ÿWPCê ,# xUNƒ %Ñ 0(× 0‹ÿ 0DŠ 0JÎw@4XlU:{ 0Tµ 0^  0hg 0rÏAI 0|Q 0†Í 0S 1uã 0dX B¼ U>Ù U* ×A 5 ØM t%v~™vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡(;(2»e$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XäPXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô ­®D¯D°D±U²U³D´UµD¶Uäzz!(Ôô3|x¶, øð AZ"Arial Regular2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial ÍÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÔ€%Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àAs€we€discuss€below,€the€record€does€not€reflect€whether€theÏappellants€pleaded€guilty€to€possession€of€a€controlled€substance€with€intent€toÏsell€or€possession€of€a€controlled€substance€with€intend€to€deliver.€€BothÏappellants€were€indicted€on€both€charges.€€Ì +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÔ€%Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àThe€record€is€devoid€of€any€proof€of€a€conviction,€although€ScottÏadmitted€committing€the€offense.Ì ÎÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÔ€%Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àThis€appellant€admitted€trespassing€on€a€golf€course€in€1991€andÏpurchasing€and€using€marijuana€on€multiple€occasions€prior€to€his€offense.€ÏWhile€there€was€no€evidence€presented€of€prior€òòconvictionsóó,€the€record€shows€aÏhistory€of€criminal€òòbehavioróó.Ì jÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÔ€%Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àWe€note€that€the€appellants€are€neither€€residents€nor€domiciliariesÏof€Tennessee,€and€thus,€we€have€not€considered€Community€Corrections€as€aÏsentencing€option.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›ÓÓò òÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔÞ ÞÌIN€THE€CRIMINAL€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€JACKSONó óÌMARCH€1997€SESSIONÌÌò òÓÓÓ  ÓœSTATE›€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)€€€€€€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9603„CR„00092Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€Shelby€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òGILBERTO€R.€œCANTUó ó,€›à àà àà à)€€€€€€Honorable€W.€Fred€Axley,€JudgeÌœò òand€JOHN›€P.€SCOTT,ó óà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€œ(Schedule€IV)›Ìà àà àAppellants,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)ÌÌ›ÌÌFOR€THE€œAPPELLANTS:›à àà àà à€€€€€€€€€FOR€THE€œAPPELLEE:›ÌÌMARVIN€E.€BALLINà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€JOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€At€Lawà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÌ200€Jefferson€Avenue,€Suite€1250ÌMemphis,€TN€œ€38103›à àà àà à€€€€€€€€€JANIS€L.€TURNERÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Counsel€for€the€StateÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Criminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€œ€37243„0493›ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€JOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€District€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€ALANDA€HORNEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Assistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Shelby€County€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Generalððs€OfficeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€201€Poplar€Avenue,€Third€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Memphis,€TN€œ€38103›ÌÌœÌÌOPINION›€FILED:€_____________ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€and€REMANDED€„€JOHN€P.€SCOTTÌAFFIRMED,€AS€MODIFIED€and€REMANDED€„€GILBERTO€R.€CANTUÌÌÌó óCURWOOD€WITT,€œJUDGEÇÑ7€4*XXdìdÈ7Ñà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌ›ÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àThe€appellants,€Gilberto€R.€Cantu€and€John€P.€Scott,€appeal€theÏShelby€County€Criminal€Court's€denial€of€judicial€diversion€and€imposition€of€aÏsplit,€partially€suspended€sentence.€€The€appellants€both€pleaded€guilty€toÏpossession€of€a€controlled€substance× ƒ& ××  ×€and€requested€judicial€diversion,€whichÏwas€denied.€€The€court€below€imposed€identical€sentences€on€the€appellants€ofÏ14€months€confinement,€with€all€but€42€days€suspended,€and€2€years€ofÏprobation€and€payment€of€fines.€€On€review,€we€affirm€both€convictions,€but€weÏmodify€the€sentence€and€the€manner€of€service€of€the€sentence€of€Gilberto€R.ÏCantu,€and€we€remand€the€case€in€order€for€the€trial€court€to€specify€theÏconviction€offenses€with€respect€to€each€appellant.ÌÌà àà àOn€January€27,€1995,€John€P.€Scott,€a€23„year„old€resident€of€SanÏAntonio,€Texas,€and€Gilberto€R.€Cantu,€a€20„year„old€resident€of€San€Antonio,Ïwere€stopped€for€traffic€violations€while€traveling€on€I„240€in€Memphis.€€TheÏvehicle€in€which€the€appellants€were€traveling€was€driven€by€the€appellantÏScott,€and€the€appellant€Cantu€was€the€sole€passenger.€€The€officer€who€madeÍthe€stop€apparently€noticed€a€strong€smell€of€marijuana€coming€from€the€vehicleÏand€requested€permission€to€search.€€Appellant€Scott€informed€the€officer€heÏhad€marijuana€in€the€car€and€consented€to€the€search.€€While€making€theÏconsensual€search,€the€officer€located€four€and€one„half€pounds€of€marijuanaÏinside€luggage€in€the€trunk€of€the€car€and€a€small€bag€of€marijuana€under€theÏpassenger€seat.€€Appellant€Cantu€told€the€officer€he€had€been€smokingÏmarijuana€and€placed€the€small€bag€under€the€seat€when€he€became€nervous.€ÏThereafter,€the€appellants€were€both€indicted€for€possession€of€a€controlledÏsubstance€with€intent€to€sell€and€possession€of€a€controlled€substance€withÏintent€to€deliver,€both€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„417,€Class€E€felonies.ÌÌà àà àThe€appellants€thereafter€entered€into€an€agreement€with€theÏDistrict€Attorney€General€whereby€they€would€each€plead€guilty€to€one€of€theÏindicted€offenses.€€Although€the€record€is€not€entirely€clear,€it€appears€theÏagreement€called€for€sentencing€to€be€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€withÏthe€state€recommending€one€year's€probation€and€a€fine.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€Scott€testified€that€whenÏhe€was€apprehended,€he€was€transporting€marijuana€from€Texas€to€Virginia.€ÍHe€testified€on€direct€examination€he€met€someone€in€San€Antonio€who€"offeredÏme€an€opportunity€to€make€some€money€delivering€the€drugs€involved."€€DuringÏcross€examination,€however,€he€said€he€knew€the€Virginia€dealer€from€workingÏwith€him€at€Sam's€Club€when€he€was€living€in€Northern€Virginia,€and€heÏessentially€arranged€the€transaction€based€on€his€knowledge€of€the€quantityÏneeded€by€the€Virginia€dealer,€which€he€purchased€from€a€San€Antonio€dealerÏfrom€whom€he€previously€made€small€purchases€for€personal€use.€€The€moneyÏfor€the€transactions€was€fronted€by€the€Virginia€dealer.€€Scott€testified€that€heÏwas€not€a€drug€dealer€and€had€not€engaged€in€any€transactions€other€thanÏpurchases€for€personal€use€and€this€one€large€purchase€for€resale.€€He€told€theÏcourt€he€had€entered€into€this€particular€deal€because€he€needed€money€to€payÏbills€and€college€expenses.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€cross„examination,€Scott€was€unable€to€give€the€last€name€ofÏthe€drug€dealer€in€San€Antonio€from€whom€he€purchased€the€marijuana.€€At€thisÏpoint,€the€court€became€very€incensed€and€ordered€a€recess.€€Prior€to€taking€theÏrecess,€the€court€made€several€statements,€including,€"I'm€probably€not€going€toÏgive€[diversion]€to€[Scott]€anyway"€and€"I€want€to€he[ar]€it,€or€[diversion]€ain't€[sic]Ïgoing€to€happen."€€He€also€told€counsel,€"[Y]ou€know€where€he's€going,€andÏhe's€going€today."€€After€the€recess,€Scott€resumed€his€testimony€and€insisted€heÍdid€not€know€the€San€Antonio€dealer's€last€name,€although€he€testified€he€tookÏSan€Antonio€narcotics€officers€to€the€dealer's€apartment€and€workplace,Ïprovided€them€with€information€about€the€deal€and€gave€them€this€dealer'sÏtelephone€and€beeper€numbers.€€However,€he€testified,€he€declined€a€proposalÏthat€he€participate€in€an€undercover€purchase€of€50€pounds€of€marijuana€fromÏthe€dealer€out€of€fear€for€his€safety.€€Scott€did€not€elaborate,€and€this€court€hasÏno€indication€of€the€basis€for€this€appellant's€concern€for€his€safety.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€the€offenses,€Scott€was€employed,€along€with€his€co„appellant€Cantu,€at€Sam's€Club€in€San€Antonio.€€Scott€testified€he€was€fired€fromÏSam's€Club€as€a€result€of€the€instant€offenses.€€As€a€result€of€the€offenses,€heÏmoved€from€San€Antonio€into€his€mother's€home€in€Woodbridge,€Virginia,€whereÏhe€enrolled€at€Northern€Virginia€Community€College.€€He€testified€he€hadÏincurred€financial€losses€as€a€result€of€his€crime,€and€he€and€his€family€hadÏbeen€embarrassed€by€his€actions.€€Moreover,€he€avowed€that€if€the€court€gaveÏhim€the€chance€he€would€not€commit€any€crimes€in€the€future.ÌÌà àà àScott€admitted€a€prior€misdemeanor€trespassing€arrest€in€Virginia,€Íand€testified€he€had€no€other€criminal€record.× ƒ' ××  ×€€He€admitted,€however,€toÏmarijuana€purchases€and€usage.Ìœ›œÌ›à àà àThe€appellant€Cantu€testified€that€he€met€his€co„appellant€on€theÏjob€at€Sam's€Club.€€Cantu€used€marijuana€with€Scott€prior€to€the€offenses€inÏquestion.€€Cantu€recalled€that€the€drug€transaction€had€been€discussed€whenÏScott€came€to€Cantu's€apartment€and€told€Cantu€and€his€roommate€about€it.€ÏCantu's€roommate€initially€agreed€to€accompany€Scott€to€deliver€the€marijuanaÏto€Virginia;€however,€the€roommate€changed€his€mind€at€the€last€minute€andÏCantu€agreed€to€go€on€the€delivery€in€his€place.€€Cantu€was€to€receiveÏapproximately€$800€for€his€assistance€in€the€delivery.€€Cantu€testified€he€knewÏneither€the€Virginia€dealer€nor€the€San€Antonio€dealer.ÌÌà àà àCantu€testified€that€his€goal€was€to€become€an€electrical€engineer.€ÏHe€was€pursuing€his€education€and€continuing€to€work€at€Sam's€Club€at€theÏtime€of€the€hearing.€€As€part€of€the€presentence€report,€letters€discussing€Cantu'sÏgood€character€and€past€accomplishments€were€submitted€from€formerÏteachers,€a€priest€and€family€friends.€€ÌÌà àà àCantu€testified€that€he€and€his€family€had€been€embarrassed€byÏhis€actions.€€His€parents,€both€of€whom€are€teachers,€had€been€ridiculed€as€aÏresult€of€the€offenses.€€He€testified€he€knew€what€he€had€done€was€wrong€andÏthat€he€would€not€violate€the€law€again.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€accepted€the€guilty€pleas€of€both€appellants€on€oneÏcount€of€the€indictment.€€The€record€does€not€specify€whether€the€appellantsÏpleaded€and€were€adjudged€guilty€to€possession€of€a€controlled€substance€withÏintent€to€sell€or€possession€of€a€controlled€substance€with€intent€to€deliver,Ïalthough€both€are€Class€E€felonies.€€The€court€then€denied€judicial€diversion€toÏboth€Scott€and€Cantu€based€on€"the€enormity€of€the€offense"€and€"the€natureÏand€circumstances€of€the€offense€in€that€they€consorted€with€another€or€others€toÏtransport€a€large€quantity€to„wit€4.5€pounds€of€marijuana€interstate."€€The€courtÏdenied€imposition€of€a€Community€Corrections€sentence,€stating€simply,€"It€doesÏnot€satisfy€the€Court's€requirements."€€The€court€then€imposed€a€sentence€of€14Ïmonths,€with€all€but€42€days€suspended,€two€years€of€probation€beginning€uponÏthe€appellants'€release€from€confinement,€and€fines.€€The€sentence€is€identicalÏin€all€respects€as€to€both€appellants.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àIn€their€first€issue,€the€appellants€challenge€the€trial€court's€denialÏof€judicial€diversion.€€The€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€provides€in€pertinentÏpart:€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIf€any€person€who€has€not€previously€been€convicted€of€a€felony€orÏa€Class€A€misdemeanor€is€found€guilty€or€pleads€guilty€to€aÏmisdemeanor€which€is€punishable€by€imprisonment€or€a€Class€C,ÏD€or€E€felony,€the€court€may,€without€entering€a€judgment€of€guiltyÏand€with€the€consent€of€such€person,€defer€further€proceedingsÏand€place€the€person€on€probation€upon€such€reasonableÏconditions€as€it€may€require€and€for€a€period€of€time€not€less€thanÏthe€period€of€the€maximum€sentence€for€the€misdemeanor€withÏwhich€he€is€charged,€or€not€more€than€the€period€of€the€maximumÏsentence€of€the€felony€with€which€he€is€charged,€on€condition€thatÏthe€defendant€pay,€in€addition€to€the€payment€of€not€less€than€tenÏdollars€($10.00)€nor€more€than€thirty„five€dollars€($35.00)€perÏmonth,€as€determined€by€the€court€[as€part€payment€of€theÏexpenses€of€supervision€of€the€defendant].€.€.€.€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313(a)(1)€(Supp.€1996).€The€procedure€under€thisÏprovision€is€commonly€referred€to€as€judicial€diversion.€€It€is€substantially€similarÏto€pretrial€diversion;€however,€judicial€diversion€follows€a€guilty€plea€and€theÏdecision€to€grant€diversion€rests€with€the€court,€not€the€prosecutor.€€òòState€v.ÏAndersonóó,€857€S.W.2d€571,€572€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€lower€court's€denial€of€judicial€diversion€is€subject€to€appellateÏreversal€only€if€that€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650ÍS.W.2d€352,€356€(Tenn.€1983).€€€When€an€appellant€challenges€the€denial€ofÏjudicial€diversion,€we€are€constrained€not€to€revisit€the€issue€if€the€recordÏcontains€any€substantial€evidence€supporting€the€trial€court's€decision.€ÏòòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€356;€òòaccord,óó€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861€S.W.2d€850,€856Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(where€the€evidence€is€capable€of€justifying€differingÏresults,€this€court€allows€the€prosecutor€his€or€her€discretion€on€a€decision€ofÏwhether€to€allow€pretrial€diversion).€€€Ìœ›à àà àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€judicial€diversion,€the€trial€courtÏmust€considerÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(a)€the€accused's€amenability€to€correction,€(b)€the€circumstancesÏof€the€offense,€(c)€the€accused's€criminal€record,€(d)€the€accused'sÏsocial€history,€(e)€the€status€of€the€accused's€physical€and€mentalÏhealth,€(f)€the€deterrence€value€to€the€accused€as€well€as€others,Ïand€(g)€whether€diversion€will€serve€the€public's€and€the€accused'sÏinterests€in€the€ends€of€justice.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓœ›€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€168€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citationÏomitted).€Moreover,€the€record€must€reflect€that€the€court€has€weighed€all€of€theÏfactors€in€reaching€its€determination.€€òòBonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€at€168€(citationsÏomitted).€€The€court€must€explain€on€the€record€why€the€defendant€does€notÏqualify€under€its€analysis,€and€if€the€court€has€based€its€determination€on€onlyÏsome€of€the€factors,€it€must€explain€why€these€factors€outweigh€the€others.€ÏòòBonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€at€168.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€trial€court€simply€stated€its€reasons€forÏdenying€judicial€diversion.€€It€articulated€its€reliance€on€"the€enormity€of€theÏoffense"€and€"the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense."€€In€other€words,Ïunder€the€òòBonestelóó€analysis,€the€court€based€its€determination€on€but€one€of€theÏseven€factors€to€be€considered€„„€the€circumstances€of€the€offense.€€Moreover,Ïthe€court€did€not€explain€whether€it€had€considered€any€of€the€other€factors,€andÏif€so,€why€they€were€not€applicable.€€Under€the€dictate€of€òòBonestelóó,€the€trialÏcourt's€analysis€does€not€adequately€appear€of€record.€€The€question€remains,Ïhowever,€whether€the€trial€court€reached€the€correct€result€notwithstanding€itsÏfailure€to€explain€its€analysis€on€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Talmadge€G.ÏWilbanksóó,€No.€02C01„9601„CR„00003€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Nov.€19,Ï1996)€(trial€court's€denial€of€diversion€affirmed€despite€court's€failure€to€explainÏits€considerations€and€analysis€on€the€record).ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€appellant€Scott,€we€cannot€conclude€that€theÏcourt€abused€its€discretion€in€denying€judicial€diversion.€€The€record€reflectsÏScott€was€untruthful,€or€at€least€lacked€candor,€with€the€trial€court€in€that€he€gaveÏconflicting€accounts€as€to€whether€he€was€recruited€by€someone€in€Texas€toÏtransport€drugs€to€Virginia€or€whether€he€arranged€the€transaction€himself.€€€WeÏbelieve€Scott's€lack€of€candor€with€the€trial€court€is€illustrative€of€his€amenabilityÍto€correction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Paul€Emile€Oliveróó,€No.€03C01„9510„CC„00322Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€15,€1996)€(denial€of€pretrial€diversion€upheldÏbased€upon€appellant's€inconsistent€statements€to€the€trial€court€about€hisÏinvolvement€in€drug€sales€prior€to€apprehension);€òòState€v.€Neaseóó,€713€S.W.2dÏ90€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)€(defendant€who€was€untruthful€with€trial€courtÏappropriately€denied€diversion).€€Second,€by€all€accounts,€the€circumstances€ofÏthe€offense€are€that€Scott€orchestrated€the€transportation€of€or€at€least€agreed€toÏtransport€a€large€quantity€of€marijuana€across€several€states.€The€recordÏstrongly€supports€a€conclusion€that€Scott€planned€this€endeavor.€€As€betweenÏhimself€and€Cantu,€Scott€was€clearly€the€more€culpable€offender.€€ThisÏ"circumstances€of€the€offense"€factor€was€relied€on€by€the€trial€court€in€its€denialÏof€judicial€diversion.€€Third,€Scott€has€a€history€of€criminal€activity€„„€trespassingÏand€marijuana€purchases€and€use.€€These€factors€all€militate€against€judicialÏdiversion.ÌÌà àà àUpon€consideration€of€all€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€and€withÏour€narrow€scope€of€review€in€mind,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€notÏabuse€its€discretion€in€denying€judicial€diversion€to€the€appellant€Scott.€€€In€ourÏview,€the€negative€factors€that€we€have€noted€above€outweigh€this€appellant'sÏmoderately€positive€social€history,€good€health€and€the€essentially€neutralÍconsiderations€of€deterrence€and€the€ends€of€justice.€€Accordingly,€we€find€thereÏis€evidence€of€record€to€support€the€lower€court's€denial€of€judicial€diversion€toÏJohn€P.€Scott.ÌÌà àà àNext,€with€respect€to€the€appellant€Gilberto€R.€Cantu,€the€recordÏreflects€he€is€a€young€man€who€appears€to€be€amenable€to€correction.€€SeveralÏmembers€of€his€community,€including€his€priest€and€two€former€teachers,€wroteÏto€the€court€attesting€to€his€good€character€and€past€peer€leadership.€€He€readilyÏadmitted€his€involvement€and€expressed€his€remorse€at€breaking€the€law€andÏcausing€shame€to€his€family.€€Unlike€his€co„appellant,€there€was€no€indicationÏhe€was€untruthful€with€the€court€about€the€nature€and€extent€of€his€involvementÏin€the€conviction€offense.€€He€testified€he€is€enrolled€in€college€and€has€steadyÏemployment.€€Second,€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€were€that€the€appellantÏbecame€involved€at€the€last€minute€when€his€roommate€decided€not€toÏaccompany€Scott€on€the€trip€to€Virginia.€€Contrary€to€the€finding€of€the€trial€courtÏthat€Cantu€and€Scott€"consorted€with€another€or€others€to€transport€a€largeÏquantity€.€.€.€of€marijuana"€to€another€state,€there€is€no€evidence€of€record€thatÏCantu€was€involved€in€arranging€the€transaction€or€even€knew€the€drug€dealersÏbetween€whom€the€marijuana€was€being€transported.€€Next,€we€note€that€CantuÏhas€no€criminal€record,€although€he€admitted€smoking€marijuana.€€Moreover,Íthe€appellant€Cantu's€social€history€is€extremely€positive€with€the€exception€ofÏhis€marijuana€use.€€Both€of€his€parents€are€teachers,€and€the€appellant€himselfÏwas€a€student€leader€in€high€school,€serving€as€a€member€of€the€student€councilÏand€as€a€drum€major€for€the€band.€€According€to€information€in€the€presentenceÏreport,€it€appears€Cantu€moved€into€his€parents'€home€following€the€offense.€ÏWith€respect€to€Cantu's€physical€and€mental€health,€the€presentence€reportÏreflects€no€concerns.€€Next,€we€see€no€evidence€that€this€appellant€would€beÏany€more€deterred€from€future€criminal€conduct€if€judicial€diversion€is€deniedÏthan€if€it€was€granted.€€Finally,€the€ends€of€justice€ostensibly€would€be€served€byÏgiving€a€second€chance€to€this€young€man€who€made€a€mistake€uncharacteristicÏof€his€past€accomplishments,€particularly€given€his€comparatively€less€culpableÏrole€in€this€crime.€€In€this€vein,€we€believe€Cantu€has€generally€€demonstratedÏthe€ability€to€meet€the€ordinary€obligations€of€society€as€well€as€the€ability€andÏincentive€to€follow€the€law€in€the€future.€€òòSeeóó€òòNeaseóó,€713€S.W.2d€at€92.ÌÌà àà àThis€court€has€said€that€the€presence€of€only€one€of€the€factors€isÏsufficient€to€support€a€denial€of€judicial€diversion.€€òòState€v.€Thomas€Daileyóó,€No.Ï02C01„CR„00008€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€21,€1991)€(relying€on€òòStateÏv.€Baronóó,€659€S.W.2d€811€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(applying€this€rule€in€theÏcontext€of€a€denial€of€probation)).€€However,€the€supreme€court€has€said€that€twoÍof€the€factors,€€the€circumstances€of€the€case€and€deterrence,€may€not€be€givenÏ"òòcontrollingóó€weight€unless€they€are€'of€such€overwhelming€significance€that€theyÏ[necessarily]€outweigh€all€other€factors.'"€€òòState€v.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950,Ï951€(Tenn.€1993)€(pretrial€diversion€case)€(emphasis€in€original)€(quoting€òòStateÏv.€Markhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€850,€853€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)).€€€The€trial€courtÏmade€no€finding€on€the€record€that€the€factor€it€relied€on,€€the€circumstances€ofÏthe€offense,€was€of€overwhelming€significance,€but€of€course€this€finding€isÏimplicit€in€the€courtððs€decision.ÌÌà àà àUnder€òòWashingtonóó,€appellant€Cantu€presents€an€ð ðððespeciallyÏcompellingðððð€case€for€judicial€diversion,€òòWashingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€at€951;Ïhowever,€we€notice€that€his€role€in€the€crime€was€not€compelled€by€exigentÏcircumstances€and€is€not€explained€by€impaired€judgment.€€Moreover,€he€didÏnot€act€inadvertently,€nor€even€gratuitously.€€He€was,€by€his€own€admission,Ïmotivated€by€lucre.€€He€calculated€to€make€a€profit€by€illegally€trafficking€in€aÏsignificant€amount€of€drugs.€€Such€a€motive€is€inimical,€we€believe,€to€oneððsÏcandidacy€for€judicial€diversion€because€it€entails€a€consideration€of€serving€theÏpublicððs€interest€in€the€ends€of€justice.€€òòSee€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€at€951;ÏòòBonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€at€168.€€In€this€regard€we€find€that,€given€the€pecuniaryÏnature€of€the€enterprise,€a€mere€reversal€of€economic€fortune€may€not€be€anÍadequate€penal€response,€or€at€least€the€trial€judge€could€have€reasonablyÏfound€that€this€consideration€sufficiently€weighed€against€the€factors€favoringÏdiversion.€€While€we€view€it€as€a€close€case,€we€hold€that€the€denial€of€judicialÏdiversion€for€appellant€Cantu€is€not€an€abuse€of€discretion.ÌÌà@ àò òIIÌà àà àó óThe€remaining€issue€challenges€the€propriety€of€the€sentencesÏimposed€on€the€appellants.€ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€whether€the€trial€court€has€properly€sentenced€anÏindividual,€this€court€engages€in€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record€with€aÏpresumption€the€trial€court's€determinations€were€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÏand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conducting€our€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€must€consider€theÏevidence€at€sentencing,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€theÏarguments€of€counsel,€the€statements€of€œthe€€defendant,›€the€nature€andÏcharacteristics€of€the€offense,€any€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€and€theÏdefendantððs€amenability€to€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)Í(1990);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€has€the€burden€ofÏshowing€the€sentence€imposed€is€improper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d),ÏSentencing€Comm'n€Comments€(1990);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.ÌÌà àà àThe€record€in€this€case€fails€to€demonstrate€that€the€trial€court€gaveÏappropriate€consideration€to€the€principles€of€sentencing€as€well€as€the€relevantÏfacts€and€circumstances.€€Although€the€trial€judge€relied€on€"the€enormity€of€theÏoffense"€and€the€"nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense"€in€denying€judicialÏdiversion,€there€are€no€statements€whatsoever€which€confirm€that€the€trial€judgeÏconsidered€any€of€the€relevant€factors€in€determining€an€appropriate€sentence.€ÏThus,€we€conduct€our€òòde€novoóó€review€without€the€presumption€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€sentenced€the€appellant.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€œappellants,›€œas›€Class€E€felons,€are€presumed€to€beÏfavorable€candidates€for€alternative€sentencing€under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(1990).€ÌÌà àà àIn€conducting€our€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€have€reviewed€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€neither€of€which€were€analyzed€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€Likewise,€neither€party€has€argued€for€the€application€of€these€factors€inÍtheir€briefs.€€Looking€first€to€the€enhancement€factors,€we€find€that€the€appellantÏScott€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€offense€and€that€he€had€a€history€ofÏcriminal€convictions€œor€criminal›€behavior.× ƒ( ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(2)€(Supp.€1996).€œThe€record›€reflects€no€enhancement€factors€relative€toÏCantu,€except€for€the€prior€criminal€behavior€of€using€œmarijuana.Ì›à àà àConsidering€next€the€mitigating€factors,€we€find€that€Scott€assistedÏthe€authorities€in€uncovering€offenses€committed€by€other€persons,€and€heÏassisted€the€authorities€in€locating€or€recovering€any€person€involved€in€theÏcrime.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1),(9),(10)€(1990).€€We€afford€theÏlatter€two€factors€less€weight€because€they€are€essentially€duplicative€of€eachÏother€on€the€facts€of€this€case.€€In€the€preceding€section€of€this€opinion€weÏdescribed€the€personal€background€of€Cantu,€and€we€consider€the€backgroundÏfactors€of€both€appellants€as€mitigating€circumstances.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„113(13)€(1990).›ÌÌà àà àWe€point€out€that€the€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€E€felony€isÏthe€minimum€in€the€range,€which€in€the€case€before€us€(Range€I),€is€one€year.€ÍTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„210(c)›€(Supp.€1996);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„111(b)(5)€(1990);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(5)€(1990).ÌÌà àà àUpon€consideration€of€these€factors,€as€well€as€the€presentenceÏreport,€the€arguments€advanced€by€counsel,€the€testimony€of€the€appellant€andÏthe€nature€and€characteristics€of€this€particular€offense,€we€conclude€that€theÏlength€of€the€sentence€imposed€on€Scott€is€justified€and€should€not€beÏdisturbed.€€In€the€absence€of€enhancement€factors€that€outweigh€mitigatingÏfactors€in€Cantuððs€case,€we€modify€his€sentence€of€fourteen€months€andÏestablish€it€at€the€minimum€œwithin€€the›€range,€one€œyear.ÌÌ›à àà àIn€suspending€all€but€forty„two€(42)€days€of€the€sentence€that€wasÏimposed,€the€trial€court€has€accorded€alternative€sentencing,€in€the€form€of€splitÏconfinement,€to€the€appellants.€€Of€course,€split€confinement€involvesÏprobation,× ƒ) ××  ×€€but€our€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€use€of€the€ordered€confinementÏentails€our€consideration€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103(1).€ÏThis€subsection€lists€grounds€that€may€be€used€to€support€an€order€ofÏconfinement.€€None€of€the€stated€grounds€applies€in€the€case€now€before€usÍexcept€the€ground€set€forth€in€the€first€clause€œof€section€103(1)(B),›€thatÏð ðconfinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÏoffense[.]ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€(1990).€€The€trial€court€essentiallyÏdeclared€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€when,Ïwith€reference€to€the€diversion€request,€he€alluded€to€the€ð ðenormity€of€theÏoffenseðð€and€the€ð ðnature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense€in€that€[theÏappellants]€consorted€with€another€or€others€to€transport€a€large€quantity€to„witÏ4.5€pounds€of€marijuana€interstate.ðð€€On€review,€we€find€that€the€ordering€ofÏsome€confinement€is€commensurate€with€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€this€offense.€€ÌÌà àà àIt€does€not€follow,€however,€in€considering€the€record€as€a€whole,Ïthat€the€periods€of€confinement€should€be€identical€for€both€appellants.€€As€weÏhave€€€€indicated€in€section€I€that€deals€with€judicial€diversion,€òòsupraóó,€there€is€aÏdiscernible€difference€in€the€culpability€of€the€two€appellants.€€Appellant€Cantu€Ïis€less€culpable€for€the€reasons€we€have€noted.€€While€we€have€ruled€that€thisÏdifference€does€not€compel€us€to€find€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€inÏdenying€diversion€to€Cantu,€we€do€find€that€the€distinction€between€these€twoÏoffenders€should€be€recognized€in€the€provision€for€probation.€€Therefore,€forÏthese€reasons€and€in€the€exercise€of€our€responsibilities€in€reviewing€this€matterÍòòde€novoóó,€we€hold€that€Cantuððs€sentence€shall€be€suspended€upon€the€service€ofÏtwenty„one€(21)€days.€€With€this€modification€and€the€modification€of€the€lengthÏof€Cantuððs€sentence,€the€sentences,€manner€of€service,€and€fines€of€theÏappellants€shall€remain€as€they€were€established€by€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àà àThe€final€issue€is€one€which€this€court€has€raised€òòex€mero€motuóó.€ÏOur€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€nowhere€therein€is€the€precise€convictingÏoffense€for€either€appellant€conclusively€established.€€The€indictment€chargesÏboth€appellants€with€possession€of€a€controlled€substance€with€intent€to€sell€andÏpossession€of€a€controlled€substance€with€intent€to€deliver.€€It€is€beyond€cavilÏthat€the€two€are€separate€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417,ÏSentencing€Comm'n€Comments€(Supp.€1996).€€The€plea€documents€signed€byÏboth€appellants€are€not€illustrative.€€Appellant€Scott's€plea€document€showsÏsimply€"Charge(s)€UPCS€w/I€marijuana"€and€Appellant€Cantu's€reads€"ChargesÏUPCS€w/I€S&D."€€The€judgments€are€identical€as€to€both€appellants,€reflectingÏthat€they€were€convicted€of€"unlawful€poss.€of€a€cont.€subst.€w/€intent."€€TheÏtranscript€reflects€that€the€trial€judge€accepted€the€guilty€pleas€of€the€appellantsÏand€found€them€guilty€of€"possession€of€a€controlled€substance€with€the€intent€toÏsell€òòoróó€deliver."€€(emphasis€added)€€It€is€apparent€that€the€appellants€pleadedÍguilty€to€only€one€of€the€two€counts;€however,€the€record€does€not€reflect€toÏwhich€of€the€two€counts€the€appellants€entered€their€pleas.€€This€information€isÏessential,€and€this€case€is€remanded€for€entry€by€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€36.ÌÌà àà àIn€summary,€the€denial€of€judicial€diversion€in€both€cases€isÏaffirmed.€€With€respect€to€Gilberto€R.€Cantu,€we€modify€the€trial€court's€sentenceÏand€establish€the€sentence€at€one€year,€to€be€suspended€upon€the€service€ofÏtwenty„one€(21)€days,€together€with€the€probationary€period€and€fines€asÏordered€by€the€trial€court.€€€With€respect€to€John€P.€Scott,€we€affirm€the€sentenceÏimposed€below.€€Finally,€we€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€in€theÏrecord€of€the€convicting€offenses€as€to€both€appellants€and€of€the€modification€ofÏappellant€Cantuððs€sentence€and€manner€of€service€of€sentence.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€Judge