ÿWPC>. …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µU:Ýb w@ 4_ s 0c‚ 0Ìå 0J± 0Tû 0^O 0h­ 0r 0|‡ 0† 0‰ 1u 0dŽU >òU*0B)ZDCƒ BÆ AMã 0G=z„àþ D3ÞzU‹ 0@à!= "ë]#v~H%vÓÆ& AO™,Æè, 0D®- D/ò- B!.˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- ¦§D¨D©Eª«­U®°U±Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xº("‰z$Ô€XoXXXÔòòÚ  Ú7Ú  Úóó(p42G"$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X ÍXXXÔÓ'°‚Xà™X°œX'Óà0 ` àà 8 àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd d€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌJuly€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó =Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!ÔÓ` °‚X ¸ ™XÓà0 àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà0 àA€plan€of€supervision€was€included€in€the€pre„sentence€report€whichÏproposed€the€following€conditions€should€the€court€decide€to€grantÏAppellant€probation:€(1)€Appellant€should€make€restitution€in€the€amountÏapproved€by€the€court;€(2)€Appellant€shall€maintain€employment;€(3)ÏAppellant€shall€perform€100€hours€of€public€service€work.Ì pÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!ÔÓ` °‚X ¸ ™XÓà0 àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà0 àIt€seems€that€Appellant€had,€at€the€time€of€this€order,€already€served€theÏentire€month€of€April€1995€in€the€Warren€County€jail.Ì ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!ÔÓ` °‚X ¸ ™XÓà0 àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà0 àDuring€the€months€of€May,€July,€September,€and€November€of€1995€andÏJanuary€of€1996,€Appellant€would€remain€under€strict€house€arrest.€€In€theÏalternating€months€of€June,€August,€October,€and€December€of€1995,€sheÏwould€serve€time€at€the€jail€from€9:00€a.m.€to€6:00€p.m.€from€Monday€toÏSaturday€every€week€and€be€under€house€arrest€on€Sundays.€€InÏFebruary€of€1996,€Appellant€would€spend€from€9:00€a.m.€to€3:00€p.m.€onÏMondays€through€Saturdays€in€the€jail€with€house€arrest€on€Sundays.Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd pÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!ÔÓ` °‚X ¸ ™XÓà0 àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà0 àThis€Court€has€held€this€enhancement€factor€applicable€in€a€case€whereÏthe€theft€offense€involved€$52,000„„an€amount€of€money€approaching€theÏ$60,000€amount€necessary€to€put€the€offense€into€the€next€grade€of€theftÏand€where€the€ð ðlosses€suffered€by€the€[victim€business]€owners€from€theÏdefendantððs€criminal€conduct€were€particularly€damaging.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏFrankóó,€No.€03C01›„9209„CR„00303,€1993€WL€539401,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€Dec.€22,€1993).€€However,€in€this€case,€the€amount€of€moneyÏinvolved€was€not€near€$60,000€and€there€œis›€no€evidence€that€the€victimÏcorporation€œsuffered€damages€approaching€those€in€òòFrankóó.›Ì KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!ÔÓ` °‚X ¸ ™XÓà0 àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà0 àThis€Court€is€aware€of€òòState€v.€Bilbreyóó,€816€S.W.2d€71€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1991),€which€prohibited€the€use€of€this€factor€to€enhance€a€sentence€forÏthe€crime€of€fraudulent€breach€of€trust€because€the€violation€of€trust€wasÏinherent€in€this€crime.€€While€òòBilbreyóó€would€lend€support€to€a€similarÏargument€for€the€former€crime€of€embezzlement,€€the€legislature€hasÏconsolidated€all€of€the€theft€offenses€into€one€single€offense,€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€Section€39„14„101€(1991),€defining€theft€as€knowinglyÏobtaining€or€exercising€control€over€property€without€the€ownerððs€effectiveÏconsent,€with€the€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€the€property.€€òòId.óó€ðð€39„14„103.€€€€We€therefore€feel€that€any€problem€of€double€enhancement€hasÏbeen€eliminated.€€Ìà0 àWe€distinguish€also€òòState€v.€McKinneyóó,€No.€01C01„9307„CR„00234,€1995€WLÏ108257€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€10,€1995),€where€we€found€this€enhancementÏfactor€inapplicable€to€a€defendant€convicted€under€the€current€theft€statute€ofÏstealing€from€his€employer.€€The€Court€€asserted€that€ð ðbreach€of€trust€is€inherentÏin€the€charge€of€theft€òòas€chargedóó€in€this€caseðð€and€then€quoted€the€language€ofÏthe€indictment€which€used€the€words€ð ðthrough€fraud€and€deceit.