ÿWPC  0# °UN» %  0(7b?w@G4‡› 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡U>ë 0@) D3i Bœ U *¹ B)ã DC AMO 3œ v~Ï AQM Æž 0Dd 0D¨ D/ì BvÓ8˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ¹Dº»¼½D¾¿DÀÓ€Ìϧaö""|xÏ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òAugust€22,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{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€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€|XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSON̜ـ*ÙßR€&'%A1-j|;Õ` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌJULY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9609„CR„00305Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOSEPH€B.€BROWN,€JR.ó óÌò òDAVID€E.€JOHNSON,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Sentencing)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌLARRY€E.€FITZGERALDà àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP›Ì22€N.€Second€St.,€Ste.€410à àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€38103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGEORGIA€BLYTHE€FELNERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKEVIN€R.€RARDINIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€Complex,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€#°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àThe€Defendant€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€sentence€imposed€onÏhim€by€the€trial€court€upon€the€Defendantððs€plea€of€guilty€to€a€charge€of€Class€DÏfelony€theft.€€The€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€the€minimum€of€two€years€for€hisÏcrime,€with€ninety€days€to€be€served€in€confinement€and€the€balance€to€beÏserved€on€probation.€€On€appeal,€he€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÏhim€full€probation.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àWhile€the€record€on€appeal€does€not€contain€a€detailed€statement€of€theÏunderlying€facts€of€the€offense,€it€is€apparent€that€the€Defendant€was€involved€inÏthe€theft€of€a€fairly€substantial€amount€of€property€from€his€employer,€with€whomÏhe€had€been€employed€for€several€years,€first€as€a€salesman€and€then€as€aÏstore€manager.€€At€least€one€other€employee€was€involved€in€the€theft,€and€theÏillegal€activity€took€place€over€a€period€of€about€one€and€one€half€years.€€At€theÏtime€of€the€Defendantððs€arrest,€his€base€salary€was€approximately€forty„eightÏthousand€dollars€($48,000)€annually,€and€he€was€eligible€for€bonuses.€€At€theÏconclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€three€months€ofÏhis€sentence€be€served€in€confinement.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€he€shouldÏhave€received€full€probation.ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€#XÔððððÔ€#ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Íand€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ìà àÌà àA€defendant€who€ð ðis€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offenderÏconvicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidateÏfor€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€Our€sentencing€law€also€provides€thatÏð ðconvicted€felons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminalÏhistories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€andÏevincing€failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation,€shall€be€given€first€priorityÏregarding€sentences€involving€incarceration.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5).€ÏThus,€a€defendant€sentenced€to€eight€years€or€less€who€is€not€an€offender€forÏwhom€incarceration€is€a€priority€is€presumed€eligible€for€alternative€sentencingÏunless€sufficient€evidence€rebuts€the€presumption.€€However,€the€act€does€notÏprovide€that€all€offenders€who€meet€the€criteria€are€entitled€to€such€relief;€rather,€itÏrequires€that€sentencing€issues€be€determined€by€the€facts€and€circumstancesÏpresented€in€each€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€Ìà àAdditionally,€the€principles€of€sentencing€reflect€that€the€sentence€shouldÏbe€no€greater€than€that€deserved€for€the€offense€committed€and€should€be€theÍleast€severe€measure€necessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€for€which€theÏsentence€is€imposed.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„103(3)„(4).›€€The€court€shouldÏalso€consider€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment€of€the€defendant€inÏdetermining€the€sentence€alternative.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).€€ÌÌà àBecause€the€Defendant€was€a€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€DÏfelony,€he€was€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€an€alternativeÏsentencing€œoption.€€The€trial€judge€gave€the€Defendant€the€benefit€of€thisÏpresumption,€sentencing€him€to€split€confinement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c)(5).€€The€Defendant€seeks€the€more€favorable€alternative€of€totalÏprobation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c)(3).€€As€we€have€stated,€theÏDefendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€full€probation,€evenÏthough€he€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing.€€òòSee€óóÏòòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€There€is€noÏð ðbright€line€ruleðð€for€determining€when€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€full€probation.€€òòIdóó.Ïat€456.€€A€trial€judge€is€vested€with€a€great€deal€of€discretion€on€the€issue€ofÏprobation.€€Factors€to€be€considered€are€whether€probation€will€serve€the€endsÏof€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€Defendant,€the€natureÏand€circumstances€of€the€crime,€the€Defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation,Ïwhether€full€probation€would€unduly€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,Íand€whether€full€probation€would€serve€the€need€to€provide€an€effectiveÏdeterrent.€€òòSeeóó€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€456.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€twenty„nine€years€old€and€a€high€school€graduateÏwith€a€good€employment€record.€€He€was€married€and€the€father€of€two€children.€ÏHis€only€record€of€criminal€activity€was€an€arrest€for€assault€and€battery€in€1989,Ïwhich€resulted€in€a€òònolle€prosequióó.€€ÌÌà àIt€is€clear€from€reviewing€the€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€that€theÏtrial€judge€in€large€part€based€his€decision€of€denying€full€probation€on€hisÏobservation€of€the€Defendantððs€demeanor€and€the€trial€courtððs€determination€thatÏthe€Defendant€was€untruthful€in€his€testimony€and€lacked€remorse€for€hisÏoffense.€€It€is€also€apparent€that€the€trial€judge€based€his€decision€in€part€uponÏthe€credibility€that€the€judge€gave€to€the€testimony€of€a€co„defendant.€€The€co„defendant€was€sentenced€at€the€same€time€the€Defendant€was€sentenced,Ïalthough€the€record€on€appeal€does€not€contain€a€transcript€of€the€co„defendantððs€testimony.€€The€trial€judge€clearly€communicated€to€the€DefendantÏthe€judgeððs€observation€of€the€Defendantððs€credibility€when€he€stated,€ð ðYou€justÏtalked€yourself€into€some€jail€time.ðð€€The€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€of€aÏdefendant€has€long€been€recognized€as€a€permissible€factor€for€a€trial€judge€toÏconsider€on€the€issue€of€probation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Neeleyóó,€678€S.W.2d€48,€49Í(Tenn.€1984).€€A€defendantððs€untruthfulness€and€lack€of€remorse€are€obviouslyÏfactors€to€be€considered€in€determining€his€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€The€trialÏcourt€is€in€a€much€better€position€to€determine€the€Defendantððs€credibility€andÏfeelings€of€remorse€than€an€appellate€court€can€determine€from€the€record.ÌÌà àTrial€judges€are€traditionally€vested€with€broad€discretionary€powers€inÏsentencing€matters.€€From€this€record,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€judgeÏerred€or€abused€his€discretion€in€denying€this€Defendant€full€probation.€€TheÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE