ÿWPCJ c•÷ñºSÇß^’#Ðóè£-þýºbÈ€¾>™PÝw[þµØüá³8ñ^ÈlëVN¡A€b½îñS^ækFY½–¹“ɸÁÓfÃx‡Š9„ع·¦«å÷ËqU‹ºˆ-Bµ¤ ‹‚AøÛþ¾ÅâœK¹}¾º_F‡ùùü[6ùbŠYäÄ„Ü,ñ€ª»w½|ævÎ{§›Šv.ñ¿¦~÷ÛÜò.[F" ¦ú“š  JEºîVÑ¡Ÿ}¯€ZP9?+þê}ÇÉÛÏÌø:Œ "2‚¸ª«8¹­ŸÝˆeFšIÁ»ª.yXôËÏÝÃô'sÈê¦îdoóˆ•Èö¥ƒÇõdÄbÑ}(o@±qzŸÈ…ËO>á™g?ä»râ±I9oÛn9“­³®5»˜Înï¸>qZ-Ð@Ëif÷"=XÐH}fDÊt«`\šSŽaöI«¤˜g¿v°ói†üКN7_¾î+q¡cÒ ›#i,PcnÆ«ásñ­á•ä TúÝpb«–ŽE‚hPhQæ Bz»ø(l¿Úó_Î₼_F‹óÄúzþë…@y6ãyn¼ŸÎí\î<€‡„‘:u‡tõ™øP\`Ä, Ó{'Ì`#!@UNa %¯ 0(µU:Ýw 4 / > F IN 0l— 0D U:G N ^ ƒ  m‘ ‘ 5¨ U:Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý B                                                       AQ4 Æ… 0DK 0D 0DÓÓ D3˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegulartpO'3|x ?Ò°ÒÔ€XP8XXXÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àThe€record€reflects€that€at€least€one€other€controlled€substance€saleÐ ° Ðcase€was€pending€against€the€defendant€at€the€time€of€sentencing€in€the€presentÐ –æ Ðcase.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularS†d'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ +Ý ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X ÝXXXÔÔ€?XX ÝÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X ÝX?ÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€25,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular dZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó""""'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ€X ÝXXXÔÓÓÒ°ÒÓ  Óò òÑ  ÑÑ8€ ÝXXdædÈ8ÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑßx€Y_B2.jzêÿç`  `€€@ÿE²—` 8ttxPêÏð È xßÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐAT€JACKSONó óÐ ˆØ Ðò òAUGUST€1999€SESSIONó óÐ `° ÐÌÓ  Óò òÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà h àà À àà  à)Ð  T Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àò òAppellee,ó óà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òC.C.A.€No.€02C01„9809„CC„00291ó óÐ Ö &  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òvsó ó.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ò ò€€€€€€Benton€Countyó óÐ ¨ø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òDAVID€W.€FRAZEE,ó óà h àà À àà  à)ò ò€€€€€€Honorable€Julian€P.€Guinnó óÐ zÊ  Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àó óà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð f¶  Ðà ` àà ¸ àò òAppellant.ó óà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò ò(Possession€of€Schedule€VIó óÐ Lœ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ò ò€€€€€€Controlled€Substance)ó óÐ 8ˆ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌÌò òFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€FOR€THE€APPELLEE:ó óÐ ð@ ÐÌò òTERRY€J.€LEONARDà h àó óà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERSó óÐ Â ÐAttorney€at€Lawà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÐ ®þ Ð126€W.€Main€Streetà  àà h àÐ ”ä ÐP.O.€Box€130à  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òPATRICIA€C.€KUSSMANÐ zÊ Ðó óCamden,€TN€38320€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à À àà  à€€€€€€€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ f¶ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37243à x àà Ð àÐ 2‚ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  à€à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òG.€ROBERT€RADFORDÐ þN Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ ê : Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òBETH€BOSWALLó óÐ ¶"! Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Asst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€€P.O.€Box€686Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Huntingdon,€TN€38344ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€_____________ó óÐ ¸+'+ ÐÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÐ V/¦*/ ÐÌÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÐ 3V.3 ÐÌÐ  Ø4(05 ÐÔ_ÔÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À à€€€ò òOPINIONó óÐ ° ÐÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant,€David€W.€Frazee,€appeals€his€Benton€County€CircuitÐ b² ÐCourt€conviction€for€possession€of€a€Schedule€VI€controlled€substance,€a€Class€AÐ . ~ Ðmisdemeanor.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„418(a)€(1997).€The€trial€courtÐ ú J Ðimposed€a€$250€fine€and€an€eleven„month,€29„day€jail€sentence,€six€months€ofÐ Æ   Ðwhich€is€to€be€served€in€jail€with€the€remainder€to€be€served€on€supervisedÐ ’â  Ðprobation.€€€In€his€appellate€brief,€the€defendant€raised€two€issues:€(1)€whether€theÐ ^®  Ðconvicting€evidence€was€insufficient€because€the€controlled€substance€was€notÐ *z  Ðproperly€made€an€exhibit€to€the€forensic€scientistððs€testimony,€and€(2)€whether€theÐ öF Ðtrial€court€erred€in€not€imposing€an€alternative€sentence.€€During€oral€argument,Ð Â Ðhowever,€€the€defendantððs€counsel€conceded€that€there€was€no€basis€in€the€recordÐ ŽÞ Ðfor€establishing€his€claim€on€the€first€issue.€€Accordingly,€we€have€limited€our€reviewÐ Zª Ðto€the€sentencing€issue€and€have€found€no€error€requiring€reversal.€€Thus,€we€affirmÐ &v Ðthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€Ð òB ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€prosecuted€for€the€sale€of€marijuana€on€the€basisÐ Š Ú Ðof€an€August€21,€1997€undercover€drug€purchase.€The€defendant€acted€as€anÐ V"¦! Ðintermediary€between€the€undercover€agent,€who€gave€the€defendant€$125,€and€theÐ "$r# Ðdefendantððs€cousin,€who€accepted€the€money€and€gave€the€defendant€a€packageÐ î%>!% Ðcontaining€an€ounce€of€marijuana€to€deliver€to€the€agent.€The€defendant€testifiedÐ º' #' Ðthat€he€did€not€know€that€the€material€in€the€package€was€a€controlled€substance.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐBased€upon€these€facts,€a€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€simple€possession.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à€The€trial€court€imposed€the€fine€and€the€eleven„month,€29„dayÐ ê.:*/ Ðsentence€on€the€same€day€the€verdict€was€returned,€despite€the€defendantððs€requestÐ ¶0,1 Ðfor€a€delay€in€sentencing.€€The€trial€judge€said,€ð ðI€can€always€consider€motions€toÐ ‚2Ò-3 Ðlessen€the€sentence€later.ðð€€The€defendant€later€moved€for€a€new€trial€and€aÐ N4ž/5 Ðmodification€of€the€sentence.€€At€the€hearing€on€these€motions,€he€presented€courtÐ 6j17 Ðrecords€of€70€general€sessions€court€cases€processed€between€1993€and€1998€inÐ æ7639 Ðwhich€defendants€were€sentenced€for€possession€of€marijuana.€€The€average€lengthÐ ²95; Ðof€incarceration€in€those€cases€was€25€days.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€theÐ ° Ðtrial€court€modified€the€sentence€so€as€to€require€six€months€incarceration€followedÐ |Ì Ðby€five€months€and€29€days€supervised€probation.€The€motion€for€new€trial€wasÐ H˜ Ðdenied.€Ð  d ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAgainst€this€factual€backdrop,€we€consider€the€defendant's€sentencingÐ ¬ ü  Ðchallenge.Ð xÈ  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€determining€whether€the€trial€court€has€properly€sentenced€anÐ ` Ðindividual,€this€court€engages€in€a€òòde€novo€óóreview€of€the€record€with€a€presumptionÐ Ü, Ðthat€the€trial€court's€determinations€were€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ð ¨ø Ð(1997).€€In€conducting€our€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€must€consider€the€evidence€atÐ tÄ Ðsentencing,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€arguments€ofÐ @ Ðcounsel,€the€statements€of€the€defendant,€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€theÐ  \ Ðoffense,€any€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€and€the€defendantððs€amenabilityÐ Ø( Ðto€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)€(Supp.€1998);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ¤ô Ððð€40„35„103(5)€(1997);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€hasÐ p!À  Ðthe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€imposed€is€improper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ <#Œ" Ð40„35„401(d),€Sentencing€Comm'n€Comments€(1997);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.Ð %X $ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€felony€sentencing,€the€trial€court€has€an€affirmative€duty€to€òòstate€inÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€recordóó,€either€orally€or€in€writing,€which€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€itÐ l*¼%* Ðfound€and€its€findings€of€fact.