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€*2Ï(emphasis€added).€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€indictment€merely€parrots€the€wordsÏof€the€theft€statute.€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!ÔÓ` °‚X ¸ ™XÓà0 àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà0 àThe€record€reflects€that€Appellant€was€indicted€in€October€of€1993.Ì áÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!ÔÓ` °‚X ¸ ™XÓà0 àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà0 àTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„304(c),€provides€that€aÏpayment€schedule€may€extend€up€until,€but€not€beyond,€the€statutoryÏmaximum€term€of€probation€supervision€that€could€have€been€imposedÏfor€the€offense„„in€this€case,€six€years.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€!ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€–XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÑ , ÑÑ 5 ÑÑ  ÑÑ€" §u` ÑÙ€€ÙßR€%&#A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9509„CC„00308Ìà 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 àWARREN€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CHARLES€HASTONó óÌò òANGELA€GRISSOM,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal„Sentencing)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌMICHAEL€D.€GALLIGANà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌGalligan€&€Newmanà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ308€West€Main€Streetà àÌMcMinnville,€TN€€37110à àà àà àMARY€ANNE€QUEENÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLegal€AssistantÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCHRISTINA€S.€SHEVELIERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBILL€LOCKEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€W.€BOYDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àProfessional€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMcMinnville,€TN€€37110ÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€!„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€!ŠÔÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àÔ€!XÔAppellant€Angela€Grissom€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€to€one€count€of€theft€ofÏproperty€valued€in€excess€of€$10,000€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏSection€39„14„103€(1991).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòid.óó€ðð€39„14„105(4).€€Following€a€sentencingÏhearing€on€March€24,€1994,€the€trial€judge€sentenced€Appellant€to€the€maximumÏsentence€of€six€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€However,€soon€thereafter,Ïby€order€filed€May€26,€1995,€the€trial€judge€placed€Appellant€on€CommunityÏCorrections€with€the€requirement€that€she€observe€a€sentencing€arrangementÏinvolving€time€in€the€county€jail€and€house€arrest€and€that€she€repay€the€victimÏcorporation€$29,778.37€and€pay€$1000€into€the€Economic€Crime€Fund.€€On€appeal,ÏAppellant€asserts€that€she€is€presumed€to€be€an€appropriate€candidate€for€a€non„incarcerative€sentence€and€that,€under€the€particular€circumstances€of€her€case,€theÏtrial€judge€should€have€granted€her€full€probation.€€ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€Appellant€and€modify€her€sentence€to€the€minimum€sentenceÏof€three€years,€with€all€time€suspended.€€The€Appellant€is€placed€on€supervisedÏprobation€for€a€period€of€six€years.€€As€a€condition€of€probation,€the€Appellant€isÏordered€to€pay€restitution€in€the€amount€of€$29,778.37€over€the€six€yearÏprobationary€period.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(c).ÌÌò òÓ  ÓFACTSó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àAppellant€readily€admits€that€she€embezzled€over€$29,000€from€her€formerÏemployer€Calsonic€Yorozu€Corporation€(CYC).€€At€the€March€24,€1995€sentencingÏhearing,€two€employees€of€CYC€testified€that€Appellant€had€accepted€responsibilityÏfor€what€she€had€done€and€that€she€had€been€cooperative€following€her€arrest.€ÏShe€had€met€with€one€of€these€employees€in€an€attempt€to€explain€how€sheÏaccomplished€this€crime€and€how€CYC€might€recover€some€of€its€losses.€€BothÏseemed€amenable€to€the€idea€of€Appellant€serving€some€form€of€alternativeÏsentence€though€both€ultimately€expressed€their€deference€to€the€trial€court€on€thisÏmatter.