ÿWPCd …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dt w@¸ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` U,Õ 0dU,eU>‘ BÏU*ìB)DC? AM‚,Ï D3ûv~.vÓ¬ 0@ AO¿Æ 0DÔ D/ BG˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡à~| ppppdp3|x›((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ‡ ˆ‰DŠ‹DŒDŽÓ€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< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òApril€4,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÑ7€f+XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ ` °œXÓÙ€€ÙßL€()';+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€03C01„9505„CR„00131Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€STEPHEN€M.€BEVILÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE€ÌROBERT€JEROME€HARRIS,à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€(Voluntary€Manslaughter)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€€ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌGregory€D.€Smithà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌContract€Appellate€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌOne€Public€Squareà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSuite€321à àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌClarksville,€Tennessee€37040Ì(Appeal€Only)à àà àà àà àà àClinton€J.€MorganÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Atty.€Gen.€&€ReporterÌArdena€J.€Garthà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌBrenda€G.€Siniardà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Cox,€IIIÌ701€Cherry€Streetà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌChattanooga,€Tennessee€37402Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àThomas€J.ÏEvansà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€DistrictÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDeanne€IrwinÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAdrian€BrittÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCourts€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€Tennessee€37402ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóà àÌÌCONVICTION€AFFIRMED;€SENTENCE€MODIFIED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeòòÌÌÌÓ Ð ÓÓÓà@ àOPINIONóóÌThe€appellant,€Robert€Jerome€Harris,€was€indicted€in€Hamilton€County€for€firstÏdegree€murder€for€the€stabbing€death€of€Henry€Sims.€€The€case€was€tried€to€a€juryÏwhich€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€the€lesser€included€offense€of€voluntaryÏmanslaughter.€€The€appellant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€offender€to€five€(5)€yearsÏin€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€appeal€he€challenges€theÏsufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€and€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdenying€him€an€alternative€sentence€and€in€giving€a€sentence€above€the€minimumÏsentence€within€the€range.€€ÌFollowing€a€review€of€the€record€on€appeal,€we€affirm€the€appellantððsÏconviction,€but€reduce€his€sentence€from€five€(5)€years€to€four€(4)€years€and€remandÏthe€case€back€to€the€trial€court€for€reconsideration€of€alternative€sentencing.€€ÌÌà@ àò òFACTSó óÌThe€uncontroverted€proof€in€this€case€is€that€the€appellant€did€cause€theÏdeath€of€the€victim,€Henry€Sims,€by€stabbing€him€once€in€the€abdomen.€€The€HamiltonÏCounty€Medical€Examiner€testified€that€the€single€abdominal€wound€passed€throughÏthe€victimððs€liver€and€pierced€his€heart.€ÌJeff€Francis,€a€detective€with€the€Hamilton€County€Sheriffððs€Department,Ïtestified€that€on€the€day€of€the€stabbing,€the€appellant€gave€a€statement€in€which€heÏstated€that€he€stabbed€the€victim€in€order€to€keep€the€victim€from€attacking€him€and€toÏkeep€the€victim€from€preventing€him€from€leaving€the€apartment.€€The€appellant€toldÏthe€detective€that€he€intended€only€to€ð ðnickðð€the€victim€and€that€he€did€not€mean€to€killÏhim.€€€There€was€considerable€testimony€that€at€the€time€of€the€stabbing€the€victimÏwas€exceedingly€drunk.€€The€appellant€asserted€that€moments€before€he€stabbed€theÏvictim,€the€victim€was€wielding€a€chicken€boning€knife€and€threatening€to€kill€theÏappellant.€€€€ÌAlthough€there€were€no€witnesses€to€the€stabbing,€the€State€presented€theÏtestimony€of€several€persons€who€were€with€the€victim€and€the€appellant€prior€to€andÏafter€the€stabbing.€€Myrtle€Lara€testified€that€she€lived€in€the€apartment€building€whereÏthe€stabbing€occurred,€and€that€shortly€before€the€stabbing€she€heard€the€appellantÏand€the€victim€on€the€porch€of€the€apartment€calling€each€other€names.€€She€said€thatÍafter€the€stabbing€the€victim€passed€her€in€a€common€hallway€of€the€apartment€andÏthat€he€was€carrying€a€knife,€holding€his€stomach,€and€that€he€said€words€to€the€effectÏof€ð ðHe€stuck€me.ððÌClara€May€Crutcher€testified€that€approximately€four€hours€prior€to€theÏstabbing€she€went€to€the€apartment€where€the€victim€lived.€€Shortly€thereafter,€sheÏand€the€victim€went€to€a€neighborððs€house€in€order€to€drink.€€As€she€and€the€victim€leftÏthe€apartment,€the€defendant€cursed€the€victim€and€pulled€out€a€knife,€but€she€and€theÏvictim€proceeded€to€the€neighborððs€home.€€Ms.€Crutcher€testified€that€at€some€point€Ïthe€victim€left€the€neighborððs€yard€to€return€to€his€apartment€in€order€to€get€money.€ÏThe€next€thing€she€remembered€was€that€Charlotte€Smith€told€her€that€someone€hadÏbeen€stabbed€at€the€apartment.€€Ms.€Crutcher€then€saw€the€defendant€running€up€theÏstreet€away€from€the€crime€scene.€€ÌCharlotte€Smith,€also€a€resident€of€the€apartment€building€where€the€incidentÏoccurred,€testified€that€shortly€before€the€stabbing€the€defendant€and€the€victim€wereÏarguing.€€She€saw€the€victim€leave€his€room€with€a€blue„handled€knife,€go€to€theÏporch€and€say€to€the€appellant,€ð ðIððll€bet€you€wonððt€call€me€that€again.ðð€€ÌJohn€Mitchell€lived€next€door€to€the€apartment€building€where€the€killingÏoccurred€and€testified€that€he€heard€the€victim€and€the€appellant€arguing€shortlyÏbefore€the€stabbing,€and€that€soon€afterwards€he€saw€the€appellant€leave€theÏapartment€and€run€down€the€street.€€€ÌThe€only€witness€to€testify€for€the€defense€was€Lawrence€Holmes.€Mr.€HolmesÏtestified€that€on€the€day€and€evening€prior€to€the€stabbing,€he€had€gone€to€a€club€withÏthe€appellant€and€the€victim€and€that€there€had€been€no€arguments€while€he€was€withÏthem.€ÌÌà@ àò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌThe€appellant€first€complains€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw€to€sustain€the€juryððs€verdict€of€guilt€of€voluntary€manslaughter.€€We€disagree.ÌWhere€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€forÏthis€court€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,Ï61€L.€Ed.€2d€560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983);ÏT.R.A.P.€13€(e).€€ÌA€guilty€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÏwitnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€any€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State's€theory.€€òòStateÏv.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€to€all€reasonable€inferences€whichÏmight€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).€€AÏverdict€against€the€defendant€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÍwith€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.Ï1973).€€The€defendant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€the€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòStateÏv.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329,€331€(Tenn.€1977).€€ÌThe€appellant€claims€that€the€jury€improperly€rejected€his€self„defense€theoryÏof€the€case.€It€is€well€settled€that€whether€an€individual€acted€in€self„defense€is€aÏfactual€determination€to€be€made€by€the€jury€as€the€sole€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Ivyóó,€868ÏS.W.2d€724,€727€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€784€S.W.2d€660,€663Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989);€òòState€v.€Fugateóó,€776€S.W.2d€541,€545€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988).€€By€its€verdict€the€jury€obviously€rejected€the€appellantððs€claim€of€self„defense.€ÏThat€was€the€juryððs€prerogative.€ÌWe€hold€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€support€theÏjuryððs€verdict.€ÌÌà@ àò òSENTENCINGó óÌNext,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€imposed€a€five„year€sentence€and€refused€to€order€probation€or€other€sentencing€alternative€in€lieuÏof€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€ÌWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóóÏreview€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990ÏRepl.).€€This€presumption,€however,€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€theÍrecord€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€factsÏand€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€€However,Ïthe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€ÌIn€determining€an€appropriate€sentence,€the€Court€shall€consider€theÏfollowing:€€(1)any€evidence€from€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€theÏpresentence€report;€(3)the€principles€of€sentencing;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristicsÏof€the€offense;€(5)information€offered€by€the€parties€concerning€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors€as€found€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€40„35„113€andÏ114,€and€(6)€the€defendant's€statement€in€his€or€her€own€behalf€concerningÏsentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)€(1995€Supp.).€€€Additionally€sectionÏ210€provides€that€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€is€the€presumptiveÏsentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„210(c)›€(1995€Supp.).€If€there€are€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors,€the€Court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€andÏenhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduceÏthe€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€ÌVoluntary€manslaughter€is€a€class€C€felony.€€The€Range€I€sentence€for€a€classÏC€felony€is€not€less€than€three€(3)€nor€more€than€six€(6)€years.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3)€(1990€Repl.).€€The€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors€and€ordered€theÏappellant€to€serve€a€five„year€sentence€based€on€the€following€enhancement€factors:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;ÌÌà8 à(9)€the€defendant€possessed€or€employed...€a€deadlyÏweapon€during€the€commission€of€the€offense;€and€ÌÌà8 à(10)€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÏcrime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high;ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(1995€Supp.).ÌÌÓÓThe€appellant€agrees€that€the€trial€court€properly€applied€enhancement€factorÏone€(1).€€The€appellant€has€a€criminal€record€which€includes€several€misdemeanorÏconvictions€but€apparently€no€felony€convictions.€It€was€therefore€appropriate€for€theÏtrial€court€to€enhance€the€sentence€using€the€appellantððs€record€of€prior€criminalÏconvictions.€€However,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€is€anÏelement€of€voluntary€manslaughter€and€therefore€it€was€improper€for€the€court€toÏenhance€on€this€basis.€€€We€disagree.€€Voluntary€manslaughter€can€be€committedÏwithout€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€Accordingly,€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€is€not€anÏessential€element€of€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€N.€C.€Jonesóó,€No.€01„C01„9207„CC„Ï00237€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€May€13,€1993);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882ÏS.W.2d€376,€385€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,123Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Therefore,€it€was€not€error€for€the€trial€court€to€enhance€theÏappellantððs€sentence€based€upon€this€factor.ÌThe€appellant€is€correct€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€appliedÏenhancement€factor€ten€(10)€to€enhance€the€sentence.€€This€factor€contemplates€theÏsituation€where€because€of€the€particular€circumstances€of€the€case,€the€proofÏestablishes€a€high€ð ðrisk€to€the€life€of€or€potential€bodily€injury€to€persons€other€thanÏthe€victim."€€€òòState€v.€Johnny€Parkeróó,€No.€03C01„9307„CR„00214€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ïat€Knoxville,€November€22,€1994),€€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòState€v.€Hicksóó,€868€S.W.2d€729,€732€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€appellant€and€theÏvictim€were€alone€on€the€porch€of€a€private€residence€when€the€stabbing€occurred.€ÏThere€simply€was€no€evidence€upon€which€the€trial€court€could€have€concluded€thatÏthere€was€a€high€risk€to€the€safety€of€persons€other€than€the€victim.€€Ì€We€deem€it€appropriate€to€modify€the€sentence€to€four€years€because€weÏconclude€that€enhancement€factor€ten€(10)€should€not€have€been€applied€in€this€caseÏbut€that€the€other€factors€were€appropriately€applied.€ÌIn€addition€to€challenging€the€length€of€his€sentence,€the€appellant€alsoÏcomplains€that€the€trial€court€refused€to€order€probation€or€some€other€form€ofÏalternative€sentencing.€€€As€a€defendant€with€no€significant€criminal€history€convictedÏof€a€class€C€felony,€the€appellant€was€ð ðpresumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€forÏalternative€sentencing.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(1995€Supp.).€€However,Ïthis€presumption€can€be€overcome€by€ð ðevidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ì€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103(1)€sets€forth€the€sentencingÏconsiderations€for€determining€whether€or€not€a€defendant€should€be€incarcerated.€ÏThese€include€the€need€ð ðto€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€has€a€longÏhistory€of€criminal€conduct,ðð€the€need€to€ð ðavoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÏoffense,ðð€€the€determination€that€ð ðconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€anÏeffective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses,ðð€or€the€determinationÏthat€ð ðmeasures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€beenÏapplied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.ðð€€òòId.óóÌThe€trial€court€imposed€total€confinement€in€this€case€in€order€to€avoidÏdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€to€deter€others€who€mix€alcohol€withÏweapons.€€€The€trial€court€was€understandably€reluctant€to€order€an€alternativeÏsentence€in€a€case€where€the€appellantððs€intentional€criminal€conduct€resulted€in€theÏdeath€of€a€fellow€human€being.€€ÌIn€order€to€deny€probation€on€the€basis€that€incarceration€is€necessary€toÏavoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€the€court€must€find€that€theÏcircumstances€of€the€offense€as€committed€must€be€ð ðespecially€violent,€horrifying,Ïshocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggeratedÏdegree...ðð€and€the€nature€of€the€offense,€as€committed,€must€€outweigh€all€factorsÏfavoring€probation.€òòState€v.€Travisóó,€622€S.W.2d€529,€534€(Tenn.€1981);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòStateÏv.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.€2d€370,€374„75€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÌThe€trial€court€relied€heavily€on€the€fact€€that€a€death€occurred€to€justify€itsÏrefusal€to€order€alternative€sentencing.€€However,€the€court€did€not€find€that€theÏcircumstances€of€the€offense€were€ð ðespecially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,Ïreprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€exaggerated€degreeðð€as€required€byÏòòTravisóó€and€òòHartleyóó.€€€Inòò€State€v.€McKenzie€Monroe€Blackóó,€No.€01C01„9401„CC„00006Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€July€14,€1995),€we€held€that€ð ðin€cases€where€theÏdefendant€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing,€theÏexistence€of€a€death€by€itself€cannot€justify€a€sentence€of€total€confinement€under€theÏprovisions€of€the€Sentencing€Act.ðð€€As€in€òòBlackóó,€we€understand€and€sympathize€withÏthe€trial€courtððs€unwillingness€to€sentence€one€who€has€taken€the€life€of€another€toÏanything€less€than€total€confinement.€€€However,€the€legislature€has€made€it€clear€œthatÏin€the€absence€of€ð ðevidence€to€the€contrary,ðð€›€a€defendant€convicted€of€voluntaryÏœmanslaughter›œ€is€presumed›€entitled€to€precisely€that.€€Accordingly,€we€are€constrainedÏto€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€order€an€alternative€sentence€on€groundsÏthat€to€do€so€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€was€error.€ÌThe€other€reason€given€by€the€trial€court€in€ordering€total€confinement€wasÏthat€an€alternative€sentence€ð ðwould€not€be€a€deterrent€for€others€who€are€similarlyÏinclined€to€party€and€drink€and€then€pull€out€deadly€weapons€on€one€another.ðð€€InÏorder€for€general€deterrence€to€provide€a€sufficient€basis€to€overcome€theÏpresumption€for€alternative€sentencing,€there€must€be€proof€in€the€record€that€totalÍconfinement€will€have€a€deterring€effect€on€similar€crimes€in€the€community.€€òòState€v.ÏDowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€€There€is€no€evidence€in€theÏrecord€that€appellantððs€confinement€would€have€a€deterring€effect€in€the€communityÏbeyond€that€inherent€in€the€punishment€for€any€criminal€offense.€€As€in€òòDowdyóó,€theÏtrial€courtððs€comments€concerning€crime€in€the€community€resulting€from€drunkenÏarguments€do€not€constitute€evidence.€€òòId.óó€at€305.€€ÌAs€a€result€of€the€absence€of€evidence€in€the€record€from€the€trial,€sentencingÏhearing€or€the€pre„sentence€report,€we€hold€that€the€state€failed€to€overcome€theÏpresumption€that€the€appellant€was€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€ÏTherefore,€we€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€with€instructions€to€consider€theÏsentencing€alternatives€contained€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„104.€ÏWe€remind€the€trial€court€that€although€the€appellant€is€a€favorable€candidate€forÏalternative€sentencing,€he€has€the€burden€of€showing€his€suitability€for€probation.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€(1995€Supp.);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910ÏS.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌIn€accordance€with€the€foregoing,€the€judgment€of€conviction€is€affirmed.€TheÏsentence€is€modified€to€four€years€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÏreconsideration€of€alternative€sentencing.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÓ  ÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_______________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________ÌJERRY€œL.€SMITH,›€JUDGE€