ÿWPCÖ. ,„P®1ì3Å_í›Gã?‚ê3¤sÊC?.u™<°WòÛñÚó—|SB„¥~AkÌí®0Œ}kÐïµ ÃŒš6xùåQ±]äî²×í^ƒ;Û<':õ¸ÎÞvYk÷ͶʌJ¨vd \ò$°õã]XÂàY)¨þ-ÚÓXåF—W+1èTÚª†âè•ÈTׂ3*ÒÊ› 6„BUjåÅ6¼fû ê$×ec4ä÷Å…s¼Éâ¿G8Àëû¡)µàøäÄ kî–‹ÑóPÁ~söD­ÈYòLýÅJÈràó,È ˜oìlë Q‘PŠé%«¡ð aê¿Dè¸J§ÛÁ/öÄ᪩¶R]*ùVGÛü»z¿Õ‚À (Q¶ 1HR² ¨Ë•Ÿ‰ÿ¸ÝÅHabeŒ¬º ¢qrÄÞæä5¤eðä#Þ›™~œ!€qÞK7ü¶¼®3ê`Ÿl ½VA3¬{]D¡”Ël|4Ù˜’…¯IñýhCè!|Ki~ë_n=Öìò“!¦=I/ 3<ÅŒiŸðÜdÈœk$f«•Ìë€RëüÊ«6zPI†«"ù?5äxÀhê6h)F®ÞD¹¼G|P,ˆ‡zd•ëú>Â_¶rfn4y5ub#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 1‘ Æ Æä ƪ Æp 0 D6NzN|@ÊE U:  72F 1ux 72í 0 c 1‚ 72 1A 72Î:f:f ˜vž¡µ!µ!µ!µ!Õ½! 0 w’" 1 #b–# 72ž# 1Ð# 72]$P$$òß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß'ß' 0 ëÑ)Ñ)Ñ)Ñ) B¼*¼* 0¤Ù* D5}+ D-²+ 0Kß+ß+ AS*,Æ}, 0¤C- 0Dç- A«+.˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»uÈ(˜ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularq\;'   ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ0×CEMU]emu}AutoList1(a)(A)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó DÝ ƒRõd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ÃX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€is€not€clear€from€the€record€whether€some€of€the€funds€diverted€from€the€clerk€andÐ ° Ðmasterððs€office€were€used€for€Mary€Spurgeonððs€expenses€or€for€both€Spurgeonsðð€care. 6Ý ƒRõd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ÃX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€not€relevant€to€these€proceedings,€there€was€evidence€that€at€least€some€of€thoseÐ ° Ðharmed€by€Chesteenððs€actions€had€civil€litigation€pending€against€him., øð AZ"Arial Regular (a)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ç CEMU]emu}AutoList2(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(÷ CEMU]emu}AutoList3(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a) 0Ý ƒRõd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ÃX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€state€conceded€at€oral€argument€that€a€sentence€of€some€confinement€coupled€with€someÐ ° Ðprobation€was€an€equitable€resolution.€€In€balancing€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€with€theÐ  ð ÐSentencing€Actððs€goal€of€providing€for€restitution€of€victims€where€possible,€we€agree.€€òòCfóó.€òòState€v.Ð à ÐLynda€Gayle€Kirklandóó,€No.€03C01„9606„CR„00248,€slip€op.€at€8„9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,Ð €Ð ÐFeb.€12,€1997)€(trial€court€set€length€of€sentence€at€eight€years€rather€than€more€lengthy€term€so€thatÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€would€be€eligible€for€probationary€sentence€coupled€with€payment€of€restitution). \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ ŽÝ ƒRõd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ÃX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€the€court€mentioned€that€the€defendant€harmed€the€beneficiaries€of€the€Ô_ÔSpurgeonsÔ_ÔððÐ ° Ðwills,€who€were€deprived€of€the€proceeds€of€the€Ô_ÔSpurgeonsÔ_Ôðð€residual€estates€they€would€haveÐ  ð Ðreceived€but€for€Ô_ÔChesteenÔ_Ôððs€theft,€we€have€not€considered€the€heirs€or€legatees€to€be€victims€becauseÐ à Ðtheir€interests€at€the€time€were€merely€prospective€and€òòinóó€òòfuturoóó. lÝ ƒRõd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ÃX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€does€reflect€that€the€defendant€took€$16,217.23€of€Mantoothððs€funds€on€AugustÐ ° Ð29,€1996,€two€days€before€leaving€office€and€two€months€after€the€amendment€to€Code€section€40„Ð  ð Ð35„104(c). —Ý ƒRõd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ÃX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€acknowledge€that€theft€is€a€graded€offense,€and€application€of€this€enhancement€factorÐ ° Ðis€normally€inappropriate.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Grissomóó,€956€S.W.2d€514,€518€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€Ð  ð ÐAlthough€the€stateððs€evidence€fails€to€point€to€any€exceptions€to€this€general€rule,€we€have€foundÐ à Ðexceptions€in€proper€circumstances.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Johnnie€Shane€Capleyóó,€No.€M1999„00353„Ð €Ð ÐCCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€7„8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€29,€1999);€òòState€v.€Mason€ThomasÐ pÀ ÐWilbanksóó,€No.€01C01„9804„CR„00184,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€21,€1999);Ð ` ° ÐòòState€v.€Brenda€Kay€Keeferóó,€No.€03C01„9709„CC„00413,€slip€op.€at€5„6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð P   ÐKnoxville,€Feb.€10,€1999);€òòState€Ô_Ôv.BarbaraÔ_Ô€D.€Frankóó,€No.€03C01„9209„CR„00303€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,Ð @  ÐKnoxville,€Dec.€22,€1993).  ËÝ ƒRõd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ÃX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔHe€points€to€evidence€of€depression,€anxiety,€high€blood€pressure€and€ulcers.(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(æéCEMU]emu}AutoList4(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)- ù--(A)(öéCEMU]emu}AutoList5(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)0(A) FÝ ƒRõd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ÃX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€state€questions€the€sincerity€of€the€defendantððs€remorse€because€he€had€not€at€the€timeÐ ° Ðof€the€sentencing€hearing€made€any€voluntary€restitution€payments€to€his€victims.€€In€light€of€theÐ  ð Ðevidence€that€the€defendant€had€been€through€bankruptcy€proceedings,€had€been€unemployed€forÐ à Ðseveral€months€after€his€employer€learned€about€these€offenses,€had€worked€for€a€significant€periodÐ €Ð Ðof€time€earning€approximately€$8.00€per€hour,€and€the€fact€that€adversarial€civil€proceedings€wereÐ pÀ Ðpending,€we€decline€to€draw€any€inferences€from€the€defendantððs€lack€of€voluntary€restitutionÐ ` ° Ðpayments. èÝ ƒRõd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ÃX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€one€year€of€òòcontinuousóó€confinement€hereby€imposed€establishes€a€release€eligibility€dateÐ ° Ðthat€arrives€nine€and€one„half€months€sooner€than€the€release€eligibility€date€for€the€Ô_Ôsix„yearÔ_Ô€sentenceÐ  ð Ðas€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3)€(1997).(|G2õd$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·ä»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ÃX»»Ô d(|3*$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·ä»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3*$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·ä»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·ä»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼·ä»»»ÔÑ8€¥ÃXXdð»»d8ÑÑ€!³/ÑÑ€"³/Ñà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ È ÐÌÔ‡X¥ÃX»¼·äÔÌò òÔ#†¼·ä»XX¥ÃŽ#ÔÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€CHARLES€Ô_ÔCHESTEENÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡X¥ÃX»¼·äÔó óÐ è8 ÐÓÔÓÌà@H H ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Ô_ÔCockeÔ_Ô€CountyˆÐ ð @ Ðà@ÚÚìàNo.€7221,€7222€€€€€€Hon.€Ô_ÔKindallÔ_Ô€T.€Lawson,€Judge,€sitting€by€interchangeˆÐ à 0 ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<¯` A߈Ð °  ÐÌà@þ þ ìàNo.€E1999„00910„CCA„R3„CD€„€Decided€June€8,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈР¯ÿ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß  Ðó óÌThe€defendant,€Charles€Ô_ÔChesteenÔ_Ô,€served€as€the€Clerk€and€Master€of€the€Ô_ÔCockeÔ_Ô€County€ChanceryÐ ŽÞ  ÐCourt€from€1984€to€1996.€€In€1997,€he€was€charged€with€theft€relating€to€his€service€in€the€capacityÐ ~Î Ðas€conservator€of€funds€of€two€elderly€ladies€and€with€unlawful€conversion€related€to€fundsÐ n¾ Ðmisappropriated€by€him€in€his€official€capacity.€€He€pleaded€guilty,€with€the€sentencingÐ ^® Ðdetermination€to€be€made€by€the€trial€court.€€The€court€imposed€an€effective€six„year€Ô_ÔincarcerativeÔ_ÔÐ Nž Ðsentence€along€with€restitution€of€$101,821.73.€€Upon€review,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ >Ž Ðsome€of€its€sentencing€determinations.€€We€affirm€in€part,€modify€in€part,€reverse€in€part,€and€remandÐ .~ Ðto€the€trial€court€for€further€determination€regarding€aspects€of€the€sentencing€issues.Ð n ÐÌò òÔ_ÔT.R.A.P.Ô_Ô€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed€in€part,€Modified€in€part,€Reversed€inÐ þN Ðpart,€and€Remandedó óÐ î> ÐÌòòÔ_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€J.Ô#†¼·ä»àX¥Ã2#ÔÔ‡X¥ÃX.¼·äÔóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€òòóójoined€and€Ô_ÔTòòiptonÔ_Ô,€J.,€óóconcurredÐ Î Ðby€separate€opinion.Ð ¾ ÐÌEdward€C.€Miller,€District€Public€Defender,€for€the€appellant,€Charles€Ô_ÔChesteenÔ_Ô.Ð ž î ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Patricia€C.€Ô_ÔKussmanÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð ~"Î! ÐAlfred€C.€Ô_ÔSchmutzerÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General,€W.€Ô_ÔBrownlowÔ_Ô€Marsh,€Assistant€DistrictÐ n#¾" ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ^$®# ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼·ä»XX¥ÃÖ #ÔÔ‡X¥ÃX»¼·äԈР>&Ž!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼·ä»XX¥Ã= #ÔÔ‡X¥ÃX»¼·äÔà  àà ` àÔ#†¼·ä»XX¥Ãœ #ÔÔ€X¥ÃX»¼·äÔCharles€Ô_ÔChesteenÔ_Ô€stands€convicted€upon€his€guilty€pleas€of€theft€of€property€valuedÐ (n#' Ðat€$10,000€or€more,€a€Class€C€felony,€and€embezzlement€in€his€official€capacity€as€clerk€and€master,Ð )^$( Ða€Class€C€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103,€„105(4)€(1997)€(theft€of€property);òòóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ þ)N%) ÐAnn.€ðð€18„2„105€(1994)€(embezzlement€by€clerk€and€master€in€official€capacity).€€Having€receivedÐ î*>&* Ðconcurrent€Ô_ÔincarcerativeÔ_Ô€sentences€of€six€years€on€each€conviction€accompanied€by€an€order€ofÐ Þ+.'+ Ðrestitution€of€$101,821.73,€Ô_ÔChesteenÔ_Ô€appeals.€€We€have€considered€the€oral€arguments€and€the€briefsÐ Î,(, Ðof€the€parties€along€with€the€applicable€law.€€€We€affirm€the€length€of€the€six„year€effective€sentenceÐ ¾-)-ýŽ ÐÔ_Ôbut€modify€the€manner€of€service€to€split€confinement€of€one€year€in€confinement€followed€byÐ ° Ðfourteen€years€of€probation.€We€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€determination€regarding€restitution€in€bothÐ  ð Ðconvictions€and€remand€to€that€court€for€a€determination€of€proper€restitution.€€Finally,€we€affirm€theÐ à Ðtrial€courtððs€denial€of€judicial€diversion.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àCharles€Chesteen,€39€years€old€at€the€time€of€sentencing,€assumed€the€duties€of€theÐ ` ° Ðoffice€of€Clerk€and€Master€of€the€Cocke€County€Chancery€Court€in€1984€and€held€the€office€untilÐ P   Ð1996.€€Apart€from€his€duties€as€clerk€and€master,€he€was€appointed€in€1987€to€be€financialÐ @  Ðconservator€of€the€funds€of€Narcissa€Spurgeon€and€Mary€Spurgeon,€two€elderly€ladies€who€were€noÐ 0 € Ðlonger€able€to€manage€their€own€financial€affairs.€€By€his€own€admission,€Chesteen€began€takingÐ  p  Ðmoney€from€the€Spurgeonsðð€accounts€for€his€personal€use€approximately€one€year€after€hisÐ `  Ðappointment€as€conservator.€€According€to€Chesteen,€he€believed€he€would€be€able€to€repay€theÐ P  Ðmoney€at€some€point.€€Thereafter,€Chesteen€also€began€misappropriating€funds€of€various€litigantsÐ ð@  Ðwhich€were€in€the€custody€of€the€office€of€the€clerk€and€master.€Chesteen€claimed€that€he€had€usedÐ à0  Ðthe€Spurgeon€funds€for€necessary€personal€and€family€expenses,€not€extravagances.€€He€furtherÐ Ð  Ðclaimed€that€the€funds€he€took€from€the€clerk€and€masterððs€office€were€used€for€further€personal€andÐ À Ðfamily€expenses,€as€well€as€to€meet€the€expenses€of€one€or€both€of€the€Spurgeonsðð€continued€nursingÐ ° Ðhome€care€after€he€had€depleted€those€funds.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð  ð ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€Chesteen€left€office,€the€successor€clerk€and€master,€Craig€Wild,€discoveredÐ €Ð Ðirregularities€which€ultimately€led€him€to€request€an€audit€by€state€officials.€€That€audit€uncoveredÐ pÀ Ða€shortage€of€$101,821.73€in€the€office€of€the€clerk€and€master.€€The€audit€also€revealed€thatÐ `° ÐChesteen€had€established€various€unofficial€bank€accounts€through€which€he€funneled€fundsÐ P  Ðentrusted€to€him€as€clerk€and€master€and€ultimately€used€them€for€personal€and€family€expenses€andÐ @ Ðthe€continued€care€of€one€or€both€of€the€Spurgeons.€€Chesteenððs€scheme€included€the€preparation€ofÐ 0€ Ðorders€reciting€false€factual€premises,€which€he€presented€to€various€judges€for€signature€withoutÐ  p Ðtheir€knowledge€of€the€falsity.Ð ` ÐÌà  àà ` àInitially,€Chesteen€was€not€of€any€measurable€assistance€to€Clerk€and€Master€WildÐ ð@ Ðor€the€state€auditors€in€uncovering€the€scheme.€€However,€he€did€eventually€meet€with€the€auditorsÐ à0 Ðas€well€as€law€enforcement€authorities€and€provide€details€about€his€activity.€€By€this€time,€the€auditÐ Ð  Ðhad€been€completed,€so€Chesteenððs€explanation€was€of€no€assistance€in€investigating€the€matter€otherÐ À! Ðthan€to€corroborate€what€had€already€been€uncovered.€€Chesteen€advised€the€authorities€that€he€hadÐ °"  Ðdestroyed€records€relative€to€the€funds€taken.Ð  #ð! ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€state€presented€evidence€that€Chesteenððs€actions€caused€great€distress€to€theÐ €%Ð # ÐSpurgeons€in€their€declining€years€and€deprived€the€beneficiaries€of€the€Spurgeonsðð€wills€of€theÐ p&À!$ Ðresidual€estate€to€which€they€were€entitled.€€Further,€Chesteenððs€actions€deprived€various€litigantsÐ `'°"% Ðand€other€individuals€of€funds€held€for€their€benefit€by€the€office€of€the€clerk€and€master.€€Seventeen„Ð P( #& Ðyear„old€Sarah€Mantooth,€a€single€parent,€was€deprived€of€the€proceeds€of€her€deceased€fatherððs€lifeÐ ° Ðinsurance€policy,€which€she€had€planned€to€use€to€pay€for€her€college€education.€Miss€MantoothÐ  ð Ðtestified€that€she€would€probably€be€unable€to€pursue€higher€education€without€the€money.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à ÐÌà  àà ` àChesteen€testified€that€he€was€a€life„long€Cocke€County€resident€with€a€high€schoolÐ pÀ Ðdiploma€and€an€associateððs€degree.€€His€father€passed€away€when€he€was€eight,€and€he€beganÐ ` ° Ðworking€at€age€twelve.€€At€the€age€of€nineteen,€Chesteen€married€a€woman€who€is€fourteen€years€hisÐ P   Ðsenior.€€He€raised€her€three€children€as€his€own,€assuming€parental€and€financial€obligations€for€them.€Ð @  ÐWhen€he€was€appointed€to€the€office€of€clerk€and€master,€he€was€paid€approximately€$21,000€perÐ 0 € Ðyear,€and€when€he€left€the€position€he€was€earning€approximately€$38,000€to€$39,000€per€year.€€SinceÐ  p  Ðleaving€the€office€of€clerk€and€master,€Chesteen€has€worked€in€various€positions.€€At€the€time€of€theÐ `  Ðsentencing€hearing,€he€was€earning€approximately€$8.00€per€hour€but€was€poised€to€assume€aÐ P  Ðmanagerial€position€that€would€pay€$23,000€per€year€plus€consulting€fees€for€additional€work.Ð ð@  ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€hearing,€Chesteen€admitted€wrongdoing€and€expressed€his€remorse€and€desireÐ Ð  Ðto€make€restitution€to€his€victims.€€He€testified€that€his€actions€had€caused€him€to€suffer€variousÐ À Ðailments€over€the€years,€including€anxiety€and€depression.€€Chesteen€claimed€that€he€took€the€moneyÐ ° Ðdue€to€his€inability€to€meet€the€financial€demands€of€his€family€on€his€salary.€€He€testified€that€hisÐ  ð Ðwife€suffers€from€a€panic€disorder€known€as€agoraphobia€and€is€unable€to€leave€their€home€unlessÐ à Ðhe€accompanies€her€and€then€only€in€limited€circumstances.€€Although€Mrs.€Chesteen€worked€forÐ €Ð Ða€time€during€their€marriage€in€a€job€she€was€able€to€do€from€home,€in€more€recent€years€she€has€Ð pÀ Ðbeen€unable€to€work€outside€the€home€and€has€been€unable€to€obtain€disability€benefits€for€herÐ `° Ðcondition.€€Mrs.€Chesteen€is€also€limited€by€other€medical€conditions,€including€arthritis.€€She€isÐ P  Ðhighly€dependent€on€the€defendant€to€attend€to€her€personal€needs€and€do€the€household€chores.€Ð @ ÐOther€family€members€corroborated€the€extent€of€Mrs.€Chesteenððs€limitations.€€The€defendant€andÐ 0€ Ðhis€daughter€both€testified€that€they€did€not€envision€Mrs.€Chesteen€being€able€to€remain€in€the€homeÐ  p Ðif€the€defendant€were€incarcerated.€€He€is€needed€to€support€her€financially€as€well€as€to€attend€herÐ ` Ðdaily€needs.€€Ð P ÐÌà  àà ` àRelatives€of€the€defendant€testified€about€the€defendantððs€tremendous€guilt€for€hisÐ à0 Ðcrimes,€his€exemplary€fulfillment€of€his€parental€role€to€Mrs.€Chesteenððs€three€children,€and€the€greatÐ Ð  Ðimprovements€Mrs.€Chesteen€has€made€through€the€years€with€the€defendantððs€support.Ð À! ÐÌà  àà ` àAlong€with€an€application€for€judicial€diversion,€Chesteen€submitted€documentationÐ  #ð! Ðof€his€and€his€wifeððs€medical€concerns€and€letters€of€support€from€numerous€acquaintances€attestingÐ $à" Ðto€his€suitability€for€non„incarcerative€sentencing.Ð €%Ð # ÐÌà  àà ` àHaving€heard€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€imposed€maximum,€six„year€terms€for€theÐ `'°"% Ðdefendantððs€crimes.€€The€sentences€were€to€be€served€concurrently.€€The€trial€court€engaged€inÐ P( #& Ðextensive€discussion€of€local€incarceration€with€work€release;€the€judgment€forms,€however,€reflectÐ ° Ðthat€the€sentence€on€both€counts€is€to€be€served€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€trial€courtÐ  ð Ðordered€restitution€of€$101,821.73€to€be€paid€incident€to€the€official€misconduct€conviction.€€The€trialÐ à Ðcourt€never€explicitly€ruled€on€Chesteenððs€application€for€judicial€diversion.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€this€appeal,€Chesteen€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€judicial€diversion€as€wellÐ ` ° Ðas€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€his€sentence.€€We€consider€first€the€issue€of€the€propriety€ofÐ P   Ðthe€sentence€imposed.Ð @  ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÐ  p  Ðis€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ `  Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€ThisÐ P  Ðpresumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÐ ð@  Ðconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð à0  ÐS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðThe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€theÐ Ð  Ðappellant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€the€event€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€the€required€consideration€by€the€trialÐ À Ðcourt,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòIdóó.€€If€appellate€review€reflects€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðproperly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€theÐ  ð Ðrecord,€this€court€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€Ð à ÐòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€the€conclusion€of€theÐ `° Ðsentencing€hearing,€determines€the€range€of€sentence€and€then€determines€the€specific€sentence€andÐ P  Ðthe€propriety€of€sentencing€alternatives€by€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trialÐ @ Ðand€the€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€argumentsÐ 0€ Ðas€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved,€(5)Ð  p Ðevidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€(6)€anyÐ ` Ðstatements€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendantððs€behalf€about€sentencing,€and€(7)€theÐ P Ðpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(a),€(b)€(1997);€Tenn.€CodeÐ ð@ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„103(5)€(1997);€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð à0 ÐÔ‡X87 XXX¥ÃÔà  àà ` àÌÔ#†X¥ÃX XX87â=#Ôà  àà ` àThe€defendant€was€sentenced€for€his€Class€C€felonies€as€a€Range€I€offender.€€TheÐ À! Ðrange€of€punishment€in€this€case€is€three€to€six€years.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3)€(1997).Ð °"  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€appropriate€factors;€however,Ð $à" Ðthe€court€misapplied€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€Additionally,€as€discussed€below,€the€trialÐ €%Ð # Ðcourt€made€inappropriate€restitution€determinations.€€Thus,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€unaccompaniedÐ p&À!$ Ðby€the€presumption€of€correctness.Ð `'°"% ÐÌÓ  Óò òI.€€òòLength€of€Sentenceóó.Ð @)$' Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factors€(3),€(4)€and€(15)€to€each€conviction.€€òòSeeóóÐ  +p&) ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3),€(4),€(15)€(1997).€€Ð ,`'* Їà  àà ` àFirst€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendantððs€crimes€involved€more€than€one€victim.€Ð ° ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3)€(1997).€€The€defendant€does€not€challenge€the€application€ofÐ  ð Ðthis€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€69,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(enhancementÐ à Ðfactor€(3)€appropriate€if€defendant€not€separately€convicted€of€offenses€against€each€victim);€òòStateÐ €Ð Ðv.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€384€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)€(ð ðvictimðð€for€purposes€of€enhancementÐ pÀ Ðfactor€(3)€is€ð ða€person€or€entity€that€is€injured,€killed,€had€property€stolen,€or€had€property€destroyedÐ ` ° Ðby€the€perpetrator€of€the€crimeðð).€€We€apply€factor€(3)€to€the€theft€conviction,€because€the€defendantÐ P   Ðharmed€the€two€Spurgeon€wards.€€We€accord€this€factor€substantial€weight.׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defendantððs€officialÐ @  Ðmisconduct€conviction€may€fairly€be€viewed€as€a€crime€against€the€office€of€the€clerk€and€master.€Ð 0 € ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€18„2„105€(1994).€€Although€the€individuals€whose€funds€were€unlawfullyÐ  p  Ðconverted€while€in€the€custody€of€the€office€of€the€clerk€and€master€are€not€the€victims€under€theÐ `  Ðstatute,€they€are€victims€of€this€crime€under€òòRainesóó€for€purposes€of€enhancement€factor€(3).€€In€viewÐ P  Ðof€the€numerous€victims€of€the€official€misconduct€conviction,€the€factor€is€entitled€to€significantÐ ð@  Ðweight€for€that€offense.Ð à0  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€also€enhanced€the€sentences€because€Chesteenððs€victims€wereÐ À Ðð ðparticularly€vulnerable€because€of€age€or€physical€or€mental€disability.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ° Ð40„35„114(4)€(1997).€€The€defendant€argues€that€this€factor€should€not€apply€to€either€convictionÐ  ð Ðbecause€there€was€no€interaction€between€the€victims€and€the€defendant€in€perpetration€of€the€crime,Ð à Ðand€thus,€the€result€would€be€the€same€whether€or€not€the€victims€were€of€a€young€or€advanced€ageÐ €Ð Ðor€mentally€disabled.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Sealsóó,€735€S.W.2d€849,€853„54€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(factorÐ pÀ Ðnot€applicable€because€crime€involved€theft€from€mailboxes€and€result€would€be€the€same€if€victimsÐ `° Ðhad€been€ð ðrobust€athletesðð).€€In€our€determination,€we€are€guided€by€our€supreme€courtððsÐ P  Ðpronouncement€that€the€sentencing€court€should€consider€Ð @ Ðà8  à(1)€whether€the€victim,€because€of€age€or€mental€or€physical€attributes,€wasÐ 0€ Ðparticularly€unable€to€resist€the€crime,€summon€help,€or€testify€at€a€later€date;€(2)Ð  p Ðwhether€[the]€victimððs€age€(extremely€old€or€extremely€young)€is€entitled€toÐ ` Ðadditional€weight;€and€(3)€whether€the€vulnerability€of€the€victim€made€the€victimÐ P Ðmore€of€a€target€for€the€offense,€or,€conversely,€whether€the€offense€was€committedÐ ð@ Ðin€such€a€manner€as€to€render€the€vulnerability€of€the€victim€irrelevant.Ðà0Ð Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Waltonóó,€958€S.W.2d€724,€729€(Tenn.€1997)€(citing€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96„97Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€1997)).€€Ð À! ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€the€record€before€us,€the€state€has€established€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÐ  #ð! Ðthat€this€factor€should€apply€to€the€theft€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€908€S.W.2d€410,€413€(Tenn.Ð $à" ÐCrim.€App.€1995)€(preponderance€of€evidence€required€to€establish€applicability€of€enhancementÐ €%Ð # Ðfactors).€€The€evidence€showed€that€both€Narcissa€and€Mary€Spurgeon€were€incompetent€to€handleÐ p&À!$ Ðtheir€financial€affairs€and€confined€to€a€nursing€home€prior€to€their€deaths,€and€there€was€evidenceÐ ° Ðthat€the€defendant€anticipated€them€to€pass€away€more€rapidly€than€they€did.€€By€reason€of€a€courtÐ  ð Ðmaking€the€necessary€findings€to€support€the€appointment€of€conservator,€the€Spurgeons€were€inÐ à Ðneed€of€ð ðsupervision,€protection€and€assistance€by€reason€of€mental€illness€or€injury,€developmentalÐ €Ð Ðdisability€or€other€mental€or€physical€incapacity.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€34„11„101(7)€(1996)€(definingÐ pÀ Ðð ð[d]isabled€personðð€for€purposes€of€conservatorship€law);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€34„13„Ð ` ° Ð101ð!ð107€(setting€forth€provisions€for€appointing€conservator€for€a€disabled€person).€€Thus,€theÐ P   ÐSpurgeons€were,€virtually€as€a€matter€of€law,€particularly€unable€to€resist€the€crime,€summon€helpÐ @  Ðor€testify€at€a€later€date.€Thus,€we€believe€this€factor€was€properly€applied€to€the€defendantððs€theftÐ 0 € Ðconviction€and€is€entitled€to€substantial€weight.Ð  p  ÐÌà  àà ` àTurning€to€the€applicability€of€the€particular€vulnerability€factor€to€the€officialÐ P  Ðmisconduct€conviction,€we€find€it€supported€by€the€evidence,€as€well.€€Theòòóó€state€has€shown€that€atÐ ð@  Ðleast€some€of€the€victims€were€minors.€€As€clerk€and€master,€the€defendant€had€control€of€the€minorsððÐ à0  Ðfunds€òòbecauseóó€they€were€minors.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€35„7„208€(1996).€€We€believe€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€defendantððs€official€misconduct€sentence€was€properly€enhanced€based€on€this€factor.Ð À ÐòòóóÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€trust€in€committing€the€Ð  ð Ðoffenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(15)€(1997).€€The€defendant€does€not€challenge€theÐ à Ðapplication€of€this€factor€to€the€theft€conviction.€€However,€he€argues€that€application€of€both€factorsÐ €Ð Ð(4)€and€(15)€constitutes€double€enhancement€in€both€cases€because€the€funds€were€accessible€to€himÐ pÀ Ðby€virtue€of€the€victimsðð€incapacity.€€òòóóIn€other€words,€he€was€in€a€position€of€conservator€over€theÐ `° ÐSpurgeonsðð€funds€because€they€were€elderly€and€incapacitated,€and€as€clerk€and€master€he€was€in€aÐ P  Ðposition€of€trust€over€funds,€including€some€of€which€were€in€his€official€custody€due€to€the€ageÐ @ Ðand/or€incapacity€of€the€beneficiaries.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(15)€(1997).€€This€issue€hasÐ 0€ Ðbeen€addressed€by€this€court€in€a€somewhat€different€context€with€an€outcome€adverse€to€ChesteenððsÐ  p Ðargument.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jerniganóó,€929€S.W.2d€391,€396„97€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€We€applyÐ ` Ðfactor€(15)€in€the€theft€case€and€assign€it€moderate€weight€in€view€of€the€application€of€factor€(4).Ð P ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€to€the€official€misconduct€conviction,€we€believe€that€the€defendant€is€correct€inÐ à0 Ðclaiming€that€the€use€of€factor€(15)€constitutes€impermissible€double€enhancement€because€theÐ Ð  Ðoffense€itself€requires€that€the€actor€be€a€ð ðclerk€or€clerk€and€master€of€any€court,ðð€and€by€virtue€ofÐ À! Ðthat€office,€he€was€in€a€position€of€trust.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€18„2„105€(1994).€€We€agree€thatÐ °"  Ðabuse€of€a€position€of€public€trust€is€not€an€available€enhancement€factor€for€offenses€that€involveÐ  #ð! Ðmalfeasance€committed€by€public€officials€€in€their€official€capacity.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€David€Keith€Laneóó,Ð $à" ÐNo.€03C01„9607„CC„00259,€slip€op.€at€9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€18,€1997),€òòaffððd€onÐ €%Ð # Ðother€groundsóó,€3€S.W.3d€456€(Tenn.€1999).€€The€trial€court€misapplied€this€factor€in€the€officialÐ p&À!$ Ðmisconduct€case.Ð `'°"% ÐÌà  àà ` àAlthough€the€trial€court€did€not€enhance€Chesteenððs€sentence€because€the€amount€ofÐ @)$' Ðmoney€taken€from€the€victims€was€particularly€great,€òòseeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6)€(1997),€Ð 0*€%( Ðòòde€novoóóconsideration€leads€us€to€apply€this€factor€to€the€official€misconduct€conviction.€€TheÐ  +p&) Ðundisputed€evidence€is€that€the€defendant€took€in€excess€of€$100,000;€certainly,€this€is€a€particularlyÐ ,`'* Ðgreat€amount€in€the€context€of€this€offense.€€We€have€considered€but€declined€to€apply€this€factor€toÐ ° Ðthe€theft€conviction€related€to€the€conservatorship.€€The€defendant€was€convicted€of€theft€of€propertyÐ  ð Ðvalued€at€$10,000€but€less€than€$60,000.€€The€state€auditors€did€not€audit€the€defendantððs€handlingÐ à Ðof€the€conservatorship.€€The€state€did€not€establish€with€any€precision€the€amount€taken€from€theÐ €Ð ÐSpurgeons.€€There€was€some€evidence€of€beginning€and€ending€balances,€but€there€was€very€littleÐ pÀ Ðevidence€about€the€amount€the€defendant€legitimately€spent€from€the€accounts€for€the€SpurgeonsððÐ ` ° Ðcare.€€Thus,€we€cannot€say€that€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€establishes€that€the€amount€takenÐ P   Ðin€the€theft€offense€was€ð ðparticularly€great.ðð׃%×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð @  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€applied€various€non„statutoryÐ  p  Ðenhancement€factors.€€We€have€considered€each€of€the€defendantððs€claims€in€context€of€the€trialÐ `  Ðcourtððs€statements€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€and€we€are€unpersuaded.€€The€claimed€non„statutoryÐ P  Ðenhancements€are,€in€context,€simply€comments€by€the€court€about€matters€that€the€trial€court€wasÐ ð@  Ðrequired€to€consider€in€arriving€at€the€overall€sentencing€determination,€including€the€length€andÐ à0  Ðmanner€of€service€of€the€sentence€and€the€amount€of€restitution€to€be€paid.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àNext,€we€turn€to€the€defendantððs€proffered€mitigating€factors.€€The€trial€courtÐ ° Ðsummarily€found€none;€however,€our€òòde€novoóó€review€reveals€that€some€measure€of€mitigation€isÐ  ð Ðappropriate.Ð à ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€claims€his€conduct€did€not€cause€or€threaten€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóóÐ pÀ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1)€(1997).€€We€apply€little€weight€to€this€factor.€€As€this€court€hasÐ `° Ðnoted,€lack€of€serious€bodily€injury€ð ðis€usually€the€case€with€surreptitious€theft,€committed€outsideÐ P  Ðthe€context€of€burglary€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòState€v.€Glen€Adkinsóó,€No.€113,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð @ ÐKnoxville,€Feb.€16,€1989).€€Moreover,€the€fact€that€the€defendant€did€not€contemplate€physical€harmÐ 0€ Ðpales€in€comparison€to€the€very€significant€amount€of€money€he€stole€from€his€victims.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ  p Ðv.€Bilbreyóó,€816€S.W.2d€71,€77€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€Ð ` ÐÌÌà  àà ` àChesteen€also€advocates€that€he€should€receive€the€benefit€of€mitigation€because€heÐ à0 Ðwas€motivated€to€commit€his€crimes€in€order€to€provide€himself€and€his€family€with€necessities.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ð  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(7)€(1997).€€The€record€reflects€that€the€defendant€supported€his€wifeÐ À! Ðand€her€three€children€on€his€salary€which€began€at€around€$21,000€and€ended€at€around€$38,000€toÐ ° Ð$39,000.€€During€some€of€the€earlier€years€that€the€defendant€earned€these€wages,€his€wife€workedÐ  ð Ðas€an€apartment€manager,€earning€$900€a€month€and€having€the€privilege€of€a€free€apartment.€€In€laterÐ à Ðyears,€the€defendantððs€wife€was€unable€to€work.€€The€three€children€attended€college,€one€graduatingÐ €Ð Ðand€the€other€two€finishing€all€but€a€few€hours€needed€for€graduation.€€Chesteen€testified€about€hisÐ pÀ Ðbasic€household€expenses€for€utilities,€housing€and€telephone€service,€and€it€is€apparent€that€theyÐ ` ° Ðrequired€a€substantial€portion€of€his€paycheck€apart€from€other€expenses€about€which€he€did€notÐ P   Ðtestify,€such€as€transportation,€groceries,€clothing€and€household€necessities€for€his€family€of€five.€Ð @  ÐThe€defendant€testified€that€he€began€taking€the€Spurgeonsðð€money€due€to€personal€financialÐ 0 € Ðpressures€and€that€the€expenses€were€of€a€day„to„day€nature,€as€opposed€to€extravagances.€€He€alsoÐ  p  Ðtestified€that€he€wanted€the€three€children€to€have€a€good€and€happy€start€in€life,€although€he€did€notÐ `  Ðwant€them€to€have€a€lavish€lifestyle.€€The€stateððs€audit€relative€to€the€official€misconduct€convictionÐ P  Ðdetails€an€extensive€listing€of€Chesteenððs€use€of€those€funds.€€Numerous€medical€expenses€are€listed,Ð ð@  Ðalthough€it€is€not€clear€whether€these€were€expenses€of€the€Chesteen€family€or€the€Spurgeons.€€ThereÐ à0  Ðare€payments€to€the€telephone€company,€the€utilities€company,€ð ðCar€Care,ðð€a€grocery€store,€Wal„MartÐ Ð  Ðand€other€entities€which€might€fairly€be€construed€as€necessities.€€However,€there€are€also€paymentsÐ À Ðfor€pager€service,€internet€service,€cellular€phone€service€and€cable€television,€all€of€which€fall€shortÐ ° Ðof€this€courtððs€interpretation€of€necessities.€€On€balance,€we€believe€the€defendant€has€marginallyÐ  ð Ðestablished€that€this€factor€should€be€applied€to€his€convictions;€however,€we€afford€it€onlyòòóó€slightÐ à Ðweight.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gene€Gruzellaóó,€No.€01C01„9401„CC„00002,€slip€op.€at€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð €Ð ÐNashville,€Aug.€23,€1994)€(focus€should€be€on€motivation€for€the€crime,€as€opposed€to€manner€inÐ pÀ Ðwhich€proceeds€were€spent);€òòState€v.€Irene€Haleóó,€No.€287,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,Ð `° ÐJuly€11,€1989)€(defendant€who€forged€checks€for€Christmas€gifts€and€food€entitled€to€mitigationÐ P  Ðunder€prior€sentencing€act€because€expenditures€were€for€necessities€for€her€family).€€òòBut€cfóó.€òòStateÐ @ Ðv.€Michael€Bellewóó,€No.€02C01„9510„CC„00324,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Feb.€27,Ð 0€ Ð1997)€(factor€properly€reserved€for€ð ðindividuals€who,€because€of€their€destitution,€choose€to€stealÐ  p Ðbread,€milk,€or€other€basic€necessities€for€their€children€or€themselves€due€to€their€direÐ ` Ðcircumstancesðð).Ð P ÐÌà  àà ` àChesteen€also€claims€his€sentences€should€be€mitigated€because€he€was€suffering€fromÐ à0 Ða€mental€or€physical€condition€that€significantly€reduced€his€culpability€for€the€offenses.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(8)€(1997).€€Particularly,€he€claims€he€had€a€stressful€home€situation,€sufferedÐ À! Ðfrom€anxiety€and€depression,€and€was€taking€Prozac,€which€may€impair€judgment€and€thinking.€€WeÐ °"  Ðhave€reviewed€the€medical€and€psychiatric€evidence€presented€by€the€defendant,€and€we€fail€to€seeÐ  #ð! Ðthat€this€factor€should€be€applied.€€While€the€defendant€may€have€suffered€stress€as€the€head€of€hisÐ $à" Ðhousehold€prior€to€beginning€his€unlawful€activities,€by€all€indications€it€appears€that€his€physicalÐ €%Ð # Ðand€mental€health€began€declining€after,€and€perhaps€because€of,€his€crimes.€€Furthermore,€he€hasÐ p&À!$ Ðoffered€no€evidence€to€demonstrate€a€cause€and€effect€relationship€between€his€psychiatric€maladies,Ð `'°"% Ðthe€medication€he€took,€and€how€they€served€to€render€him€less€culpable.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€MarshaÐ P( #& ÐTrenthamóó,€No.€03C01„9811„CC„00405,€slip€op.€at€9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€10,€1999)Ð @)$' Ð(factor€not€applied€to€defendant€who€had€stressful€home€life€and€needed€mental€health€treatment€afterÐ 0*€%( Ðthe€offense€because€there€was€no€evidence€that€mental€illness€played€a€part€in€the€offense€itself);Ð  +p&) ÐòòState€v.€Treva€Stricklandóó,€No.€03C01„9611„CC„00427,€slip€op.€at€10„11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð ,`'* ÐKnoxville,€Dec.€16,€1997)€(factor€(8)€did€not€apply€in€part€due€to€defendantððs€failure€to€prove€howÐ ° Ðalleged€mental€condition€served€to€significantly€reduce€culpability).€€òòBut€cfóó.€òòState€v.€William€J.Ð  ð ÐBoylanóó,€No.€01C01„9206„CC„00202,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.€21,€1993)Ð à Ð(depression,€anxiety€and€suicidal€ideation€considered€under€mitigating€factor€(8)€although€they€didÐ €Ð Ðnot€explain€or€justify€the€defendantððs€criminal€conduct),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àNext,€Chesteen€implores€the€court€to€mitigate€his€sentences€under€the€ð ðcatchallððÐ P   Ðprovision€of€the€mitigation€statute.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13)€(1997).€€He€claims€weÐ @  Ðshould€consider€his€remorse,€the€death€of€his€father€when€the€defendant€was€eight,€his€mental€andÐ 0 € Ðphysical€maladies,׃+×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€his€lack€of€a€prior€criminal€record.€€Ð  p  ÐÌà  àà ` àRemorse€is,€indeed,€a€proper€mitigating€factor€if€established€by€the€evidence.€€òòStateÐ P  Ðv.€Williamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€69,€83€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€We€are€persuaded€by€the€defendantððsÐ ð@  Ðproffered€remorse.€€The€defendant€and€other€witnesses,€as€well€as€letters€written€by€the€defendantððsÐ à0  Ðacquaintances,€attested€to€his€remorse.€€He€testified€that€his€health€has€deteriorated€at€least€in€partÐ Ð  Ðbecause€of€his€actions.€€The€claim€of€deteriorating€health€is€corroborated€by€other€evidence€of€record.Ð À ÐOn€òòde€novoóóreview,€we€give€moderate€mitigating€weight€to€the€defendantððs€claim€of€remorse.׃2€×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€acknowledge€that€the€death€of€a€defendantððs€parent€when€the€defendant€is€youngÐ à Ðmay€be€a€mitigating€factor€where€appropriate.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€240€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð €Ð ÐApp.€1986).€€However,€we€fail€to€see€its€propriety€in€this€case.€€Granted,€the€defendantððs€sisterÐ pÀ Ðtestified€that€she€and€the€defendant€began€working€as€children€to€earn€money,€and€their€lifestyle€asÐ `° Ðchildren€was€spartan.€€However,€the€defendant€came€before€the€court€for€sentencing€as€a€39„year„oldÐ P  Ðman€who€had€assumed€family€responsibilities€of€his€own€some€twenty€years€earlier.€€A€high€schoolÐ @ Ðteacher€testified€about€his€maturity€as€a€student.€€By€the€accounts€of€many,€the€defendant€led€anÐ 0€ Ðexemplary€life€save€his€transgressions€in€this€case.€Given€Chesteenððs€apparent€positive€developmentÐ  p Ðand€maturity€into€adulthood€despite€hardship€and€the€lack€of€a€father,€we€decline€to€afford€anyÐ ` Ðmitigation€for€his€fatherððs€death.Ð P ÐÌà  àà ` àChesteen€also€commends€his€poor€mental€and€physical€health€to€us€as€a€mitigatingÐ à0 Ðfactor.€€He€has€not€explained,€however,€how€his€ill€health€equates€with€mitigation.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð Ð  ÐAnthony€Raymond€Bellóó,€No.€03C01„9503„CR„00070,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,Ð À! ÐMar.€11,€1996),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1996).òòóó€€It€appears€that€the€defendantððs€ill€health€may€beÐ ° Ðof€his€own€making€due€to€his€anxiety€over€the€wrongdoing€for€which€he€stands€before€the€court.€€WeÐ  ð Ðhave€already€considered€his€remorse€a€mitigating€factor,€and€we€believe€any€weight€that€mightÐ à Ðarguably€be€appropriate€for€mitigation€due€to€poor€health€has€been€accounted€for€in€our€considerationÐ €Ð Ðof€remorse.€òòóóÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€defendant€seeks€mitigation€because€he€has€no€prior€criminal€record.€€AÐ P   Ðcourt€may,€but€is€not€required€to,€consider€this€factor€in€mitigation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€920Ð @  ÐS.W.2d€247,€261€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€this€case,€however,€Chesteenððs€criminal€conductÐ 0 € Ðspanned€a€period€of€many€years€and€involved€ongoing,€surreptitious€theft€which€he€accomplishedÐ  p  Ðand€concealed€by€maintaining€ð ðunofficialðð€bank€accounts,€destroying€records,€and€obtainingÐ `  Ðfraudulent€court€orders€through€deception€of€judges.€€Given€these€circumstances,€we€decline€to€affordÐ P  Ðany€mitigation€for€lack€of€a€prior€criminal€record.Ð ð@  ÐÌà  àà ` àThus,€enhancement€factors€applicable€to€the€theft€conviction€are€(3),€(4)€and€(15),€andÐ Ð  Ðthe€mitigating€factors€are€(1),€€(7)€and€(13).€€For€the€official€misconduct€conviction,€the€enhancementÐ À Ðfactors€are€(3),€(4)€and€(6),€and€the€mitigating€factors€are€(1),€(7)€and€(13).€€Upon€balancing€theseÐ ° Ðfactors,€we€believe€the€comparatively€lesser€weight€of€the€mitigating€factors€is€far€exceeded€by€theÐ  ð Ðweightiness€of€the€enhancement€factors,€especially€factors€(3)€and€(4).€€Thus,€we€arrive€at€six„yearÐ à Ðsentences€for€the€two€convictions,€imposed€to€be€served€concurrently.Ð €Ð ÐÌÓ  Óò ò2.€€òòManner€of€Serviceóó.Ð `° Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àNext,€we€consider€the€manner€of€sentence€service.€The€defendant€came€before€theÐ @ Ðcourt€as€a€presumed€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ 0€ Ð40-35-102(6)€(1997).€This€presumption€may€be€rebutted,€however,€by€evidence€to€the€contrary.€òòIdóó.Ð  p ÐSuch€"evidence€to€the€contrary"€is€demonstrated€by€proof€that€€€Ð ` ÐÓ€ 0(öé83ÓÝ"‚,é;"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚,é;·œÝà0  àÔ2öéÔ(Ú  ÚAÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝConfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€has€aÐ P Ðlong€history€of€criminal€conduct;݃,é;·œäœÝŒÐð@` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚,é;"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚,é;žÝà0  àÔ2öéÔ(Ú  ÚBÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝConfinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€orÐ à0 Ðconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likelyÐ Ð  Ðto€commit€similar€offenses;€or€€Ýƒ,é;žHžÝŒÐÀ!` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚,é;"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚,é;éŸÝà0  àÔ2öéÔ(Ú  ÚCÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  Ý€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€appliedÐ °"  Ðunsuccessfully€to€the€defendant€.€.€.€.€€Ýƒ,é;韠݌Р#ð!` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-103(1)€(1997).€€Ð $à" Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€is€eligible€for€a€community€corrections€sentence€or€a€sentenceÐ p&À!$ Ðinvolving€probation,€although€the€record€reflects€that€community€corrections€placement€is€notÐ `'°"% Ðavailable€in€Cocke€County.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(a)€(1997)€(eligibility€standards€forÐ P( #& Ðcommunity€corrections,€including€defendants€ð ðconvicted€of€property„relatedðð€offenses);€Tenn.€CodeÐ @)$' ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„303(a)€(generally€establishing€eligibility€for€probation€when€ð ðthe€sentence€actuallyÐ 0*€%( Ðimposed€.€.€.€is€eight€(8)€years€or€lessðð).€€Also,€when€a€defendant€is€eligible€for€probation,€aÐ  +p&) Ðsentencing€court€shall€ð ðautomaticallyðð€consider€ordering€probation€for€the€entire€sentence€or€ð ðas€aÐ ,`'* Ðpart€of€its€sentencing€determination.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€(1997).€€Unlike€theÐ ° Ðpresumption€of€favorable€candidacy€for€alternative€sentencing€in€general,€a€defendant€bears€theÐ  ð Ðburden€of€demonstrating€the€suitability€of€probation,€in€particular.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2dÐ à Ð448,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€To€meet€that€burden,€the€defendant€must€show€that€probationÐ €Ð Ðwill€ð ðsubserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€atÐ pÀ Ð456€(citation€omitted).Ð ` ° ÐÌà  àà ` àIt€is€beyond€question€that€factors€(A)€and€(C)€of€section€40„35„103(1)€do€not€applyÐ @  Ðto€this€defendant,€who€has€no€prior€criminal€history.€€Therefore,€only€factor€(B),€necessity€to€avoidÐ 0 € Ðdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€or€the€need€to€provide€deterrence€to€others,€provides€theÐ  p  Ðonly€possible€basis€for€overcoming€the€presumption€of€favorable€candidacy€for€alternative€sentencingÐ `  Ðand€for€imposing€confinement.€€The€need€for€deterrence€must€be€demonstrated€by€the€proof€ofÐ P  Ðrecord.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€170„71€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Zeoliaóó,€928€S.W.2dÐ ð@  Ð457,€461€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€€Ð à0  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€is€anÐ À Ðappropriate€basis€for€imposing€a€sentence€involving€confinement.€€The€circumstances€of€the€offenseÐ ° Ðcannot€be€used€as€the€sole€basis€for€denying€an€alternative€sentence€unless€they€are€ð ðespeciallyÐ  ð Ðviolent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggeratedÐ à Ðdegree.ðð€òòóó€òòState€v.€Housewrightóó,€982€S.W.2d€354,€357€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(citations€omitted),Ð €Ð Ðòòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998).€€Upon€òòde€novoóó€consideration,€the€evidence€supports€a€conclusionÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€offenses€in€the€present€case€are€excessive.€€The€defendant€stole€very€large€sums€of€moneyÐ `° Ðfrom€elderly,€incapacitated€ladies€over€whose€funds€he€served€as€conservator€and€from€children€andÐ P  Ðothers€whose€funds€were€entrusted€to€him€as€a€public€servant.€€He€maintained€secret€accounts,Ð @ Ðprepared€and€presented€fraudulent€orders€to€the€court,€and€destroyed€incriminating€records.€€HisÐ 0€ Ðconduct€went€on€for€a€period€of€several€years.€€òòCfóó.€òòState€v.€Debra€L.€Trotteróó,€No.€02C01„9811„CR„Ð  p Ð00347,€slip€op.€at€6„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Dec.€30,€1999)€(defendantððs€criminal€conduct€wasÐ ` Ðð ðexcessiveðð€where€she€presented€and€paid€fraudulent€invoices€through€employerððs€account€well€inÐ P Ðexcess€of€$100,000€over€three„year€period)€(Hayes,€J.,€dissenting€on€denial€of€alternative€sentencing).€Ð ð@ ÐòòBut€cfóó.€òòState€v.€Grissomóó,€956€S.W.2d€514,€520€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(although€theft€of€almostÐ à0 Ð$30,000€from€employer€was€serious,€circumstances€did€not€rise€to€level€of€outweighing€all€otherÐ Ð  Ðfactors€in€favor€of€alternative€sentencing).€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€circumstances€of€theÐ À! Ðoffense€overcome€the€section€40„35„102(6)€presumption€of€favorable€candidacy€for€alternativeÐ °"  Ðsentencing€and€support€the€imposition€of€a€measure€of€confinement.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Yvette€S.€Almonóó,Ð  #ð! ÐNo.€02C01„9711„CR„00434,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Dec.€30,€1999);€òòState€v.Ð $à" ÐBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð €%Ð # ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€however,€the€record€reflects€that€partial€probation€is€in€the€bestÐ `'°"% Ðinterests€of€the€public.€€To€be€sure,€the€defendant€manipulated€the€courts€in€order€to€defraud€innocentÐ P( #& Ðpersons,€and€accordingly,€some€confinement€serves€the€ends€of€justice.€€On€the€other€hand,Ð @)$' Ðconfinement€for€the€duration€of€the€sentence€seriously€hampers€the€public€interest€in€seeing€that€theÐ 0*€%( Ðdefendantððs€victims€are€reimbursed€for€their€losses.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€upon€òòde€novoóó€reviewÐ  +p&) Ðthat€a€sentence€of€split€confinement€is€appropriate€in€this€case.€€The€six„year€effective€sentence€shallÐ ,`'* Ðbe€served€as€follows:€one€year€in€continuous€confinement,€followed€by€fourteen€years€probation׃4×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀׃ `×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р° ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„306(a)€(1997)€(prescribing€probation€ð ðfor€a€period€of€time€up€to€andÐ  ð Ðincluding€the€statutory€maximum€time€for€the€class€of€the€conviction€offense);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ à Ð40„35„112(c)(3)€(1997)€(establishing€fifteen€years€as€the€maximum€sentence€for€Class€C€feloniesÐ €Ð Ð(Range€III)).€€The€lengthy€period€of€probation€will€accommodate€a€meaningful€opportunity€to€makeÐ pÀ Ðrestitution,€an€issue€addressed€in€the€next€section€of€this€opinion.Ð ` ° Ðà  àà ` àÌÓ  Óò ò3.€€òòRestitutionóó.ó óà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À àà @ àà @p àà @È àÐ @  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àHaving€considered€the€manner€of€service€of€the€sentence,€we€move€on€to€the€issue€ofÐ  p  Ðrestitution.€€The€trial€courtððs€judgments€and€the€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€reflect€that€theÐ `  Ðcourt€ordered€no€restitution€for€the€theft€conviction€and€restitution€of€$101,821.73€to€be€paid€to€theÐ P  Ðoffice€of€the€clerk€and€master€for€the€official€misconduct€conviction.Ð ð@  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€amount€of€restitution€a€defendant€is€ordered€to€pay€as€a€condition€to€probationÐ Ð  Ðmust€be€based€upon€the€victim's€pecuniary€loss€and€the€financial€condition€and€obligations€of€theÐ À Ðdefendant.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-303(d)(10),€„304(d)€(1997);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€898€S.W.2d€742,Ð ° Ð747€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€In€such€a€case,€the€trial€court€must€determine€the€actual€loss€based€onÐ  ð Ðrealistic€values,€the€amount€of€restitution€need€not€equal€or€mirror€the€exact€pecuniary€loss€of€theÐ à Ðvictim,€and€òòóóthe€trial€court€must€consider€the€defendant's€ability€to€pay€given€his€current€means€andÐ €Ð Ðhis€likely€ability€to€pay€in€the€future.€€òòSmithóó,€898€S.W.2d€at€747.€€ò òó óThe€amount€of€restitution€orderedÐ pÀ Ðas€a€condition€to€probation€must€be€reasonable€and€one€that€the€defendant€can€reasonably€be€expectedÐ `° Ðto€pay€during€his€probationary€period.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-304(d)€(1997);€òòSmithóó,€898€S.W.2dÐ P  Ðat€747.€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€outset,€we€discern€errors€of€law€in€the€trial€courtððs€judgments€as€they€relate€toÐ  p Ðthe€matter€of€restitution.€€In€the€official€misconduct€conviction,€restitution€was€not€available€to€theÐ ` Ðtrial€court€in€conjunction€with€a€sentence€of€total€confinement.€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€940€S.W.2d€558Ð P Ð(Tenn.€1997).€€òòDavisóó€holds€that,€based€on€the€sentencing€law€as€it€existed€for€crimes€committed€priorÐ ð@ Ðto€July€1,€1996,€restitution€could€not€be€ordered€when€total€confinement€was€imposed.€€òòIdóó.€at€561„62.€Ð à0 ÐSubstantially€all€of€the€defendantððs€clerk€and€master€thefts€occurred€before€the€July€1,€1996€effectiveÐ Ð  Ðdate€of€the€amendment€to€Code€section€40„35„104€which€changed€the€law€to€allow€for€restitutionÐ ° Ðorders€in€total€confinement€sentences.€€òòSeeóóòòidóó.€at€561,€n.€6;€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€ch.€669€(effective€JulyÐ  ð Ð1,€1996)€(amending€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„104(c)).€€Thus,€òòDavisóó€applies€to€theÐ à Ðbulk€of€the€clerk€and€master€thefts.׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€theft€case,€the€trial€courtððs€error€is€the€failure€to€order€restitution.€€The€court€wasÐ ` ° Ðnot€hampered€by€òòDavisóó€in€ordering€both€total€confinement€and€restitution.€€òòDavisóó€was€predicatedÐ P   Ðupon€the€restitution€provisions€of€the€general€sentencing€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòDavisóó,€940€S.W.2d€at€561.€Ð @  ÐHowever,€restitution€in€theft€cases€is€mandated€and€controlled€by€a€specific€provision€found€in€CodeÐ 0 € Ðsection€40„20„116(a):Ð  p  ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒWhenever€a€felon€is€convicted€of€stealing€or€feloniously€taking€orÐ `  Ðreceiving€property,€or€defrauding€another€thereof,€the€jury€shallÐ P  Ðascertain€the€value€of€such€property,€if€not€previously€restored€to€theÐ ð@  Ðowner,€and€the€court€shall€thereupon,€order€the€restitution€of€property,Ð à0  Ðand€in€case€this€cannot€be€done,€that€the€party€aggrieved€recover€theÐ Ð  Ðvalue€assessed€against€the€prisoner,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÐ À Ðnecessary.Ð ° ÐÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„20„110(a)€(1997).€€This€provision€requires€that€upon€the€defendantððs€waiverÐ  ð Ðof€jury€trial,€the€court€establish€an€amount€of€restitution€for€the€defendant€to€pay.Ð à ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€have€now€imposed€sentences€involving€probation,€and€the€òòDavisóó€limitation€noÐ pÀ Ðlonger€attends€the€official€misconduct€conviction.€€Thus,€restitution€is€in€order€on€both€convictions.€Ð `° ÐBecause€the€sentences€as€originally€imposed€did€not€involve€probation,€and€the€trial€court€was€notÐ P  Ðrequired€to€make€the€section€40„35„304(d)€determinations€about€the€defendantððs€ability€to€pay,€theÐ @ Ðrecord€contains€no€findings€in€this€regard.€€Moreover,€although€the€record€reflects€the€defendantððsÐ 0€ Ðcurrent€income,€it€contains€no€evidence€about€the€defendantððs€current€expenses.€€Obviously,€the€trialÐ  p Ðcourt€made€no€findings€about€the€unreimbursed€losses€in€the€theft€cases,€and€we€cannot€discern€thoseÐ ` Ðlosses€on€the€existing€record.€€Because€we€cannot€conduct€necessary€òòde€novoóó€determinations€on€theÐ P Ðrecord,€the€case€must€be€remanded€to€the€trial€court€with€instructions€to€fulfill€its€statutoryÐ ð@ Ðrequirements€establishing€appropriate€amounts€of€restitution.Ð à0 ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€determining€restitution€in€the€theft€case,€the€trial€court€should€be€aware€of€aÐ À! Ðdistinction€between€the€sanction€of€levy€upon€execution€provided€in€Code€section€40„20„116(a)€andÐ °"  Ðrestitution€as€a€condition€of€probation€pursuant€to€section€40„35„304.€€Even€though€section€40„20„Ð  #ð! Ð116€is€not€a€part€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€it€provides€for€an€order€ofÐ $à" Ðrestitution€in€theft€cases,€and€section€40„35„304€in€the€sentencing€act€permits,€but€does€not€require,Ð €%Ð # Ðthat€restitution€be€made€a€condition€of€probation.€€€However,€we€believe€that€to€the€extent€that€theÐ p&À!$ Ðtrial€court€wishes€to€impose€restitution€as€a€condition€of€probation,€whether€the€restitution€itself€isÐ `'°"% Ðauthorized€by€the€sentencing€act€or€mandated€by€section€40„20„116(a),€the€court€must€comply€withÐ ° Ðthe€provisions€of€the€sentencing€act€and€òòSmithóó€relative€to€the€amount€being€reasonable€and€basedÐ  ð Ðupon€the€defendantððs€financial€ability.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€898€S.W.2d€at€747;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð à Ð404(d)€(1997)€(court€shall€consider€ð ðthe€financial€resources€and€future€ability€of€the€defendant€to€payÐ €Ð Ðor€performðð).€Nevertheless,€if€this€determination€leads€the€court€to€establish€an€amount€of€restitutionÐ pÀ Ðthat€is€less€than€the€theft€victimððs€pecuniary€loss,€section€40„20„116(a)€contemplates€the€courtÐ ` ° Ðestablishing€the€deficiency€amount€ð!ð€that€is,€the€difference€between€the€amount€that€is€ordered€as€aÐ P   Ðcondition€to€probation€and€the€total€amount€of€the€loss.€€This€deficiency€amount€is€subject€toÐ @  Ðcollection€by€execution€as€in€the€case€of€a€judgment.Ð 0 € ÐÌà  àà ` àSection€40„20„116(a)€allows€for€the€restitution€of€property€ð ðnot€previously€restoredÐ `  Ðto€the€owner,ðð€and€section€40„35„304(b)€speaks€of€the€victimððs€ð ðpecuniary€loss.ðð€€Thus,€in€the€theftÐ P  Ðcase,€the€trial€court€on€remand€must€endeavor€to€ascertain€the€victimsðð€loss€after€giving€credit€for€theÐ ð@  Ðfunds€restored€to€the€victimsðð€accounts€by€the€defendant.Ð à0  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€know€that€the€trial€courtððs€task€with€respect€to€restitution€under€the€probationÐ À Ðprovisions€is€to€establish€the€amount€of€loss€and€determine€the€defendantððs€òòfutureóó€ability€to€pay.€Ð ° ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„304(d)€(1997).€€We€recognize€that€the€imposition€of€a€year€of€confinementÐ  ð Ðmight€result€in€the€defendant€losing€his€current€position€of€employment€and€might€make€his€futureÐ à Ðability€to€pay€difficult€to€determine.€€However,€we€remind€the€parties€that€Code€section€40„35„304(f)Ð €Ð Ðprovides€that€either€party€„€or€a€victim€„€may€apply€ð ðat€any€timeðð€to€the€sentencing€court€to€ð ðadjustÐ pÀ Ðor€otherwise€waive€payment€.€.€.€[of]€restitution€or€any€unpaid€.€.€.€portion€thereof.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð `° Ððð€40„35„304(d)€(1997).€€The€section€empowers€the€court,€upon€notice€and€hearing,€to€makeÐ P  Ðappropriate€future€adjustments€to€the€restitution€provisions€of€the€sentencing€order.Ð @ ÐÌÓ  Óò ò4.€€òòJudicial€Diversionóó.Ð  p Ðó óÌò òÓ  Óó óà  àà ` àThe€defendantððs€remaining€appellate€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÐ P Ðjudicial€diversion.€€ò òó óWith€respect€to€judicial€diversion,€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€providesÐ ð@ Ðin€pertinent€part:€€Ð à0 Ðà8  àIf€any€person€who€has€not€previously€been€convicted€of€a€felony€or€a€Class€AÐ Ð  Ðmisdemeanor€is€found€guilty€or€pleads€guilty€to€.€.€.€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony,€theÐ À! Ðcourt€may,€without€entering€a€judgment€of€guilty€and€with€the€consent€of€suchÐ °"  Ðperson,€defer€further€proceedings€and€place€the€person€on€probation€upon€suchÐ  #ð! Ðreasonable€conditions€as€it€may€require€and€for€a€period€of€time€not€less€than€theÐ $à" Ðperiod€of€the€maximum€sentence€.€.€.€of€the€felony€with€which€he€is€charged.€.€.€.€€Ð€%Ð #Ð Ð  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-313(a)(1)€(1997).€This€procedure,€commonly€known€as€judicial€diversion,Ð p&À!$ Ðis€similar€to€pretrial€diversion;€however,€judicial€diversion€follows€a€determination€of€guilt€and€theÐ `'°"% Ðdecision€to€grant€diversion€rests€with€the€trial€court,€not€the€prosecutor.€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€857Ð P( #& ÐS.W.2d€571,€572€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€€Ð @)$' Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌà  àà ` àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40-35-313€does€not€entitle€the€accused€to€theÐ  +p&) Ðpresumption€of€favorable€candidacy€created€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40-35-102(6).Ð ,`'* ÐThe€lower€court's€denial€of€judicial€diversion€is€subject€to€reversal€on€appeal€only€if€that€court€abusedÐ ° Ðits€discretion.€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€356€(Tenn.€1983).€When€a€defendantÐ  ð Ðchallenges€the€denial€of€judicial€diversion,€we€may€not€revisit€the€issue€if€the€record€contains€anyÐ à Ðsubstantial€evidence€supporting€the€trial€court's€decision.€€òòIdóó.;€òòState€v.€Parkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€945,€958Ð €Ð Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€judicial€diversion,€the€trial€court€must€consider€€Ð P   ÐÓ€ (÷ 880ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£~èÝÔ2÷ Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýthe€accused's€amenability€to€correction,€€Ýƒ3£~è·èÝŒÐ@ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  Ýà  à(b)€à0 ` àthe€circumstances€of€the€offense,€€Ð0 €` (#` (# Ðà  à(c)€à0 ` àthe€accused's€criminal€record,€€Ð p ` (#` (# Ðà  à(d)€à0 ` àthe€accused's€social€history,€€Ð` ` (#` (# Ðà  à(e)€à0 ` àthe€accused's€physical€and€mental€health,€€ÐP ` (#` (# ÐÓ€ (ç 88ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£¡ëÝÔ2ç Ô(Ú  ÚfÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  Ýthe€deterrence€value€to€the€accused€as€well€as€others,€and€€€Ýƒ3£¡ëÚëÝŒÐð@ ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÓ€ (×08ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£VíÝÔ2×Ô(Ú  ÚgÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýwhether€judicial€diversion€will€serve€the€interests€of€the€public€as€well€as€theÐ à0  Ðaccused.€€Ýƒ3£VííÝŒÐÐ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝòòParkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€at€958;€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€168€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð À ÐMoreover,€the€record€must€reflect€that€the€court€has€weighed€all€of€the€factors€in€reaching€itsÐ ° Ðdetermination.€€òòBonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€at€168€(citations€omitted).€The€court€must€explain€on€theÐ  ð Ðrecord€why€the€defendant€does€not€qualify€under€its€analysis,€and€if€the€court€has€based€itsÐ à Ðdetermination€on€only€some€of€the€factors,€it€must€explain€why€these€factors€outweigh€the€others.Ð €Ð ÐòòIdóó.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€although€the€trial€court€denied€judicial€diversion,€it€failed€to€address€the€Ð P  Ðissue€on€the€record.€However,€we€discern€from€the€record€that€substantial€evidence€exists€to€supportÐ @ Ðthe€denial€of€judicial€diversion.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Electroplatingóó,€990€S.W.2d€211,€229€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 0€ Ð1998).€òòóóÐ  p ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€factors€weighing€in€favor€of€diversion€include€Chesteenððs€amenability€toÐ P Ðcorrection€as€evidenced€by€his€remorse€and€support€of€family€and€friends,€his€lack€of€a€criminalÐ ð@ Ðrecord,€and€his€positive€social€history€of€living€a€productive€lifestyle€over€the€years€aside€fromÐ à0 Ðcommitting€these€offenses.€€We€consider€the€status€of€his€physical€and€mental€health€to€be€a€neutralÐ Ð  Ðconsideration€in€this€case€because€it€is€not€reflective€positively€or€negatively€on€his€likelihood€ofÐ À! Ðsuccess€on€a€diversionary€program,€and€ultimately,€rehabilitation.€€Likewise,€we€consider€theÐ °"  Ðdeterrence€value€to€the€accused€and€others€to€be€a€neutral€consideration.€€Weighing€negatively€forÐ  #ð! Ðdiversion€are€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€and€the€interests€of€the€public€and€the€accused.€€WeÐ $à" Ðare€particularly€concerned€about€the€aggravated€nature€of€the€defendantððs€crimes€in€that€they€tookÐ €%Ð # Ðplace€over€a€course€of€years,€involved€fraud€upon€the€courts,€destruction€of€records,€and€covert€bankÐ p&À!$ Ðaccounts.€€When€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€are€considered€in€connection€with€the€interests€ofÐ `'°"% Ðthe€public€in€seeing€meaningful€punishment€meted€out€for€a€crime€involving€large€sums€of€moneyÐ P( #& Ðtaken€in€the€manner€as€was€done€here,€it€is€clear€that€the€publicððs€interests€are€not€served€by€judicialÐ @)$' Ðdiversion€in€this€case.€€Morever,€it€would€be€illogical€to€grant€a€defendant€who€was€not€entitled€toÐ 0*€%( Ða€grant€of€full€probation€an€even€more€favorable€form€of€punishment€in€the€form€of€judicialÐ  +p&) Ðdiversion.€€Thus,€the€interests€of€the€defendant€are€not€best€served€by€diversion.€€We€conclude€thatÐ ,`'* Ðthe€factors€weighing€against€diversion€are€far€weightier€than€those€favoring€diversion.€€For€thisÐ ° Ðreason,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€judicial€diversion.Ð  ð ÐÌÓ  Óò òConclusionÐ €Ð Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àIn€summary,€we€affirm€the€length€of€the€six„year€effective€sentences€but€modify€theÐ ` ° Ðmanner€of€service€to€one€yearððs€continuous€confinement€followed€by€a€probationary€period€ofÐ P   Ðfourteen€years,€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€regarding€restitution,€remand€to€that€court€forÐ @  Ða€determination€of€proper€restitution,€and€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€judicial€diversion.