€€Another€witness€testified€that,€though€she€was€not€at€all€implicated€in€thisÏcrime,€she€had€lost€her€job€as€a€bank€teller€because€of€Appellant's€acts.€€She€statedÏthat€this€event€was€very€devastating€and€emotional€for€her€as€well€as€her€family.€€InÏthe€midst€of€the€testimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€judge€stated€that€ð ðwhenÏyou€steal,€you€have€got€to€pay€in€some€fashion,€and€time€is€going€to€be€necessary,€IÏdonððt€know€whether€it€is€going€to€be€full€time€or€part€time€or€whatever.ðð€ÌÌà àAt€the€close€of€the€hearing,€the€judge,€re„reading€the€pre„sentence€report,× ƒ' ××  ×Ïstated€that€Appellant€was€the€mother€of€two€small€children€whom€she€cared€for€atÏhome€and€for€whom€separation€from€their€mother€would€be€traumatic.€€As€he€read,Ïhe€also€noted€that€Appellant€had€done€some€public€service€work€in€the€publicÏschool€system€taping€books€for€the€blind.€The€judge€then€heard€the€Stateððs€briefÏarguments€on€enhancing€Appellant's€sentence€due€to€the€amount€of€moneyÏinvolved€in€the€theft€and€Appellant's€abuse€of€a€position€of€private€trust.€€However,€itÏis€unclear€which€of€these€factors€the€trial€judge€found€to€be€present€and€actuallyÏapplied.€€He€merely€made€a€conclusory€statement€that€Appellant€was€sentenced€toÏsix€(6)€years€in€the€State€penitentiary.Ì€€Ìà àTwo€weeks€later,€a€hearing€was€held€on€Appellant's€motion€for€alternativeÏsentencing.€€There€was€no€new€evidence€presented€and€the€majority€of€the€hearingÏwas€devoted€to€a€discussion€about€how€to€structure€Appellant's€repayment€of€theÏmoney€that€she€owed€to€CYC.€€Soon€thereafter€on€May€1,€1995,€a€final€hearing€wasÏheld€in€which€the€court€stated€as€its€purpose€the€final€imposition€of€a€sentence.€€TheÏcourt€stated€that,€as€for€mitigating€factors,€it€considered€Appellant's€attitude,€that€sheÍhad,€in€no€way,€blamed€the€victim€corporation€for€her€actions,€that€she€was€notÏvindictive,€and€that€she€was€willing€to€begin€serving€her€sentence€immediately.€ÏAlso,€the€court€considered€the€fact€that€Appellant€was€a€wife€and€the€mother€of€veryÏyoung€children.€€He€noted€that€she€had€voluntarily,€without€direction€from€the€court,Ïassisted€CYC€in€determining€how€this€crime€was€committed.€€ÌÌà àThe€court€stated€that€it€must€consider€certain€enhancement€factors.€€It€notedÏthe€nature€of€this€crime„„that€it€was€committed€over€an€extended€period€of€time.€€TheÏtrial€judge€also€noted€ð ðthe€prevalence€of€such€a€crime€in€this€community.€€ItÏseem[ed]€to€[the€trial€judge€that€there€had€been]€several€of€these€over€the€past€fewÏyears,€and€[the€court]€must€be€vigilant€in€the€message€[it]€send[s]€to€the€community.ðð€ÏThe€court€also€considered€the€great€amount€of€money€that€was€lost€by€the€victim.€ÏFinally,€the€court€stated€that€this€crime€was€committed€by€a€person€in€a€position€ofÏextreme€trust.ÌÌà àIn€light€of€all€of€these€factors,€the€court€entered€a€supplemental€sentencingÏorder€which€was€in€effect€as€of€the€preceding€April€1.€€The€order€contemplated€thatÏAppellant€would€serve€the€entire€month€of€April€in€the€Warren€County€jail.× ƒ( ××  ×€€For€theÍfollowing€ten€months,€the€trial€judge€fashioned€a€sentence€which€consisted€ofÏalternating€house€Ìarrest€and€day„time€service€in€the€local€jail.× ƒ) ××  ×€€Appellant€would€not€be€required€toÏrepay€the€money€she€owed€CYC€until€after€the€first€year,€at€which€time€she€wouldÏbegin€payments€of€restitution€as€well€as€$1000€to€the€Economic€Crime€Fund.€€TheÏcourt€went€on€to€recommend€that€some€form€of€reduced€house€arrest€would€beÏappropriate€for€the€second€year€of€the€sentence€since€Appellant€would€have€to€startÏmaking€restitution€payments€to€CYC€by€this€time.€€In€considering€the€last€part€ofÏAppellant's€sentence,€the€trial€judge€stated,€ð ð[f]or€the€third€and€subsequent€years€.€.€.Ï[a]fter€she€has€served€community€corrections,€she€would€be€placed€on€probation.ððÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdetermination€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ï(1990).€€However,€the€presumption€of€correctness€only€applies€when€the€recordÏdemonstrates€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€the€relevant€sentencingÍprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÏ166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€case,€while€the€trial€judge€did€briefly€mentionÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€before€imposing€the€six€year€sentence,€heÏfailed€to€state€upon€which€of€these€he€was€relying.