ÿWPCi  …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝ 0lå 0DQ w@• 4Õ é 0Jø 0TB – 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh U,Ý 0d  BmU,ŠU >¶ D3ôU *'B)Q 0@zDCº AMý1J¦{R!v~svÓñ AOÄÆ 0DÙ D/ BL ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ’“D”•–—D˜™šÓ€¦»{s 3|x¦2 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òSeptember€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€+ÔDuring€the€sentencing€hearing,€both€the€trial€judge€and€the€prosecutor€referred€to€AppellantððsÏà0 àsentence€as€split€€confinement.€€The€trial€courtððs€order€on€the€petition€for€a€suspended€sentenceÏindicates€the€petition€was€granted€in€part.€€The€Appellant€is€therefore€on€probation€save€for€theÏ120€days€he€must€serve€on€weekends.€€Thus,€the€sentence€is€actually€one€of€probation€coupledÏwith€periodic€confinement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„307€(1990);€€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„104(c)(3)€(authorizing€such€a€sentence€in€appropriate€circumstances).€€AppellantððsÏassertion€that€the€sentence€is€unlawful€is€therefore€without€merit.Ô€)ÔÔ€)XÔÌ HÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€+ÔAlthough€the€trial€judge€made€reference€to€the€need€for€ð ðretributionðð€in€this€case,€it€is€clear€fromÏthe€à0 àrecord€the€trial€court€was€speaking€of€the€need€for€ð ðdeterrence.ðð€€Appellantððs€assertion€that€theÏcourt€relied€on€an€improper€factor€in€concluding€some€incarceration€was€warranted€is€thereforeÏmeritless.Ô€)ÔÔ€)XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€((X„d&ÓÑ#€((Xd#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€JXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€/0.;+'h|“w` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€JACKSONÌÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.ÏNO.€02C01„9509„CR„00255Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ARTHUR€T.€BENNETTó óÌERIC€W.€FRIEDL,à àà àà àò ò)à àPRESIDING€JUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœ(Sentencing)›Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJAMES€R.€GARTS,€JR.à àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌOne€Commerce€Squareà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€2700à àÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àELLEN€POLLACKÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€Generalððs€OfficeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCHARLES€BELLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103Ìà àÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€+„ÔOPINIONóóÔ€+ŠÔó óÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€+XÔà àAppellant€Eric€W.€Friedl€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€to€the€offense€of€vehicularÏassault.€€As€part€of€the€plea€agreement,€the€State€recommended€that€he€receive€aÏsentence€of€1.8€years€confinement.€€No€agreement€was€reached€with€respect€to€theÏissue€of€whether€Appellantððs€sentence€would€be€suspended€in€whole€or€in€part;€thatÏmatter€was€to€be€determined€by€the€trial€court€following€a€hearing.€€The€trial€courtÏaccepted€the€guilty€plea€and,€following€a€hearing,€granted€Appellant€a€partialÏsuspension€of€sentence€but€ordered€him€to€serve€120€days€of€weekendÏconfinement€in€the€county€workhouse.œ× ƒ1 ××  ×›€€Appellant€claims€in€this€appeal€that€heÏshould€have€received€full€suspension€of€his€sentence.€€He€claims€that€the€trial€courtÏadopted€an€erroneous€standard€in€denying€full€suspension€of€the€sentence€and€thatÏthere€is€no€proof€that€confinement€is€necessary€to€deter€further€acts€of€drunkenÏdriving.ÌÌà àWe€find€no€reversible€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àOn€March€3,€1994,€Appellant€attended€a€party€at€a€friendððs€apartment.€€OverÏthe€course€of€the€evening,€Appellant€consumed€approximately€eight€beers.€€AtÏsome€point,€Appellant€became€violent€and€was€asked€to€leave€the€party.€€He€left€theÏapartment€accompanied€by€another€party„goer,€Patrick€Ferris.€€While€driving€home,ÏAppellant€lost€control€of€his€vehicle€and€struck€a€utility€pole€on€a€Memphis€cityÏstreet.€€The€vehicle€overturned€in€the€roadway,€injuring€both€Appellant€and€Ferris.€ÏAppellant€refused€to€submit€to€a€blood€alcohol€test€following€the€accident€but€laterÏadmitted€that€he€was€intoxicated€when€the€collision€occurred.€€While€AppellantððsÏinjuries€were€not€serious,€Ferris€suffered€a€head€injury,€a€broken€pelvis,€and€aÏfractured€leg.€€He€later€had€a€kidney€removed€due€to€internal€injuries.€€He€wasÏunable€to€walk€for€an€extended€period€of€time,€endured€multiple€surgeries€duringÏhis€recovery,€and€may€suffer€some€permanent€disability.€€Despite€the€seriousnessÏof€his€injuries,€Ferris€supported€Appellantððs€request€for€full€probation.€Ìà àœÌà àWhen›€an€appeal€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€appellate€review€is€òòde€novoóó,€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€ofÏthe€trial€court€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990);€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,Ï861€S.W.2d€377,€379€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€However,€this€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€only€applies€when€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€court€properlyÍconsidered€the€relevant€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€appealÏthe€record€reflects€that€the€trial€judge€did€in€fact€comply€with€the€mandates€of€theÏsentencing€act€as€well€as€the€pronouncements€of€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòAshbyóó.€ÏTherefore,€in€conducting€our€òòde€novoóó€œreview,›€we€must€presume€AppellantððsÏsentence€is€proper.ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5)€provides€in€pertinent€part€that€ð ðconvictedÏfelons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminal€histories€evincingÏa€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€pastÏefforts€of€rehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priority€regarding€sentencing€involvingÏœincarceration.€€ððA›€defendant€who€does€not€fall€into€the€category€set€forth€in€SectionÏ40„35„102(5)€and€who€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€of€a€Class€C,ÏD,€or€E€felony€is€ð ðpresumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencingÏoptions€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„102(6);€òòAshbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€at€169.€€This€simply€means€that€the€trial€judge€must€presume€such€aÏdefendant€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€a€sentence€which€does€not€involveÏincarceration.€òòByrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€at€379„80.€€This€presumption€is€however€rebuttableÏand€incarceration€may€be€ordered€if€the€court€is€presented€with€evidence€whichÏestablishesÌÓÓà@ à(A)Ìà8 àà8 àConfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€byÏrestraining€a€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€ofÏcriminal€conduct;ÌÌà@ à(B)Ìà8 àà8 àConfinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularlyÏsuited€or€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likelyÏto€commit€similar€offenses;€orÌÌà@ à(C)Ìà8 àà8 àMeasures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€haveÏfrequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€theÏdefendant.€ÌÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.ÌÌà àThis€Court€has€recognized€for€some€time€that€one€or€more€of€the€factors€inÏSection€40„35„103(1)€which,€if€properly€established,€rebut€the€presumption€ofÏentitlement€to€a€non„incarcerative€sentence€and€justify€the€imposition€ofÏconfinement,€may€also€serve€to€justify€the€denial€of€full€probation.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòStateÏv.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Chrismanóó,€885ÏS.W.2d€834,€840€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€(recognizing€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€as€codification€of€principleÏthat€nature€and€circumstances€of€offense€and€need€for€deterrence€may€justify€denialÏof€œprobation).›€€òòAóó€òòfortiorióó,€a€discretionary€denial€of€probation€may€be€justified€on€theÍbasis€that€the€evidence€shows€that€defendant€falls€into€the€category€of€felonsÏdescribed€at€Section€40„35„102(5)€as€being€the€most€deserving€of€a€sentenceÏinvolving€incarceration.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòChrisman,óó€885€S.W.2d€at€840.€Therefore,€inÏreviewing€a€denial€of€probation€on€œappeal,€when›€the€record€demonstrates€that€theÏdefendant€may€not€claim€the€presumption€of€entitlement€to€a€non„incarcerativeÏsentence,€or€that€the€presumption€has€been€rebutted,€and€that€Section€40„35„401(d)€applies€so€that€a€sentence€involving€confinement€is€presumptively€correct,Ïthis€Court€must€sustain€the€discretionary€denial€of€probation€and€affirm€the€period€ofÏconfinement€imposed.€€òòSeeóó€òòFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€at€789€œ(holding›€that€this€CourtÏmay€not€disturb€a€sentence€when€the€presumption€of€correctness€is€properlyÏœapplicable).›ÌÌà àAs€an€especially€mitigated€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€D€felony,€AppellantÏis€entitled€to€the€presumption€that€he€should€receive€a€sentence€other€than€oneÏinvolving€confinement.€€However,€the€trial€court€determined€that€some€confinementÏwas€necessary€in€order€to€avoid€depreciation€of€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€AsÏnoted€earlier,€the€record€demonstrates€the€injuries€of€the€victim€were€very€severe.€ÏThis€Court€has€previously€held€that€in€vehicular€assault€cases€involving€drunkenÏdriving€where€the€victim€sustains€severe€injuries,€some€confinement€is€warranted€inÏorder€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Kyteóó,€874ÍS.W.2d€631€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Further,€exposing€passengers€and€otherÏmotorists€to€the€dangers€of€drunken€driving€has€been€held€to€be€a€sufficientlyÏreprehensible€circumstance€of€the€offense€of€vehicular€homicide€to€justify€a€denialÏof€full€probation€and€an€imposition€of€a€period€of€confinement.€€òòBinghamóó,€910ÏS.W.2d€at€456;€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€880€S.W.2d€395,€401€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€also€determined€that€some€period€of€confinement€wasÏnecessary€in€order€to€deter€others€from€acts€of€drunken€driving.€€AppellantÏcomplains€that€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€that€a€period€of€confinement€and€aÏdenial€of€probation€in€this€case€would€have€any€impact€on€the€problem€of€drivingÏunder€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€It€is€true,€as€Appellant€asserts,€that€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€œand€this€Court€have›€held€that€there€must€be€sufficientÏevidence€of€a€particularized€need€for€deterrence€in€any€given€case.€€òòAshbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€at€170;€òòState€v.€Michaelóó,€629€S.W.2d€13,€14€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.ÏBonestalóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€169€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€However,€offensesÏoccurring€as€a€result€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€have€beenÏrecognized€as€an€exception€to€this€general€rule€since€the€need€for€deterrence€isÏobvious.€€òòState€v.€Cleavoróó,€691€S.W.2d€541,€543€(Tenn.€1985);€€òòKyteóó,€874€S.W.2d€atÍ633;€òòState€v.€Hagan,óó€No.€01C01„9304„CC„00122,€1994€WL€65151€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€March€3,€œ1994).›× ƒ2 ××  ×ÌÌà àIt€thus€appears€that€the€record€in€this€case€substantiates€the€conclusion€thatÏAppellantððs€entitlement€to€the€presumption€of€a€non„incarcerative€sentence€hasÏbeen€sufficiently€rebutted.€€The€record€also€reflects€that€the€sentence€of€œperiodicÏconfinement›€coupled€with€probation€carries€with€it€the€presumption€that€it€is€correct.€ÏDespite€the€fact€that€there€is€a€good€deal€of€evidence€which€would€have€justified€aÏgrant€of€full€probation,€or€a€lesser€period€of€confinement,€we€are€not€free€under€theÏcircumstances€to€disturb€the€sentence€as€imposed.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€isÏtherefore€affirmed.Ô€+ŠÔÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌLYNN€W.€BROWN,€SPECIAL€JUDGE