ÿWPCž  …UBV %˜ž¦nX¶ 0P 4^ 0”r 0D J w@P 0J 0TÚ 0^. 0hŒ 0rô 0|f 0†â 0h 1uø 0dm BÑU6îU*$B)NDCw D3º AMí3: 0@mé­G–ËÝv~¨vÓ& AOùÆH 0D D/R B <þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|X«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó·‚^!(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóHN þ ÿ £äeEDUÓ€2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ11,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ßÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔÔ€'ÔThe€theft€over€sixty€thousand€dollars€($60,000)€offense€was€a€class€B€felony,€T.C.A.€Ìðð€39„14„105(5),€carrying€a€Range€I€sentence€of€eight€to€twelve€years.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(2).€€TheÏtheft€over€ten€thousand€dollars€($10,000)€offense€was€a€class€C€felony,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„105(4),€carryingÏa€Range€I€sentence€of€three€to€six€years.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3).€€The€embezzlement€offense€was€aÏclass€D€felony,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„118,€carrying€a€Range€I€sentence€of€two€to€four€years.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(4).Ì =Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔÔ€'ÔThe€indictment€against€the€defendant€states€that€the€embezzlement€offenses€occurred€inÏð ð1988/1989.ððÌ ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔÔ€'ÔThe€proof€demonstrated€that€the€defendant€misappropriated€over€sixty€thousand€dollarsÏ($60,000)€in€1988€and€1989.€€This€supports€application€of€the€enhancement€factor€for€a€particularly€greatÏamount€of€damage€to€the€victimsðð€property.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€׫XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€'Ԝـ€ÙßR€+,)A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›à àà àÞ ÞÌò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà àà àà àà àSEPTEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9511„CC„00356ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àBLOUNT€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€D.€KELLY€THOMAS,€JR.,ÌBENITA€COLLINS,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Sentencing)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òMACK€GARNERà àà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌó óPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÌó ó419€High€St.ò òÌó óMaryville,€TN€€€37804à àà àà àà àò òM.€ALLISON€THOMPSONó óà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï(On€Appeal)à àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àCounsel€for€the€Stateà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.à àà àà àÌò òJIMMY€KYLE€DAVISó óà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì713€Market€St.à àÌKnoxville,€TN€€€37901à àà àà àà àò òMIKE€FLYNNó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBlount€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àó óMaryville,€TN€€€37801Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ  ÑÓ  Óà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€on€one€count€of€embezzlement,€one€countÏof€theft€over€sixty€thousand€dollars€($60,000),€and€one€count€of€theft€over€tenÏthousand€dollars€($10,000).€€She€pled€guilty€to€all€three€counts,€leaving€her€sentenceÏto€the€courtððs€determination.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€court€below€sentencedÏher€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€four€years€on€the€embezzlement€conviction,€tenÏyears€on€the€conviction€for€theft€over€sixty€thousand€dollars€($60,000),€€and€four€yearsÏon€the€conviction€for€theft€over€ten€thousand€dollars€($10,000),€all€sentences€to€runÏconcurrently.€€€The€defendant€was€ordered€to€serve€these€sentences€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction,€and€was€also€ordered€to€pay€restitution€of€three€hundredÏthirty„three€thousand€three€hundred€three€dollars€and€fifty„six€cents€($333,303.56).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€now€appeals€as€of€right,€complaining€that€the€sentencingÏcourt€misapplied€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€thereby€imposing€excessiveÏsentences,€and€that€it€erred€by€refusing€to€grant€her€an€alternative€sentence.€€After€aÏreview€of€the€record,€we€modify€the€defendantððs€sentence€by€reducing€her€sentenceÏon€the€embezzlement€conviction€to€three€years.€€We€otherwise€affirm€the€judgmentÏbelow.ÌÌà àà à€During€the€period€1988€through€August€1994,€the€defendant€wasÏemployed€by€Smoky€Mountain€Secrets,€Incorporated,€and€Special€Programs,ÏIncorporated,€as€a€payroll€clerk.€€As€payroll€clerk,€she€prepared€checks€and€hadÏsigning€authority€on€certain€checking€accounts€for€the€corporations€and€had€theÏresponsibility€of€reconciling€the€bank€statements€on€these€accounts.€€Over€the€courseÏof€this€period,€she€wrote€and€negotiated€unauthorized€checks€to€herself€on€theseÏchecking€accounts€and€subsequently€hid€the€misappropriated€checks.€€The€total€sumÏso€misappropriated€was€approximately€three€hundred€ninety€thousand€sevenÏhundred€sixteen€dollars€($390,716).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€testified€that€she€took€the€funds€to€pay€off€her€then„husbandððs€gambling€and€drug€debts.€€She€testified€that€the€first€such€debt€wasÏapproximately€one€thousand€five€hundred€dollars€($1,500)€in€1987.€€She€furtherÏtestified€that€she€started€getting€threats€from€her€husbandððs€creditors€in€late€1990€orÏearly€1991€and€that€she€and€her€husband€divorced€in€1993.€€She€also€testified€thatÏsome€of€the€money€was€spent€on€expensive€tools€and€vacations.€€Her€version€of€theÏoffenses€set€forth€in€the€presentence€report€included€the€statement,€ð ðI€continuedÏstealing€to€pay€my€bills€and€because€of€impaired€judgment€I€thought€Iððd€show€him€thatÍme€and€his€children€would€have€a€ððgoodðð€life.ðð€€The€defendant€testified€that€she€andÏher€three€children€were€currently€living€with€her€father,€that€she€was€gainfullyÏemployed,€that€her€current€employer€had€not€and€would€not€terminate€her€as€a€resultÏof€these€offenses,€and€that€she€was€willing€to€pay€€restitution€in€addition€to€theÏapproximately€fifty€seven€thousand€dollars€($57,000)€she€had€already€paid.€ÏHowever,€she€also€admitted€during€cross„examination€that,€after€she€was€terminatedÏfrom€the€victim€corporationsðð€employ,€œshe›€had€lied€to€her€subsequent€employersÏabout€her€prior€employment€history.€ÌÌà àà àœWhen›€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€aÏòòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€TheÏburden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€€T.C.A.Ïðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,€however,€ð ðisÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏthe€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àà àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€at€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€to€be€followed€in€sentencing.€ÍThis€section€mandates€the€courtððs€consideration€of€the€following:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒX¸)Ó(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing;€(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]heÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÏalternatives;€(4)€[t]he€nature€and€characteris‚tics€of€theÏcriminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€[e]vidence€and€informationÏoffered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]nyÏstatement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalfÏabout€sen‚tencing.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¢ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210.ÌÒ € ÒÒ ¢ ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ À ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¢ Òà àà àIn€addition,€this€section€provides€that€the€minimum€sentence€within€theÏrange€is€the€presumptive€sentence€for€B,€C€and€D€felonies.€€If€there€are€enhanc‚ingÏand€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€andÏenhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduceÏthe€sen‚tence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€noÏmitigating€factors,€the€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€rangeÏbut€still€within€the€range.€€The€weight€to€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€Act€further€provides€that€ð ð[w]henever€the€court€imposes€a€sentence,Íit€òòshall€place€on€the€recordóó€either€orally€or€in€writing,€what€enhance‚ment€or€mitigatingÏfactors€it€found,€if€any,€as€well€as€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€ðð€40„35„209.ðð€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210(f)€(emphasis€added).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors€under€the€sentencing€guide‚lines,€even€the€absence€of€these€factorsÏmust€be€recorded€if€none€are€found.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210€comment.€€These€findings€byÏthe€trial€judge€must€be€recorded€in€order€to€allow€an€adequate€review€on€appeal.Ì€Ìà àà àAs€enhancement€factors,€the€sentencing€court€found€that€the€amount€ofÏdamage€to€the€victimsðð€property€was€particularly€great,€and€that€the€defendant€abusedÏa€position€of€private€trust€in€the€commission€of€the€offenses.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(6)Ïand€(15).€€As€mitigating€factors,€the€court€noted€that€the€offenses€neither€caused€norÏthreatened€serious€bodily€injury;€that€the€defendant€€had€paid€some€restitution;€andÏthat€she€had€no€prior€convictions.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(1)€and€(13).€€Accordingly,€itÏimposed€mid„range€sentences€on€the€theft€convictions€and€a€maximum€sentence€onÏthe€embezzlement€conviction.œ× ƒ. ××  ×›€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€contends€that€she€should€have€received€the€minimumÏsentences€on€these€convictions.€€In€support€of€this€contention,€she€argues€that€theÏsentencing€court€should€have€applied€as€additional€mitigating€factors€that€sheÏcommitted€these€offenses€because€she€was€motivated€by€a€desire€to€provideÏnecessities€for€herself€or€her€family€and€that€she€acted€under€the€duress€orÏdomination€of€another€person.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(7)€and€(12).€€She€also€contendsÏthat€the€sentencing€court€erred€in€applying€as€an€enhancement€factor€on€theÏembezzlement€offense€that€she€abused€a€position€of€private€trust.€ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€her€argument€that€she€committed€these€offensesÏbecause€she€wanted€to€provide€necessities€to€herself€or€her€family,€the€defendantÏtestified€that€she€spent€the€stolen€money€on€gambling€and€drug€debts,€vacations€andÏð ðexpensive€tools.ðð€€These€are€not€ð ðnecessities.ðð€€The€sentencing€court€did€not€err€inÏfailing€to€apply€this€mitigating€factor.€€Nor€did€it€err€by€not€applying€the€factor€involvingÏduress€or€domination.€€While€the€defendant€testified€that€she€had€received€threatsÏfrom€her€husbandððs€creditors,€including€threats€against€her€children,€she€stated€thatÏthese€did€not€start€until€late€1990€or€early€1991.€€The€offenses€began€in€1988.€ÏMoreover,€she€admitted€that€she€had€stolen€money€not€(just)€because€she€feltÍthreatened€but€because€she€wanted€to€get€back€at€her€ex„husband€by€providingÏherself€and€her€children€with€the€ð ðgood€life.ðð€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€€ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€enhancement€factors,€the€defendant€concedes€that€sheÏð ðembezzled€a€particularly€large€amount€of€money€by€abusing€a€position€of€privateÏtrust.ðð€€She€contends,€correctly,€that€the€enhancement€factor€for€abuse€of€a€privateÏtrust€could€not€be€applied€on€her€embezzlement€conviction€because€the€existence€ofÏa€private€trust€was€an€element€of€that€offense€prior€to€November€1,€1989.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.Ïðð€39„3„1121€(1982);€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114.€€It€is€unclear€whether€the€sentencing€courtÏapplied€this€enhancement€factor€on€the€embezzlement€conviction.€€The€court€notedÏð ðthat€in€òòsomeóó€of€these€counts,€she€abused€positions€of€private€trust€for€a€long€timeððÏ(emphasis€added).€€In€any€event,€one€enhancement€factor€was€properly€applicable€toÏthe€embezzlement€conviction.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€However,€because€three€mitigating€factors€wereÏfound,€we€find€that€the€court€below€erred€in€sentencing€the€defendant€to€the€maximumÏon€this€conviction.€€Accordingly,€we€reduce€the€defendantððs€sentence€on€herÍembezzlement€conviction€to€a€midrange€sentence€of€three€years.€€The€midrangeÏsentences€for€the€two€theft€convictions€are€appropriate€and€are€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€contends€that€she€should€have€received€anÏalternative€sentence,€specifically€probation€or€community€corrections.€€We€first€noteÏthat€the€defendant€is€not€eligible€for€probation€because€her€sentence€is€more€thanÏeight€years.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„303(a).€€And€while€she€meets€the€minimum€eligibilityÏstandards€for€community€corrections,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„36„106(a),€the€sentencing€court€wasÏnot€thereby€required€to€so€sentence€her.ÌÌà àà àà àT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103€sets€out€sentencing€considerations€which€areÏguidelines€for€determining€whether€or€not€a€defendant€should€be€incarcerated.€€TheseÏinclude€the€need€ð ðto€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€has€a€long€historyÏof€criminal€conduct,ðð€the€need€ð ðto€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,ððÏthe€determination€that€ð ðconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effectiveÏdeterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses,ðð€or€the€determination€thatÏð ðmeasures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€appliedÏunsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1).ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€the€specific€sentence€and€the€possible€combination€ofÏsentencing€alternatives,€the€court€shall€consider€the€following:€(1)€any€evidence€fromÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€concerning€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€nature€andÏcharacteristics€of€the€offense,€(5)€information€offered€by€the€State€or€the€defendantÏconcerning€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors€as€found€in€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„113€and€„114,€and€(6)€the€defendantððs€statements€in€his€or€her€own€behalf€concerningÏsentencing.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(b).€€In€addition,€the€legislature€established€certainÏsentencing€principles€which€include€the€following:ÌÓÓÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÌ(5)€€In€recognition€that€state€prison€capacities€and€the€fundsÏto€build€and€maintain€them€are€limited,€convicted€felonsÏcommitting€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminalÏhistories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€moralsÏof€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€past€efforts€atÏrehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priority€regardingÏsentencing€involving€incarceration;€andÌÌ(6)€€A€defendant€who€does€not€fall€within€the€parameters€ofÏsubdivision€(5)€and€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standardÏoffender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D€or€E€felony€is€presumedÏto€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencingÏoptions€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¢ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102.ÌÌà àà àAfter€reviewing€the€statutes€set€out€above,€it€is€obvious€that€the€intent€ofÏthe€legislature€is€to€encourage€alternatives€to€incarceration€in€cases€whereÏdefendants€are€sentenced€as€standard€or€mitigated€offenders€convicted€of€C,€D,€or€EÏfelonies.€€However,€it€is€also€clear€that€there€is€an€intent€to€incarcerate€thoseÏdefendants€whose€criminal€histories€indicate€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€andÏmorals€of€society€and€a€failure€of€past€efforts€to€rehabilitate.ÌÌà àà àIn€support€of€its€decision€to€incarcerate€the€defendant,€the€court€belowÏstated€that€a€theft€of€almost€four€hundred€thousand€dollars€($400,000)€which€did€notÏresult€in€a€sentence€involving€confinement€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€theÏoffense.€€It€also€noted€that€the€crimes€had€occurred€at€a€steady€pace€over€a€six€yearÏperiod,€including€the€theft€of€approximately€fifty€six€thousand€dollars€($56,000)€afterÏthe€defendantððs€husband€left,€giving€her€a€ð ðlengthy€history€of€criminal€conduct,€albeitÏall€involved€in€these€offenses.ðð€€The€sentencing€court€also€expressed€concern€that€theÏdefendantððs€dishonesty€with€her€employers€continued€after€her€termination€from€theÏvictimsðð€employ,€stating€that€these€factors€showed€ð ðher€willingness€to€be€dishonestÏand€to€steal€if€itððs€in€her€best€interest€or€if€she€feels€like€itððs€necessary,€using€her€livingÏexpenses€that€she€needs€and€the€welfare€of€her€children€as€an€excuse€to€do€this€forÏsix€years.ðð€€Thus,€it€appears€that€the€sentencing€court€found€that€the€defendant€lackedÍpotential€for€rehabilitation.€€Finally,€the€court€found€the€need€for€general€deterrence,Ïnoting€ð ða€lot€of€embezzlement€cases€[which€have]€come€through€this€court[.]ðð€€All€ofÏthese€factors€are€sentencing€considerations€which€support€a€sentence€involvingÏconfinement.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1)€(A)€and€(B),€and€(5).€€Thus,€even€if€the€courtÏbelow€erred€in€applying€general€deterrence€as€a€consideration,€such€error€wasÏharmless.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€above,€the€defendantððs€sentence€is€modified€soÏas€to€reduce€her€sentence€on€the€embezzlement€conviction€to€three€years.€€TheÏdefendantððs€sentence€is€otherwise€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JudgeÔ% € Ô