ÿWPCS5 …U:V % 0 Ü–w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 1m= 0cª 0h  0ru 0|ç 0†c 0é 1uy 0dî BRU*oB)™DC AMµRc D3jP3í 0@ z`¯Úv‰ xÿ"v~w'vÓõ( 0wÈ. 0Š?/ 0 É/ 0´i0 0Ç1 0Ûä1 0ï¿2 AO®3Æý3 0DÃ4 D/5 B65, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ $D%U&U'()D*+D,U-Ó€·‚^!EÊË3|x8(Ð(33™$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€<œXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôtuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à26 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 d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ «Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òDe…cember€3,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó YÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À<œXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€State€stipulated€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€Ms.€Moody€is€a€prostitute€and€thatÏshe€and€the€appellant€were€arguing€over€her€$50€fee.Ì'ÿÿdxd FÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔThe€State€and€defense€counsel€stipulated€to€the€admissibility,€but€not€to€the€accuracy,€ofÏstatements€previously€obtained€from€the€witnesses,€L.V.€Colbert,€Tammy€Moody,€Officer€BrianÏLafollette,€Patrick€Lynn€Cowan,€and€Anthony€Devon€Branner.Ì )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À FXXdðXXdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€later€admitted€to€soliciting€sex€from€Moody,€but€he€denied€following€herÏcar.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò pÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À FXXdðXXdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€record€indicates€that€the€appellant's€wife€divorced€him€after€the€circumstances€of€thisÏoffense€were€revealed.€€The€appellant€pays€$365€a€month€child€support.Ì ¥Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À FXXdðXXdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€reject€the€appellantððs€argument€that€the€court€cannot€combine€these€factors€as€oneÏmitigator.€€These€factors€are€nonenumerated€non„statutory€mitigators€which€are€left€to€theÏdiscretion€of€the€sentencing€court.Ì lÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À FXXdðXXdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€trial€court€denied€probation€due€to€the€victimððs€death,€the€need€for€deterrence,€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense,€and€the€appellantððs€lack€of€candor.Ì nÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔThe€Supreme€Court,€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Graysonóó,€438€U.S.€41,€98€S.Ct.€2610,€(1978),Ïciting€òòMorissette€v.€United€Statesóó,€342€U.S.€246,€250,€72€S.Ct.€240,€243€(1952),€held:Ìà8 àA€ð ðuniversal€and€persistentðð€foundation€stone€in€our€system€of€law,€andÏparticularly€in€our€approach€to€punishment,€sentencing€and€incarceration,€is€theÏð ðbelief€in€freedom€of€the€human€will€and€a€consequent€ability€and€duty€of€theÏnormal€individual€to€choose€between€good€and€evil.ðð€€Given€that€long€acceptedÏview€of€the€ð ðability€and€duty€of€the€normal€individual€to€choose,ðð€we€mustÏconclude€that€the€defendantððs€readiness€to€lie€under€oath€„„€especially€when,€asÏhere,€the€trial€court€finds€the€lie€to€be€flagrant€„„€may€be€deemed€probative€of€hisÏprospects€for€rehabilitation.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò òÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€'(&;+'h|` e `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àAUGUST€SESSION,Ï1996Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9509„CR„00292Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOXÏCOUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.ÏRichard€R.€Baumgartner,€JudgeÌò òJERRY€KEITH€IVEYó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(VehicularÏHomicide)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌWalter€B.€Johnsonà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌPost€Office€Box€2642à àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌKnoxville,€TN€€37901à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHunt€S.€BrownÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€Generalà àÏà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRandall€E.€NicholsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€GillÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€37902ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌœAFFIRMEDÌÌÌò òDavid›€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÌÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Jerry€Keith€Ivey,€pled€guilty€to€one€count€of€vehicularÏhomicide,€a€class€C€felony,€in€the€Criminal€Court€œof›€Knox€County.€€Following€aÏsentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€five€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€contends€that€(1)€theÏsentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€excessive€and€that€(2)€he€should€haveÏreceived€probation€or€another€alternative€to€incarceration.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Backgroundó óÌÌà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€testified€that,€on€May€14,€1994,Ïafter€drinking€two€beers€at€home€around€6:00€p.m.,€he€traveled€to€Tarwater€RoadÏin€Knoxville€to€remodel€a€trailer.€€At€approximately€11:00€p.m.,€he€left€the€trailer,Ïplanning€to€visit€a€co„worker,€L.V.€Colbert.€€On€his€way€to€Colbert's€residence,Ïthe€appellant€stopped€at€a€Fina€service€station.€€According€to€the€appellant,€heÏmet€a€woman,€later€identified€as€Tammy€Moody.€€Moody€and€the€appellantÏbegan€talking.€€The€appellant€stated€that€the€two€drove€around€Knoxville€forÏapproximately€ten€to€twenty€minutes€discussing€"their€problems."€€When€theÏappellant€returned€Moody€to€the€service€station,€she€demanded€payment€forÍ"her€time."€€The€appellant€refused€to€pay€her.× ƒ) ××  ×€€Ms.€Moody€returned€to€her€carÏand€left€the€service€station.€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€returned€to€his€truckÏand€started€toward€Colbert's€residence.ÌÌà àAt€this€time,€it€began€to€rain€heavily.€€The€appellant€testified€that€"myÏheater€wasn't€working€that€good€[sic],€and€my€defogger€wasn't€blowing€real€[sic]Ïhot€air.€€And€I€came€up€on€a€stop€sign,€and€I€automatically€slammed€on€myÏbrakes€and€slid€through€it.€€And€that's€when€the€accident€occurred€with€MelissaÏHawkins."€€Miss€Hawkins,€the€twenty„three€year€old€driver€of€the€second€vehicle,Ïdied€later€that€day€in€a€hospital.€€A€passenger€in€Miss€Hawkins'€vehicle€wasÏinjured.€€A€traffic€reconstruction€expert€determined€that€the€appellant's€truck€wasÏtraveling€ð ðat€least€forty„five€miles€an€hourðð€at€the€time€of€impact.€€The€postedÏspeed€limit€at€the€site€of€the€accident€is€thirty€miles€per€hour.€€Miss€Hawkinsðð€testÏresults€were€negative€for€the€presence€of€drugs€or€alcohol;€the€appellant's€bloodÏalcohol€level€was€.04€percent.ÌÌà àThe€State's€proof€highlighted€the€inconsistencies€in€the€appellant'sÏversion€of€the€facts.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€First,€L.V.€Colbertððs€statement€established€that,€althoughÍhe€worked€with€the€appellant,€he€never€socialized€with€him€and€was€notÏexpecting€the€appellant€on€the€night€of€the€offense.€€Second,€Moodyððs€statementÏindicates€that€the€appellant€approached€her€and€solicited€her€for€prostitution.€ÏShe€rebuffed€him,€and€he€began€pursuing€her€in€his€vehicle€at€an€acceleratedÏrate€of€speed.× ƒ, ××  ×€€Statements€from€two€eyewitnesses€confirmed€Moody'sÏtestimony€regarding€the€vehicle€chase.€€Both€witnesses€also€confirmed€that€theÏvehicles€were€moving€at€a€high€rate€of€speed:€ð ðI€mean€it€was€like€„€it€was€a€blastÏacross€the€intersection.ððÌÌà àAdditional€proof€at€the€sentencing€hearing€revealed€that,€on€the€date€ofÏthe€hearing,€the€appellant€was€thirty„three€years€old,€divorced,€and€had€aÏfourteen€year€old€daughter.× ƒ. ××  ×€€Prior€to€this€offense,€the€appellant€was€employedÏat€Goddard€Guttering€and€had€been€so€employed€for€the€previous€ten€years.€ÏThe€record€indicates€that€the€appellant€was€considered€a€good€father€andÏhusband€and€a€model€employee.€€The€appellant€has€no€prior€criminal€history.€ÏWith€respect€to€his€physical€and€mental€condition,€the€appellant€explained€that,Ïsince€the€accident,€he€has€been€having€"nightmares€every€night."€€He€expressedÏremorse€for€his€actions€by€stating,€"I'm€deeply€sorry€it€happened,€and€I€wouldÍchange€places€with€her€if€I€could€if€there€was€anyway€I€could."€€ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€evidence€presented€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€theÏtrial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€as€a€Range€I€offender€to€five€yearsÏincarceration.€€The€court€denied€probation€and€ordered€that€the€sentence€beÏserved€in€the€Department€of€Correction.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Sentencingó óÌÌà àReview,€by€this€court,€of€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€is€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€This€presumptionÏonly€applies,€however,€if€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏconsidered€relevant€sentencing€principles.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€the€case€before€us,€the€record€indicates€that€the€trial€courtÏfailed€to€consider€any€alternative€sentence€other€than€probation.€€Consequently,Ïwe€do€not€apply€the€presumption.ÌÌÌà àIn€conducting€our€review,€this€court€must€consider€the€evidence€heard€atÏthe€sentencing€hearing,€the€presentence€report,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€any€mitigating€and€enhancementÍfactors,€the€defendant's€statements,€and€the€defendant's€potential€forÏrehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102,€„103(5),€„210(b)€(1990);€òòsee€alsoóóÏòòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€379€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citing€òòAshbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€at€168).€€The€burden€is€on€the€appellant€to€show€that€the€sentenceÏimposed€was€improper.€€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„401(d).ÌÌà@ àò òA.€€Length€of€Sentenceó óÌÌà àIn€light€of€his€conviction€as€a€standard€offender€for€a€class€C€felony,€theÏappropriate€sentencing€range€for€the€appellant€is€three€to€six€years.€€TheÏappellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€sentenced€him€to€five€years.€ÏSpecifically,€he€argues€that€the€court€erred€in€applying€two€enhancementÏfactors.€€The€trial€court€found€three€enhancement€factors€and€one€mitigatingÏfactor€in€imposing€a€five€year€sentence.€€As€enhancement€factors,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€ð ðthe€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3)€(1994€Supp.);€that€ð ðthe€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committingÏa€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10);€and€that€ð ðthe€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€whichÏthe€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(16).€€Although€the€trial€court€did€not€apply€an€enumerated€mitigator,€theÏcourt€acknowledged,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13)€(1990),€theÍappellantððs€lack€of€criminal€history,€steady€employment,€and€familyÏresponsibility.̛̜Ìà àWhile€the€appellant€concedes€that€there€is€no€error€in€the€application€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3),€he€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€application€ofÏthe€remaining€two€enhancement€factors.€€The€State€concedes€thatÏenhancement€factor€(16),€ð ðpotential€for€bodily€injury,ðð€was€erroneously€applied.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€452€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€WithÏrespect€to€enhancement€factor€(10),€the€focus€of€the€œfactor›€is€whether€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€is€high,€and€not€whether€the€defendant€hesitated€in€committing€theÏoffense.€€òòIdóó.€at€452€(citing€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€601€(Tenn.€1994)).€Ïð ðWhere€the€proof€necessary€to€establish€an€element€of€the€offense€wouldÏestablish€that€the€ððrisk€to€human€life€was€high,ðð€the€enhancement€factor€is€anÏessential€element€of€the€offense€and€thus€inapplicable.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€ð ðHowever,€where€aÏrisk€to€human€life€is€established€with€facts€separate€from€those€necessary€toÏestablish€an€element€of€the€offense,€the€enhancement€factor€is€not€an€essentialÏelement€of€the€offense€and€may€be€applied€if€supported€by€the€facts.ðð€€òòIdóó.€ÏAccordingly,€in€the€case€of€a€vehicular€homicide€involving€recklessness,€whereÏthe€proof€establishes€that€the€defendant€creates€a€high€risk€to€the€life€of€a€personÏother€than€the€victim,€the€facts€establishing€the€enhancement€factor€would€beÏseparate€from€the€facts€necessary€to€establish€a€high€risk€of€death€to€a€person.€ÍòòIdóó.€Conversely,€if€there€is€no€risk€to€the€life€of€a€person€other€than€the€victim,€theÏproof€necessary€to€establish€enhancement€factor€(10)€will€be€encompassed€byÏthe€proof€necessary€to€establish€an€essential€element€of€vehicular€homicide.€€òòIdóó.Ïat€453.€€The€appellant€was€pursuing€a€prostitute€through€the€streets€of€KnoxvilleÏat€an€accelerated€rate€of€speed€on€a€rainy€night.€€We€conclude€thatÏenhancement€factor€(10)€is€not€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€committed€byÏthe€appellant,€and€the€record€supports€its€application.€ÌÌ€à àFinally,€we€conclude€that€the€facts€clearly€support€some€consideration€ofÏthe€combination€of€the€appellantððs€lack€of€criminal€history,€good€employmentÏhistory,€and€family€social€activity€as€a€mitigating€factor.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€Ïat€453.€€Moreover,€we€reject€the€appellantððs€argument€regarding€the€applicabilityÏof€mitigating€factor€(11),€that€ð ðthe€defendant,€although€guilty€of€the€crime,Ïcommitted€the€offense€under€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€thatÏa€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law€motivated€his€conduct.ðð€€€This€court,€in€òòStateÏv.€Upmanóó,€No.€03C01„9402„CR„00052€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Aug.€2,Ï1994),€held€that,€since€most€vehicular€homicides€inherently€involve€thisÏmitigator,€mitigating€factor€(11)€is€to€be€given€little€or€no€weight.€€Thus,€twoÏenhancement€factors€and€one€non„statutory€mitigating€factor€are€applicable.ÌÌà àIn€determining€the€appropriate€sentence€for€a€felony€conviction,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(1990)€instructs€the€sentencing€court€that€ð ð[t]heÏpresumptive€sentence€shall€be€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€if€there€are€Ïno€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.ðð€€If€there€are€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range,€then€enhanceÏthe€sentence€in€accordance€with€the€enhancement€factors,€then€reduce€theÏsentence€in€accordance€with€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€Moreover,€there€is€no€mathematical€process€of€adding€the€sum€total€ofÏenhancement€factors€present€then€subtracting€from€this€figure€the€mitigatingÏfactors€present€for€a€net€number€of€years.€€Rather,€ð ðthe€weight€to€be€affordedÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors€derives€from€balancing€relative€degrees€ofÏculpability€within€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€the€case€involved.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€238€(Tenn.€1986).€€While€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€withoutÏthe€presumption€of€correctness,€we€conclude€that,€even€absent€oneÏenhancement€factor,€a€sentence€of€five€years€is€justified€in€the€present€case.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òB.€€Alternative€Sentencingó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€imposed€anÍalternative€sentence.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€The€process€for€deciding€whether€a€defendant€shouldÏhave€been€granted€an€alternative€sentence€necessarily€begins€with€aÏdetermination€of€whether€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumptionÏthat€he€is€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€òòBinghamóó,€910ÏS.W.2d€at€453€(citing€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€167€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993)).€€In€order€for€the€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing€to€apply,€theÏdefendant€must€be€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender,€must€beÏconvicted€of€a€C,€D,€or€E€felony,€and€must€not€have€a€criminal€history€evincing€aÏclear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society€or€a€failure€of€past€efforts€atÏrehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(1990);€ðð€40„35„102(5).€€TheÏappellant€is€a€first€time€offender€of€a€class€C€felony.€€The€presumption€applies.ÌÌà àHowever,€this€presumption€may€be€rebutted€by€evidence€to€the€contrary.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€Guidance€as€to€what€constitutes€evidence€toÏthe€contrary€must€be€found€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A)„(C).€ÏòòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€454€(citing€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169).€€Thus,€aÏsentence€should€involve€confinement€when€confinement€is€necessary€to€protectÏsociety€from€a€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;€to€avoidÏdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€or€to€provide€an€effective€deterrenceÏto€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€or€when€measures€less€restrictiveÍhave€failed.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A)„(C).€€In€the€present€case,€theÏappellant€has€no€prior€criminal€record.€€Thus,€we€only€need€to€considerÏevidence€showing€that€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense€or€necessary€to€provide€a€deterrent€to€others.€€ThereÏwas€no€evidence€presented€at€the€sentencing€hearing€supporting€the€need€toÏdeter€others€likely€to€commit€a€similar€offense,€thus€deterrence€is€not€applicableÏto€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòBonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€at€169€(holding€that€there€must€beÏevidence€in€the€record€that€the€sentence€imposed€will€have€a€deterrent€effectÏwithin€the€jurisdiction).€€ÌÌà àTo€deny€alternative€sentencing€based€upon€the€seriousness€of€theÏoffense,€the€œð ðððcircumstances›€of€the€offense€must€be€especially€violent,€horrifying,Ïshocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggeratedÏœdegree,ðððð›€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€must€outweigh€all€factors€favoring€aÏsentence€other€than€confinement.€€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€454€(citing€òòState€v.ÏHartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€374„75€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)).€€The€circumstancesÏof€the€present€case€demonstrate€the€appellantððs€callous€indifference€to€theÏsafety€of€motorists€and€pedestrians€alike€on€the€night€of€May€15,€1994.€€WhileÏthe€loss€of€life€may€not€overcome€the€presumption€favoring€alternativeÏsentencing,€the€loss€of€an€innocent€personððs€life€and€the€injury€to€another,Ïcoupled€with€the€selfish€and€reckless€nature€of€the€appellantððs€conduct€inÏð ðchasing€a€prostitute,ðð€clearly€make€the€circumstances€of€this€offense€bothÍreprehensible€and€offensive.€€òòSeeóó€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€455€(the€existenceÏof€death€cannot€by€itself€constitute€sufficient€evidence€to€the€contrary€underÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)).ÌÌà àAdditionally,€the€appellantððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitationÏis€a€relevant€factor€in€determining€whether€the€appellant€is€entitled€to€anÏalternative€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).€€It€is€wellÏestablished€that€a€defendantððs€truthfulness€is€probative€of€his€attitudes€towardsÏsociety€and€prospects€for€rehabilitation€and€is€thus€a€factor€in€the€sentencingÏprocess.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€òòState€v.€Duffóó,€No.€02C01„9307„CR„00152€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏJackson,€June€28,€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Nov.€6,€1995)€(citing€òòÏGraysonóó,€438€U.S.€at€50,€98€S.Ct.€at€2616).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919ÏS.W.2d€69,€84€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€306Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).€€In€other€words,€a€defendantððs€credibility€and€willingness€to€acceptÏresponsibility€for€the€offense€are€circumstances€relevant€to€determining€hisÍrehabilitative€potential.€€òòDowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€at€306€(citing€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,Ï857€S.W.2d€571,€574€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)).€€Despite€overwhelming€proof€toÏthe€contrary,€the€appellant,€in€this€case,€persistently€refused€to€acknowledge€theÏwrongfulness€of€his€conduct€involving€a€prostitute€and€that€this€conduct€resultedÏin€the€tragic€death€of€an€innocent€person.€€The€appellant€fabricated€a€story€inÏorder€to€avoid€detection€of€the€circumstances€which€led€to€his€reckless€behavior.€ÏHis€failure€to€acknowledge€his€wrongful€acts€reflects€adversely€against€him.€€AÏperson€who€pleads€guilty€to€an€offense€and€then€consistently€and€adamantlyÏoffers€perjured€testimony€to€the€court€denying€any€wrongdoing€is€not€a€personÏwho€can€immediately€return€to€his€community€and€assume€a€role€as€aÏfunctioning,€productive,€and€responsible€member€of€society.€òòDowdyóó,€894ÏS.W.2d€at€306.€€Thus,€the€appellantððs€persistent€lack€of€candor€with€the€courtÏweighs€against€his€suitability€for€an€alternative€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Clantonóó,ÏNo.€01C01„9503„CC„00050€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€July€14,€1995).̛̜Ìà àThe€Sentencing€Reform€Act€intends€that€sentences€should€be€consideredÏon€a€case€by€case€basis.€€òòState€v.€Russellóó,€773€S.W.2d€913,€915€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1989).€€Accordingly,€the€punishment€should€not€only€fit€the€offense,€but€theÏoffender€as€well.€€òòDowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€at€305.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that,€dueÏto€the€appellantððs€lack€of€candor€with€the€court€and€the€reprehensible€andÏoffensive€nature€of€this€offense,€the€presumption€favoring€alternative€sentencingÍhas€been€rebutted.€€òòSee.€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Clantonóó,€No.€01C01„9503„CC„00050.ÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€Conclusionó óÌÌà àUpon€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€conclude€that,€in€order€to€avoid€depreciatingÏthe€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€in€view€of€the€appellantððs€lack€of€potential€forÏrehabilitation,€confinement€is€necessary.€€Moreover,€we€conclude€that€aÏsentence€of€five€years€under€the€facts€of€this€case€is€proper.€€Accordingly,€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€Judgeà àà àà àà àà à