ÿWPC‡$ …UBV %˜žnX® 0 P 4V 0”j 0Dþ 0JB w@Œ 0TÌ 0^ 0h~ 0ræ 0|X 0†Ô 0Z 1uê 0d_U6ÃU *ùB)#DCL AM—(ä B ­)‡Öv]]Ór0|¢v~vÓœ 0@o" D3¯" AOâ"Æ1# 0D÷# D/;$ Bj$<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|X…«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ¡¨ (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô stuvDwExEy[z{#e|Ó€2" 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`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€< Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌNovemberÏ8,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó d £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€both€the€State€and€defense€counsel€described€the€defendant€as€aÏRange€I€standard€offender.€€In€its€findings,€the€sentencing€court€does€not€state€the€defendantððsÏclassification€other€than€to€state€that€the€sentencing€range€is€three€to€six€years.€€However,€the€defendantÏis€designated€on€the€judgment€form€as€a€ð ðmitigated€30%ðð€offender.€€We€suggest€the€sentencing€courtÏissue€an€order€correcting€the€judgment€form€as€necessary.€€Ì }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔThe€defendant€testified€he€had€been€put€on€probation€ð ð[a]bout€three€times.ðð€€His€presentenceÏreport€indicates€that€he€received€probation€on€four€of€these€offenses.Ì lÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔThe€presentence€report€further€indicates€that€ð ðprobation€is€not€recommended€because€ofÏsubject's€total€disregard€of€previous€probation€privilege.ððÌ SÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔThe€presentence€report€indicates€that€the€defendant€had€twice€stated€during€interviews€thatÏhe€had€never€worked€ð ðat€all.ððÌ hÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔAt€one€point,€the€defendant€testified€that€he€was€twenty„four.€€Later,€in€response€to€a€questionÏby€the€court,€he€indicated€that€he€was€twenty„five.Ì rÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔAnd€because€he€was€not€convicted€of€any€of€the€particular€offenses€which€automatically€renderÏa€defendant€ineligible€for€probation.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„303(a).ÌPtPt HHð@ÿìÿîRd(ühh° @d'ÿœÿ¦ šStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd€<‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X Ñ›Ñ7€÷ÓXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓԀԜـ€ÙßL€"# ;+'h|` 81 `€€Lß›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àAUGUST€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€01C01„9511„CR„00383ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSUMNERÏCOUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏJANE€W.€WHEATCRAFT,ÌTERRANCEÏFRANKLIN,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌa/k/a€ð ðBUBBAððà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Sentencing)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òDAVIDÏDOYLEà àà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó óPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌÌPAMELA€E.ÏBECKó óà àà àò òà àà àà àCLINTON€J.ÏMORGANó óÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àCounselÏfor€the€StateÌ117€East€Main€St.à àà àà àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏPkwy.à àGallatin,€TN€€€37066à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àDENT€MORRISSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€(By€Special€Designation)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à500ÏS.€Main€St.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSpringfield,€TN€€€37172ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÓ  ÓÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€attempted€first„degree€murder€with€aÏdeadly€weapon.€€He€pled€guilty€to€aggravated€assault,€a€class€C€felony,€and€after€aÏhearing€was€sentenced€to€six€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€ÏThis€was€the€maximum€sentence€available€for€a€Range€I€standard€offender.× ƒ% ××  ×€€T.C.A.€ððÏ40„35„112(a)(3)€(1990€Repl.).€€The€defendant€now€appeals€as€of€right,€alleging€thatÏthe€sentencing€court€misapplied€enhancing€factors,€failed€to€apply€mitigating€factors,Ïerred€by€refusing€to€grant€him€an€alternative€sentence,€and€erred€by€continuing€theÏdetermination€of€restitution€to€a€later€hearing.€€Finding€no€error,€we€affirm€theÏsentence€set€by€the€court€below.à àÌÌà àà àEvidence€adduced€at€the€sentencing€hearing€established€that€theÏdefendant€had€shot€the€victim€once€in€the€right€cheek€with€a€.25€pistol.€€The€defen…dant€testified€that€he€had€given€the€victim€twenty€dollars€($20)€for€drugs€and€the€victimÏhad€refused€to€give€him€the€drugs€or€to€return€his€money,€so€he€shot€him.€€The€victimÍdenied€that€he€and€the€defendant€had€been€involved€in€a€drug€transaction.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€admitted€to€three€prior€assault€offenses€and€a€drugÏoffense,€all€misdemeanors.€€The€presentence€report€also€indicated€a€misdemeanorÏtheft€conviction€and€a€criminal€trespass€arrest,€about€which€the€defendant€was€notÏquestioned.€€He€received€probation€on€three€or€four× ƒ& ××  ×€of€these€offenses,€and€admittedÏthat€he€had€failed€to€comply€with€the€terms€of€his€probation€each€time,€resulting€inÏrevocation.× ƒ' ××  ×€€The€defendant€admitted€that€he€had€a€drug€and€alcohol€problem;€thatÏhe€had€attended€a€drug€rehabilitation€program€but€not€successfully€completed€it;€thatÏhe€had€dropped€out€of€school€in€the€ninth€grade€and€had€not€obtained€his€GED;€thatÏhe€owned€several€guns;€and€that€he€was€not€employed€and€had€not€been€employedÏat€any€one€time€for€longer€than€a€month.× ƒ( ××  ×€€His€guilty€plea€in€this€case€contains€anÏorder€revoking€his€bond€ð ðdue€to€the€fact€that€the€defendant€has€used€cocaine€whileÏout€on€bond.ðð€€The€defendant€was€twenty„four€or€twenty„five€years€old€at€the€time€ofÍthe€hearing.× ƒ) ××  ×€€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€aÏòòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€TheÏburden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€€T.C.A.€Ìðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,€however,€ð ðisÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏthe€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àà àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€at€T.C.A.€Ìðð€40„35„210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€to€be€followed€in€sentenc…ing.€€This€section€mandates€the€court's€consideration€of€the€following:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒX¸)Ó(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing;€(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]heÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÏalternatives;€(4)€[t]he€nature€and€characteris‚tics€of€theÏcriminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€[e]vidence€and€informationÏoffered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÍfactors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]nyÏstatement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalfÏabout€sen‚tencing.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ¢ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210.ÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ ¢ Òà àà àIn€addition,€this€section€provides€that€the€minimum€sentence€within€theÏrange€is€the€presumptive€sentence€for€B,€C,€D€and€E€felonies.€€If€there€are€enhanc‚ingÏand€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€andÏenhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduceÏthe€sen‚tence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€noÏmitigating€factors,€the€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€rangeÏbut€still€within€the€range.€€The€weight€to€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€Act€further€provides€that€ð ð[w]henever€the€court€imposes€a€sentence,Ïit€òòshall€place€on€the€recordóó€either€orally€or€in€writing,€what€enhance‚ment€or€mitigatingÏfactors€it€found,€if€any,€as€well€as€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€ðð€40„35„209.ðð€€T.C.A.€Ìðð€40„35„210(f)€(emphasis€added).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors€under€the€sentencing€guide‚lines,€even€the€absence€of€these€factorsÍmust€be€recorded€if€none€are€found.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210€comment.€€These€findings€byÏthe€trial€judge€must€be€recorded€in€order€to€allow€an€adequate€review€on€appeal.ÌÌà àà àAs€enhancement€factors,€the€sentencing€court€found€that€the€defendantÏhad€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€in€addition€to€those€necessary€toÏestablish€the€appropriate€range;€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim€wereÏparticularly€great;€the€defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€complyÏwith€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community;€and€that€he€hadÏno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€T.C.A.€ððÏ40„35„114(1),€(6),€(8)€and€(10)€(1990€Repl.).€€The€court€applied€no€mitigating€factors,Ïalthough€defense€counsel€maintained€that€the€defendant€had€acted€under€strongÏprovocation€and€that€the€victim€had€been€engaged€in€illegal€activity€at€the€time€of€theÏincident.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(2)€and€(13)€(1990€Repl.).ÌÌà àà àThe€court€below€erred€in€applying€as€an€enhancing€factor€either€that€theÏdefendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€lifeÏwas€high,€or€that€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€on€the€victim€were€particularly€great.€ÏAggravated€assault€is€committed€when€either€the€assault€causes€serious€bodily€injuryÏto€another€or€the€perpetrator€uses€or€displays€a€deadly€weapon€in€the€commission€ofÍthe€offense.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„102(a)(1)€(1990€Repl.).€€However,€the€record€in€this€caseÏdoes€not€reflect€to€which€of€these€versions€the€defendant€pled€guilty.€€The€StateÏcontended€at€the€hearing€that€the€defendant's€aggravated€assault€conviction€wasÏbased€upon€his€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€that€is,€a€handgun.€€In€support€of€thisÏargument,€the€State€relied€on€the€language€of€the€indictment,€which€references€theÏdefendant's€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€court€below€did€not€make€a€finding€in€thisÏrespect.€€Nevertheless,€if€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€assault€with€theÏuse€or€display€of€a€deadly€weapon,€then€application€of€the€enhancing€factor€forÏcommitting€the€offense€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high€was€improper.€€ThisÏfactor€is€inherent€in€the€crime€of€aggravated€assault€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòState€v.ÏHillóó,€885€S.W.2d€357,€363€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€However,€the€infliction€ofÏparticularly€great€bodily€injury€is€not€inherent€in€the€offense€of€aggravated€assault€withÏa€deadly€weapon.€€Therefore,€under€this€interpretation€of€the€defendant's€conviction,€Ïapplication€of€this€enhancing€factor€was€proper.€€The€victim€testified€that€he€had€beenÏshot€in€the€face,€had€to€be€life„flighted€to€Vanderbilt€Hospital,€underwent€surgery,Ïspent€several€days€in€the€hospital,€and€that€the€bullet€in€his€head€could€not€beÏremoved.€€These€facts€support€the€application€of€this€factor.ÌÌà àà àOn€the€other€hand,€if€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€assaultÍcausing€serious€bodily€injury€to€another,€then€the€sentencing€court's€application€of€thisÏfactor€was€improper.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€602€(Tenn.€1994)€(the€enhanc…ing€factor€for€infliction€of€particularly€great€personal€injury€ð ðis€an€element€of€the€offenseÏof€aggravated€assault€causing€serious€bodily€injury€and€cannot€be€used€to€enhanceÏthe€defendant's€sentence.ðð)€€Application€of€the€factor€for€no€hesitation€about€commit…ting€the€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high€is€proper€for€this€form€of€aggravat…ed€assault,€however.€€òòId.óó€at€602„3.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€short,€then,€the€sentencing€court€properly€applied€one€of€these€twoÏfactors;€the€other€one€was€not€applicable€because€it€is€inherent€in€the€offense€ofÏaggravated€assault.€€Thus,€a€total€of€three€enhancing€factors€was€properly€found€andÏapplied.€€We€also€find€proper€the€sentencing€court's€refusal€to€apply€the€offeredÏmitigating€factors.€€Even€if€the€defendant's€version€of€the€encounter€is€accepted,€theÏvictim's€refusal€to€hand€over€either€the€requested€drugs€or€the€twenty€dollars€($20)Ïwas€hardly€ð ðgreat€provocation.ðð€€Nor€do€we€accept€as€a€mitigating€factor€that€the€victimÏmay€have€been€engaged€in€illegal€activity€at€the€time€of€the€incident.€€Thus,€theÏapplication€of€three€enhancing€factors€and€no€mitigating€factors€supports€the€sentenc…ing€court's€decision€to€impose€the€maximum€sentence€on€this€defendant.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€he€should€have€received€an€alterna…tive€sentence,€specifically€intensive€probation€or€community€corrections.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103€sets€out€sentencing€considerations€which€are€guidelines€for€determiningÏwhether€or€not€a€defendant€should€be€incarcerated.€€These€include€the€need€ð ðtoÏprotect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct,ððÏthe€need€ð ðto€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,ðð€the€determination€thatÏð ðconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€toÏcommit€similar€offenses,ðð€or€the€determination€that€"measures€less€restrictive€thanÏconfinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defen…dant.ðð€€T.C.A.€Ìðð€40„35„103(1).ÌÌà àà àIn€addition,€the€legislature€established€certain€sentencing€principlesÏwhich€include€the€following:ÓÓÌÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÌ(5)€€In€recognition€that€state€prison€capacities€and€the€fundsÏto€build€and€maintain€them€are€limited,€convicted€felonsÏcommitting€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminalÏhistories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€moralsÏof€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilita…tion€shall€be€given€first€priority€regarding€sentencingÍinvolving€incarceration;€andÌÌ(6)€€A€defendant€who€does€not€fall€within€the€parameters€ofÏsubdivision€(5)€and€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standardÏoffender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D€or€E€felony€is€presumedÏto€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencingÏoptions€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ¢ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102.ÌÌà àà àAfter€reviewing€the€statutes€set€out€above,€it€is€obvious€that€the€intent€ofÏthe€legislature€is€to€encourage€alternatives€to€incarceration€in€cases€where€defen…dants€are€sentenced€as€standard€or€mitigated€offenders€convicted€of€C,€D,€or€EÏfelonies.€€However,€it€is€also€clear€that€there€is€an€intent€to€incarcerate€those€defen…dants€whose€criminal€histories€indicate€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€ofÏsociety€and€a€failure€of€past€efforts€to€rehabilitate.ÌÌà àà àBecause€he€was€convicted€of€a€class€C€felony€and€sentenced€to€lessÏthan€eight€years,× ƒ* ××  ×€the€defendant€is€presumably€entitled€to€probation,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€and€„303(a),€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102(6)Í(1990€Repl.).€€However,€the€burden€of€establishing€his€suitability€for€probation€restsÏwith€the€defendant.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€(1990€Repl.).€€And,€if€ð ðevidence€to€theÏcontraryðð€establishes€that€the€defendant€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct€or€thatÏmeasures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€appliedÏunsuccessfully€to€the€defendant,€then€incarceration€may€be€deemed€appropriate.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A)€and€ðð€(1990€Repl.).ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€whether€the€defendant€should€be€granted€probation,€theÏcourt€must€consider€the€defendant's€criminal€record,€social€history,€present€physicalÏand€mental€condition,€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€deterrent€effect€upon€theÏcriminal€activity€of€the€defendant€as€well€as€others,€and€the€defendant's€potential€forÏrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€169€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).€€A€crime€involving€violence,€as€this€one€did,€may€be€a€factor€militating€againstÏprobation.€€òòState€v.€Gennoeóó,€851€S.W.2d€833,€837€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€In€theÏinstant€case,€the€sentencing€court€found€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà àà8 à[This€defendant]€has€had€three€prior€convictions€for€theÏoffense€of€assault.€€One€of€them€was€an€aggravated€assaultÏreduced€down€to€simple€assault.€€He€has€a€drug€and€a€theftÏconviction.€€While€these€are€misdemeanors,€it€does€showÏthis€Court€a€history€of€a€propensity€„„€especially€the€assaultÏconvictions€„„€the€propensity€toward€violence.ÌÌà àà8 àThis€defendant€has€a€terrible€social,€educational,€andÏemployment€history.€€He€is€a€drug€addict.€€He€has€previous…ly€been€placed€on€probation,€and€he€has€been€unsuccess…ful.€€Efforts€to€rehabilitate€him€have€been€offered,€and€it€hasÏbeen€to€no€avail.ÌÌÌÓÓThe€evidence€supports€these€findings,€and€these€findings€overcome€the€presumptionÏthat€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€probation.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Chrismanóó,€885€S.W.2dÏ834,€840€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(denial€of€probation€proper€on€grounds€thatÏdefendant's€history€indicated€clear€disregard€for€law€and€morals€of€society€and€failureÏof€past€efforts€to€rehabilitate€where€defendant€had€lengthy€history€of€criminal€conduct,Ïwas€unemployed€at€time€of€sentencing€hearing€and€had€a€sporadic€work€history,€andÏhad€a€history€of€drug€and€alcohol€abuse).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àNor€is€the€defendant€entitled€to€community€corrections.€€€PersonsÏconvicted€of€violent€felony€offenses€are€not€eligible€for€community€corrections.€€T.C.A.€Ìðð€40„36„106(a)(3)€(1990€Repl.).€€Aggravated€assault€is€a€violent€felony€offense.€€òòStateÏv.€Birgeóó,€792€S.W.2d€723,€725€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€However,€ð ð[f]elony€offendersÏnot€otherwise€eligible€under€subsection€(a),€and€who€would€be€usually€consideredÏunfit€for€probation€due€to€histories€of€chronic€alcohol,€drug€abuse,€or€mental€healthÏproblems,€but€whose€special€needs€are€treatable€and€could€be€served€best€in€theÍcommunity€rather€than€in€a€correctional€institution,€may€be€considered€eligible€forÏpunishment€in€the€community€under€the€provisions€of€this€chapter.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„36„106ðð€(1990€Repl.).€€The€defendant€does€not€qualify€for€community€corrections€underÏthis€provision€for€two€reasons.€€First,€he€is€considered€unfit€for€probation€not€solelyÏbecause€of€his€alcohol€and€drug€abuse,€but€also€because€he€has€violated€hisÏprobationary€sentences€in€the€past.€€Second,€he€has€already€failed€one€rehabilitationÏprogram€and€so€has€not€established€that€his€needs€are€treatable€and€could€be€servedÏbest€in€the€community.€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€denial€of€community€corrections€to€beÏproper.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€complains€about€the€sentencing€court's€decisionÏto€continue€the€sentencing€hearing€with€respect€to€determining€restitution.€€UnlessÏand€until€restitution€is€improperly€ordered,€we€fail€to€see€how€the€defendant€wasÏharmed€by€this€decision.€€Any€error€in€granting€the€continuance€was€thereforeÏharmless.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant's€issues€being€without€merit,€the€judgment€below€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÔ€Ô