ÿWPCø Ïuç›\\æÖëF6B*‡=ÊRRU´~yÑ<Á’ÑÒÏÀ±áИ”;´ÄÈ2î}è` 2›œ^'ŠpÉüüZz¼Î‡`¶Ô‡ù³fÏcdƒÍ˜ ”, êØâÚ,S$ëËchi;¯ˆrKíKœA­$þëPUOg ú´Ëïñ,ºúζOILENl¢Tß%Ì_0 …Œã ù‰åŠOYóÓ G=0à: ù¶ïQ•Ø\ÎËW¸Á7  õSPˆ/&é¥'žÉJ»¨|@ŽŠÜ¦†ŸÛÂA†ʼn{å/”gäÉ( äË¡ÓÝãõ(Ò-Õä/!XÎKaù‡3à O, z½ ÓJMOQ©Is‹Ì¹u‘Q\:)óóÓ'ÄâbF™è÷ðŒàáÄ”ÚT½”Óo}“…Û¼ê±Rn9@— bž€…°pJ™ª@ 9àù»ýam¶ßß$€Ê³+L„Ö¾› š]e£{æY.³ê*ãÉæÂ—%Äû|Ý3·+÷4-¬˜Oäö?NëåÀömy•²>ªPû[Y'#ï×™Ð§ÌÆ¨m¿ÇtßiÕö$©³â‚#ì~RTL|›x-é&³§ÅÞ4#°‘Yú˜0L·f$}În"Ò~`#!@U:a %› 0:¡^ Ûwç4ëÿ m N' U:) Nc 0~e 0Dã µ' Ü 0Vä Æ: q U:qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq D/« BÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ AO÷ÆF 0V  Bb 0D D5ØHP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0, øð AZ"Arial RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ôolp'L ”@q' œk1üÓ¢3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular(.(3Ä($¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó «Ý ƒÄ($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÐ ° ÐÒ°Òà ` àThe€record€does€not€reflect€whether€or€how€the€jury€was€instructed€as€toÐ @ ÐTweedððs€alleged€complicity.€The€defendant€claims€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€juryÐ 0€ Ðinstructions,€and€the€instructions€are€not€included€in€the€record€on€appeal. (.3½Þ$££Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 gÝ ƒ[½Þ"ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XoðXXXÔÔ€èsUçXXoðÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€+õçèsUÔÔ_ÔÐ  ÐNovember€15,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Couà0 @ àrt€ClerkÔdAšÔó ó, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular,,'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdZ]+Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3½Þ$¢¢Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó\\\\)ÿÿ!dxdxÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ‡ XoðXXXÔÒ°ÒÓ  Óò òÓÓÑ8€oðXXdædÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j: `€€@ÿE˜Ý îtt¨ÐÜ ·vßÔ_ÔÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ Ü  ÐAT€KNOXVILLEó óÐ ´ Ø Ðò òSEPTEMBER€1999€SESSIONÐ Œ° Ðó óÌÓ  Óò òÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà h àà À àà  à)Ð 0T Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àò òAppelleeó ó,à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9902„CR„00075ó óÐ &  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òvs.ó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ò ò€€€€€€Greene€Countyó óÐ Ôø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òJ.€D.€EDWARD€EALEY,à h àó óà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òHon.€€James€E.€Beckner€Judgeó óÐ ¦Ê  Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àó óà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ’¶  Ðà ` àà ¸ àò òAppellantó ó.à h àà À àà  à)ò ò€€€€€€(Theft)ó óÐ xœ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌÌò òFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€FOR€THE€APPELLEE:ó óÐ 0T ÐÌò òD.€CLIFTON€BARNESó óà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERSó óÐ & ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÐ î Ð1609€College€Park€Drive,€Box€11à0 À àÐÔøÀ(#À(# ÐMorristown,€TN€37813„1618à0 À àà0À(#À(#à€€€€€€€ò òCLINTON€J.€MORGANó óк Þ(#(# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Counsel€for€the€StateÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òC.€BERKELEY€BELL,€JR.Ð >%b Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ *&N Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€109€S.€Main€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Greeneville,€TN€37743ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òCECIL€MILLSÐ È)ì" Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ERIC€D.€CHRISTIANSENÌó óà0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Asst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralР+Ä $À(#À(# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€North€Main€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Greeneville,€TN€37743ÌÌ€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€__________________ó óÐ ‚5¦*/ ÐÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÐ :8^-2 ÐÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÔ#†XoðXX Xoð‘#ÔÐ þ:"05 ÐÐ ê;16 ÐÐ  ®6þ17 ÐÔ_ÔÓ  Óò òOPINIONÐ ° ÐÌó óÓ  ÓÓÓà0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àA€Greene€County€jury€acquitted€the€defendant,€J.