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2dÏ597,€600€(Tenn.€1994).€€With€regard€to€the€manner€of€service€of€the€sentence,€theÏcourt€failed€to€give€Appellant€the€benefit€of€the€presumption€that€she€is€entitled€to€aÏnon„incarcerative€sentence.€€Given€the€state€of€this€record,€we€are€compelled€to€findÏthat€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€decision€does€not€enjoy€the€benefit€of€theÏpresumption€that€it€is€correct.€€Our€review€will€therefore€be€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record.Ìò òÌÓ  ÓLENGTH€OF€SENTENCEó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWe€turn€first€to€the€length€of€Appellant's€sentence.€€As€stated€above,€the€trialÏjudge€initially€sentenced€Appellant€to€six€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€ÏWhile€the€judge€later€modified€the€manner€of€service,€the€length€remained€at€sixÏyears.€€In€the€absence€of€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€the€presumptiveÏlength€of€sentence€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D,€and€E€felony€is€the€minimum€sentence€in€theÏstatutory€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(Supp.€1995).€€Appellant€wasÏconvicted€of€theft€of€property€in€excess€of€$10,000,€a€Class€C€felony.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€39„14„105(4)€(1991).€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€she€is€eligible€for€a€sentence€ofÍthree€to€six€years,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3)€(1990),€with€three€years€theÏpresumptively€appropriate€length.€€ÌÌà àAs€noted€above,€prior€to€the€imposition€of€a€six„year€sentence,€the€trial€courtÏmerely€listened€to€the€Stateððs€proffer€of€two€enhancement€factors€withoutÏarticulating€whether€it€found€either€to€be€present.€€We€reject€the€application€of€theÏfirst€of€these€enhancement€factors„„that€the€amount€of€money€taken€from€the€victimÏwas€particularly€great.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„114(6)€(Supp.€1995).€€€Our€Court€has€heldÏthat€since€the€punishment€for€theft€is€enhanced€based€upon€the€amount€taken€byÏthe€accused,€use€of€this€enhancement€factor€constitutes€double€enhancement€inÏviolation€of€the€statute.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€875€S.W.2d€298,€302€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993)€(citing€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€No.€03C01„9110„CR„00327,€1992€WL€281928€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€Oct.€15,€1992),€òòperm.€app.€denied,óó€(Tenn.€Mar€8,€1993)).€€On€the€otherÏhand,€we€agree€with€the€application€of€the€second€factor€urged€by€the€State€toÏenhance€Appellant's€sentence€due€to€her€abuse€of€a€position€of€private€trust.€ÍAppellant€was€an€employee€of€the€victim€company,€a€position€of€trust€whichÏenabled€her€to€commit€these€crimes.× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÌà àWhen€the€trial€court€modified€Appellant's€sentence€at€a€subsequent€hearing,Ïit€stated€that€it€was€relying€upon€two€additional€factors:€€that€this€type€of€crime€wasÏprevalent€in€the€community€and€that€this€particular€crime€was€committed€over€anÏextended€period€of€time.€€Although€it€is€clear€that€the€trial€judge€had€alreadyÏenhanced€Appellant's€sentence€when€it€articulated€these€factors€as€ð ðenhancementÏfactors,ðð€we€note€that€neither€of€these€are€statutory€enhancement€factors€and€cannotÏbe€used€to€enhance€the€length€of€a€defendantððs€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885ÍS.W.2d€85,€89€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(Supp.Ï1995).€€€à àÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€a€number€of€mitigating€factors€not€the€least€significant€ofÏwhich€was€Appellant's€attitude€of€remorse,€responsibility,€and€willingness€to€aid€theÏvictim€in€any€way€that€she€could.€€Appellant€had€already€spent€time€with€employeesÏof€the€victim€corporation€in€an€attempt€diminish€the€harmful€effects€of€herÏmisconduct.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„113(10)€(1990).€€She€had€also€alreadyÏspent€community€service€hours€in€the€public€school€system.€€As€Appellant€noted€inÏa€list€of€mitigating€factors€filed€with€the€lower€court,€her€conduct€did€not€cause€orÏthreaten€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€And€finally,€Appellant€hasÏserious€family€obligations€as€the€mother€of€very€young€children.ÌÌà àWhere,€as€here,€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€apply,€the€trialÏcourt€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range,€enhance€the€sentenceÏwithin€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€theÏsentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(e)€(Supp.€1995).€€In€this€case,€the€one€applicable€enhancement€factor€warrantsÏthe€enhancement€of€Appellant's€sentence€from€the€minimum€three€years€to€fourÏyears.€€However,€in€our€opinion€the€abundance€of€mitigating€evidence€necessitatesÍthat€the€sentence€be€reduced€back€down€to€the€minimum.€€In€conclusion,€threeÏyears€is€the€proper€length€for€Appellant's€sentence.Ìò òÌÓ  ÓMANNER€€OF€€SERVICEó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àRegarding€the€manner€of€service,€the€Tennessee€Criminal€SentencingÏReform€Act€of€1989€recognizes€the€limited€capacity€of€state€prisons€and€mandatesÏthat€ð ðconvicted€felons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminalÏhistories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincingÏfailure€of€past€efforts€of€rehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priority€regardingÏsentencing€involving€incarceration.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„102(5).€€A€defendant€who€does€notÏqualify€as€such€and€who€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€of€a€ClassÏC,€D,€or€E€felony€is€ð ðpresumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€sentencing€options€inÏthe€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„102(6);€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€atÏ169.€€This€simply€means€that€the€trial€judge€must€presume€such€a€defendant€to€be€aÏfavorable€candidate€for€sentencing€which€does€not€involve€incarceration.€€òòState€v.ÏByrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€379„80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€However,€thisÏpresumption€is€rebuttable€and€incarceration€may€be€ordered€if€the€court€isÏpresented€with€evidence€of€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 à€€(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€aÏdefendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;€ÌÌà8 à€€(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousnessÏof€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€anÏeffective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€or€ÌÌà8 à€€€(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€orÏrecently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.ÌÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)€(1990);€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€InÏdetermining€the€appropriate€sentencing€alternative,€a€court€may€also€look€toÏevidence€or€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€statutory€enhancement€andÏmitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„210(b)(5)€(Supp.€1995€);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòId.óó€Ïðð€40„35„113€to€114€(1990€&€Supp.€1995).€€Lastly,€a€court€should€take€into€accountÏthe€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€a€defendantððs€rehabilitation€or€treatment€whenÏconsidering€the€appropriate€sentencing€alternative.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„103(5)€(1990).€€ÌÌà àHere,€Appellant€does€not€fall€within€the€parameters€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€40„35„102(5)€and€she€is€a€standard€offender€convicted€of€aÏClass€C€felony.€€She€is€therefore€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€forÏalternative€non„incarcerative€sentencing€.€€However,€in€this€record,€there€is€noÏindication€that€the€trial€court€gave€Appellant€the€benefit€of€this€presumption.€ÏTherefore,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€Court€in€light€of€the€presumption,€to€review€theÏevidence€to€determine€if€the€presumption€has€been€rebutted.€€We€begin€ourÏanalysis€by€noting€that,€as€Appellant€is€a€first„time€offender,€confinement€is€notÍnecessary€because€less€restrictive€measures€have€been€applied€unsuccessfully€toÏher€nor€is€it€necessary€due€to€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct.€€òòSeeóó€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A),€(C).€€à à€€ÌÌà àThe€remaining€consideration€found€in€Section€40„35„103(1)(B)€requires€anÏexamination€of€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€the€suitability€of€confinement€asÏa€deterrence€to€others.€€Concerning€the€latter,€this€Court€has€stated€that€ð ð[b]efore€aÏtrial€court€can€deny€alternative€sentencing€on€the€ground€of€deterrence,€there€mustÏbe€some€evidence€contained€in€the€record€that€the€sentence€imposed€will€have€aÏdeterrent€effect€within€the€jurisdiction.ðð€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€455Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€170€(finding€evidenceÏinsufficient€to€support€deterrence€as€sole€reason€for€denying€alternativeÏsentencing).€€At€the€hearing€on€alternative€sentencing,€the€trial€judge€stated€that€itÏseemed€to€him€that€there€had€been€several€of€these€type€crimes€in€the€recent€past.€ÏHowever,€not€only€did€the€State€fail€to€present€evidence€to€support€the€courtððsÏnotion,€it€never€even€made€such€an€argument.€€Our€Supreme€Court€has€held€thatÏð ðdeterrence€cannot€be€conclusory€only€but€must€be€supported€by€proof.ðð€€òòAshbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€at€170.€€As€no€proof€was€presented€here,€this€consideration€cannot€beÏthe€basis€for€a€denial€of€alternative€sentencing.ÌÌ€à àRegarding€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€this€Court€has€held€that€ð ð[i]n€orderÏto€deny€an€alternative€sentence€based€on€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€ððtheÏcircumstances€of€the€offense€as€committed€must€be€especially€violent,€horrifying,Ïshocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggeratedÏdegree,ðð€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€must€outweigh€all€factors€favoring€a€sentenceÏother€than€confinement.ðð€€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€454€(citing€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818ÏS.W.2d€370,€374„75€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)).€€We€are€unable€to€conclude€that,Ïalthough€serious,€the€circumstances€of€this€offense€meet€this€standard.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€there€are€many€factors€that€weigh€in€favor€of€alternativeÏsentencing.€€The€trial€court€noted€many€of€these€factors€during€the€differentÏhearings,€and€we€have€already€referred€to€them€as€mitigating€factors€in€ourÏdiscussion€of€the€length€of€Appellant's€sentence.€€We€restate€a€few€for€emphasis:€ÏAppellant€has€been€candid€with€the€court€and€the€victim€corporation€regarding€herÏcrime.€€She€has€exhibited€an€attitude€of€remorse€and€responsibility.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏDowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€306€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1994)€("a€defendant's€credibilityÏand€willingness€to€accept€responsibility€for€the€offense€are€circumstances€relevantÏto€determining€his€rehabilitation€potential");€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„103(5).€€As€noted€herein,€Appellant,€as€the€mother€of€small€children,€isÏneeded€in€the€home.€ÌÌà àIn€light€of€the€fact€that€the€presumption€for€alternative€sentencing€is€notÏrebutted€by€the€statutory€considerations€found€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏSection€40„35„103(1)€and€that€other€factors€weigh€strongly€in€favor€of€a€sentenceÏother€than€confinement,€we€conclude€that€an€alternative€sentence€must€beÏimposed.€€The€sole€remaining€question€is€which€type€of€alternative€sentence€isÏappropriate€in€this€case.€ÌÌà àIn€response€to€that€question,€Appellant€asserts€that€she€should€be€grantedÏfull€probation.€€However,€the€determination€of€whether€Appellant€is€entitled€to€anÏalternative€sentence€and€whether€Appellant€is€entitled€to€full€probation€are€differentÏinquiries,€requiring€different€burdens€of€proof.€€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€455.€€EvenÏthough€presumed€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing,€Appellant€bearsÏthe€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€full€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40€„35„303(b)€(Supp.€1995);€€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€455.€€To€meet€this€burden,ÏAppellant€must€demonstrate€that€probation€will€ð ðsubserve€the€ends€of€justice€andÏthe€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.ðð€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2dÏ250,€259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€When€determining€suitability€for€probation,€theÏsentencing€court€considers€the€following€factors:€(1)€the€nature€and€circumstancesÏof€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(2)€the€defendantððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÍrehabilitation,€including€the€risk€that,€during€the€period€of€probation,€the€defendantÏwill€commit€another€crime;€(3)€whether€a€sentence€of€full€probation€would€undulyÏdepreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense;€and€(4)€whether€a€sentence€other€thanÏfull€probation€would€provide€an€effective€deterrent€to€others€likely€to€commit€similarÏcrimes.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„210(b)(4),€„103(5),€„103(1)(B)€(1990);€€òòBinghamóó,Ï910€S.W.2d€at€456€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àOur€conclusion€in€this€regard€is€counselled€by€the€recent€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€case€of€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€940€S.W.2d€558€(Tenn.€1997)€which€holdsÏthat€a€sentence€for€crimes€committed€prior€to€July€1,€1996,€may€include€restitution€toÏthe€victims€only€if€it€is€a€sentence€of€probation.€€Prior€to€July€1,€1996,€the€TennesseeÏGeneral€Assembly€had€not€authorized€restitution€incident€to€a€sentence€ofÏincarceration.€€òòId.óó€at€561€n.6.€€We€thoroughly€agree€with€the€trial€judge€thatÏrestitution€is€appropriate€in€this€case,€but€we€may€order€it€only€if€Appellant€is€placedÏon€probation.€€Moreover,€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€Appellantððs€conduct€doÏnot€suggest€that€she€needs€more€supervision€than€that€inherent€to€probation,€nor€doÏthey€suggest€that€she€is€the€type€of€criminal€prone€to€future€criminal€activity.€€WeÏacknowledge€the€serious€nature€of€this€offense€but€do€not€think€the€seriousness€of€itÏis€depreciated€by€a€three„year€suspended€sentence€coupled€with€an€order€thatÏAppellant€repay€the€money€she€owes€her€former€employer€during€a€six€yearÍprobationary€period.€€Lastly,€after€being€involved€in€criminal€proceedings€for€overÏfour€years,× ƒ. ××  ×€Appellant€now€faces€six€years€of€hard€work€in€order€to€repay€the€victim.€ÏWe€think€this€sentence€will€provide€an€effective€deterrent€to€others€likely€to€commitÏsimilar€crimes.ÌÌÑ , ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ€" §u` Ñà àIt€is€apparent€from€the€record€that€the€trial€court€gave€much€consideration€toÏthe€specific€schedule€for€Appellant's€payments€of€restitution.€€We€therefore€adoptÏthis€plan€ordering€Appellant€to€make€restitution€in€the€amount€of€$29,778.37€to€CYCÏas€well€as€to€make€a€contribution€in€the€amount€of€$1000€to€the€Economic€CrimeÏFund€and€to€pay€court€costs€in€the€amount€of€$331.25.€€Beginning€the€first€full€monthÏafter€the€release€of€this€opinion,€Appellant€shall€pay€the€sum€of€$400€per€monthÏthrough€the€clerk€of€the€Warren€County€Circuit€Court€and€shall€continue€to€makeÏsuch€payments€for€24€consecutive€months.€€For€the€subsequent€months,€AppellantÏshall€pay€$600€per€month€until€such€time€as€complete€payment€of€restitution,Ïeconomic€fund,€and€court€costs€have€been€paid.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€We€note€that€this€order€ofÏrestitution€is€subject€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„304(f)€(1990),Íwhich€allows€the€victim€or€the€district€attorney€general€at€any€time€to€petition€theÏcourt€to€adjust€or€otherwise€waive€payment€of€performance€of€the€restitutionÏordered€or€any€unpaid€portion€thereof.€€ÌÌà àIn€summary,€we€modify€Appellant's€sentence€to€a€three„year€term,€all€ofÏwhich€is€suspended.€€Appellant€will€be€on€probation€for€a€period€of€six€years.€€WeÏaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€ordering€Appellant€to€make€restitution€in€the€amountÏof€$29,778.37€and,€in€addition,€to€pay€$1000€into€an€Economic€Crime€Fund€as€wellÏas€the€court€costs€in€the€amount€of€$331.35.€€We€also€impose€upon€Appellant€theÏduty€to€perform€100€hours€of€public€service€work€as€was€recommended€in€her€pre„sentence€report.€€òòSeeóó€òòsupraóó€note€1.ÌÌà àAccordingly€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€as€modified€Ô€!ŠÔÌÓ  Óà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGE