ÿWPC?4 BUN¬ %úU:: 0 JTw@\4œ 0N° 0Dþ 0JB BŒ 0T© 0^ý 0h[ 0rà 0|5 0†± 07 0@Ç D3 1u: 0d¯ AQÆd 0D* 0Dn D/² BáU >þU*<B)fDC AMÒ¯µÎµƒ†8ÿ¾®½kæ‚âh#+J(yu*v~î,vÓl.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular3|xA(â,A$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€Xå6XXXÔÔ€XÛÃXXXå6ÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑTRY 3Ø'Letter3Ø' 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  Ó -D.D/D01D23D4P5Ó€Aäzz!(þ(3¥ï$¤¤Ý ƒ,A!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€XEXXXÔÔ€XûæXXXEÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑTRY3Ø'Letter3Ø' 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔüÿP Pd2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò....'ÿÿdxd ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'÷ÿ dxd d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd* 3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¥Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÔ€1ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌò òMay€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€1ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó «Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÔ€1ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àIndictment€No.€10148.Ì «Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÔ€1ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àIndictment€No.€10149.Ì |Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÔ€1ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThe€jury€imposed€a€fine€of€$2,000€in€each€conviction.€€The€trialÏjudge€waived€the€fine€due€to€the€defendantððs€indigency€in€the€conviction€for€theÏClass€C€felony€and€reduced€the€fine€by€one„half€in€the€Class€B€felonyÏconviction.Ì õÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÔ€1ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àAccording€to€Dysart,€ð ðshakeðð€are€crumbs€that€have€broken€off€of€theÏlarger€ð ðrocks.ððÌ ¤Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÔ€1ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€ð ðððKnowingðð€€refers€to€a€person€who€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€theÏconduct€or€to€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€when€the€person€is€awareÏof€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€that€the€circumstances€exist.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„11„302€(1991).€€à àÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÔ€1ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àDysart€testified€that€a€ð ðfiftyðð€represented€a€specific€amount€ofÏcocaine€which€could€be€purchased€for€that€price.Ì ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÔ€1ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Troy€Carney€and€James€Andrew€Slaughteróó,€No.Ï01CO1„9412„CR„00425,€slip€op.€at€15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Feb.€23,Ï1996),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1997)(four€counts€of€selling€cocaine);€€òòState€v.ÏAngele€Franklinóó,€No.€€03C01„9402„CR„00061,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€Sept.€27,€1995),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1996)(€delivery€andÏconspiracy€to€deliver€more€than€.5€gram);€òòState€v.€James€Mooreóó,€No.€6,€slip€op.Ïat€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Feb.€13,€1991)(€sale€of€one€ð ðrockðð€of€crackÏcocaine).€Ì ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÔ€1ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà à€òòSeeóó€òòe.góó.€òòState€v.€Richard€Ricardo€Kingóó,€No.€01CO1„9603„CR„00113,€slip€op.€at€3,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Feb.€20,€1997)€(3€counts€ofÏsale€of€cocaine€over€26€grams);€òòJohn€Derrick€Martinóó,€No.€01CO1„9502„CR„00043,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€19,€1995),€€òòaffirmedóó€inÏòòState€v.€Martinóó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1997)€(two€sales€of€.5€grams€or€moreÏand€one€of€26€grams€or€more);€òòState€v.€Roger€D.€Pulleyóó,€No.€01CO1„9501„CC„00013€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€20,€1995)€(more€than€26€grams);ÏòòState€v.€Littleóó,€854€S.W.2d€643,€652)€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€€(serious€drugÏtraffickers);€€òòJohnny€Arwood€v.€Stateóó,€No.€335,€slip€op.€at€8„9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€May€9,€1991),€òòperm.€app.€denied€óó(Tenn.€1991)€(sale€or€delivery€ofÏmore€than€2.5€grams).€Ì !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÔ€1ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àSince€the€defendant€received€an€actual€sentence€of€nine€years,€heÏis€not€eligible€for€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a)€(1991).Ì oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÔ€1ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àAccording€to€the€presentence€report,€the€defendant€rates€hisÏmental€health€as€excellent,€considers€himself€to€be€a€moderate€drinker,€and,Ïalthough€he€has€used€cocaine€in€the€past,€does€not€presently€use€illegal€drugs.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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÔ€1ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€5XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ` Ü` ˜XÓ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ*ÙßR€453A1-j|+E` Å `€€@ÿRߛ̀à@ àAT€JACKSONÌó óÌò òà@ àMARCH€1997€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee,à à)à àNo.€€02C01„9611„CC„00382Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà à)à àObion€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà à)Ìò òMICHAEL€WAYNE€HENRYó ó,à à)à àHonorable€William€B.€Acree,€Judge€Ìà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àAppellant.à àà à)à à(Sale€of€Cocaine)Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌC.€MICHAEL€ROBBINSà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPò òà àà àó óÌ202€S.€Maple,€Suite€Cà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌCovington,€TN€38019à àà àà àÌ(Appellate€Counsel)à àà àà àKENNETH€W.€RUCKERÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌJOSEPH€P.€ATNIP€à àà àà àœà àCriminal›€Justice€DivisionÌDistrict€Public€Defender€à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌJAMES€D.€KENDALL€€à àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌAssistant€Public€Defender€ÌP.O.€Box€734à àà àà àà àTHOMAS€A.€THOMASÌDresden,€TN€38225à àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ(Trial€Counsel)à àà àà àà àœHEARD›€B.€CRITCHLOWÌà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àJAMES€T.€CANNONÌà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à414€So.€FourthÌà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€218Ìà àà àà àà àà àUnion€City,€TN€38261„0218ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌà@ àOPINIONÓÓÓ` °‚X˜XÓÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€,€Michael€Wayne€Henry,€was€convicted€in€a€jury€trialÏin€the€Obion€County€Criminal€Court€of€the€sale€of€more€than€.5€grams€of€cocaine,Ïa€Class€B€felony,× ƒ6 ××  ×€and€of€a€second€sale€of€less€than€.5€grams€of€cocaine,€aÏClass€C€felony.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€€For€the€Class€B€felony,€he€received€a€nine„€year€sentence€as€aÏstandard,€Range€I€offender€and€a€fine€of€$1,000.€€For€the€Class€C€felony,€heÍreceived€a€concurrent€seven„year€sentence€as€a€Range€II€offender.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€In€thisÏdirect€appeal,€€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€andÏcontends€that€his€sentences€are€excessive.ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€charges€against€the€defendant€arose€as€part€of€the€Union€CityÏPolice€Departmentððs€undercover€narcotic€operations.€€On€two€differentÏoccasions€the€œdefendant›€was€involved€in€the€sale€of€cocaine€to€an€informant€inÏUnion€City,€Tennessee.€€€€€The€grand€jury€returned€separate€indictments€onÏeach€count.€€€€The€two€cases€were€joined€for€trial.ÌÌà à€Evidence€presented€at€trial€shows€that€on€June€6,€1995,€AnthonyÏDysart,€the€€informant,€reported€to€Lt.€Rick€Kelly€that€Mike€Henry,€the€defendant,Ïwas€going€ð ðto€hook€him€up,ðð€that€is,€ð ðprovide€him€with€drugs.ðð€€The€officerÏprovided€Dysart€with€a€ð ðwireðð€and€forty€dollars€to€make€the€purchase.€€TheÏinformant€rode€his€bike€to€the€defendantððs€house€while€the€officer€remained€inÍhis€police€car€monitoring€the€transaction.€€Via€the€wire,€Lt.€Kelly€heard€DysartÏyelling,€ð ðMike!€Hey,€Mike!ðð€€and€then€ð ðAre€you€holding,€man?ðð€€€€Kelly€heard€theÏdefendant€reply€that€they€would€have€to€go€elsewhere.€€Moments€later€he€sawÏthe€two€men€riding€their€bikes€on€Cheatham€St.€and€heard€the€defendant€sayÏð ðThereððs€the€police.ððÌÌà àDysart€testified€that€he€followed€the€defendant€to€a€house€on€HomeÏSt.€€€After€Dysart€gave€him€the€money,€the€defendant€told€him€wait€down€theÏblock.€€Dysart€watched€him€enter€the€house.€€€The€defendant€returned€shortlyÏand€the€two€rode€off€down€the€street.€€The€defendant€spotted€Kelly€in€his€policeÏcar,€and€said,€ð ðThere€goes€Rick€Kelly.€€If€he€caught€me,€€I€would€just€eat€them.ðð€ÏThey€rode€about€for€a€few€more€minutes,€and€then€over€the€wire,€Kelly€heardÏDysart€tell€the€defendant,€ð ðGo€ahead€and€give€me€the€whatever,€Iððve€got€to€getÏout€of€here.€€Iððve€got€to€go.ðð€€The€defendant€passed€two€ð ðrocksðð€in€a€plastic€bag€toÏDysart€who€turned€over€the€contraband€to€Kelly€a€few€minutes€later.€€TheÏlaboratory€technician€testified€that€this€bag€contained€.1€gram€of€a€substanceÏcontaining€cocaine.ÌÌà à€The€second€offense€occurred€on€June€30,€1995.€€On€that€day,ÏDysart€informed€Kelly€that€he€had€arranged€to€buy€cocaine€from€a€person€calledÍð ðFresh.ðð€€Kelly€provided€Dysart€with€a€wire€and€fifty€dollars€and€dropped€him€offÏnear€ð ðFreshððsðð€house€at€about€3:30€p.m.€€The€officer€observed€that€a€carÏbelonging€to€ð ðFreshðð€was€parked€nearby.€€Once€again€Kelly€monitored€theÏtransaction€via€the€wire€worn€by€Dysart.€€He€testified€that€he€heard€Dysart€tell€theÏperson€who€answered€the€door€that€he€wanted€a€ð ðfifty.ðð€€Following€aÏconversation€with€two€or€three€other€people€in€the€house,€Kelly€heard€theÏperson€who€delivered€the€drugs€to€Dysart€ask€if€he€could€have€ð ða€pinchðð€off€of€it.€ÏDysart€refused€because€the€rocks€were€too€small.€€ÌÌà àDysart€testified€that,€although€he€had€set€up€the€deal€with€ð ðFresh,ððÏthe€defendant€answered€the€door€and€asked€him€what€he€needed.€€ð ðFreshððÏcame€out€of€another€room€and€was€standing€nearby.€€Dysart€gave€the€money€toÏthe€defendant€who€then€went€with€ð ðFreshðð€into€the€kitchen.€€Shortly,€theÏdefendant€returned€with€a€plastic€bag€containing€two€ð ðrocksðð€and€some€ð ðshakeððÏwhich€he€gave€to€the€informant.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€According€to€the€laboratory€technicianððsÏtestimony,€this€bag€contained€.6€gram€of€a€substance€containing€cocaine.ÌÌà àThe€conversations€Lieutenant€Kelly€heard€over€the€wire€wereÏpreserved€on€tape.€€Kelly,€however,€testified€that€the€tapes€were€of€poor€quality,Ïthe€voices€were€low,€and,€€because€of€the€street€jargon€used,€he€believed€theÏjury€would€be€able€to€understand€very€little€of€what€was€on€the€tapes.€€At€theÏstateððs€request,€the€tapes€were€admitted€into€evidence.€€The€defense€did€notÏobject.€€Neither€the€state€nor€the€defense€requested€that€the€tapes€be€played€forÏthe€jury.ÌÌà àThe€defense€attempted€to€challenge€Dysartððs€credibility€bothÏduring€cross„examination€and€through€a€witness€who€testified€concerning€hisÏreputation€for€being€untruthful.€€The€defendant,€who€could€not€remember€whatÏhe€was€doing€on€the€dates€and€times€in€question,€denied€that€he€had€ever€soldÏor€delivered€any€cocaine€to€Dysart.€€The€defendantððs€brother€testified€that€theÏdefendant€worked€for€him€in€his€pressure€washing€business€and€that€he€wasÏprobably€working€on€the€afternoon€of€June€30.€€€However,€he€couldnððt€rememberÏthat€day€specifically€and€had€no€time€cards€or€pay€stubs€that€confirmed€theÏdefendant€was€at€work€at€the€time€in€question.ÌÌà àAfter€deliberating€for€less€than€an€hour,€the€jury€found€theÏdefendant€guilty€in€both€cases.ÌÌà@ àò òSufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÌà àThe€œdefendant›€now€contends€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€isÏinsufficient€to€support€convictions€for€the€sale€of€cocaine.€€He€argues€that€theÏrecord€contains€insufficient€corroboration€of€Dysartððs€testimony,€and€that,€atÏmost,€the€evidence€supports€convictions€for€simple€possession.€€€In€conjunctionÏwith€his€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€œdefendant›€contendsÏthat€€the€trial€judge€misinformed€the€jury€concerning€the€two€tapes€and€erred€inÏrefusing€to€allow€the€jury€to€hear€the€tapes€once€deliberations€had€begun.€€ÌÌà àThe€state€argues€that€the€evidence€demonstrates€that€theÏtransactions€were€sales€as€defined€in€òòState€v.€William€(Slim)€Alexanderóó,€No.Ï01CO1„9302„CR„00063,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€March€24,Ï1994),€and€that€the€testimony€of€Lieutenant€Kelly€and€Anthony€Dysart€isÏsufficient€to€sustain€the€convictions.€€With€respect€to€the€tapes,€the€state€arguesÏthat€because€the€defense€neither€objected€at€trial€nor€raised€this€issue€in€itððsÏœmotionf›€for€new€trial,€the€issue€has€been€waived.€€On€the€merits,€the€stateÏcontends€that€the€trial€judge€properly€denied€the€juryððs€request€to€hear€the€tapesÏsince€the€defendant€never€requested€that€the€tapes€be€played€for€the€jury€duringÏthe€trial.€€ÌÌà àWe€first€address€the€issue€of€the€tapes.€€€This€issue€has€beenÏwaived€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€3(e)€for€failure€toÏraise€the€issue€specifically€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€€The€defense€also€failedÏto€make€appropriate€objections€at€trial.€€A€party€who€fails€to€take€whatever€actionÏis€reasonably€available€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error€at€trialÏis€not€entitled€to€relief€under€our€rules.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36€(a).€€This€issue,Ïtherefore,€is€waived.òòÌóóÌà à€However,€we€choose€to€address€this€issue€on€its€merits.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€2.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€first€contends€that€since€the€tapes€were€admittedÏinto€evidence,€the€trial€judge€wrongfully€refused€to€allow€the€jury€to€hear€theÏtapes€and€that€the€trial€judgeððs€remarks€were€improper€comments€on€theÏevidence.€€€The€record€discloses€that€during€Lieutenant€Kellyððs€testimony,€theÏprosecution€moved€that€the€tapes€be€admitted€into€evidence.€€To€admit€the€tapeÏmade€on€June€6,€General€Critchlow€first€asked€the€police€officer,€ð ðOkay,€wouldÏyou€be€willing€to€make€that€exhibit€to€your€testimony?ðð€€After€receiving€anÍaffirmative€response,€she€addressed€the€court€saying.€ð ðOkay,€I€would€move€toÏmake€that€Exhibit€2.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€procedure€involving€the€second€tape€was€even€less€formal.ÏGeneral€Critchlow€said,€ð ðIððm€going€to€let€you€make€that€Exhibit€„„„€four?ðð€€And€theÏcourt€responded,€ð ðIt€will€be€made€Exhibit€4.ðð€€In€neither€instance€did€the€defenseÏobject€to€the€admission.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€tapes€were€introduced,Ïmarked€and€filed€as€exhibits.€€Neither€the€state€nor€the€defense€asked€that€theÏtapes€be€played€for€the€jury.€€ÌÌà àApproximately€30€minutes€after€beginning€their€deliberations,€theÏjury€asked€to€hear€the€content€of€the€tapes.€€The€trial€judge€called€the€jury€intoÏthe€courtroom€and€gave€the€following€instruction:ÌÓÓà8 àà àMembers€of€the€jury,€I€understand€from€theÏbailiff€that€you€have€asked€for€a€tape€recorder€toÏlisten€to€the€tapes€of€the€transactions.€€Iððm€not€goingÏto€be€able€to€allow€you€to€do€that.€€I€want€to€explain€toÏyou€why.ÌÌà8 àà àThese€tapes€were€not€played€to€you€as€part€ofÏthe€evidence.€€The€testimony€was€that€the€tapes€wereÏinaudible,€or€you€could€not€„„€not€inaudible,€but€theyÏcould€not€be€understood.ÌÌà8 àà àHad€either€side€asked€that€the€tapes€be€playedÏanyway,€I€would€have€done€that.€€We€would€haveÏplayed€those€tapes€in€court,€and,€had€we€done€that,€IÏwould€allow€you€to€review€those€tapes€again€in€theÏjury€room.ÌÌà8 àà àAs€I€previously€told€you,€the€only€evidence€thatÏyou€may€consider€in€this€case€is€the€testimony€thatÏyou€hear€in€this€courtroom.€€You€did€not€hear€thoseÏtapes€in€the€courtroom,€and,€therefore,€it€is€notÏpermissible€for€you€to€review€those€outside€theÏcourtroom.€€ÌÌà8 àà àThey€were€made€exhibits,€and€they€wereÏmade€exhibits€for€identification€purposes€only.€ÏPerhaps€I€did€not€make€that€clear.€€Obviously,€I€didÏnot,€but€in€any€even€the€content€of€the€tapesÏthemselves€are€not€part€of€the€evidence€in€this€case,Ïand,€therefore,€I€cannot€allow€you€to€listen€to€those.€€IÏhope€you€understand.ÌÓÓÌOnce€again,€the€defense€made€no€objection€to€the€statements€of€the€trial€court.€Ìà àÌà àThe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€jury€access€to€the€contentsÏof€the€tapes.€€It€is€immaterial€€whether€the€tapes€themselves€were€entered€intoÏevidence€or€were€made€exhibits€for€the€purpose€of€identification€only.€€EvidenceÏis€ð ðany€species€of€proof,€or€probative€matter,€legally€presented€at€the€trial€of€anÏissue,€by€the€act€of€the€parties€.€.€.€for€the€purpose€of€inducing€belief€in€the€mindsÏof€the€court€or€jury€as€to€their€contention.ðð€€€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó€498€(5thÍed.1979)€(citation€to€cases€omitted).€€Evidence€includes€ð ðwhatever€is€submittedÏto€a€judge€or€jury€to€elucidate€an€issue,€to€prove€a€case,€or€to€establish€orÏdisprove€a€fact€in€issue.ðð€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€79€œ(Tenn.1992),€òòcertóó.›Ïòòdeniedóó,€113€S.Ct.€1368€(1992)(Reid,€J.,€dissenting)(citations€to€other€casesÏomitted).€€In€this€instance,€the€contents€of€the€tapes€were€not€in€evidence.€ÏNeither€the€state€nor€the€defense€requested€that€the€tapes€or€any€portion€thereofÏbe€played€for€the€jury.€€The€trial€court€€properly€denied€the€juryððs€request€toÏreview€the€tapes€in€the€jury€room.€€€ÌÌà àFurthermore,€when€the€trial€judge€stated€that€Kelly€had€testifiedÏthat€the€tapes€were€not€understandable,€he€was€not€commenting€on€theÏevidence€or€vouching€for€the€credibility€of€Lieutenant€Kelly.€€He€was€explainingÏwhy€he€admitted€the€tapes€for€the€purpose€of€identification€only.€€As€the€œcontents›Ïof€the€tapes€were€not€placed€in€evidence€by€either€party,€the€trial€judge€did€notÏerr€by€refusing€to€allow€the€jurors€to€hear€the€tapes€once€œdeliberations€began.›ÌÌà àContrary€to€the€defendantððs€assertions,€the€tapes€were€notÏrequired€to€corroborate€the€testimony€of€either€Kelly€or€Dysart.€€òòState€v.€JamesÏMooreóó,€No.€6,€slip€op.€at€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Feb.€13,€1991).€ÏLieutenant€Kelly€testified€to€the€events€he€observed€and€to€the€statements€of€theÍdefendant€that€he€heard€over€the€wire.€€Dysart€testified€to€the€defendantððsÏactivities€and€to€the€incriminating€statements€that€he€personally€heard€theÏdefendant€make.€€Neither€Kelly€nor€Dysart€were€accomplices€of€the€defendant,Ïand€their€testimony€requires€no€corroboration.€€òòState€v.€Preston€BernardÏCrowder€and€Cynthia€Diane€Southallóó,€No.€01CO1„9304„CR„00143,€slip€op.€at€5Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€March€14,€œ1995),›€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€as€to€SouthallÏ(Tenn.€1995).€€ÌÌà àWe€must€now€consider€whether€the€evidence€presented€at€the€trialÏis€sufficient€to€support€the€œdefendantððs›€convictions.€€Since€a€jury€convictionÏremoves€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€initiallyÏcloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burdenÏof€demonstrating€on€appeal€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v,€Tuggleóó,Ï639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€determining€that€sufficiency,€this€courtÏdoes€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÏ832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€It€is€the€appellate€courtððs€duty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€evidence,Ïviewed€under€these€standards,€was€sufficient€for€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€haveÍfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€offenses€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€œ2789€(1979);›€òòState€v.ÏCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€denied,óó€115€S.Ct.€743€(1994);ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€ÌÌà àTo€convict€a€defendant€for€the€sale€of€cocaine,€the€state€must€proveÏthat€the€defendant€knowingly€sold€a€controlled€substance.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„17„417(a)(3)€(Supp.€1996).€€The€defendant€does€not€dispute€the€fact€that€theÏbaggies€contained€cocaine,€a€controlled€substance.€€Nor€does€he€contend€thatÏhe€acted€unknowingly.× ƒ: ××  ×€€€The€laboratory€technician€testified€withoutÏcontradiction€that€the€two€baggies€entered€into€evidence€by€the€state€contained,Ïrespectively,€.1€gram€and€.6€œgram›€of€a€substance€containing€cocaine.€€DuringÏthe€first€transaction,€œthe€›€defendant€remarked€to€Dysart€that€if€the€police€caughtÏhim€with€the€cocaine€he€would€eat€it,€and€in€the€second€transaction,€theÏdefendant€asked€Dysart€what€he€wanted,€and€when€Dysart€told€him€he€wanted€aÍð ðfifty,ðð× ƒ; ××  ×€he€took€the€fifty€dollars€and€promptly€returned€with€the€appropriateÏamount€of€cocaine.€€The€evidence€is€sufficient€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€for€aÏrational€juror€to€conclude€that€the€defendant€acted€knowingly.€€ÌÌà àThe€œdefendant›€contends,€however,€that€the€facts€in€this€case€do€notÏprove€that€the€transactions€constituted€sales.€€In€essence,€he€argues€that€as€aÏð ðprocurerðð€of€the€cocaine,€he€may€be€convicted€only€of€simple€possession.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Baldwinóó,€867€S.W.2d€358€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€state€arguesÏthat€both€transactions€were€sales€as€defined€in€òòState€v.€William€(Slim)ÏAlexanderóó,€No.€01CO1„9302„CR„00063,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏNashville,€March€24,€1994).€€We€agree.ÌÌà àIn€òòAlexanderóó,€this€court€adopted€the€general€definition€of€ð ðsaleðð€Ïfound€at€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó€1200€(5th€ed.€1979)€as€ð ða€contract€between€twoÏparties€by€which€the€seller,€in€consideration€of€the€payment€or€promise€ofÏpayment€of€a€certain€price€in€money,€transfers€to€the€buyer€the€title€andÏpossession€of€the€property.ðð€€òòState€v.€William€(Slim)€Alexanderóó,€slip€op.€at€4.€ÏAccording€to€this€definition,€a€sale€consists€of€two€broad€components:€aÍbargained„for€offer€and€acceptance,€and€an€actual€or€constructive€transfer€orÏdelivery€of€the€subject€matter€property.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àThe€œdefendant›€ððs€reliance€on€òòState€v.€Baldwinóó,€867€S.W.2d€358Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€is€misplaced.€€In€òòBaldwinóó,€this€court€modified€theÏdefendantððs€conviction€for€selling€cocaine€to€one€for€possession.€€ò ò€ó óòòIdóó.€at€359.€€€InÏòòBaldwinóó,€the€undercover€officer€offered€to€give€the€defendant€a€ride€home.€ÏNeither€the€defendant€nor€another€man€who€was€riding€in€the€car€knew€that€theÏdriver€was€a€police€officer.€òòIdóó.€€When€the€two€men€discussed€purchasing€drugs,Ïthe€defendant€suggested€that€they€drive€to€the€area€where€her€nephew€mightÏhave€some€for€sale.€€When€she€spotted€her€nephew,€the€other€man€took€aÏtwenty„dollar€bill€from€the€officer.€€òòIdóó.€€He€and€the€defendant€approached€a€manÏwho€accepted€the€money€and€handed€the€defendant€a€ð ðrock.ðð€€Upon€their€returnÏto€the€car,€the€officer€directed€the€defendant€to€give€him€the€rock.€€When€sheÏcomplied,€the€officer€arrested€her.€€òòIdóó.€€In€modifying€the€conviction,€this€courtÏfound€that,€although€her€actions€had€facilitated€the€sale,€the€fact€that€she€broughtÏthe€drugs€back€to€the€car€was€insufficient€to€establish€her€intent€to€participate€inÏthe€sale.€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€Dysart€offered€to€purchase€a€certain€amount€ofÏcocaine€for€a€given€price.€€The€œdefendant›€accepted€the€payments.€€One€whoÏaccepts€payment€in€exchange€for€property€is€involved€in€a€sale.€€òòState€v.€DavidÏHenningóó,€No.€02C01„9404„CC„00079,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,ÏOct.€26,€1994).€€In€both€transactions,€the€defendant€actually€delivered€theÏproperty€for€which€he€had€accepted€payment.€€In€òòBaldwinóó,€on€the€other€hand,€theÏdefendant€pointed€out€the€person€who€was€selling€drugs,€accompanied€a€thirdÏperson€who€had€the€money€to€the€transaction,€and€then€carried€the€€controlledÏsubstance€from€the€seller€to€the€undercover€officer.€€The€defendantððs€actions€inÏthis€case€satisfy€the€two€broad€requirements€of€a€ð ðsale.ðð€€In€both€transactions€he€Ïaccepted€an€offer€and€delivered€the€property.€€The€evidence€in€the€record€isÏsufficient€for€a€rational€juror€to€conclude€that€the€defendant€participated€in€aÏknowing€sale€of€cocaine€on€June€6€and€June€30,€1995.ÌÌà@ àò òSentencingó óÌÌà àThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€serve€9€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€as€a€Range€I€offender€for€the€sale€of€more€than€.5Ïgram€of€cocaine€and€to€serve€a€concurrent€7„year€sentence€for€the€sale€of€lessÏthan€.5€gram€of€cocaine.€€The€jury€imposed€a€$2,000€fine€in€each€conviction,€butÍthe€trial€judge€waived€the€fine€in€No.€10149€and€reduced€it€to€$1,000€in€No.Ï10148.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€complains€that€his€sentence€is€excessive€and€thatÏthe€trial€judge€erred€by€ordering€him€to€serve€his€sentences€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€judge€ignored€the€mitigating€factors€thatÏexist€in€this€case€and€refused€to€assign€him€to€Community€Corrections€becauseÏof€improper€factors.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€sentencingÏdeterminations€and€affirm€its€judgment.ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€ofÏservice€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€withÏa€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)(1990).€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€œcircumstances."€€òòState›€v.€Ashbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€€In€conducting€our€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€mustÏconsider€the€evidence€at€sentencing,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencingÏprinciples,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€the€statements€of€the€defendant,€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€any€mitigating€and€enhancementÍfactors,€and€the€defendantððs€amenability€to€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„210(b)€€(Supp.€1996);€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€foundÏthat€the€three€enhancement€factors€filed€by€the€state€were€appropriate€and€thatÏthe€one€mitigating€factor€argued€by€the€defense€was€not.€€The€court€found€that€ÌÓÓà à1.à8 àThe€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÏcriminal€convictions€or€criminalÏbehavior€in€addition€to€those€necessaryÏto€establish€the€appropriate€range.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„114(1).ÌÌà à2.à8 àThe€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€conditionsÏof€release€in€the€community.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).ÌÌà à3.à8 àThe€felony€was€committed€while€onÏprobation.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„114(13).ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€made€appropriate€findings€of€fact€relating€to€each€enhancementÏfactor€and€held€correctly€that€each€factor€was€applicable€to€both€convictions.€ÏThe€œdefendant›€does€not€question€the€accuracy€of€those€findings.€€Nor€could€heÏas€they€are€fully€supported€by€the€record.€€Our€review€discloses€that€the€recordÏfully€supports€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€made€no€rulingÏother€than€to€state€the€single€mitigating€factor€filed€by€the€defense€was€notÏappropriate.€€The€trial€court€was€referring€to€the€factor€found€at€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€40„35„113(1):€ð ðThe€defendantððs€criminal€conduct€neitherÏcaused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€€With€respect€to€this€factor,€thisÏcourt€has€œpreviously›€held€that,€although€a€voluntary€sale€of€cocaine€may€haveÏthe€potential€for€bodily€injury,€this€mitigating€factor€was€applicable€ð ðunless€theÏconduct€relates€to€òòseriousóó€bodily€injury€and€the€factor€should€€be€considered€inÏrelation€to€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€particular€case.ðð€€òòState€v.€JohnnyÏRay€Christmanóó,€No.€01CO1„9211„CC„00361€slip€op.€at€4€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏNashville,€Sept.€2,€1993).€€If€the€defendant€has€sold€very€small€quantities€to€aÏwilling€buyer,€the€factor€€may€well€be€an€appropriate€mitigating€factor.€€òòIdóó.× ƒ< ××  ×€ÍHowever,€this€court€has€refused€to€apply€the€factor€where€large€amounts€ofÏcocaine€have€been€involved.œ× ƒ= ××  ×›€€€€ÌÌà àThe€sales€in€this€case€involved€relatively€small€amounts€of€crackÏcocaine€sold€to€a€willing€purchaser.€€There€is€no€indication€that€the€defendant€isÏa€major€dealer€or€that€he€was€involved€in€serious€drug€trafficking.€€€However,Ïeven€giving€the€defendant€the€benefit€of€the€existence€of€this€mitigating€factor,Ïwe€cannot€say€that€minimum€sentences€would€be€appropriate€under€theÏcircumstances€of€this€case.€€After€considering€the€applicable€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors,€we€hold€that€concurrent€sentences€of€nine€years€and€sevenÏyears€are€appropriate.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€he€should€have€been€sentencedÏunder€the€Community€Corrections€Act€of€1985.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„36„101€through€106€€(1991).€€œA›€sentence€under€the€Community€Corrections€Act€isÏan€alternative€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Charles€P.€Grigsbyóó,€No.€02C01„9507„CR„00184,€slip€op.€at€4,6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€January€15,€1997),€òòapp.€perm.Ïto€appeal€filedóó,€Mar.€14,€1997;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c)(8)€(1990).€ÏTherefore,€we€must€first€determine€whether€the€œdefendant›€is€a€suitableÏcandidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€ÌÌà àEspecially€mitigated€or€standard€offenders€convicted€of€a€class€C,ÏD,€or€E€felony€and€who€do€not€possess€a€criminal€history€evincing€a€clearÏdisregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society€and€a€failure€of€past€efforts€atÏrehabilitation€are€presumed€to€be€favorable€candidates€for€alternativeÏsentencing€options€absent€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„102(5),€(6)€(Supp.›€1996).€€€€The€defendant€in€No.€10148€was€convicted€of€aÏClass€B€felony.€€In€No.€10149,€he€was€convicted€of€a€Class€C€felony€as€a€RangeÏII,€multiple€offender.€Moreover,€the€defendant€has€a€criminal€historyÏdemonstrating€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€of€society€because€the€presentÏoffense€and€one€earlier€offense€were€committed€while€on€probation.€€TheÍdefendant€has€demonstrated€his€inability€to€rehabilitate€himself.€€Hence,€he€isÏnot€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.× ƒ> ××  ×€€œ›Ìà àWe€recognize,€however,€that€the€trial€court€did€not€review€theÏdefendantððs€eligibility€under€the€Community€Corrections€Act.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏœAnn.€€ðð›€40„36„101€òòetóó€òòseqóó.€€€Therefore,€we€consider€whether€he€meets€theÏrequirements€of€that€act.€€The€Community€Corrections€Act€allows€trial€courts€toÏsentence€certain€nonviolent€felony€offenders,€who€are€neither€eligible€nor€goodÏcandidates€for€probation,€to€participate€in€community„based€alternatives€toÏincarceration.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„36„103,„104€(1990);€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€779ÏS.W.2d€394,€397„98€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€Charles€P.€Grigsbyóó,€No.Ï02C01„9507„CR„00184,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€January€15,Ï1997),€òòapp.€perm.€to€appealóó€òòfiledóó,€March€14,€1997.€€€An€offender€who€seeks€aÏcommunity€correction€sentence€must€demonstrate€that€he:Ìà à1.à àwill€be€incarcerated€in€a€correctional€institution;ÌÓÓà à2.à8 àwas€convicted€of€property„related€orÏdrug/alcohol€related€felony€offenses€orÏother€felonies€not€involving€crimesÏagainst€the€person;ÌÌà à3.à8 àwas€convicted€of€felony€offenses€inÏwhich€the€use€or€possession€of€aÏweapon€was€not€involved;ÌÌà à4.à8 àdoes€not€demonstrate€present€or€pastÏbehavior€indicative€of€€violence€or€aÏpattern€of€committing€violent€offenses;ÏandÌÌà à5.à8 àwas€not€sentenced€to€incarceration€orÏon€escape€at€the€time€the€presentÏoffenses€were€committed.ÌÌÓÓòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(a)(1)€„€(7).€€ÌÌà àUpon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€œdefendant›Ïmeets€the€minimum€eligibility€requirements€under€subsection€(a)(1)€„€(7).€ÏHowever,€even€though€the€œdefendant›€meets€the€requirements€of€the€Act,€he€isÏnot€automatically€entitled€to€such€relief.€€òòState€v.€Grandberryóó,€803€S.W.2d€706,Ï707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€If€an€offender€meets€the€minimum€standards,€theÏtrial€court€must€apply€the€sentencing€considerations€set€forth€in€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€œsection›€40„35„103€and€the€general€sentencing€guidelines€toÏdetermine€whether€a€defendant€should€be€sentenced€to€CommunityÏCorrections.€€òòCharles€P.€Grigsbyóó,€slip€op.€at€10.€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€confinement€of€theÏœdefendant›€is€necessary,€based€upon€his€history€of€criminal€conduct,€to€avoidÏdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€because€measures€lessÏrestrictive€have€been€unsuccessful.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)Ï(1990).€€A€trial€courtððs€findings€are€binding€unless€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€them.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€802€S.W.2d€221,223€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€€The€record€in€this€case€supports€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€TheÏdefendant€has€a€criminal€record€that€consists€of€six€felony€and€twoÏmisdemeanor€convictions.€€He€committed€the€present€offenses€while€he€was€onÏsupervised€probation€for€two€drug„related€convictions€in€Kentucky.€€TheÏpresentence€report€indicates€that€he€and€his€wife€are€separated€and€that€the€lastÏpayment€of€child€support€was€on€February€23,€1995.€€He€owed€approximatelyÏfive€thousand€dollars€in€child€support€arrearage€on€the€day€of€sentencing.€ÏAlthough€he€has€obtained€seasonal€work€at€a€local€nursery,€his€employmentÏrecord€is€far€from€exemplary.€€The€defendant€does€not€claim€that€he€is€eligibleÏfor€Community€Corrections€based€on€a€special€need€such€as€drug€or€alcoholÍabuse.× ƒ? ××  ×€€He€has€frequently€been€given€the€opportunity€to€rehabilitate€himself€inÏthe€community€and€has€been€unable€to€change€his€life€style.€ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€rehabilitative€potential€is€central€to€determiningÏwhether€he€should€be€assigned€to€Community€Corrections.€€òòState€v.€Charles€P.ÏGrigsbyóó,€slip€op.€at€11.€€The€trial€court€must€decide€each€case€based€on€itsÏindividual€facts€and€circumstances.€€Given€the€trial€courtððs€ability€to€review€theÏoffenderððs€demeanor€and€characteristics€first€hand,€the€trial€judge€is€in€the€bestÏposition€to€determine€whether€the€offender€is€likely€to€succeed€in€a€communityÏcorrections€setting.€€òòIdóó.€€€€A€felonððs€rehabilitation€potential€and€the€risk€ofÏrepeating€criminal€conduct€play€a€major€role€in€a€courtððs€sentencing€decisions.€ÏòòState€v.€Johnny€Ray€Christmanóó,€slip€op.€at€4„5.€€€€Unless€the€record€fails€toÏsupport€either€the€factual€or€statutory€basis€for€the€trial€courtððs€sentencingÏdecision,€this€court€will€not€interpose€a€different€sentencing€result.€€òòState€v.ÏFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€defendant€has€failed€to€establish€that€he€is€entitled€to€any€formÏof€alternative€sentencing€including€Community€Corrections.€€The€recordÏsupports€the€trial€courtððs€concern€that€the€defendant€was€not€a€good€riskÏconsidering€his€previous€lack€of€success€with€sentencing€alternatives.€€TheÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€its€entirety.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCurwood€Witt,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_______________________ÌJoseph€B.€Jones,€JudgeÌÌÌ_______________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€Judge