€D.€Edward€Ealey,€Ðภ(#¸ (# Ðof€aggravated€burglary€but€convicted€him€of€theft€of€property€less€than€$500€inÐ pÀ Ðvalue,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor,€and€recommended€a€$500€fine.€€The€trial€judgeÐ P   Ðimposed€the€fine€and€an€incarcerative€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nineÐ 0 € Ðdays,€of€which€the€defendant€must€serve€75€percent€before€becoming€eligible€forÐ `  Ðrehabilitative€programs.€€The€defendant€appeals€and€challenges€the€sufficiency€ofÐ ð@  Ðthe€convicting€evidence€and€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€We€affirm.Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€victim,€Maudie€Franklin,€lived€in€an€apartment€next€door€to€theÐ à Ðdefendantððs€apartment.€€On€June€7,€1996,€the€defendant€came€to€her€apartment€andÐ pÀ Ðstated€that€he€needed€to€raise€a€total€of€$300.€€He€proposed€to€trade€a€gun€for€herÐ P  Ðtelevision€set,€which€he€hoped€to€sell.€€The€victim€declined€to€sell€or€trade€a€gun€forÐ 0€ Ðher€personal€property,€and€the€defendant€ð ðthreatened€[the€victimððs]€stuff€in€[her]Ð ` Ðhome.ðð€€The€defendant€persisted€in€asking€the€victim€to€give€him€not€only€herÐ ð@ Ðtelevision,€but€also€her€video€cassette€recorder.€€When€the€victim€continued€toÐ Ð  Ðrefuse€his€request,€he€threatened€to€ð ðtake€a€tire€tool€and€come€in€and€get€[theÐ °"  Ðvictim].ðð€€Ð $à" ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAfter€the€defendant€left€the€victimððs€apartment€in€the€late€afternoon€orÐ P( #& Ðearly€evening€of€June€7,€the€victim€proceeded€with€her€plans€to€go€to€her€sonððsÐ 0*€%( Ðhome€to€spend€the€night.€€When€she€returned€to€her€apartment€at€7:00€a.m.€theÐ ,`'* Ðfollowing€day,€she€found€her€backdoor€broken€open€and€found€her€television,€VCR,Ð ð-@), Ðstereo,€audio€tapes,€and€some€telephone€equipment€missing.€€The€policeÐ Ð/ +. Ðinvestigated€the€break„in€but€found€no€witnesses€nor€any€readable€fingerprints.Ð °1-0 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àRick€Tweed,€the€defendantððs€employer€in€1996,€testified€that€atÐ p5À04 Ðdifferent€times€in€the€weeks€prior€to€October€1996,€the€defendant€sold€him€aÐ P7 26 Ðtelevision€set,€a€VCR,€and€a€number€of€tapes.€€The€tapes€had€the€name€ð ðMaudieÐ 09€48 ÐFranklinðð€inscribed€on€them,€and€Tweed€testified€that€the€defendant€explained€thatÐ ° ÐFranklin€was€his€ex„girlfriend€and€that€he€desired€to€dispose€of€the€tapes€before€hisÐ à Ðwife€saw€them.€€Tweed€retained€the€television€and€VCR€but€gave€the€tapes€to€hisÐ pÀ Ðbrother,€Tim€Tweed,€whose€in„laws€coincidentally€were€related€to€Maudie€Franklin.€Ð P   ÐAfter€Tweedððs€in„laws€discovered€Franklinððs€tapes,€she€reclaimed€them€and€alertedÐ 0 € Ðthe€police€to€the€new€developments€in€the€case.€€The€police€recovered€the€televisionÐ `  Ðand€VCR€from€Rick€Tweed,€and€the€victim€identified€these€items€by€model€numberÐ ð@  Ðand€by€some€scratches€or€marks€on€the€VCR€which€she€recognized.€€Also,€evenÐ Ð  Ðthough€the€serial€numbers€had€been€removed€from€the€two€appliances,€the€policeÐ ° Ðlocated€a€serial€number€hidden€on€the€television€chassis€and€confirmed€that€itÐ à Ðmatched€the€number€of€the€television€purchased€by€Franklin.Ð pÀ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€only€defense€witness€was€Brenda€Ealey,€the€defendantððs€wife,Ð 0€ Ðwho€testified€that€on€the€night€that€the€Franklin€home€was€burglarized,€her€husbandÐ ` Ðwas€at€home€all€night€and€did€not€leave.€€The€defendant€did€not€testify.Ð ð@ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€jury€acquitted€the€defendant€of€the€burglary€of€FranklinððsÐ °"  Ðapartment€but€convicted€him€of€theft€of€the€property.Ð $à" ÐÌò òÓ  ÓI.Ð P( #& ÐÌÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àó óIt€is€well€established€that€a€jury€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,Ð ,`'* Ðaccredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€state€and€resolves€all€conflicts€inÐ ð-@), Ðfavor€of€the€theory€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.Ð Ð/ +. Ð1978);€òòState€v.€Townsendóó,€525€S.W.2d€842,€843€(Tenn.€1975).€€On€appeal,€the€stateÐ °1-0 Ðis€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€orÐ 3à.2 Ðlegitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð p5À04 ÐS.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).Ð P7 26 ÐÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àà ¸ àMoreover,€a€verdict€against€the€defendant€removes€the€presumptionÐ ° Ðof€innocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal,€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493Ð à ÐS.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973);€òòAnglin€v.€Stateóó,€553€S.W.2d€616,€620€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð pÀ ÐApp.€1977),€which€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,Ð P   Ð551€S.W.2d€329,€331€(Tenn.€1977).Ð 0 € ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àMost€significantly,€where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,Ð ð@  Ðthe€relevant€question€for€an€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidenceÐ Ð  Ðin€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÐ ° Ðfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.Ð à ÐVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2782€(1979);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13.€€See€also,Ð pÀ ÐòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405€(Tenn.€1983).€€This€rule€applies€to€findings€basedÐ P  Ðon€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€842Ð 0€ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Circumstantial€evidence€alone€may€be€sufficient€to€convictÐ ` Ðone€of€a€crime.€€òòState€v.€Bolingóó,€840€S.W.2d€944,€947€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð ð@ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€thatÐ °"  ÐRick€Tweed€was€an€accomplice€to€the€theft,€and€his€testimony,€which€was€the€onlyÐ $à" Ðevidence€to€place€the€defendant€in€possession€of€the€stolen€property,€wasÐ p&À!$ Ðuncorroborated.Ð P( #& ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€Tennessee,€a€conviction€may€not€be€based€upon€theÐ ,`'* Ðuncorroborated€testimony€of€an€accomplice.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803Ð ð-@), Ð(Tenn.€1994).€An€accomplice€is€an€individual€who€knowingly,€voluntarily€and€withÐ Ð/ +. Ðcommon€intent€participates€with€the€principal€offender€in€the€commission€of€anÐ °1-0 Ðoffense.€€òòState€v.€Lawsonóó,€794€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€ð ððð[A]Ð 3à.2 Ðcommon€test€[of€complicity]€is€whether€the€alleged€accomplice€could€have€beenÐ p5À04 Ðindicted€for€the€offenses.ðððð€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€985€S.W.2d€9,€16€(Tenn.€1997)Ð P7 26 Ð(quoting€òòState€v.€Perkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€1,€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)).€€SomeÐ 09€48 Ðcases€say€the€test€of€complicity€is€whether€the€alleged€accomplice€could€have€beenÐ ° Ðconvicted€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.òòóó,€òòóóLawsonóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€369.Ð à ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWhen€the€facts€are€undisputed€regarding€a€witnessððs€participation€inÐ P   Ðthe€crime,€whether€he€is€an€accomplice€is€a€question€of€law€for€the€trial€court.€Ð 0 € ÐòòPerkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€7.€€However,€when€the€facts€are€disputed€or€susceptibleÐ `  Ðto€different€inferences,€it€is€a€question€for€the€jury.€€òòConner€v.€Stateóó,€531€S.W.2dÐ ð@  Ð119,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€The€jury€determines€whether€an€accompliceððsÐ Ð  Ðtestimony€has€been€sufficiently€corroborated.€€òòPennington€v.€Stateóó,€478€S.W.2d€892,Ð ° Ð898€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971)€(citation€omitted).€€The€general€rule€is€thatÐ à ÐÒ¸ ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓthere€must€be€some€fact€testified€to,€entirelyÐ pÀ Ðindependent€of€the€accompliceððs€testimony,€which,Ð `° Ðtaken€by€itself,€leads€to€the€inference,€not€only€that€aÐ P  Ðcrime€has€been€committed,€but€also€that€the€defendantÐ @ Ðis€implicated€in€it;€and€this€independent€corroborativeÐ 0€ Ðtestimony€must€also€include€some€fact€establishing€theÐ  p Ðdefendantððs€identity.€€This€corroborative€evidence€mayÐ ` Ðbe€direct€or€entirely€circumstantial,€and€it€need€not€beÐ P Ðadequate,€in€and€of€itself,€to€support€a€conviction;€it€isÐ ð@ Ðsufficient€to€meet€the€requirements€of€the€rule€if€it€fairlyÐ à0 Ðand€legitimately€tends€to€connect€the€defendant€with€theÐ Ð  Ðcommission€of€the€crime€charged.€€It€is€not€necessaryÐ À! Ðthat€the€corroboration€need€not€be€conclusive,€but€it€isÐ °"  Ðsufficient€if€this€evidence,€of€itself,€tends€to€connect€theÐ  #ð! Ðdefendant€with€the€commission€of€the€offense,€althoughÐ $à" Ðthe€evidence€be€slight€and€entitled,€when€standingÐ €%Ð # Ðalone,€to€but€little€consideration.Ð p&À!$ ÐÌÒ¸ ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓòòHawkins€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€121,€133,€469€S.W.2d€515,€520€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð P( #& ÐApp.€1971)€(citations€omitted).Ð 0*€%( ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àð ðA€person€commits€theft€of€property€if,€with€intent€to€deprive€the€ownerÐ ð-@), Ðof€property,€the€person€knowingly€obtains€or€exercises€control€over€the€propertyÐ Ð/ +. Ðwithout€the€ownerððs€effective€consent.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103€(1997).Ð °1-0 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àViewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€we€conclude€that€theÐ p5À04 Ðâ âevidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€theft€conviction.€€Assuming€òòarguendoóó€that€RickÐ P7 26 ÐTweed€may€be€considered€an€accomplice,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€evidence€contained€adequateÐ ° Ðâ âcorroboration€of€his€testimony,€despite€the€fact€that€no€other€evidence€in€the€recordÐ à Ðdirectly€places€the€defendant€in€possession€or€control€of€the€stolen€property.€Ð pÀ ÐCircumstantially,€the€nature€of€the€defendantððs€visit€to€Franklinððs€apartment€theÐ P   Ðafternoon€of€June€7,€1996,€the€threats€he€made€while€there,€and€the€short€intervalÐ 0 € Ðbetween€the€threats€and€the€theft€all€implicate€him€in€the€theft.€€This€evidence€isÐ `  Ðsufficient€to€corroborate€Rick€Tweedððs€testimony€because€it€points€to€the€defendantÐ ð@  Ðas€the€thief.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Caldwellóó,€977€S.W.2d€110,€116€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997),Ð Ð  Ðòòpermòòóó.€òòóóappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1998).€€Moreover,€the€evidence€as€a€whole€amplyÐ ° Ðsupports€the€conviction.Ð à ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.Ð P  Ðó óÌÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€defendantððs€next€issue,€he€argues€that€the€sentence€isÐ ` Ðexcessive€because€the€trial€court€misapplied€enhancement€factor€(15),€that€theÐ ð@ Ðdefendant€abused€the€position€of€private€trust€which€significantly€facilitated€the€theft.€Ð Ð  ÐòòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(15)€(1997).Ð °"  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àÔ‡ X‚ˆXXX÷:ÔIn€misdemeanor€sentencing,€a€separate€sentencing€hearing€is€notÐ p&À!$ Ðmandatory€but€the€court€is€required€to€provide€the€defendant€with€a€reasonableÐ <(Œ#& Ðopportunity€to€be€heard€as€to€the€length€and€manner€of€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ *X%( ÐAnn.€ðð40„35„302(a)€(Supp.€1996).€€Misdemeanor€sentences€must€be€specific€andÐ Ô+$'* Ðin€accordance€with€the€principles,€purpose,€and€goals€of€the€Criminal€SentencingÐ  -ð(, ÐReform€Act€of€1989.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð40„35„104,€302€(Supp.€1996);€Tenn.€CodeÐ l/¼*. ÐAnn.€ðð40„35„117€(1990);€€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1995).€€TheÐ 81ˆ,0 Ðmisdemeanor€offender€must€be€sentenced€to€an€authorized€determinant€sentenceÐ 3T.2 Ðwith€a€percentage€of€that€sentence€designated€for€eligibility€for€rehabilitativeÐ Ð4 04 Ðprograms.€€Generally,€a€percentage€of€not€greater€than€75%€of€the€sentence€shouldÐ ° Ðbe€fixed€for€a€misdemeanor€offender;€however,€a€DUI€offender€may€be€required€toÐ |Ì Ðserve€100%€of€his€sentence.€€òòPalmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€at€393„94.€€In€determining€theÐ H˜ Ðpercentage€of€the€sentence,€the€court€must€consider€enhancement€and€mitigatingÐ  d Ðfactors€as€well€as€the€legislative€purposes€and€principles€related€to€the€sentencing.€Ð à 0 ÐòòIdóó.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àUpon€service€of€that€percentage,€the€administrative€agency€governingÐ D”  Ðthe€rehabilitative€programs€determines€which€among€the€lawful€programs€availableÐ ` Ðis€appropriate.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d)€(1997).€€The€trial€court€retains€theÐ Ü, Ðauthority€to€place€the€defendant€on€€probation€either€immediately€or€after€a€periodÐ ¨ø Ðof€periodic€or€continuous€confinement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„302(e).€€TheÐ tÄ Ðlegislature€has€encouraged€courts€to€consider€public€or€private€agencies€forÐ @ Ðprobation€supervision€prior€to€directing€supervision€by€the€Department€of€Correction.€Ð  \ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„302(f).€€The€governing€statute€provides€the€trial€court€hasÐ Ø( Ðcontinuing€jurisdiction€in€misdemeanor€cases€and€a€wide€latitude€of€flexibility.€€òòSeeóó,Ð ¤ô Ðòòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€966€S.W.2d€429,€434€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€ð ðTheÐ p!À  Ðmisdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€a€minimumÐ <#Œ" Ðsentence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)òòóó.Ð %X $ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€proceeded€to€sentence€the€defendant€immediatelyÐ  (ð#( Ðfollowing€the€return€of€the€juryððs€verdict.€€The€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factorÐ l*¼%* Ð(1),€that€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminalÐ 8,ˆ', Ðbehavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.€€òòSeeóóÐ .T). ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€(1997).€€The€presentence€report€revealed€that€the€Ð Ð/ +0 Ðdefendant€had€a€1990€felony€conviction€of€theft€and€four€previous€misdemeanorÐ œ1ì,2 Ðconvictions€involving€driverððs€license€and€vehicle€registration€offenses.€€The€courtÐ h3¸.4 Ðalso€applied€factor€(15)€that€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust.€€TheÐ 45„06 Ðcourt€applied€mitigating€factor€(1),€that€the€defendantððs€criminal€conduct€neitherÐ 7P28 Ðcaused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35Ô_Ô„113(1)Ð Ì84: Ð(1997).€€The€court€declined€to€apply€any€other€mitigating€factors.Ð ° ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€court€concluded€that€the€enhancement€factors€outweighed€theÐ H˜ Ðmitigating€factor€and€resulted€in€a€maximum€sentence€of€eleven€months,€twenty„nineÐ  d Ðdays.€€The€court€then€recited€its€consideration€of€the€sentencing€principles€found€inÐ à 0 ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€40„35„102€and€103.€€The€court€concluded€thatÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€ð ðcircumstances€of€the€offense,€the€prior€record,€the€deterrence€consideration,Ð xÈ  Ðhistory€of€drug€abuse,€are€such€that€probation€should€not€be€granted€for€theÐ D”  Ðoffense.ðð€€Accordingly,€the€Ô_ÔcourtÔ_Ô€imposed€the€maximum€percentage€of€75€percentÐ ` Ðto€be€served€in€confinement€before€the€defendant€became€eligible€for€rehabilitativeÐ Ü, Ðprograms.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€argues,€ð ð[Ô_ÔT]hereÔ_Ô€was€no€private€trust€involved,ðð€and€weÐ @ Ðagree.€€The€record€establishes€that€the€defendant,€although€the€victimððs€neighbor,Ð  \ Ðwas€really€nothing€more€Ô#†X÷:XX X‚ˆA#Ôthan€a€casual€visitor€in€the€victimððs€home.€€Nothing€suggestsÐ Ø( Ðthat€the€victim€placed€confidence€in€or€relied€upon€the€defendant€in€any€way.€€Thus,Ð ¼  Ðthe€proof€reveals€no€basis€for€concluding€that€a€private€trust€existed.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð œ!ì  ÐKissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€489€(Tenn.€1995)€(defendant€who€was€ð ða€casual€visitorððÐ |#Ì" Ðin€aggravated€sexual€battery€victimððs€home€and€an€acquaintance€of€the€victim,€butÐ \%¬ $ Ðwho€occupied€no€ð ðrelationship€to€[the€victim]€that€promoted€confidence,€reliability,Ð <'Œ"& Ðor€faith€in€him,ðð€was€not€in€a€position€of€private€trust€with€the€victim€for€purposes€ofÐ )l$( Ðfactor€(15)).€€The€trial€court€should€not€have€applied€factor€(15).Ð ü*L&* ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThis€courtððs€review€of€a€lower€courtððs€sentencing€determinations€isÐ ¼. *. Ðconducted€with€a€presumption€that€those€determinations€are€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ œ0ì+0 ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€Generally,€in€a€misdemeanor€case,€the€presumptionÐ |2Ì-2 Ðwill€apply€despite€the€sentencing€courtððs€failure€to€make€specific€findings€on€theÐ \4¬/4 Ðrecord.€€òòState€v.€Lauren€E.€Leslie€and€Janie€Whiteheadóó,€No.€03C01„9804„CR„Ð <6Œ16 Ð00125,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Knoxville,€Mar.€23,€1999),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÐ 8l38 Ð(Tenn.€1999);òòseeóóòòState€v.€Ô_ÔTroutmanÔ_Ôóó,€979€S.W.2d€271,€274€(Tenn.€1998).€€However,Ð ü9L5: ÐÔ_Ôin€imposing€a€misdemeanor€sentence,€a€court€is€required€to€act€consistently€with€theÐ ° Ðpurposes€and€principles€of€the€sentencing€law,€and€particularly€when€establishingÐ à Ðthe€percentage€of€service€of€a€misdemeanor€sentence,€the€court€is€required€toÐ pÀ Ðconsider€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302Ð P   Ð(1997).€€Even€though€the€trial€court€need€not€make€findings,€it€is€required€to€considerÐ 0 € Ðthe€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€at€least€in€the€imposition€of€a€percentageÐ `  Ðof€service.€€When€the€record€reflects€that€findings€òòwereóómade€and€that,€with€respectÐ ð@  Ðto€an€enhancement€factor,€they€are€in€error,€the€presumption€of€correctnessÐ Ð  Ðobviously€should€not€apply.Ð ° ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAccordingly,€we€review€the€sentencing€determination€òòde€novoóó.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðrecord€establishes€that€the€defendant€has€received€three€convictions€for€driving€onÐ P  Ða€revoked€or€suspended€license,€a€conviction€for€violating€the€vehicle€registrationÐ 0€ Ðlaw,€and,€more€significantly,€a€1990€conviction€for€theft.€€Moreover,€this€court€hasÐ ` Ðsaid€that€the€sentencing€courtððs€ð ðdetermination€that€the€jury€acted€with€exceptionalÐ ð@ Ðleniency€is€a€reasonable€influence€upon€the€court€in€making€its€findings€thatÐ Ð  Ðconfinementðð€of€the€defendant€is€appropriate.€€òòState€v.€Michael€D.€Frazieróó,€No.Ð °"  Ð03C01„9602„CR„00084,€slip€op.€at€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Jun.€4,€1997).€Ð $à" ÐIn€the€present€case,€the€jury€acquitted€the€defendant€of€the€burglary€which€resultedÐ p&À!$ Ðin€the€theft€of€Franklinððs€property,€despite€convicting€him€of€the€theft.Ð P( #& ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àBased€upon€the€proof€adduced€at€trial€and€the€presentence€report,Ð ,`'* Ðespecially€the€defendantððs€prior€theft€conviction,€we€conclude€that€a€maximumÐ ð-@), Ðmisdemeanor€sentence€to€be€served€at€75%€is€an€appropriate€sentence.Ð Ð/ +. ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð 3à.2 ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________Ð P7 26 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ @837 ÐÌÐ  :p59 ÐCONCUR:Ð ° ÐÌÌÌÌ_______________________________Ð ` ° ÐGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ P   ÐÌÌÌ_______________________________Ð `  ÐJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE