ÿWPC* 5U:ö %0 0 Ü6w@4Rfu 0 } 0D 0@á 0J! 0Tk 0^¿ 0h 0r… 0|÷ 0†s 0ù 1u‰ 0dþ U*b B)Œ Bµ DCÒ AM Ëb å- D3)Eên AQXÆ© 0Do 0D³ D/÷ B&«C»îF©Áï v~°"vÓ.$,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ bUcUdDeDfk.elÓ€x{|ìSï"èô3|x|(Ð(3³˜$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€y²XXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d7Border 1dd* Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ18,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€also€indicated€that€she€drank€heavily€for€approximately€one€year€at€the€ageÏof€nineteen.€€She€asserted€that€she€no€longer€abused€alcohol€or€drugs.Ì'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€pre„sentence€report€indicates€that€the€appellantððs€co„defendant€was€sentenced€toÏsix€years€incarceration,€presumably€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€appellant€testified€thatÏMarino€is€currently€serving€his€sentence.Ì àÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAgain,€the€appellant€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€her€motion€pursuant€toÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€35(b)€for€reduction€of€her€sentence.€€In€contrast€to€the€standard€of€reviewÏapplicable€to€sentencing€appeals€perfected€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d),Ïappellate€review€of€Rule€35(b)€rulings€is€governed€by€the€ð ðabuse€of€discretionðð€standard.€€òòState€v.ÏIrickóó,€861€S.W.2d€375,€376€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Burdenóó,€No.€02C01„9509„CC„00267€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€February€5,€1997).€€Clearly,€therefore,€a€determination€of€theÏappellantððs€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€appeal€will€also€resolve€her€Rule€35(b)€appeal.€€Ì*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd ¡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€The€appellantððs€plea€bargain€agreement€permitted€her€to€plead€to€misdemeanor€theftÏwhich€involved€a€loss€from€the€victim,€Jane€Graham,€of€$7607.00.€€As€previously€noted,€theÏsecond€misdemeanor€theft€involved€the€victimððs€stepfather€and€no€restitution€was€sought.€€TheÏburglary€conviction€involved€the€victim,€Patti€Ramsey,€and€restitution€of€$3590.37.Ì ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€victim€impact€statements€revealed€that€Jane€Graham€sustained€a€loss€of€$7,606.00,Ïwhile€Patti€Ramsey€suffered€losses€amounting€to€$3590.37,€a€total€of€$11,196.37.€€Apparently,Ïthe€trial€court€accepted€the€State's€argument€in€determining€the€amount€of€restitution.€€The€StateÏargued€that€Graham€sustained€a€loss€of€$3700€and€Ramsey,€a€loss€of€$3590.37,€totalingÏ$7290.37.Ì <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€trial€court€may€conclude€that€a€probationary€period€of€six€years€for€the€aggravatedÏburglary€offense€is€still€appropriate.€€However,€it€must€base€its€determination€on€factors€other€thanÏthe€payment€schedule€for€restitution€to€victims€of€another€offense.Ì ·Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€would€note€that€many€of€the€problems€presented€in€this€case€could€be€eliminated€byÏcarefully€constructed€plea€agreements.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›ò òœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSON̜ـ*ÙßR€!" A1-j|g­` | `€€@ÿRß›à@ àJANUARY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9610„CR„00348Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€BERNIE€WEINMAN,€JudgeÌHEATHER€R.€DOWDY,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Aggravated€Burglary;Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)à àTheft€of€property€worth€lessÌà àà àà àà àà àà àthan€five€hundred€dollars)ÌÌó óÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òR.€PORTER€FEILDó óà àà àò òà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONó óÌBurch,€Porter€&€Johnsonà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ130€North€Court€Avenueà àÌMemphis,€TN€Ï38103à àà àà àò òà àà àà àà àà àó óà àà àà àà àà àà àò òLISA€A.€NAYLORó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€GIBBONSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òP.€T.€HOOVERó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€3rd€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌREMANDEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Heather€R.€Dowdy,€pled€guilty€in€the€Shelby€CountyÏCriminal€Court€to€one€count€of€aggravated€burglary,€a€class€C€felony,€and€twoÏcounts€of€theft€of€property€valued€less€than€five€hundred€dollars,€class€AÏmisdemeanors.€€Pursuant€to€the€plea€agreement,€the€trial€court€imposedÏconcurrent€sentences€of€three€years€incarceration€in€the€county€workhouse€forÏthe€burglary€conviction€and€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€incarcerationÏin€the€county€workhouse€for€each€of€the€theft€convictions.€€Following€aÏsentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€suspended€the€sentences,€except€for€oneÏhundred€and€eighty€days€to€be€served€on€weekends.€€Additionally,€the€trial€courtÏimposed€six€years€of€intensive€probation.€€The€conditions€of€probation€includedÏrestitution€in€the€amount€of€$7,200.00,€to€be€paid€in€monthly€installments€ofÏ$100.00,€one€hundred€hours€of€community€service,€and€a€9:00€p.m.€curfew.ÌÌà àOn€April€26,€1996,€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€35(b)€for€reduction€of€her€sentence.€€On€May€10,€1996,€the€trial€court€deniedÏthe€appellantððs€motion.€€The€appellant€now€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€herÏmotion€and€also€appeals€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401€(1990).€ÏSpecifically,€the€appellant€challenges€the€amount€and€terms€of€restitution€and,Ïconsequently,€the€length€of€her€probationary€period;€the€imposition€of€a€9:00Ïp.m.€curfew;€and€the€requirement€of€drug€testing€and€counseling.ÌÌà@ àòòò òI.€€Factual€Backgroundóóó óÌà àOn€March€29,€1996,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€in€order€toÏdetermine€the€manner€of€service€of€the€appellantððs€sentences.€€The€appellantÏtestified€that€she€was€employed€by€a€company€called€ð ðWe€Rep€You€AdvertisingÏAgency.ðð€€She€worked€four€days€each€week€and€was€paid€$5.00€per€hour.€€SheÏfurther€testified€that€she€had€only€completed€the€ninth€grade€in€school€but€hadÏobtained€a€GED.€€The€appellant€resides€with€her€current€boyfriend,€who€owns€aÏsmall€business.ÌÌà àThe€appellantððs€criminal€record€consists€of€a€1992€conviction€forÏdisorderly€conduct€and€public€intoxication,€a€1991€conviction€for€DUI,€and€aÏ1991€conviction€for€a€traffic€offense.€€She€was€placed€on€probation€pursuant€toÏthe€DUI€conviction.€€Her€probation€was€revoked€following€her€conviction€forÏdisorderly€conduct€and€public€intoxication.€€Additionally,€the€appellant€admittedÏto€the€pre„sentence€investigator€that€she€had€previously€experimented€withÏmarijuana€and€cocaine.× ƒ# ××  ×€€At€the€hearing,€the€appellant€reaffirmed€her€guilt€of€theÏinstant€offenses€and€asserted€that€she€accepted€responsibility€for€her€crimes.€ÏShe€recounted€that€her€co„defendant,€Scott€Marino,€had€been€her€boyfriend€atÏthe€time€of€these€offenses.€€She€explained€that€she€and€Marino€decided€toÍcommit€the€burglaries€or€thefts€because€they€were€unemployed€and€neededÏmoney.€€The€appellant€testified€that€Marino€had€previously€been€convicted€ofÏburglary€and€was€convicted€of€burglary€in€this€case.× ƒ% ××  ×€€Finally,€she€furtherÏasserted€that€her€boyfriend€was€abusive€and€was€the€principle€actor€in€theÏcommission€of€these€crimes.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€testified€at€the€hearing€that€she€could€probably€payÏ$100.00€per€month€toward€restitution€to€the€victims.€€The€victim€impactÏstatements€included€in€the€record€indicate€that,€with€respect€to€the€misdemeanorÏtheft€convictions,€the€appellant€stole€jewelry€and€silver€flatware€worthÏapproximately€$7,606.00€from€her€aunt,€Jane€Graham.€€Douglass€Curry,€theÏappellantððs€step„father€and€the€victim€of€the€second€theft,€indicated€that€he€didÏnot€want€restitution€from€the€appellant€and€declined€to€state€the€value€of€anyÏproperty€stolen€from€him€by€the€appellant.€€€With€respect€to€the€felony€burglaryÏconviction,€the€victim€Patti€Ramsey€reported€that€the€appellant€stole€propertyÏworth€approximately€$3,465.37.ÌÌà@ àòòò òII.€€Analysisó óóóÌà àPursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990),€review€by€this€courtÍof€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdetermination€made€by€the€trial€court€is€correct.× ƒ( ××  ×€€This€presumption€only€applies,Ïhowever,€if€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€court€properly€consideredÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€any€event,€the€appellant€bears€theÏburden€of€establishing€that€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€areÏerroneous.€€òòState€v.€Leeóó,€No.€03C01„9308„CR„00275€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€April€4,€1995).ÌÌÓÓà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€stated:ÌÌà8 àI'm€going€to€place€you€on€six€years€probation;€restitution€at€aÏhundred€dollars€a€month.€€As€part€of€that€probation€you€are€toÏserve€180€days€at€the€Shelby€County€Correctional€Center€startingÏat€7:00€p.m.€on€Friday€until€7:00€p.m.€Sunday,€every€weekend€„„€soÏyou€can€continue€to€work€and€make€this€restitution.€€In€addition,€doÏa€hundred€hours€of€community€service.€€That's€intensive€probationÏand€that's€a€9:00€p.m.€curfew.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellant€challenges€the€conditions€of€her€probation,€i.e.€the€termsÏand€amount€of€restitution,€the€imposition€of€a€curfew,€and€mandatory€drugÍtesting.ÌÌà@ àò òA.€€Imposition€of€Special€Conditionsó óÌÌà àFirst,€we€review€the€appellantððs€claim€that€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€aÏ9:00€p.m.€curfew€is€improper.€€The€appellant€contends€that€the€curfew€is€ð ðundulyððÏrestrictive€of€her€liberty.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„303(d)(9).€€Specifically,€theÏappellant€contends€that,€as€a€result€of€the€curfew,€she€is€unable€to€accept€full„time€employment€at€a€convenience€store€at€night.€€However,€the€ProbationÏOrder€clearly€authorizes€the€appellantððs€probation€officer€ð ðto€give€permission€forÏnight€employment€if€necessary.ðð€€In€light€of€the€probation€officerððs€authority,€weÏdo€not€find€that€the€conditions€of€the€appellantððs€probation€are€undulyÏburdensome.€€Moreover,€should€the€appellant€encounter€insurmountableÏobstacles€in€complying€with€the€conditions€of€her€probation,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð40„35„308€(1990)€permits€the€appellant€or€her€probation€officer€to€apply€to€theÏtrial€court€for€the€modification€or€removal€of€any€condition.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€appellantððs€challenge€to€conditions€of€her€probationÏrelating€to€drug€testing€and€counseling,€the€record€before€this€court€does€notÏreflect€that€any€such€conditions€were€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€Therefore,€weÏare€unable€to€consider€this€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b)€(it€is€theÏappellantððs€obligation€to€have€prepared€an€adequate€record€in€order€to€allowÍmeaningful€review€on€appeal).ÌÌÌà@ àò òB.€€Restitutionó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€restitution€in€theÏamount€of€$7,200.00,€to€be€paid€in€monthly€installments€of€$100.00.€€SheÏargues€that€the€trial€court,€in€imposing€restitution,€did€not€adequately€account€forÏher€ability€to€pay€or€her€co„defendantððs€participation€in€the€crimes.€€Moreover,Ïshe€contends€that,€because€the€trial€court€did€not€consider€these€factors€inÏimposing€restitution,€it€could€not€impose€a€probationary€period€of€six€years€inÏorder€to€accommodate€the€payment€schedule.ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„304(a)€(1996€Supp.)€authorizes€the€sentencingÏcourt€to€impose€restitution€as€a€condition€of€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„304(c)€provides€that€a€court€must€establish€a€restitution€payment€scheduleÏthat€does€not€extend€beyond€the€maximum€term€of€probation€supervision€thatÏcould€have€been€imposed€for€the€offense.€€A€court€may€place€a€defendant€onÏsupervised€probation€for€a€period€of€time€up€to€and€including€the€statutoryÏmaximum€time€for€the€class€of€conviction€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„303(c).€€Thus,€the€trial€court€was€authorized€to€impose€a€probationary€period€ofÏsix€years€for€the€offense€of€aggravated€burglary€and€extend€the€appellantððsÍrestitution€payments€for€this€crime€over€that€time.€€òòSeeóó€€40„35„111(b)(3)€(1990).€€ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€appellantððs€contention€that€the€order€of€restitution€failsÏto€account€for€her€co„defendantððs€proportionate€liability,€we€disagree.€€InÏessence,€the€appellant€asks€that€we€adopt€some€form€of€comparative€fault€forÏthe€purpose€of€determining€restitution€in€criminal€cases.€€This€we€decline€to€do.€ÏWhile€this€court€has€tacitly€acknowledged€the€trial€courtððs€authority€to€imposeÏjoint€and€several€liability€for€restitution€upon€co„defendants,€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏRobertsóó,€No.€01C01„9410„CC„00332€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€March€10,Ï1995),€and€òòState€v.€Akinsóó,€No.€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€June€28,Ï1991),€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€does€not€require€the€division€of€restitutionÏresponsibility.€€In€any€case,€we€recognize€that€the€policy€expressed€by€theÏlegislature€in€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€is€that€the€punishment€imposed€should€fitÏthe€crime€and€the€offender.€€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,€477€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòJohnsonóó,€No.€03C01„9606„CC„00214(restitution€is€not€only€a€means€of€compensating€the€victim,€butÏalso€a€form€of€punishment).€€In€the€context€of€this€policy,€the€appellantÏacknowledged€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€she€was€a€full€participant€in€theÏburglary.€€Moreover,€the€record€does€not€reflect€that€the€co„defendant,€Marino,Ïwas€convicted€for€the€incidents€resulting€in€the€appellantððs€theft€convictions.Ìà àÌà àNext,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€consider€her€abilityÍto€pay€in€awarding€restitution.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€appellant€is€a€singleÏperson€who€lives€with€her€boyfriend€and€currently€earns€$5.00€per€hour.€€€TheÏappellant€testified€at€the€hearing€that€she€could€make€scheduled€restitutionÏpayments€of€ð ðprobably€about€a€hundred€dollars€a€month.ðð€€Based€on€these€facts,Ïthe€trial€court€ordered€restitution€payments€of€$100.00€per€month.€€The€appellantÏoffered€no€other€proof€at€the€hearing€relating€to€her€ability€to€pay.€€We€find€thisÏissue€without€merit.ÌÌà àIn€performing€our€review€of€the€issues€in€this€case,€we€are€constrained€toÏnote€that€the€trial€court,€in€ordering€restitution,€combined€the€pecuniary€losses€ofÏboth€victims€into€one€payment€and€ordered€that€this€amount€be€repaid€over€theÏseventy„two€month€period€of€supervision€for€the€aggravated€burglary€conviction.€ÏThis,€in€effect,€permitted€the€restitution€for€the€misdemeanor€conviction€to€beÏrepaid€over€a€six€year€period.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€€€The€plain€language€of€our€statute€requires€thatÏrestitution€as€a€condition€of€probation€be€related€to€the€offense€that€òòwarrantsóó€theÏprobation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„304(a).€€In€other€words,€the€trial€courtÏcannot€order€a€restitution€payment€schedule€extending€beyond€the€statutoryÏmaximum€term€for€the€offense€occasioning€the€restitution,€or€attach€theÏrestitution€schedule€to€an€unrelated€offense.€€Moreover,€the€proof€in€the€recordÍpertaining€to€the€losses€of€the€two€victims€conflicts€with€that€amount€set€by€theÏtrial€court× ƒ0 ××  ×€and€there€is€no€apportionment€of€the€restitution€between€the€twoÏvictims.€€Accordingly,€we€find€it€necessary€to€remand€this€case€for€aÏdetermination€of€the€amount€of€restitution€applicable€to€each€offense,€theÏimposition€of€payment€schedules€in€accordance€with€this€opinion,€and€aÏdetermination€of€the€appropriate€probation€period.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€× ƒ2 ××  ×€€Ìà àÌà àNotwithstanding€our€decision€to€remand,€we€also€note€that€the€victimÏimpact€statements,€included€in€the€record,€reflect€that€the€property€stolen€fromÏMs.€Graham€and€Ms.€Ramsey€was€insured€and€that€their€respective€insuranceÏcompanies€have€paid€these€claims.€€€Whether€or€not€an€insurance€company€is€aÏ"victim"€contemplated€by€the€legislature€in€providing€for€repayment€of€restitutionÏto€"victims",€òòseeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„304,€is€currently€pending€before€ourÏsupreme€court.€€Thus,€although€this€court€has€held€an€insurance€company€to€beÏa€victim€for€purposes€of€restitution,€this€issue€may€be€moot€dependant€upon€theÍdecision€of€our€supreme€court.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Alfordóó,€No.€02C01„9509„CC„00281€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Sept.€30,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó,Ï(Tenn.€Apr.€14,€1997).€€ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€this€case€is€remanded€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge