WPC. # VU>a % 0U: w@ 4 $ 03 0 : 05? 0dt 0D 1m  {dw 0 0X 0L {C {R  {_U: 0LW 0c 0zU: 0 0 Bj 0J 0T 0N% 0^s 0h D39 0rl 0| 0@Z 0 0  1u 0d%U6U *B)DC AMUv~2 v! 0w' 0' 0( 0$) 0) 0* 0z+ AOi,, 0D~- D/- B-HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 <@9Z &Courier RegularX($  XXXX` ` 4XTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT,cAZ"Arial Regular kPlPmPnPoPpPqrEstӀU!(|xZ<< KY.quotesindentions for quotes  X   X Zpp 2opinionsopinions text style  X.XXX.X.XXX.  X.XXX.X.XXX.((3c$ !  XmXXX` 4XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T     0  (Wf|$ @*  A (#$  0  FlanaryBlountvilleBurson HarrS.W.2dtriersByrge Crim App03C01MedlineTiptonMedlintuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(Wf|$ @*  A  ^1$F$number headings for opinions     !  (_$0    8(WV $    ^4'F$number headings for opinions      !    (W$     ^.!F$number headings for opinions    !  ,  AZ"Arial Regular> $Small Circle0 (;s$2,  0  .3  0   6"" w 4cite-caseXIXXXIXIXXXI,  AZ"Arial Regular|NN T2statutesquoted material no indent first line        X  23 inchesindent 3 inches in     d2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  >$"Small Circle"0  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  $$$$'dxd2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  ("$    2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  %&()+,./ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d::::7Border 1dd-;C << G  !8  9 `   4  X \RA'\  9   YYY FILED9X October1,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.9AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva (O{$0  2,  a  .3  0` (#(#(bD$0  0` (#(#2,   .3  0 ` (#` (#(x$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2,(  0  )3  0 (# (#(Ƃ$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2,(  a  )3  0h(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2,(   )3  0h(#h(#(4$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2,  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2,  a  )3  0p(#(#-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . 8  9 `   4  X \RA'\  L<=;;+'h|` T$ `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE@ JUNE1996SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  * C.C.A.#03C019510CC00305  Appellee,  * SULLIVANCOUNTYVS.     * HonorableR.JerryBeck,JudgeBRIANK.COLLINS,  * (ViolationofHabitualTrafficOffender      Order,EvadingArrest,Violation  Appellant.  * ofRegistration)ForAppellant:    ForAppellee:GaleFlanary    CharlesW.BursonAssistantPublicDefender   AttorneyGeneral&ReporterOfficeofthePublicDefender P.O.Box839    ClintonJ.MorganBlountville,TN37617   AssistantAttorneyGeneral      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN37243      NancyHarr      AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral      SecondJudicialDistrict      P.O.Box526      Blountville,TN37617OPINIONFILED:򀀀AFFIRMEDGARYR.WADE,JUDGE7KXXdXXd7@  OPINION   Thedefendant,BrianK.Collins,wasconvictedofviolatingahabitualtrafficoffenderorder,violationofregistration,andevadingarrest.Hewassentencedasarangeoneoffendertotwoyearsforviolatingtheorder,thirtydaysforviolationofregistration,andelevenmonthsandtwentyninedaysforevadingarrest,alltobeservedconcurrently.Thisishisappealofright.  Inadditiontohischallengetothesufficiencyoftheevidence,thedefendantclaimsthatthetrialcourterredbyallowingthejurytoviewthehabitualtrafficoffenderciviljudgmentandassertsthatheshouldhavebeengrantedanalternativesentence.Wefindnoerrorandaffirm.  OnJuly8,1994,thedefendantwasdeclaredahabitualtrafficoffender.Thejudgmentprohibitedthedefendantfromdrivinguntilhislicensewasrestoredaccordingtotheprocedureoutlinedinthegoverningstatute.Theparticularsofthejudgmentwereincludedonastandardform;thethreeprevioustrafficoffensesweretypedonthebottomofthefirstpage.Oneofthepredicateoffenseswasfordrivingwithoutalicense.Theothertwowerefordrivingonasuspendedlicense.  Duringthecourseofthetrialonthepresentcharges,thestateintroducedacopyofthehabitualtrafficoffenderjudgmentthroughthecourtclerk.Thedefendantofferednoobjection.Whenthestatesoughttopassthejudgmenttothejury,however,thedefenseobjectedbecausereferencetotheunderlyingconvictionsappearedonthefaceoftheorder.  Afterabenchconference,thetrialjudgefoundthattheentirejudgmentwasanessentialelementofproofrequiredforconviction.Thus,theobjectionwasoverruled.Initscrossexaminationofthecourtclerk,thedefenseengagedinthefollowingexchange:8 8 Q: Haveyouexaminedthejudgment,thefrontpartofthejudgment?8 8 A: Yes,Ihave.8 8 Q: AndIbelievetheallegedviolationsonthefrontpartofthejudgmentwhichthejuryislookingatnow,arepredicatingthehabitualoffenderorderprohibitingthedefendantfromdriving;itisonthebasisofanodriver'slicenseconviction,andwhat,twocountsofdrivingonasuspendedlicense.8 8 A: Ibelievethat'scorrect.  OtherevidenceestablishedthataSullivanCountyDeputyhadobservedtwocarsdriveninthesamedirectionatexcessivespeeds.Neithercarstoppedwhentheofficerturnedonhisbluelights.Thefirstcar,drivenbyMonicaRhea,eventuallyturnedintoadriveway.Thesecondcar,directlybehind,alsoturned.Theofficerthenobservedthedefendantfleefromthesecondcar.  Thedefendantarguesthattherewasinsufficientevidenceforarationaltrieroffacttohaveconcludedbeyondareasonabledoubtthathewasthedriverofthevehicle;hecontends,therefore,thateachconvictionshouldbesetaside.Theargumentisbaseduponthetestimonyofthedefendant'ssister,WandaCollins,whoclaimedthatthedefendantwasatherresidenceatthetimeoftheoffense.ThedefendantalsochallengedtherecallofSullivanCountyDeputy,GaryMedlin,contendingthathehadforgottenimportant,collateraleventsatthetimeoftheoffense.  Onappeal,ofcourse,thestateisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandallreasonableinferenceswhichmightbedrawntherefrom.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978).Thecredibilityofthewitnesses,theweighttobegiventheirtestimony,andthereconciliationofconflictsintheproofaremattersentrustedtothejuryastriersoffact.Byrgev.State,575S.W.2d292,295(Tenn.Crim.App.1978).Whenthesufficiencyoftheevidenceischallenged,therelevantquestioniswhether,afterreviewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothestate,anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.Statev.Williams,657S.W.2d405,410(Tenn.1983),cert.denied,465U.S.1073(1984);Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).  OfficerMedlintestifiedthatherecognizedthedefendantwhenhejumpedoutofthedriver'ssideofthebrownOldsmobile.OtherwitnessestestifiedthatMonicaRhea,thedriverofthefirstcar,wasthedefendant'sgirlfriend.Hermother,DeborahRhea,testifiedthatthedefendantdrovethebrownOldsmobilewhichhadbeenparkedinherdriveway.Takentogether,thesecircumstancesweresufficientforthejurytohaveconcluded,beyondareasonabledoubt,thatthedefendantwasdrivingthecar.  &  Next,thedefendantclaimsthatthetrialcourterroneouslyallowedthejurytoobservethethreetrafficviolationsuponwhichthehabitualtrafficoffenderjudgmentwasbased.'  ThedefendantwasindictedforviolatingTenn.Code.Ann.5510616,drivingwhilerestrictionineffect,&  aclassEfelony:8 8 (a)Itisunlawfulforanypersontooperateanymotor'  vehicleinthisstatewhilethejudgmentororderofthecourtprohibitingtheoperationremainsineffect.   99X  Establishinganexistingjudgmentagainstthedefendantwasanessentialelementthatthestateneededtoprovebeyondareasonabledoubt.Thetrialcourtdeterminedthattheprobativevalueoftheevidenceappearingonthefaceofthejudgmentexceededanyprejudicialeffect.Thedefenseneitherobjectedtotheadmissionofthejudgmentintoevidencenorofferedinsubstitutionthereofastipulationthathehadbeenprohibitedfromdrivingbythepriorcourtorder.Evidencewasadmitted,contemporaneoustothejudgment,thatthedefendanthadpriortrafficviolations.Thatthejurycouldhavedeterminedtheparticularnatureoftheunderlyingconvictionswasnot,inourview,prejudicialerror.        Next,thedefendantclaimsthatheshouldhavebeengrantedprobationorcommunitycorrections.Whenthereisachallengetothelength,range,ormannerofserviceofasentence,itisthedutyofthiscourttoconductadenovoreviewwithapresumptionthatthedeterminationsmadebythetrialcourtarecorrect.Tenn.CodeAnn.403540l(d).Thispresumptionis"conditionedupontheaffirmativeshowingintherecordthatthetrialcourtconsideredthesentencingprinciplesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances."Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2dl66,l69(Tenn.l99l);seeStatev.Jones,883S.W.2d597(Tenn.1994).TheSentencingCommissionCommentsprovidethattheburdenisonthedefendanttoshowtheimproprietyofthesentence.  Ourreviewrequiresananalysisof(l)theevidence,ifany,receivedatthetrialandsentencinghearing;(2)thepresentencereport;(3)theprinciplesofsentencingandtheargumentsofcounselrelativetosentencingalternatives;(4)thenatureandcharacteristicsoftheoffense;(5)anymitigatingorenhancingfactors;(6)anystatementsmadebythedefendantinhisownbehalf;and(7)thedefendant's7[XdXXd7potentialforrehabilitationortreatment.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035l02,τl03,and2l0;Statev.Smith,735S.W.2d859,863(Tenn.Crim.App.l987).   99X  Incalculatingthesentenceforafelonyconviction,thepresumptivesentenceistheminimumwithintherangeiftherearenoenhancementormitigatingfactors.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035210(c).Butsee1995Tenn.Pub.Actsch.493(amendingthestatuteforoffensesoccurringonorafterJuly1,1995,tomakethepresumptivesentenceinaClassAfelonythemidpointintherange).Ifthereareenhancementfactorsbutnomitigatingfactors,thetrialcourtmaysetthesentenceabovetheminimum.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035210(d).Asentenceinvolvingbothenhancementandmitigatingfactorsrequiresanassignmentofrelativeweightfortheenhancementfactorsasameansofincreasingthesentence.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035210(e).Thesentencemaythenbereducedwithintherangebyanyweightassignedtothemitigatingfactorspresent.Id.        EspeciallymitigatedorstandardoffendersconvictedofClassC,D,orEfeloniesarepresumedtobefavorablecandidates"foralternativesentencingoptionsintheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary."Tenn.CodeAnn.4035102(6).Withcertainstatutoryexceptions,noneofwhichapplyhere,probationmustbeautomaticallyconsideredbythetrialcourtifthesentenceimposediseightyearsorless.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035303(b).ThesentencingrangeforaClassEfelonyRangeIoffenderisnotlessthanonenormorethantwoyears.  Amongthefactorsapplicabletothedefendant'sapplicationforprobationarethecircumstancesoftheoffense,thedefendant'scriminalrecord,socialhistory,andpresentcondition,andthedeterrenteffectuponandbestinterestofthedefendantandthepublic.Statev.Grear,568S.W.2d285(Tenn.1978),cert.denied,439U.S.1077(1979).   99X  ݀ThepurposeoftheCommunityCorrectionsActof1985wastoprovideanalternativemeansofpunishmentfor"selected,nonviolentfelonyoffendersinfrontendcommunitybasedalternativestoincarceration."Tenn.CodeAnn.4036103.TheCommunityCorrectionssentenceprovidesadesireddegreeofflexibilitythatmaybebothbeneficialtothedefendantyetservelegitimatesocietalaims.Statev.Griffith,787S.W.2d340,342(Tenn.1990).ThatthedefendantmeetstheminimumrequirementsoftheCommunityCorrectionsActof1985,however,doesnotmeanthatheisentitledtobesentencedundertheactasamatteroflaworright.Statev.Taylor,744S.W.2d919(Tenn.Crim.App.1987).        ThefollowingoffendersareeligibleforCommunityCorrections:8 8 (1)Personswho,withoutthisoption,wouldbeincarceratedinacorrectionalinstitution;8 8 (2)Personswhoareconvictedofpropertyrelated,ordrug/alcoholrelatedfelonyoffensesorotherfelonyoffensesnotinvolvingcrimesagainstthepersonasprovidedintitle39,chapter2[repealed],parts13and57ortitle39,chapter13,parts15;   `  `      8 8 (3)Personswhoareconvictedofnonviolentfelonyoffenses;8 8 (4)Personswhoareconvictedoffelonyoffensesinwhichtheuseorpossessionofaweaponwasnotinvolved;8 8 (5)Personswhodonotdemonstrateapresentorpastpatternofbehaviorindicatingviolence;8 8 (6)Personswhodonotdemonstrateapatternofcommittingviolentoffenses;and8 8 (7)Personswhoaresentencedtoincarcerationoronescapeatthetimeofconsiderationwillnotbeeligible.  4  X       `  `      Tenn.CodeAnn.4036106(a).  Thedefendantmaintainsthatthetrialcourterredbydenyinganalternativesentence.InAshby,however,oursupremecourtencouragedthegrantofconsiderablediscretionaryauthoritytoourtrialcourtsinmatterssuchasthese.SeeStatev.Moss,727S.W.2d229,235(Tenn.1986)."[E]achcasemustbebottomeduponitsownfacts."Statev.Taylor,744S.W.2dat922.Thusthereisasoundbasisforthepresumptivecorrectnessstandardofappellatereview:8 8  ItisnotthepolicyorpurposeofthisCourttoplacetrialjudgesinajudicialstraightjacketinthisoranyotherarea,andwearealwaysreluctanttointerferewiththeirtraditionaldiscretionarypowers.Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2dat171.  Afterareviewofthepresentencereport,thetrialcourtconcludedthatthedefendant,atagetwentythree,hadbeenconvictedofnumerousmisdemeanorchargesoverafiveyearperiod.Manyoftheseconvictionsresultedinsuspendedsentences.Thecourtalsodeterminedthatthedefendanthadfailedtobenefitfromleniencyhehadbeengrantedinthepriorsentences.  Attrial,defensecounselconcededthatthedefendantwasnoteligibleforprobationorcommunitycorrections.Althoughthedefendanthadnootherfelonyconvictions,hehadseveralpriorconvictionsfordrivingonasuspendedlicense.WhilethedefendantmighthavetechnicallyqualifiedundertheAct,thetrialcourt,inourview,hadasoundbasisforthedenialofanykindofalternativesentence.  Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.     ________________________________________     GaryR.Wade,JudgeCONCUR:___________________________JoeB.Jones,PresidingJudge___________________________PaulG.Summers,Judge