ÿWPC …U:V %–nX¦ 04þ42 F w N X 0JX 0T¢ 0^ö 0hT 0r¼ 0|. 0†ª 00 1uÀ U,5 0da U,Å B)ñ DC AM]U*ª%Ô Bùv~vÓ” D3g 0@š AOÚÆ) 0Dï D/3 Bb<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX#|x «<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT¼¼Œþ6X@ÉDQ¼@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó©U!ÿÿÿÿÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òSeptember€9,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X Òò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€V¡XXdÖdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßL€"$!;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à@ àÔ€¼ÔIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE€ÌÌà@ àAT€€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€1994ÏSESSIONÌÔ€XÔÌó óÌÌÌÌÌÔˆˆÔð#ðÌÔˆˆÔðð€€€€Ìò òÔ€¼ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,Ô$$ÔÔ€XÔððÌ€€€€€€€€€€€AppelleeÔ  Ôðð€€No.€œ03C01›„9409„CR„00314ÔÐóÐóÔÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÔÀÀÔððÌà àà àà àà àà à€vs.ÔP P Ôð*ð€€œGREENE›€COUNTYÌÔˆˆÔððÌÔˆˆÔðð€€Hon.€James€E.€œBeckner›,€JudgeÌò òÔ€¼ÔKERRY€A.€COMBS,€€€€€€€€€ó óÔhhÔÔ€XÔððÌ€€€€€€€€€€€AppellantÔ((Ôðð€€(DUI)ÌÔˆˆÔð$ðÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:€€ÌÌJoyce€M.€Ward€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Charles€W.€œBurson›ÌAssistant€Public€Defender€€€€€€€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÌThird€Judicial€DistrictÌ1609€College€Park€Drive€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Cyril€V.€Fraser€€ÌBox€11€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à€€€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌœMorristown›,€TN€37813„1618à àà à€€€Criminal€Justice€DivisionÌ(AT€TRIAL€&€OF€COUNSEL€ONà àà à€€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌAPPEAL)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Nashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌThomas€T.€œWoodall›à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€C.€Berkeley€BellÌ203€œMurrell›€Streetà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€District€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€1075ÌDickson,€TN€37056„1075à àà àà à€€€Cecil€C.€MillsÌ(ON€APPEAL)à àà àà àà àà à€€€œAsst›€œDist›.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€113€West€Church€Street€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€œGreeneville,TN›.€37743ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________________ÌÌÌÌÌò òÔ€¼ÔCONVICTION€AFFIRMED,€REMANDED€FOR€œRESENTENCING›Ô€XÔÌÌó óRobert€E.€Burchò òÌó óSpecial€JudgeÌà à€€€ÌÌÌÌÑ7€V¡XXdÖXXdÖ7ÑÌÌà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌà àÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€the€criminal€offenseÏof€driving€a€motor€vehicle€while€intoxicated€(third€offense)€andÏdriving€without€a€license.€€On€the€DUI,€the€trial€court€sentencedÏthe€appellant€to€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€in€the€countyÏjail;€set€his€release€eligibility€at€fifty€per„cent;€fined€him€oneÏthousand€ten€dollars€and€denied€alternative€sentencing.€€TheÏsentence€for€driving€without€a€license€was€thirty€days€in€theÏcounty€jail€and€a€fine€of€forty€dollars.€€Both€sentences€wereÏordered€served€concurrently.Ìà àAppellant€presents€three€issues€for€review€by€this€court:Ìà àà à1).€The€sufficiency€of€the€evidence;Ìà àà à2).€Whether€a€òòsua€sponteóó€comment€by€the€trial€courtÏimproperly€prejudiced€appellantððs€right€to€a€fair€trial;€andÌà àà à3).€The€propriety€of€the€sentence.Ìà@ àò òFACTSó óÌà àIn€the€early€morning€hours€of€November€28,€1993,€appellantÏreceived€a€telephone€call€from€a€friend€who€was€at€a€local€bar.€ÏThe€friend€stated€that€he€had€consumed€too€much€alcohol€to€driveÏsafely€and€requested€appellant€to€pick€him€up€and€take€him€home.€€Ìà àAppellant€did€so€and€was€in€the€process€of€taking€his€friendÏhome€when€an€officer€of€the€œGreeneville›€Police€Department€noticedÏappellant€make€an€unusually€wide€turn€at€an€intersection.€€TheÏofficer€followed€appellant€and,€at€the€proper€time,€activated€hisÏblue€lights.€€Appellant€passed€several€appropriate€places€to€stopÏhis€vehicle€but€finally€stopped€after€traveling€about€three€orÏfour€tenths€of€a€mile.€€Ìà àWhen€stopped€and€questioned,€appellant€admitted€that€he€didÏnot€have€a€driver's€license.€€The€officer€noticed€the€smell€of€anÏintoxicating€beverage€emanating€from€the€vehicle€and€requestedÏappellant€to€get€out€of€the€car€and€talk€to€him€outside.€€This€wasÏdone€and€the€officer€smelled€the€odor€of€an€intoxicant€onÏappellant's€breath.€€Upon€inquiry,€appellant€told€the€officer€thatÏhe€had€consumed€three€beers.€€Thereupon,€the€officer€administeredÏa€battery€of€three€field€sobriety€tests.€€In€the€opinion€of€theÏofficer,€appellant€passed€one€test€(heel„to„toe);€barely€failedÏone€(horizontal€gaze€and€nystagmus)€and€failed€one€outright€(one„leg€stand).€€No€other€evidence€of€intoxication€was€introduced.€€Ìà àAppellant€refused€a€breath€alcohol€test,€demanding€instead€aÏblood€test.€€It€was€during€the€testimony€concerning€the€blood€testÏrequest€that€the€trial€judge€òòsua€sponteóó€made€the€remark€thatÏappellant€was€not€entitled€to€a€blood€test.Ìà àAppellant€introduced€considerable€evidence€contrary€to€theÏfacts€set€out€above.€For€example,€he€insisted€that€he€had€consumedÏno€alcohol€at€all€and€had€performed€the€field€sobriety€testsÏsatisfactorily,€with€any€poor€performance€being€readily€explainedÏby€the€inclement€weather€and€the€poor€condition€of€the€roadwayÏupon€which€the€tests€were€administered.€€His€testimony€concerningÏhis€alcohol€consumption€(or€lack€thereof)€was€corroborated€by€hisÏpassenger€and€by€his€live„in€girlfriend.Ìà@ àò òSufficiency€of€Proofó óÌà àA€guilty€verdict€from€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,Ïaccredits€the€testimony€of€the€State's€witnesses€and€resolves€allÏconflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€òòState€v.€œHatchett›óó€560€S.W.2d€627Ï(Tenn.€1978).€In€reviewing€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof,€we€mustÏaccept€the€Stateððs€version€of€the€facts€and€discount€theÏappellantððs€version.Ìà à€Where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€theÏrelevant€question€for€an€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€viewingÏthe€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€anyÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€ofÏthe€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó€657€S.W.2dÏ405€(Tenn.€1983).Ìà àOn€appeal€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó€571€S.W.2d€832Ï(Tenn.€1978).€A€verdict€against€a€defendant€removes€theÏpresumption€of€innocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€onÍappeal,€which€the€appellant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming.€òòState€vÏGraceóó€493€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€1973).Ìà àAt€the€trial,€the€State€offered€evidence€which,€if€believed,Ïwould€establish€that€appellant:Ìà àà à1).€Was€driving€erratically;Ìà àà à2).€Had€the€odor€of€an€alcoholic€beverage€about€hisÏperson;Ìà àà à3).€Admitted€drinking€three€beers;€andÌà àà à4).€Performed€unsatisfactorily€on€two€of€three€fieldÏsobriety€tests.Ìà àAppellant€offered€evidence€which,€if€believed,€would€haveÏestablished€that€all€four€of€the€above€points€were€untrue€and€thatÏhe€œhad€had›€nothing€at€all€to€drink€that€night.Ìà àThe€resolution€of€this€factual€dispute€was€a€classic€juryÏquestion.€€The€jury€resolved€the€issue€in€favor€of€the€State.€€WeÏdo€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€òòState€v€Cabbageóó,Ïsupra.€€The€jury€obviously€found€the€officerððs€version€to€beÏcredible€and€rejected€appellantððs€version.€We€will€not€disturbÏthat€finding.€€Appellant€has€not€convinced€us€that€a€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€could€not€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏoffense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó€443€U.S.Ï307,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€The€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.Ìà@ àò òJudicial€Commentó óÌà àAt€the€beginning€of€cross„examination€of€the€arrestingÏofficer,€appellantððs€able€counsel€attempted€to€elicit€the€factÍthat,€although€appellant€had€refused€a€breath€alcohol€test,€he€didÏrequest€a€blood€test€to€determine€the€level€of€alcohol€in€hisÏblood.€€The€trial€judge€interjected€that€appellant€was€notÏentitled€to€such€a€test.€€No€contemporaneous€objection€was€made€byÏappellant.Ìà àSince€appellant€had€refused€the€breath€alcohol€test€offeredÏto€him,€he€had€no€right€to€a€blood€test.€òòState€v€œChoate›€óó667€œS.W.›Ï2d€111€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€The€trial€judgeððs€statement€wasÏcorrect.Ìà àThe€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€òòsua€sponteóó€limitÏtestimony€that€is€irrelevant.€òòState€v€James€Frederick€œHelton›óóÏ(unreported)€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€at€Knoxville€œ#03C01›„9406„CR„00220€filed€November€22,€1995.€€This€action€by€the€trial€judgeÏdid€not€indicate€any€opinion€for€or€against€the€appellant,€itÏsimply€was€an€attempt€to€redirect€the€focus€of€the€questioning.€ÏThe€comment€was€not€error.€òòState€v€Harris€óó839€S.W.2d€54€(Tenn.Ï1992).Ìà@ àò òSentencingó óÌà àMisdemeanor€sentencing€is€controlled€by€T.C.A.€ðð40„35„302,Ïwhich€provides€in€part€that€the€trial€court€shall€impose€aÏsentence€consistent€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989ÏCriminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€In€determining€the€correctÏsentence,€the€trial€court€should€examine€the€case€in€the€light€ofÏthe€nature€and€character€of€the€offense.€òòState€v.€œGilboy›óó€857ÏS.W.2d€884(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Among€the€factors€applicable€toÏthe€Defendant's€application€for€probation€are€the€circumstances€ofÍthe€offense,€his€criminal€record,€social€history€and€presentÏcondition,€and€the€deterrent€effect€upon€and€best€interest€of€theÏDefendant€and€the€public.€òòState€v.€œGennoe›óó€851€S.W.2d€833(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1992).Ìà àMisdemeanor€sentencing€is€designed€to€provide€the€trial€courtÏwith€continuing€jurisdiction€and€a€great€deal€of€flexibility.€TheÏtrial€court€retains€the€authority€to€place€the€Defendant€onÏprobation€either€immediately€or€after€a€time€of€periodic€orÏcontinuous€confinement.€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„302(e).€Because€especiallyÏmitigated€or€standard€offenders€convicted€of€Class€C,€D,€or€EÏfelonies€are€presumed€to€be€favorable€candidates€for€alternativeÏsentencing,€the€same€presumption€would€logically€apply€toÏmisdemeanors.€òòœGennoe›óó€851€S.W.2d€at€837;€see€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102(6).ÏHowever,€the€misdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€not€entitled€toÏthe€presumption€of€a€minimum€sentence.€òòState€v.€œCreasy›óó€885€S.W.2dÏ829(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1994).€€Additionally,€the€burden€ofÏestablishing€suitability€for€probation€rests€with€the€Defendant.ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„303(b).€Ìà àWe€review€the€trial€courtððs€sentence€òòde€novoóó€with€a€generalÏpresumption€of€correctness€if€the€record€demonstrates€that€theÏtrial€court€properly€considered€relevant€sentencing€principles.ÏòòState€v€œAshby›óó€823€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.1991);€T.C.A.ðð40„35„401(d).€€Ìà àIn€setting€the€sentence€at€the€maximum€for€the€offense,€we€doÏnot€find€that€the€trial€judge€departed€from€the€requirements€ofÏòòœAshby›óó.€€This€is€especially€true€since€T.C.A.ðð55„10„403(c),€inÏeffect,€mandates€a€maximum€sentence€for€DUI,€with€the€onlyÍfunction€of€the€trial€court€being€to€determine€what€period€aboveÏthe€minimum€period€of€incarceration€established€by€statute,€ifÏany,€is€to€be€suspended.Ìà àIn€determining€whether€alternatives€to€incarceration€wereÏappropriate,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€trial€judge€erred.Ìà àThe€trial€court€refused€to€suspend€any€portion€of€appellantððsÏsentence€based€upon€three€factors,€which€the€trial€judge€stated€onÏthe€record:Ìà àà à1).€Appellantððs€prior€history€of€alcohol€abuse€evincedÏby€his€two€prior€convictions€for€DUI;Ìà àà à2).€General€deterrence€of€those€in€œGreene›€CountyÏinclined€to€violate€this€law;€andÌà àà à3).€The€circumstances€of€the€offense,€to€wit:€theÏreckless€driving€of€the€appellant.Ìà àNone€of€these€factors€would€support€the€denial€of€a€suspendedÏsentence.Ìà àThe€first€factor€is,€in€reality,€the€fact€that€appellant€hasÏtwo€prior€DUI€convictions.€€Nothing€more€than€the€fact€of€theÏconvictions€was€entered€into€the€record€to€establish€his€priorÏhistory€of€alcohol€abuse.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€fromÏwhich€the€trial€court€could€have€found€that€appellant€everÏconsumed€alcohol€in€his€entire€life€prior€to€this€incident€onÏtrial€except€upon€those€two€occasions,€once€in€1986€and€once€inÏJanuary€of€1991.€Counting€the€present€case,€appellant€has€hadÏthree€œDUIs›€in€seven€years.€€While€this€is€an€obvious€repeated€andÏserious€violation€of€the€law,€it€hardly€establishes€an€alcoholÍproblem€which€could€be€used€to€incarcerate€appellant€for€more€thanÏthe€statutory€minimum.€€This€is€particularly€true€when€these€sameÏfacts€are€used€to€establish€an€element€of€the€offense€for€whichÏappellant€was€convicted€(third€offense€DUI).€€The€General€AssemblyÏhas€established€a€mandatory€minimum€period€of€incarceration€forÏjust€these€facts€and,€no€other€facts€appearing,€increasing€thatÏperiod€would€encroach€upon€the€legislative€prerogative.Ìà àBefore€a€trial€court€may€deny€probation€on€the€ground€ofÏdeterrence,€there€must€be€some€evidence€in€the€record€that€theÏsentence€imposed€will€have€a€deterrent€effect€within€theÏjurisdiction.€òòState€v€œHorne›óó€612€S.W.2d€186€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1980).€€In€addition,€the€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€ActÏof€1989€requires€that€any€sentence€imposed€by€a€court€must€beÏbased€on€evidence€contained€in€the€record€of€the€trial€andÏsentencing€hearing€or€the€presentence€report.€T.C.A.€ðð40„35„210(d).€€A€finding€that€appellantððs€sentence€will€have€a€deterrentÏeffect€cannot€be€merely€œconclusory›€only€but€must€be€supported€byÏproof.€òòState€v.€Smithóó€735€S.W.2d€859€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ìà àThe€record€is€devoid€of€any€proof€of€deterrence.€€TheÏreliance€upon€this€factor€was€error.Ìà àLastly,€the€trial€court€relied€upon€the€circumstances€of€theÏoffense€to€deny€probation.Ìà àThe€trial€court€may,€of€course,€deny€probation€based€upon€theÏcircumstances€of€the€offense.€òòState€v€Hartleyóó€818€S.W.2d€374Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App€1991).€€In€order€to€do€so€based€solely€upon€thatÏfactor,€however,€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€as€committedÍmust€be€especially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,Ïoffensive€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree€andÏthe€nature€of€the€offense€must€outweigh€all€factors€favoringÏprobation.€òòsupra.Ìà àóóThe€facts€in€the€record€do€not€support€such€a€finding.Ìà àIt€follows,€then,€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÏappellant€suspension€of€some€portion€of€his€sentence.Ìà àIf€there€were€no€factors€in€the€record€which€would€supportÏincarceration€above€the€minimum€established€by€the€statute,€weÏwould€modify€the€sentence€to€grant€probation€after€service€of€saidÏperiod.€€The€record,€however,€does€contain€factors€which€the€trialÏjudge€may€chose€to€consider€in€determining€whether€to€require€aÏlonger€period€of€incarceration,€e.g.€the€untruthfulness€of€theÏappellant€in€denying€that€he€had€consumed€alcohol.€€This€being€theÏcase,€it€is€the€trial€court,€not€an€appellate€court,€which€shouldÏmake€that€determination.€Ìà àThe€judgment€of€conviction€and€length€of€sentence€is€affirmedÏand€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€to€determine€theÏamount€of€appellantððs€sentence€which€should€be€served€onÏprobation.Ìà àà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€E.€Burch,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSpecial€JudgeÌÌÌò òÔ€¼ÔCONCUR:ó óÔ€XÔÌÌ_________________________Ì€Gary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_________________________Ì€Joseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge