WPC % s.s?>ى%"npTh|/,jٕQXW@l1KAjrfvxP wHa tl›r"~s?0 ZTm^X5,G_rqy_}%?:D\"4G %Nd +"g)r雼Ţ==>or̾ ~L~po2.Jzu52 lzD5s%7jL ]cm† 8jTv3`\ےacI^ (}V0Qg)m8һnw*}SÝUti@/;}ڇ7𮯦z{A 3 e^8$&ӳ*'}% : u\]Jqk   @  No.M199900325CCAR3CDFiledAugust,_2000_Ԉ 3  AV) ` dE<` A O   #FXX:T#X:TXFJerrySmith,J.,concurringinresults   @* #FXX:T#X:TXFԈ   X:TXX:T# FX X:T# X:TX F  WhileIconcurfullyinthejudgmentoftheCourtdenyingtheappellantfullprobation,Ido X sobecausetherecordreflectstheappellanthasreceivedprobationforanumberofpreviousoffenses, > buthasyettoberehabilitated.Thus, measureslessrestrictivethanconfinementhavefrequently $t orrecentlybeenappliedunsuccessfullytothe[appellant].SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035103(c).  Z Thisreasonaloneamplyjustifiesthedenialofprobationinthiscase. @   WhileIconcedethatthemajorityiscorrectthatthisCourthasheldinthepastthatcertain   crimescarryanintrinsicneedfor deterrencethroughincarceration,thusobviatingtheneedfor  extrinsicevidenceontheissue,Ibelievetheresultofthosecasesshouldberevisited.Suchare  examinationhasconvincedmethatthosecasesareerroneousinsofarastheyholdthattheneedfor n deterrencemaybeestablishedforcertaincrimeswithoutresorttoextrinsicproof. T   Firstthese deterrencepersecasesoffernoprincipledmethodfordeterminingwhenthe  !p! needforextrinsicproofofthevalueofdeterrencemaybeunnecessary.Thus,thesentencingcourt "V" islefttoguessastowhetherdenialofprobationonthebasisofdeterrencemustbebasedonextrinsic "<# evidence.Sucharesultlendsitselftouncertaintyinthelaw,aresultwhichshouldbeavoidedtothe #"$ greatestextentpossible. $ %   Secondly,these deterrencepersecasesstandinstarkcontrasttoalengthyandvenerable &!' lineofcaseswhich,itappearstome,requireextrinsicproofoftheneedfordeterrencethrough j'"( incarcerationforallsortsofcriminalacts.Seee.g.Statev.Lane,3S.W.3d456,462n.15(Tenn. P(#) 1999);Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,170(Tenn.1991);Statev.Bonestel,871S.W.2d163,169 6)$* (Tenn.Crim.App.1993);Statev.Smith,735S.W.2d859,864(Tenn.Crim.App.1987);Statev. *l%+ Jenkins,733s.W.2d528,535(Tenn.Crim.App.1987);Statev.Horne,612S.W.2d186,187(Tenn. +R&, Crim.App.1980).IndeedourSupremeCourthasneverevenhintedthattheremaybesome +8'- exceptiontotherulerequiringextrinsicevidenceinthesecases. ,(.  -)/   InsummaryIbelievethatinallcaseswheredeterrenceformsthebasisofadenialof  probationtheremustbesomeevidenceadducedestablishingtheneedforit.However,_in_Ԁviewof  thefactthatanappropriatereasonexistsfordenyingprobationIconcurinthejudgmentoftheCourt. | # FX X:T!# X:TX F