ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU .Ýb w@ 4S g 0lv 0Dâ & 0J. 0Tx 0^Ì 0h* 0r’ 0| 0†€ 0 1u– U,  0d7U,›U>Ç BB)"DCK D3Ž AMÁ+ 0@9¯yv~(vÓ¦ AOyÆÈ 0DŽ D/Ò B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡%ä2¼A`ArialTT- ù- DD[D[Ó€)à~| Ødô"|x+((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd'''''ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMay€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ¥Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔTwo€of€the€Defendantððs€four„year€sentences€for€aggravated€burglary€were€ordered€to€be€servedÏà0 àconsecutively€pursuant€to€the€plea€agreement.€€All€other€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€servedÏconcurrently.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚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€&ŠÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€5XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€+,);+'h|<` Å `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌÌœAPRIL›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ03C01„9510„CC„00297›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœBLOUNT›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œD.€KELLY€THOMAS,€JR.ó ó›Ìò òœJEFF€BEASLEY,ó ó›à àà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Sentencing)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCIRCUIT›€COURT€OF€œBLOUNT€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœPHILLIP€REED›à àà àà àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ250€E.€Broadway,€Suite€106à àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMaryville,€TN€37804Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àELIZABETH€T.€RYANÌà 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„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMIKE€FLYNNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPHILIP€MORTONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à363€Court€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMaryville,€TN€37804›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure.€€The€Defendant€entered€pleas€of€guilty€to€thirteen€countsÏof€aggravated€burglary,€one€count€of€attempted€aggravated€burglary,€ten€countsÏof€theft€of€property€valued€at€more€than€œone€thousand›€dollars,€and€three€countsÏof€theft€of€property€valued€at€more€than€five€hundred€dollars.€€In€exchange€for€hisÏguilty€pleas€to€these€various€felonies,€the€Defendant€received€an€agreedÏeffective€sentence€of€eight€years€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender.× ƒ. ××  ×€€The€mannerÏof€service€of€the€sentences€was€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€œjudge.›€€The€trialÏcourt€denied€the€Defendantððs€request€for€a€sentence€alternative€to€incarcerationÏand€ordered€the€sentences€served€with€the€Department€of€Correction.€€TheÏDefendant€appeals€from€the€refusal€of€the€trial€court€to€allow€his€sentence€to€beÏserved€either€on€probation€or€in€the€community€corrections€program.€€We€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€aÍpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÏprovide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€appellant€to€show€the€impropriety€of€theÏsentence.ÌÌà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)Ïthe€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancingÏfactors;€(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)Ïthe€defendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103€and€„210;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1987)€.€Ìà àÌà àThe€Defendantððs€numerous€convictions€grew€out€of€the€burglaries€of€someÏthirteen€residences€during€an€approximate€three„month€period€of€time.€€AmongÏthe€items€stolen€were€shotguns,€rifles,€pistols,€televisions,€œVCRððs,›€jewelry,Íknives,€cameras,€guitars,€money,€various€electronic€equipment,€miscellaneousÏbuilding€supplies,€a€satellite€œreceiver,›€and€a€weed€eater.ÌÌà àThe€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€Defendant€was€thirty„three€yearsÏold€and€married.€€He€finished€the€eleventh€grade€and€has€been€regularlyÏemployed.€€He€apparently€has€no€prior€criminal€convictions.€€He€was€arrestedÏonce€for€possession€of€œmarijuana,›€but€the€charges€were€dismissed€because€ofÏhis€cooperation€with€law€enforcement€as€an€informant.€€He€reported€a€history€ofÏregularly€using€marijuana€on€a€daily€basis€for€fifteen€years€prior€to€his€arrest€onÏthese€multiple€œburglary€and€theft€charges.›€ÌÌà àAt€his€sentencing€hearing,€the€Defendant€testified€that€he€lived€with€hisÏwife€and€two€step„sons.€€Once€apprehended,€the€Defendant€readily€confessedÏto€the€various€burglaries€and€thefts.€€He€and€his€co„defendants,€one€of€whomÏwas€his€wife,€cooperated€with€the€authorities€in€recovering€some€of€the€stolenÏproperty.€€He€stated€that€he€and€the€co„defendants€would€œsimply€ride›€aroundÏand€look€for€houses€to€burglarize.€€The€proceeds€from€the€burglaries€wereÏapparently€used€for€living€expenses€and€to€buy€marijuana.€€The€burglariesÏoccurred€during€a€time€that€the€Defendant€was€œregularly€employed›€and€makingÏaround€eleven€dollars€an€hour.€ÌÌà àIn€denying€the€Defendant€probation€or€community€corrections,€the€trialÏjudge€emphasized€the€Defendantððs€long€history€of€regular€marijuana€usage€andÏthe€large€number€of€burglaries€involved.ÌÌà àThe€State€argues€that€because€the€Defendant€is€statutorily€eligible€forÏprobation,€he€is€thus€ineligible€for€a€community€corrections€sentence€pursuant€toÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„36„106(a).€€Among€other€requirements,Ïthis€section€provides€that€in€order€to€be€eligible€for€a€community€correctionsÏsentence,€an€offender€must€be€a€person€who,€but€for€community€corrections,Ïwould€be€incarcerated€in€a€correctional€institution.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(a)(1).€€Because€the€Defendant€is€eligible€for€probation,€the€State€arguesÏthat€the€Defendant€does€not€qualify€for€community€corrections€because€he€wouldÏnot€necessarily€be€incarcerated€in€a€correctional€institution.€€We€reject€thisÏargument.€€We€find€nothing€to€indicate€that€the€Legislature€intended€that€anÏoffender€who€œis›€eligible€for€probation€œis›€therefore€ineligible€for€a€communityÏcorrection€sentence.€€œà àThe›€State€cites€no€case€law€in€support€of€its€argumentÏand€we€can€find€none.€€œWe€note€that€before›€an€offender€may€be€sentenced€toÏcommunity€corrections€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„36„106(c),€the€offender€òòmustóó€òòbeóó€eligible€for€probation.€€òòState€v.€Statenóó,€787€S.W.2dÏ934,€936€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€A€defendant€is€eligible€for€probation€if€he€isÏsentenced€to€eight€(8)€years€or€less€and€has€not€been€convicted€of€a€fewÍexcluded€offenses.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a).€€The€eligibilityÏrequirements€for€community€corrections€are€more€detailed,€but€there€is€noÏstatutory€limitation€concerning€length€of€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(a)„(c).€€A€community€corrections€sentence€is€thus€available€œas€an€option€for›Ïœcertain€non„violent›€offenders€who€either€are€(a)€not€eligible€for€probation€or€(b)€notÏgood€candidates€for€probation€even€though€technically€eligible€for€probation.€ÏCommunity€corrections€is€another€option€which€may€be€utilized€to€alleviate€prisonÏovercrowding€by€allowing€local€supervision€of€offenders€who€otherwise€wouldÏbe€incarcerated€in€a€penal€institution.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€allowing€œhim›€œto›Ïserve€his€sentence€either€on€probation€or€in€a€community€corrections€program.€ÏœThe›€sentencing€of€this€Defendant€is€governed€by€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€ofÏ1989.€€Through€the€enactment€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„102,€the€legislature€established€certain€sentencing€principles€which€include€theÏfollowing:ÌÓÓà8 àà à(5)€In€recognition€that€state€prison€capacities€and€the€fundsÏto€build€and€maintain€them€are€limited,€convicted€felons€committingÏthe€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminal€histories€evincing€aÏclear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincingÏfailure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priorityÏregarding€sentencing€involving€incarceration;€and€ÌÌà8 àà à(6)€A€defendant€who€does€not€fall€within€the€parameters€ofÏsubdivision€(5)€and€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offenderÍconvicted€of€a€Class€C,€D€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€aÏfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€theÏabsence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€Defendant€was€convicted€of€Class€C,€œD,›€and€E€felonies€which€carryÏwith€them€the€statutory€presumption€that€he€is€a€favorable€candidate€forÏalternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€EvenÏthough€these€felonies€may€be€quite€serious,€the€Legislature€has€provided€thatÏthere€is€a€presumption€of€eligibility€for€alternative€sentencing€options.€à àÌÌà àœThe›€principles€of€sentencing€reflect€that€the€sentence€should€be€no€greaterÏthan€that€deserved€for€the€offense€committed€and€should€be€the€least€severeÏmeasure€necessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€for€which€the€sentence€isÏimposed.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„103(3)„(4).€€The›€court€should€also€considerÏthe€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment€of€the€Defendant€in€determining€theÏsentence€alternative.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).Ìà àÌà àAs€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated€in€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó:€ÌÓÓà8 àWhen€the€stated€minimal€requirements€are€met,€a€defendant€isÏpresumed€"in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary€to€possessÏcapabilities€for€rehabilitative€alternative€sentencing€options."€ÏGuidance€as€to€what€will€constitute€"evidence€to€the€contrary"€underÏsubsection€(6)€is€found€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1).€€SentencesÏinvolving€confinement€should€be€based€on€considerations€thatÍ"(c)œonfinement›€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€aÏdefendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct,"Ï"(c)œonfinement›€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousnessÏof€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€anÏeffective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses,"€orÏ"(m)easures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€orÏrecently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant."€€T.C.A.€ððÏ40„35„103(1)(A)„(C).ÌÌà àòòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€Defendant€committed€numerous€aggravatedÏburglaries€during€an€approximate€three„month€period.€€His€motivation€appears€toÏhave€been€at€least€in€part€to€obtain€money€to€support€his€œlong„term›€œillegal›€drugÏuse.€€Because€of€the€large€number€of€crimes€committed,€his€criminal€acts€are€ofÏð ðan€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree.ðð€€òòState€v.€Travisóó,€622€S.W.2d€529,€534Ï(Tenn.€œ1981);›€œòòseeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòState€v.€Vonedieth€Lavern€Tellisóó,€Hamilton€County€No.Ï1167€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€December€6,€1990).€€The€trial€judge€observedÏthat€ð ð.€.€.€a€person€that€goes€on€a€several€months€spree€of€breaking€into€thirteenÏhouses€needs€to€be€confined€to€the€penitentiary.ðð€€The€judge€obviouslyÏdetermined€that€confinement€was€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€numerous€offenses.€€As›€previously€noted,€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€of€the€manner€of€service€of€the€Defendantððs€sentence€is€œclothed›Ïwith€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€erredÏor€abused€his€discretion€in€denying€the€Defendant€probation€or€a€communityÏcorrections€sentence.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.̛̜ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœWILLIAM€A.€BARKER,€JUDGE›