ÿWPC“ loH¶rÔKœÌQVYd€1o(ò:& ÆÙO-å1°¾VNS[ŸËH1¡2KËÞ„Æû¡–©Y&+ež‡Éu{ç­_µÝÕûµ»£ Éì‡8ð«~GâúJ ¯¢òþØBRùwÅÿ›>@a°ö$óxý¤ÔZˆRZš²JÍ_*aPñúxRµ;Îoa5!Sµò²¥ôפ 6F[½8ä‰ÎÝÊbp|J«¹S]AÓ¨•¶x$‡ˆQ_åíý;A5ãóñ±ÃÀŽöGßì"Tµ¢Èó³ üÖ­KT×øx7¥î\ „IMkoÏR¾‡šê)A1²•/c©ŽÀ€0ÊÀËxœòá;ñŸ«ìMXñ†äÓo_›ÈKÉñ/ȉb]²î7ÂlºY_ÈrkëªNÓLQϾO]è…t«(cè“u9ˆ„uµ‘±†/|Ñ dúAjŠEÃm´íê{3Œ%˜JM4z,¯Dx:»G9œÌÍ©"CõF³Ÿõ<ˆ–·M,ä‚àÑÏ|°jþ¨ºYY´Ÿ”ó3Û›­bÖÄSAø©Ç¯ì› DÎ.(ú$hm`”bÚÅø)n÷L ‰­»RLrò‚D‚YÇØÅ’ÉÂg¶€ß<_¬ùÑ/T nšràl‚áS¬`ºNa²¥C1{HÙ£… F %f U.l š nXª 0P 4R f 0”n 0D w@F U:† À U:Æ  U:                     BZZZZZZ D3www 0Dªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª AOîÆ== 0D D/G Bv Ô€X„¯XX XÔÔ€î?óîXX„¯ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€¹îî?óÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€23,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôè ô¹ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó X%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X6«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Óƒƒ '(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó E!"#E$%&'b(Ó€4,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€X„¯XX XÔÔ€î?óîXX„¯ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€¹îî?óÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€20,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôè ô¹ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÑX°Ññ(ñ›ñ(ñÑ  ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€Xy·XX XÔÑ7€ „¯ XXdæXXdð7Ññ4ññ(ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@Ef  tt0"R` ¨Ørßñ(ññ4ññ4ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@Ef  tt0"R` ¨Ørßñ4ññ(ñ›ñ(ñà œ àà ô àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@]]:;àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌà@ZZ8;àJUNE€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ¤ à€à ü àà T à)ó óÐ Ðp  Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àò ò)ó óà ¬ àò òC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9811„CR„00383ó óÐ À`  Ðà œ àà ô àAppellee,à ¤ àò ò€€€€€à ü àà T à)Ð °P  Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T à)à ¬ àHAWKINS€COUNTYó óÐ  @  ÐVS.à œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àò ò)Ð 0  Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T à)à ¬ àHON.€JAMES€E.€BECKNER,Ð €  ÐJERRY€K.€CRAWFORD,€à ¤ àà ü àà T à)à ¬ àJUDGEÐ p Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T à)Ìà œ àà ô àó óAppellant.ò òà ¤ àà ü àà T à)à ¬ àó ó(Burglary€of€an€Auto€&€Theft€of€Ð Pð Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àProperty€Valued€Under€$500.00)ò òÐ @à Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà ¤ àà ü àà T à€€€€€òòà ¬ àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ   Ðà œ àÌÌò òGREG€EICHELMANà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÐ Ð p Ðó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà ¤ àò òà ü àà T àà ¬ àó óAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÐ À!` ÐÌR.€RUSSELL€MATTOCKSà ü àà T àó óà ¬ àò òCLINTON€J.€MORGANÐ  #@ Ðó óAsst.€Public€Defenderà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àAsst.€Attorney€Generalò òÐ $0 Ðó ó1609€College€Park€Dr.,€Box€11à ü àà T àà ¬ àCordell€Hull€Bldg.,€2nd€Fl.Ð €%  ÐMorristown,€TN€37813„1618à ü àà T àà ¬ à425€Fifth€Ave.,€NorthÐ p& Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ìà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àà  àÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àò òà ü àà T àà ¬ àC.€BERKELEY€BELLó óÐ @)à" Ðà œ àà ô à.à L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àDistrict€Attorney€General€Ð 0*Ð # Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àò òDOUG€GODBEEó óÐ ,°"% Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àHawkins€County€CourthouseÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àMain€St.Ìà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àRogersville,€TN€37857Ìà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àÌÌÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àÌOPINION€FILED:òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ €4 +. ÐÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ @8à.2 ÐÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ ;°15 ÐJudgeÌÐ  ð<37Ç Мñ'ñÑXÑñ'ñ›ñ'ñœñ'ññ'ñѰXÑñ'ñÓ  Óà@‡‡:;àò òòòÔ‡¼‡¼XXy·ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†Xy·X¼¼‡²#ԈР`  ÐÌó óóóÌÌÓÓà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€was€found€guilty€by€a€jury€of€burglary€of€an€automobile€andÏtheft€of€property€valued€at€œñ ñññFIVE€HUNñññ ññ!ñfive€hundred€dollars€(ñ!ñ$500.00ñ"ñ)ñ"ñ›€or€less.€€The€trial€courtÏsentenced€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€a€term€of€one€year€and€threeÏmonths€for€burglary€and€a€term€of€eleven€œmonthsñ%ñ€ñ%ññ#ñ,ñ#ññ%ñ›ñ%ññ$ñandñ$ñ›€twenty„nine€days€for€theft.