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„209(c)€(1997);€Tenn.€CodeÐ 8,ˆ', ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(f)€(Supp.€1998);€òòState€v.€Troutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€271,€274€(Tenn.Ð .T). Ð1998).€€In€contrast,€the€misdemeanor€sentencing€statute€only€requires€that€the€trialÐ Ð/ +0 Ðcourt€òòconsideróó€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€when€calculating€theÐ œ1ì,2 Ðpercentage€of€the€sentence€to€be€served€"in€actual€confinement"€prior€toÐ h3¸.4 Ð"consideration€for€work€release,€furlough,€trusty€status€and€related€rehabilitativeÐ 45„06 Ðprograms."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„302(d)€(1997);€òòTroutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€atÐ 7P28 Ð274.Ð Ì84: Їà ` àà ¸ àA€separate€sentencing€hearing€is€not€mandatory€in€misdemeanorÐ ° Ðcases,€but€the€court€is€required€to€provide€the€defendant€with€a€reasonableÐ |Ì Ðopportunity€to€be€heard€as€to€the€length€and€manner€of€the€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð H˜ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð40„35„302(a)€(1997).€€Misdemeanor€sentences€must€be€specific€andÐ  d Ðin€accordance€with€the€principles,€purpose,€and€goals€of€the€Criminal€SentencingÐ à 0 ÐReform€Act€of€1989.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð40„35„104,€302€(1997);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ¬ ü  Ððð40„35„117€(1997);€€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1995).€€TheÐ xÈ  Ðmisdemeanor€offender€must€be€sentenced€to€an€authorized€determinant€sentenceÐ D”  Ðwith€a€percentage€of€that€sentence€designated€for€eligibility€for€rehabilitativeÐ ` Ðprograms.€€Generally,€a€percentage€of€not€greater€than€75%€of€the€sentence€shouldÐ Ü, Ðbe€fixed€for€a€misdemeanor€offender;€however,€a€DUI€offender€may€be€required€toÐ ¨ø Ðserve€100%€of€his€sentence.€€òòPalmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€at€393„94.€€In€determining€theÐ tÄ Ðpercentage€of€the€sentence,€the€court€must€consider€enhancement€and€mitigatingÐ @ Ðfactors€as€well€as€the€legislative€purposes€and€principles€related€to€the€sentencing.€Ð  \ ÐòòIdóó.Ð Ø( ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àUpon€service€of€that€percentage,€the€administrative€agency€governingÐ p!À  Ðthe€rehabilitative€programs€determines€which€among€the€lawful€programs€availableÐ <#Œ" Ðis€appropriate.€€The€trial€court€retains€the€authority€to€place€the€defendant€on€Ð %X $ Ðprobation€either€immediately€or€after€a€term€of€periodic€or€continuous€confinement.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„302(e).€€The€legislature€has€encouraged€courts€to€considerÐ  (ð#( Ðpublic€or€private€agencies€for€probation€supervision€prior€to€directing€supervision€byÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€Department€of€Correction.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„302(f).€€The€governingÐ 8,ˆ', Ðstatute€provides€that€the€trial€court€has€continuing€jurisdiction€in€misdemeanor€casesÐ .T). Ðand€a€wide€latitude€of€flexibility.€€The€misdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€not€entitledÐ Ð/ +0 Ðto€the€presumption€of€a€minimum€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€829Ð œ1ì,2 Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ð h3¸.4 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àMoreover,€the€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€Community€CorrectionsÐ 7P28 ÐAct€of€1985€are€not€applicable€to€misdemeanants.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð Ì84: Ððð€40„35„106€(1997).€€Thus,€the€only€sentencing€alternatives€available€toÐ ° Ðmisdemeanants€are€the€payment€of€a€fine€and€some€form€of€probation.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð |Ì ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104€(c)€(1997).€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€probation,€the€reviewing€courtÐ à 0 Ðconsiders€ð ðthe€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðdefendantððs€social€history€and€present€condition,€the€need€for€deterrence,€and€theÐ xÈ  Ðbest€interest€of€the€defendant€and€the€public.ðð€òòState€v.€Goodeóó,€956€S.W.2d€521,€527Ð D”  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Ð ` ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€gravamen€of€the€defendantððs€sentencingÐ ¨ø Ðcomplaint€is€that€he€should€have€received€straight€probation,€or€in€any€event,€noÐ tÄ Ðmore€than€the€average€25€days€of€confinement€imposed€upon€other€defendantsÐ @ Ðconvicted€of€the€same€crime.€Ð  \ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€time€of€sentencing,€Frazee€had€no€prior€criminal€convictions;׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¤ô Ðhowever,€the€trial€court€pointedly€found€that€Frazee€testified€untruthfully€when€heÐ p!À  Ðclaimed€not€to€have€known€that€the€package€he€exchanged€for€$125€containedÐ <#Œ" Ðmarijuana.€€In€response€to€the€defendantððs€claim€of€ignorance,€the€trial€judge€asked,Ð %X $ Ðð ðDo€you€think€everybody€in€this€courtroom€is€just€a€bumbling€idiot?€.€.€.€€Mr.€Frazee,Ð Ô&$"& Ðyou€know,€sometimes€the€truth€just€serves€you€so€much€better.ðð€€As€we€have€oftenÐ  (ð#( Ðobserved,€a€defendantððs€lack€of€credibility€is€an€appropriate€consideration€inÐ l*¼%* Ðdetermining€suitability€for€probation€because€it€reflects€on€the€defendantððs€potentialÐ 8,ˆ', Ðfor€rehabilitation.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòGoodeóó,€956€S.W.2d€at€527;€òòState€v.€Chestnutóó,€643Ð .T). ÐS.W.2d€343,€353€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€€1982).€€In€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€madeÐ Ð/ +0 Ða€credibility€assessment€that€is€supported€by€the€record€and€to€which€we€must€defer.€Ð œ1ì,2 ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(credibilityÐ h3¸.4 Ðassessments€are€entrusted€to€the€trial€court€because€that€court€has€the€opportunityÐ 45„06 Ðto€hear€and€see€the€witnesses€in€person€and€to€judge€their€ð ðmanner€andÐ ° Ðdemeanorðð).€€Given€the€defendant's€lack€of€truthfulness,€the€trial€court€appropriatelyÐ |Ì Ðdenied€straight€probation.Ð H˜ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThus,€we€take€up€review€of€the€sentence€actually€imposed.€€In€thisÐ à 0 Ðrespect,€we€are€initially€hampered€by€the€trial€court's€failure€to€specify€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðpercentage€of€service€in€confinement€in€its€judgment€form,€as€well€as€by€theÐ xÈ  Ðsomewhat€ambiguous€statements€the€court€made€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€Ð D”  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àConsidering€first€the€failure€to€state€a€percentage€of€service€in€theÐ Ü, Ðjudgment€form,€we€observe€that€as€a€general€proposition,€ð ð[i]f€no€percentage€isÐ ¨ø Ðexpressed€in€the€judgment,€the€percentage€shall€be€considered€to€be€zero€percentÐ tÄ Ð(0%).ðð€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„302(d)€(1997).€€However,€ðð[w]hen€thisÐ @ Ðcourt€has€been€faced€with€a€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€clearly€indicatingÐ  \ Ðthe€trial€courtððs€intention€that€the€defendantððs€percentage€is€òònotóó€zero€percent,€.€.€.€weÐ Ø( Ðhave€deferred€to€the€trial€courtððs€express€pronouncement€as€reflected€in€theÐ ¤ô Ðtranscript.ðð€€òòState€v.€Dion€Andres€Russellóó,€No.€03C01„9803„CR„00092,€slip€op.€atÐ p!À  Ð15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Apr.€7,€1999)€(emphasis€in€original),€òòapplic.€forÐ <#Œ" Ðperm.€app.€filedóó€(Tenn.€June€7,€1999);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Rickey€Haileyóó,€No.€02C01„Ð %X $ Ð9705„CR„00198,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€May€14,€1998);€òòState€v.Ð Ô&$"& ÐRoscoe€C.€Smithóó,€No.€01C01„9502„CR„00031,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð  (ð#( ÐNashville,€Oct.€12,€1995).€€In€the€present€case,€the€record€clearly€demonstrates€thatÐ l*¼%* Ðtrial€court€intended€to€impose€jail€time€for€a€portion€of€the€defendant's€sentence.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐThus,€we€may€defer€to€the€trial€court's€express€pronouncements€as€revealed€in€theÐ .T). Ðtranscript.Ð Ð/ +0 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€this€regard,€the€trial€court€said,€ð ð[s]ix€months€of€[the€sentence]€willÐ h3¸.4 Ðhave€to€be€served€in€confinement.ðð€€Given€the€fact€that€the€maximum€percentageÐ 45„06 Ðof€service€in€a€non„DUI€misdemeanor€is€75€percent,€the€questions€presented€areÐ 7P28 Ðwhat€percentage€was€intended€and€whether€the€percentage€is€applied€to€elevenÐ Ì84: Ðmonths€and€29€days€or€to€six€months.€Ð ° ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€believe€that€the€record€as€a€whole€reflects€that€the€sentence€theÐ H˜ Ðtrial€judge€intended€to€impose€was€eleven€months€and€29€days.€Even€though€theÐ  d Ðprobation€that€the€trial€court€awarded€and€that€is€authorized€by€Code€subsection€40„Ð à 0 Ð35„302(e)€does€not€equate€to€eligibility€for€rehabilitative€programs€that€is€describedÐ ¬ ü  Ðin€subsection€(d),€we€discern€that€the€trial€courtððs€intent€was€to€ð ðfix€a€percentage€ofÐ xÈ  Ðthe€òòsentenceðð€óóby€expressing€the€confinement€time€in€terms€of€months€rather€thanÐ D”  Ða€numerical€percentage.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d)€(1997)€(emphasisÐ ` Ðadded).€€Hence,€the€court€essentially€established€an€eleven„month,€29€day€sentenceÐ Ü, Ðto€be€served€in€confinement€at€50€percent.€€This€interpretation€assures€theÐ ¨ø Ðconfinement€of€six€months€which€the€trial€court€articulated.€€The€grant€of€probationÐ tÄ Ðafter€the€six€months,€or€50€percent,€is€served€renders€the€eligibility€for€rehabilitativeÐ @ Ðservices€superfluous,€but€we€believe€the€above€interpretation€of€the€record€comportsÐ  \ Ðwith€the€expressed€intent€of€the€trial€judge.€€We€take€this€opportunity€to€point€out€thatÐ Ø( Ðan€appellate€court€can€more€precisely€fathom€the€trial€courtððs€intent€on€such€an€issueÐ ¤ô Ðif,€in€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€regimen€and€its€judgment,€it€squarely€and€expresslyÐ p!À  Ðaddresses€the€section€40„35„302(d)€percentage€issue.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€we€reach€the€question€of€whether€this€sentence€is€appropriateÐ Ô&$"& Ðgiven€the€facts€of€this€case.€€We€begin€by€rejecting€the€argument€that€Frazee€shouldÐ  (ð#( Ðreceive€no€more€than€25€days€in€jail€because€that€was€the€average€jail€sentenceÐ l*¼%* Ðimposed€in€70€recent,€local€cases.€€Sentencing€issues€must€be€determined€by€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðfacts€presented€in€each€individual€case.€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€235€(Tenn.Ð .T). Ð1966).€€ð ðAny€case„by„case€approach€will€embody€discretion,€since€all€of€theÐ Ð/ +0 Ðappropriate€facts€and€circumstances€must€be€weighed€and€considered€as€a€wholeÐ œ1ì,2 Ðfor€the€disposition€of€each€case€.€.€.€.ðð€òòIdóó.€€As€we€observed€in€òòState€v.€Michael€LeonÐ h3¸.4 ÐChambersóó,€No.€01C01„9505„CC„00143,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð 45„06 ÐJune€20,€1996),€€"[t]here€is€no€requirement€for€equal€sentences€among€co„Ð 7P28 Ðdefendants."€€By€analogy,€this€principle€is€equally€applicable€to€the€situation€at€bar.€Ð Ì84: Їà ` àà ¸ àUpon€our€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€followed€theÐ ° Ðrequirements€of€the€sentencing€law,€and€its€determination€is€supported€by€theÐ |Ì Ðrecord.€€The€defendant€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentenceÐ H˜ Ðimposed€is€improper.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d),€Sentencing€Comm'nÐ  d ÐComments€(1997);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€Ð à 0 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð xÈ  ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ à€€€à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________Ð öF Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ Ü, Ðò òÌó óÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ò òÐ &v ÐÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________Ð ¤ô Ðó óDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEò òÐ Š Ú ÐÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________Ð %X $ Ðó óJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE