,thepenaltyforvoluntarymanslaughterisnowlessoo ,  thanitwasatthetimethedefendantcommittedthecrime,andthus,pexpostfactopqqrexrsstposttuuvfactovvuuvtsstrqqr   concernsarenotimplicated.Therefore,thisargumenttoomustfail.  Theremainderofthedefendantsargumentsmeritslittlediscussion.Thedefendantcontendsthatbecausetheresentencinghearingwasessentiallyahearingtorevokehisprobation,theStatehadtheburdenofshowingwhyprobationshouldberevoked.Thiscontentioniswithoutmeritbecausethiscasewasclearlyremandedforaresentencinghearing,atwhichthetrialcourthadtochoosebetweenalternativesentencesofconfinementorprobation;itclearlywasnotremandedforahearingtorevokethedefendantsprobation.Thedefendantalsobrieflycontendsthathewasdeniedequalprotectionofthelawsbyreceivingaharshersentenceonremandfollowinga successfulappealfromaconviction.Thisargumentfailsbecausethedefendantneverappealedhisconviction,letalonesuccessfully;rather,theonly successfulappealinthiscasewasbytheState,whichappealedthesplitsentenceoriginallyimposed.Thus,undertheauthoritythedefendantcites,thedefendantsequalprotectionrightswerenotviolated.SeeWhaleyv.NorthCarolina,379F.2d221(4thCir.1967). '"   Finally,thedefendantcontendsthatifthereisnopresumptionforprobation,thenthetrialcourterredindenyingprobationbecauseithadnotedexceptionalcircumstancesathisfirstsentencinghearingandtheonlythingthathadchangedsincethenwasthathehadsuccessfullycompletedalmosttwoyearsofprobation.Thedefendantsargumentmustfailbecausetherecordshowsthatthetrialcourtbaseditsdecisiontodenyprobationpartiallyuponthefactthatthedefendanthadchosennottopaycourtorderedrestitutionsincetheoriginalsentencinghearing,eventhoughhehad L6,2 themeanstopay.Tothis,thedefendantcontendsthatcontrarytothetrialcourtsfindings,hedidnotlieabouthisincomeorhideitfromthetrialcourt.Thiscontentionlacksmerit,however,becausethetrialcourtsfindingsaresupportedbyapreponderanceofevidenceintherecord.SeeStatev.Tate,615S.W.2d161, (  162(Tenn.Crim.App.1981).  RESTITUTION  ,     Thedefendantdoesnotchallengetheamountofrestitutionimposed,nordoeshearguethathecannotaffordtopaytheamountofrestitutionimposed.Rather,thedefendantarguesonlythatthetrialcourtcommittedplainerrorbyimposingrestitutioninconjunctionwithasentenceofconfinement.Wemustagree.  Nopunishmentmaybeimposedwithoutstatutoryauthority.SeeState ,&  v.Davis,940S.W.2d558(Tenn.1997).Aspreviouslydiscussed,theapplicable '" sentencinglawintheinstantcaseisthelawineffectin1980,whentheoffensewascommitted.T.C.A.4035117;Burris,950S.W.2dat42.Thus,ourinquiryislimited +0"& towhetheranystatutethatwasineffectin1980authorizedthetrialcourttoimposerestitutionaspartofasentenceofconfinement.SeeDavis,940S.W.2dat561.Our (/%* reviewoftheapplicablestatutesrevealsthattheonlysentencingstatuteauthorizingtheimpositionofrestitutionwasT.C.A.4020116.Section4020116,whichremainsineffecttoday,allowstheimpositionofrestitutionwhenthejuryascertainsthevalueofthepropertylostorstolenincasesoftheftorfraud.Statev.Bryant,775 X6,2 S.W.2d1(Tenn.Crim.App.1988).Becausetheinstantcaseinvolvesonlyacountofvoluntarymanslaughter,4020116doesnotexpresslyapplytothiscase.See ,  Davis,940S.W.2dat562n.7.     OurDSDupremeEcEFCFourthasrecognized, ThisCourtcannotaffirmasentencethatisnotexpresslyauthorizedbytheLegislature.Davis,940S.W.2dat \  562. Becausetherewasnootherauthorityunderwhichcourtsmayimposerestitutionaspartofacustodialsentence,wemustconclude...thatthetrialcourtdidnothavetheauthoritytoimposerestitutioninthiscase.Id.Accordingly,despitethe ` factthatthedefendantfailedtoobjectwhenthetrialcourtorallyimposedrestitutionathisresentencinghearing,wemustreversethetrialcourtsrestitutionorder.Id. X   Insum,thetrialcourtdidnoterrinsentencingthedefendanttoatermofconfinement.However,becausethetrialcourtlackedthestatutoryauthoritytoorderthedefendanttopayrestitutionaspartofasentenceofconfinement,wereversethatportionofthedefendantssentence.Inallotherrespects,thedefendantssentenceisaffirmed.IIG GIIG  X   GIIJJKK   X H     `   H_______________________________   X      `   JOHNH.PEAY,JudgeCONCUR:̜LL______________________________PAULG.SUMMERS,Judge______________________________CORNELIAA.CLARK,SpecialJudgeM 27-3 M