€€TheseÏsentences€were€to€run€concurrently€and€were€to€be€served€in€confinement.€€TheÏdefendantððs€subsequent€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€denied€by€the€trial€court.€€TheÏdefendant€now€appeals€and€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconvictions€and€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€After€a€review€of€the€record€andÏapplicable€law,€we€find€no€merit€to€the€defendantððs€contentions€and€thus€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€court€below.ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€evidence€at€trial€established€that€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€April€9,Ï1998,€the€passenger€side€window€of€the€victimððs€car€was€broken€and€her€purse,€whichÏwas€inside€the€car,€was€stolen.€€According€to€the€victim,€Karen€Stokes,€she€heard€aÏð ðcrashðð€outside,€but€ð ðthought€it€was€lightening€[sic].ðð€€She€subsequently€realized€that€herÏcar€had€been€burglarized.€€When€she€later€heard€a€witness€describing€the€suspect€to€theÏpolice,€she€thought€the€description€matched€that€of€the€defendant,€her€husbandððs€cousin,Ïand€gave€the€police€the€defendantððs€name.ÌÌà œ àà ô àA€neighbor€of€the€victim,€Tina€Alley,€also€testified€at€trial.€€According€to€Ms.ÏAlley,€she€ð ðheard€glass€breakingðð€and€ran€to€the€window.€€She€saw€a€man€wearing€jeansÏand€white€t„shirt€running€to€a€red,€four„door€Cavalier.€€Ms.€Alley€further€testified€that€€thereÏwas€enough€light€ð ðshining€down€where€I€could€see€who€it€was.ðð€€Although€Ms.€AlleyÏadmitted€that€she€did€not€immediately€recognize€the€man,€she€testified€that€she€laterÏrealized€the€man€she€had€seen€was€the€defendant,€a€relative.€€After€this€realization,€Ms.Ð F:æ04 ÐAlley€gave€the€defendantððs€name€to€the€police.€€Ms.€Alley€also€made€an€in„courtÐ :¸06 Ðidentification€of€the€defendant.ÌÌà œ àà ô àAlso€testifying€at€trial€was€Kimberly€Reed,€a€woman€visiting€Ms.€Alley€whenÏthe€crime€occurred.€€Ms.€Reed€testified€that€she€heard€glass€breaking,€went€outside,€andÏsaw€a€man€running€toward€a€red,€four„door€Cavalier.€€Ms.€Reed€testified€that€she€yelledÏð ðheyðð€and€the€man€turned€around.€€Ms.€Reed€testified€that€she€was€able€to€see€the€manððsÏface.€€She€then€identified€the€defendant€as€the€man€she€saw€running€from€the€scene.€€ÌÌà œ àà ô àAfter€receiving€a€description€of€the€suspect,€his€clothing,€and€theÏdefendantððs€name,€the€police€went€to€the€defendantððs€residence.€€Officer€RobertÏSchmutzler€of€the€Kingsport€Police€Department€testified€that€when€he€arrived€at€theÏdefendantððs€residence,€he€felt€the€hood€of€the€defendantððs€red€Cavalier€parked€outside.€ÏAccording€to€Officer€Schmutzler,€the€hood€of€the€Cavalier€was€still€warm.€€In€addition,€heÏnoticed€small€pieces€of€glass€in€the€driverððs€seat€of€the€Cavalier.€€Officer€Schmutzler€thenÏknocked€on€the€door€of€the€defendantððs€residence€and€the€defendant€answered.€€OfficerÏSchmutzler€subsequently€found€a€wet€white€t„shirt€on€the€top€of€a€clothes€pile€in€theÏdefendantððs€bedroom.€€According€to€Officer€Schmutzler,€the€t„shirt€matched€theÏdescription€given€by€witnesses€on€the€scene.€€Officer€Schmutzler€took€the€t„shirt€back€toÏthe€scene€of€the€crime€where€Ms.€Alley€positively€identified€it€as€the€shirt€worn€by€theÏsuspect.€€Ms.€Alley€also€made€an€in„court€identification€of€the€t„shirt.ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€evidence€further€established€that€the€pieces€of€glass€found€in€theÏdefendantððs€Cavalier,€pieces€of€glass€from€the€passenger€window€of€the€victimððs€car,€andÏthe€defendantððs€t„shirt€were€all€sent€to€the€TBI€crime€laboratory.€€Randall€Nelson,€aÏforensic€scientist€in€the€TBI€crime€laboratory,€testified€at€trial.€€According€to€Mr.€Nelson,Ïthe€glass€found€in€the€driverððs€seat€of€the€defendantððs€Cavalier€was€ð ðconsistentðð€with€theÏglass€from€the€passenger€side€window€of€the€victimððs€car.€€However,€the€glass€fragmentsÏthat€were€subsequently€found€on€the€defendantððs€t„shirt€were€not€ð ðconsistentðð€with€theÐ ä9„06 Ðglass€from€the€passenger€side€window€of€the€victimððs€car.€€ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€now€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€points€to€apparent€inconsistencies€and€faults€inÏthe€testimony€of€Ms.€Alley,€Ms.€Reed,€and€Officer€Schmutzler€and€alleged€faults€in€theÏphysical€evidence€linking€the€defendant€to€this€crime.€€The€defendant€further€contendsÏthat€the€evidence€with€which€he€was€convicted€was€purely€circumstantial€in€nature€andÏtherefore€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions.ÌÌà œ àà ô àA€defendant€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€has€the€burden€ofÏillustrating€to€this€Court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€byÏthe€trier€of€fact€in€his€or€her€case.€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€for€lack€ofÏsufficient€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€any€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€factÏto€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2dÐ ˆ"( Ð913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€ÌÌà œ àà ô àIt€is€a€well€established€principle€of€law€in€this€state€that€circumstantialÏevidence€alone€may€be€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Buttreyóó,€756€S.W.2dÐ ¸)X $ Ð718,€721€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€However,€in€order€for€this€to€occur,€the€circumstantialÏevidence€ð ðmust€be€not€only€consistent€with€the€guilt€of€the€accused€but€it€must€also€beÏinconsistent€with€his€innocence€and€must€exclude€every€other€reasonable€theory€orÏhypothesis€except€that€of€guilt.ðð€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€900€(Tenn.€1987).€€InÐ è0ˆ', Ðaddition,€ð ðit€must€establish€such€a€certainty€of€guilt€of€the€accused€as€to€convince€theÏmind€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€[the€defendant]€is€the€one€who€committed€theÏcrime.ðð€€òòTharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€at€896.€€Moral€certainty€as€to€each€element€of€the€offenseÐ L6ì,2 Ðis€required,€but€absolute€certainty€is€not.€€òòTharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€at€896.€€While€followingÐ 8¸.4 Ðthese€guidelines,€this€Court€must€remember€that€the€jury€decides€the€weight€to€be€givenÐ ä9„06 Ðto€circumstantial€evidence€and€that€ð ð[t]he€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€evidence,€andÏthe€extent€to€which€the€circumstances€are€consistent€with€guilt€and€inconsistent€withÏinnocence€are€questions€primarily€for€the€jury.ðð€€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€313€S.W.2d€451,€457Ð ø ˜ Ð(Tenn.€1958);€€òòState€v.€Couryóó,€697€S.W.2d€373,€377€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€€òòPruitt€v.Ð Äd ÐStateóó,€460€S.W.2d€385,€391€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970).Ð 0 ÐÌà œ àà ô àIn€the€case€at€bar,€two€eyewitnesses€identified€the€defendant€as€the€manÏfleeing€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€The€eyewitnesses€also€described€the€manððs€vehicle€asÏa€red€Chevy€Cavalier,€the€same€type€of€car€driven€by€the€defendant.€€In€addition,€theÏglass€found€in€the€driverððs€seat€of€the€defendantððs€Cavalier€was€consistent€with€the€glassÏfrom€the€broken€window€of€the€victimððs€vehicle.€€One€witness€identified€the€t„shirt€foundÏby€police€at€the€defendantððs€residence€as€the€same€shirt€worn€by€the€man€fleeing€theÏscene€of€the€crime.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€find€the€evidence€sufficient€for€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Furthermore,ÏaÔ‡ X”…XXX”…Ôlthough€the€defendant€points€to€apparent€inconsistencies€in€the€testimony€of€several€trialÐ ˆ"( Ðwitnesses€in€support€of€his€claim€of€insufficient€evidence,€we€note€that€questionsÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidenceÏare€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ð ì'Œ" Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€As€such,€this€contention€is€without€merit.Ô#†X”…XX X”…1#ÔÐ ¸)X $ ÐÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€his€sentence€of€one€year€and€threeÏmonths€for€the€burglary€of€an€auto€is€excessive.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€applying€enhancement€factors€(1),€that€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÏcriminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior,€and€(8),€that€the€defendant€has€a€previousÏhistory€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€intoÏthe€community.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(8).€€The€defendant€further€contends€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€denying€him€some€form€of€alternative€sentencing.ÌÐ ä9„06 Ðà œ àà ô àWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€a€deÏnovo€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€burden€ofÏshowing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„¼401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,€however,€ð ðis€conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ð \ü  Ð169€(Tenn.€œ1991).ñ&ñ€€We€find€the€presumption€applicable€in€this€case.ñ&ñ›ÌÌà œ àà ô àIn€conducting€a€review€of€the€defendantððs€sentence,€this€Court€mustÏconsider€the€evidence€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€presentenceÏreport,€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€theÏnature€and€character€of€the€offense,€applicable€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€anyÏstatement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalf€about€sentencing,€and€theÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103,€„210;€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,Ð ¼ \ Ð860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendantððs€conviction€for€burglary€of€an€auto€is€a€Class€E€felony.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„14„402.€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€E€felony,€theÏdefendantððs€sentencing€range€was€one€to€two€years.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(5).€€TheÏSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€provides€that€in€the€absence€of€enhancing€and€mitigatingÏfactors,€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€is€the€presumptive€sentence€for€ClassÏB,€C,€D,€and€E€felonies.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€If€there€are€enhancing€and€mitigatingÏfactors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€theÏsentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sentenceÏwithin€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€no€mitigatingÏfactors,€the€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€range€but€still€withinÏthe€range.€€The€weight€to€be€given€to€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€ÏòòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð ä9„06 Їà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€enhancementÏfactor€(1),€that€the€defendant€has€a€previous€criminal€history.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€TheÏpresentence€report€indicates€that€the€defendant€has€previously€been€convicted€on€twoÏcounts€of€reckless€driving,€two€counts€of€speeding,€and€one€count€of€driving€without€aÏlicense.€€As€this€is€a€history€of€criminal€behavior€and€convictions,€we€find€no€error€in€theÏtrial€courtððs€application€of€this€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Troy€L.€Nolesóó,€No.€01C01„9710„CR„Ð \ü  Ð00470,€Macon€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€October€19,€1998,€at€Nashville);€òòState€v.Ð (È  ÐJerome€D.€Upmanóó,€No.€03C01„9402„CR„00052,€Hamblen€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filedÐ ô”  ÐAugust€2,€1994,€at€Knoxville);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Jerry€Lynn€Waldeóó,€No.€03C01„9603„CC„Ð À` Ð00109,€Sevier€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€December€23,€1997,€at€Knoxville).ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€next€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancementÏfactor€(8),€that€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€theÏconditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€TheÏtrial€court€based€the€application€of€this€factor€on€the€presentence€report€which€indicatesÏthat€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€reckless€driving€and€placed€on€six€months€ofÏprobation.€€While€on€probation,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€speeding.€€This€could€beÏconsidered€as€some€history€of€an€unwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€of€a€sentenceÏinvolving€release€in€the€community.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Michael€Adamsóó,€No.€289,€HamblenÐ ¸)X $ ÐCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€August€7,€1989,€at€Knoxville)(holding€enhancement€factorÏ(8)€applicable€where€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license€whileÏon€probation);€òòState€v.€Randal€A.€Thiesóó,€No.€02C01„9708„CC„00299,€Tipton€CountyÐ /¼%* Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€April€24,€1998,€at€Jackson)(holding€enhancement€factor€(8)Ïapplicable€where€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€speeding€while€on€probation€for€DUIÏand€had€previously€been€convicted€of€DUI€while€on€probation€for€a€separate€DUI).€€ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€trial€court€found€one€applicable€mitigating€factor,€that€the€defendantððsÏcriminal€conduct€did€not€cause€or€threaten€serious€bodily€injury.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113.€€TheÐ ä9„06 Ðrecord€also€indicates€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€fact€that€the€victim€requestedÏleniency€for€the€defendant.€€The€trial€court€subsequently€enhanced€the€minimumÏsentence€of€one€year€for€a€Class€E€felony€to€a€sentence€of€one€year€and€three€months.€ÏIn€light€of€the€applicable€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€we€find€no€error€in€the€trialÏcourtððs€sentence.€€ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€him€anÏalternative€sentence.€€T.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€history€ofÏcriminal€conduct,ðð€the€need€ð ðto€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,ðð€theÏdetermination€that€ð ðconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrenceÏto€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses,ðð€or€the€determination€that€ð ðmeasures€lessÏrestrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€toÏthe€defendant.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1).ÌÌà œ àà ô àAdditionally,€the€legislature€established€certain€sentencing€principles€whichÏinclude:ÌÓÓà œ àà ô à(5)€In€recognition€that€state€prison€capacities€and€the€funds€Ìà œ àà ô àto€build€and€maintain€them€are€limited,€convicted€felons€Ìà œ àà ô àcommitting€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminal€Ìà œ àà ô àhistories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€Ìà œ àà ô àof€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation€Ìà œ àà ô àshall€be€given€first€priority€regarding€sentencing€involving€incar„Ìà œ àà ô àceration;€andÌà œ àà ô àÌà œ àà ô à(6)€A€defendant€who€does€not€fall€within€the€parameters€of€Ìà œ àà ô àsubdivision€(5)€and€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€Ìà œ àà ô àoffender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€Ìà œ àà ô àbe€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€ÌÓ[MÓà œ àà ô àthe€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ÌT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102.Ìà œ àà ô àÌà œ àà ô àAfter€reviewing€the€statutes€set€out€above,€it€is€obvious€that€the€intent€of€theÐ ä9„06 Ðlegislature€is€to€encourage€alternatives€to€incarceration€in€cases€where€defendants€areÏsentenced€as€standard€or€mitigated€offenders€convicted€of€C,€D,€or€E€felonies.€€However,Ïit€is€also€clear€that€there€is€an€intent€to€incarcerate€those€defendants€whose€criminalÏhistories€indicate€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society€and€a€failure€of€pastÏefforts€to€rehabilitate.ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€in€the€case€at€bar€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidateÏfor€alternative€sentencing€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„¼102(6).€€However,€militating€against€alternative€sentencing€are€circumstances€indicatingÏthat€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€recently€been€appliedÏunsuccessfully€to€the€defendant,€that€confinement€is€necessary€either€to€protect€societyÏfrom€a€defendant€with€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct€or€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense,€or€that€the€defendant€lacks€the€potential€for€rehabilitation.€ÏòòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1),€(5);€€òòÔ% € ÔAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.Ð ¼ \ ÐÌà œ àà ô àIn€denying€alternative€sentencing€in€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€reliedÏon€a€number€of€factors.€€The€trial€court€first€noted€the€defendantððs€prior€criminal€record.€ÏThe€trial€court€further€noted€the€defendantððs€ð ðprior€offense€while€on€probationðð€indicatingÏthat€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€recently€been€applied€to€theÏdefendant€without€success.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(C).€€The€trial€court€mentioned€theÏneed€for€deterrence.€€The€trial€court€also€noted€the€defendantððs€history€of€alcohol€abuseÏindicated€in€the€presentence€report.€€This€history€is€relevant€to€establish€the€defendantððsÏpotential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(5).€€The€trial€court€alsoÏpointed€to€the€fact€that€the€defendant€had€never€admitted€his€guilt€in€this€case€and€insteadÏð ðlied€to€the€jury€about€it.ðð€€The€fact€that€the€defendant€has€taken€no€responsibility€for€hisÏcriminal€activity€and€was€untruthful€suggests€a€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€T.C.A.Ïðð€40„35„103(5).€€ÌÐ ä9„06 Ðà œ àà ô àThus,€we€conclude€that€the€factors€cited€above€are€sufficient€to€overcomeÏthe€presumption€of€eligibility€for€alternative€sentencing.€€The€defendant€has€failed€to€carryÏhis€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings.€€The€defendant€has€also€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€demonstrating€that€hisÏsentence€was€improper.€€This€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà œ àà ô àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€defendantððs€conviction€and€sentence.ÌÌÓÓÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ à_________________________________Ìà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JudgeÌœñ&ñòòóóòòóóòòóóñ&ñ›Ì