ÿWPC&  …# VU:a %› 0¡w@¥ 4å ù 0H 0DP ” 0Jœ 0Tæ 0^: 0h˜ 0r 0|r 0†î 0t 1u 0dyU*ÝB) B0DCM AMÈÝ¥v~½ D3;vÓn 0@A AOÆÐ 0D– D/Ú B ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Üg$¡¡Ñ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€YXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ Å Æ Ç DÈ DÉ Ê DË Ì Í eÎ Ó€obF"3|xÙ (ø(3~B$¤¤Ý ƒg!ÝѰÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÏëXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  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`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ19,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔAn€assault€is€defined,€in€relevant€part,€as€intentionally,€knowingly€or€recklessly€causing€bodilyÏinjury€to€another.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„101(a)(1)€(1991).€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h$$$$'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›œÙ€€ÙßR€&'%A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSON€óóÌÌà@ à€€NOVEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9605„CR„00162€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOSEPH€B.€DAILEY,ÌBILLY€E.€JOHNSON,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àAKA€WILLIAM€E.€JOHNSONà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à à(Aggravated€Assault,€Driving€onÏà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRevoked€License,€LeavingÏSceneÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àof€Accident)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌTony€N.€Braytonà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ201€Poplar€„€Second€Floorà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌMemphis,€TN€38103Ì(At€trial)à àà àà àà àà àà àDeborah€A.€TullisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌWilliam€D.€Masseyà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ3074€East€Streetà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌMemphis,€TN€38128Ì(On€appeal)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€C.€HenryÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€„€Third€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€by€appellant,€Billy€E.€Johnson,€following€hisÏconvictions€in€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€of€aggravated€assault,€driving€on€aÏrevoked€license,€fifth€offense,€and€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident.€€As€a€careerÏoffender,€appellant€received€a€twelve€(12)€year€sentence€for€the€aggravated€assaultÏconviction.€€He€received€six€(6)€month€sentences€to€be€served€at€seventy€(70)€percentÏin€the€workhouse€on€the€misdemeanor€offenses.€€All€sentences€are€to€be€servedÏconcurrently.Ìà àAppellant€raises€three€issues€on€appeal.€€First,€he€argues€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€support€the€conviction€for€aggravated€assault.€€Secondly,€heÏchallenges€the€admissibility€of€testimony€about€his€drinking€at€or€near€the€time€of€theÏaccident.€€Finally,€he€argues€that€his€twelve€(12)€year€sentence€for€aggravatedÏassault€is€cruel€and€unusual€punishment.€€Finding€no€merit€to€any€of€these€issues,€weÏaffirm€the€convictions€and€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court.Ìà àOn€July€24,€1993,€thirteen„year„old€Becky€Bailey€was€riding€her€bicycle€on€theÏstreet€where€she€lived€in€Shelby€County.€€As€she€was€riding€down€Hale€StreetÏtowards€Merton,€she€noticed€a€white€truck€turning€right€onto€Hale€Street.€€The€truckÏwas€traveling€about€30„35€mph€as€it€turned.€€She€watched€the€driver€swing€theÏvehicle€wide€as€he€made€the€turn,€causing€the€vehicle€to€cross€over€the€center€of€theÍroadway€to€the€wrong€side€of€the€street.€€She€testified€that€the€driver€was€looking€overÏhis€left€shoulder€as€he€turned.€€Miss€Bailey€stated€that€the€truck€came€into€the€lane€ofÏtraffic€where€she€was€riding€and€headed€straight€for€her.€€As€a€result,€the€truck€struckÏher€body€and€threw€her€from€the€bicycle€onto€the€grassy€area€next€to€the€curb.€€Ìà àThe€driver€exited€the€truck€and€asked€her€if€she€was€OK.€€She€replied€that€sheÏwas€hurt€and€asked€that€he€summon€her€parents,€who€lived€on€the€corner.€€TheÏdriver,€promising€to€get€help,€returned€to€his€vehicle€and€drove€away.€€He€neverÏreturned€to€the€scene€of€the€accident.Ìà àTwo€neighbors€witnessed€the€accident€and€went€to€Miss€Baileyððs€aid.€ÏSomeone€called€the€police€and€the€neighbors€decided€to€follow€the€man€in€the€truck.€ÏAs€the€truck€went€to€the€end€of€the€street€and€turned€onto€Bingham,€the€driver€beganÏthrowing€Budweiser€beer€cans€out€of€the€truck.€€The€two€men€followed€the€truck€forÏseveral€miles€and€wrote€down€the€license€number,€but€lost€sight€of€the€vehicle€as€theyÏtried€to€flag€down€a€policeman.€€Ìà àMiss€Bailey€suffered€a€broken€arm,€a€hairline€fracture€of€her€left€leg,€andÏnumerous€bruises€and€scratches.€€Several€days€after€the€accident,€she€went€to€theÏpolice€station€and€identified€the€appellant€from€a€photo€lineup€as€the€driver€of€theÏtruck.€€She€also€identified€him€at€trial.€€The€two€men€who€followed€appellantððs€truckÏlikewise€identified€him€at€trial.€€One€of€the€men,€Clarence€Williams,€was€anÏeyewitness€to€the€accident.€€He€confirmed€that€the€truck€was€traveling€30„35€mph€as€itÍcame€around€the€corner.€€He€described€the€event€saying€appellant€ð ðjust€went€wide€.€.€.Ïhe€just€lost€controlðð€and€the€truck€jumped€onto€the€opposite€curb.€€Williams€admittedÏthat€there€may€have€been€cars€parked€on€the€street€where€appellant€turned.€ÏHowever,€he€denied€that€appellant€needed€to€swing€wide€in€order€to€avoid€hittingÏthem.€€While€following€the€truck,€appellant€stopped€once€and€asked€Williams€ð ðWhyÏyou€following€me.€€If€I€was€you,€I€wouldnððt€do€you€like€that.ððÌà àThe€other€man,€Mitchell€Chandler,€corroborated€most€aspects€of€WilliamsððÏtestimony.€€He€did€not€actually€see€the€truck€strike€Miss€Bailey;€he€only€heard€theÏaccident.€€Chandler€also€testified€that€he€observed€a€noticeable€odor€of€alcohol€aboutÏthe€appellant€when€he€exited€the€truck€to€check€on€the€victim.€€During€theÏconversation€Williams€had€with€appellant€after€leaving€the€scene,€Chandler€heardÏappellant€say€that€he€was€driving€on€a€revoked€license€and€that€he€was€drunk.€€OnÏcross„examination,€he€denied€that€either€he€or€Williams€threatened€appellant€duringÏthis€conversation.€€Both€Williams€and€Chandler€confirmed€that€they€heard€appellantÏsay€he€was€going€to€get€help€when€he€left€Miss€Bailey.€Ìà àThe€State€also€submitted€proof€of€the€revoked€status€of€appellantððs€license€atÏthe€time€of€the€event.€€No€proof€was€submitted€on€behalf€of€the€appellant.€€The€juryÏreturned€guilty€verdicts€on€all€three€offenses.€€The€trial€court€later€determinedÏappellant€to€be€a€career€offender,€noting€that€he€had€at€least€eleven€(11)€prior€felonyÏconvictions€in€his€criminal€record.€€For€the€aggravated€assault€conviction,€he€wasÍsentenced€to€the€mandatory€twelve€(12)€years€to€be€served€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€Two€concurrent€sentences€of€six€(6)€months€each€were€imposed€atÏseventy€(70)€percent€to€be€served€in€the€workhouse€for€the€misdemeanor€offenses.Ìà àAppellant€first€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€support€theÏaggravated€assault€conviction.€€Specifically,€he€submits€that€the€State€failed€to€proveÏthat€his€conduct€was€reckless,€as€required€by€the€statute.€€We€find€this€argument€to€beÏwithout€merit.Ìà àAn€appellant€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€has€the€burden€ofÏillustrating€to€this€Court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returnedÏby€the€trier€of€fact€in€his€or€her€case.€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€forÏlack€of€sufficient€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€anyÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.ÏTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€our€review,€we€must€consider€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€in€determining€whether€ð ðòòanyóóÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61ÏL.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence€and€areÏrequired€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€proof€contained€in€theÏrecord,€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÍtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€We€further€noteÏthat€a€guilty€verdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€theÏtestimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.Ï1973).€€In€light€of€these€considerations,€we€find€the€evidence€was€sufficient.Ìà àAppellant€was€indicted€for€the€offense€of€aggravated€assault.€€Particularly,€theÏaggravated€assault€alleged€in€appellantððs€case€is€one€which€occurs€when€a€personÏrecklessly€commits€an€assault× ƒ( ××  ×€and€it€causes€serious€bodily€injury€to€another€or€theÏperson€uses€or€displays€a€deadly€weapon.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„102(a)(2)Ï(Supp.€1996).€€In€order€for€conduct€to€be€considered€reckless,€it€must€be€shown€that€aÏperson€ð ðacts€recklessly€with€respect€to€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€or€theÏresult€of€the€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€of€but€consciously€disregards€aÏsubstantial€and€unjustifiable€risk€that€the€circumstances€exist€or€the€result€will€occur.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„11„302(c)€(1991).€€Disregard€of€this€risk€must€constitute€a€grossÏdeviation€from€the€standard€of€care€that€an€ordinary€person€would€exercise.€€òòId.óó€€Ìà àThe€theory€of€the€Stateððs€case€was€that€appellant€had€committed€anÏaggravated€assault€on€the€victim€by€causing€her€bodily€injury€using€a€deadly€weapon.€ÏThe€State€asserted€that€the€deadly€weapon€inflicting€the€bodily€injury€was€the€motorÏvehicle.€€We€note€that€a€motor€vehicle€may€be€considered€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòState€v.ÍTateóó,€912€S.W.2d€785,€787€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€juryÏin€this€regard.€€The€element€of€bodily€injury€was€established€by€the€testimony€of€MissÏBailey.€€Thus,€it€remained€for€the€State€to€prove€the€appellantððs€culpable€mental€stateÏby€submitting€evidence€sufficient€to€allow€the€jury€to€conclude€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€appellantððs€conduct€was€reckless.€€The€State€successfully€carried€thisÏburden.Ìà àThe€testimony€at€trial€reflected€that€appellant€was€driving€a€three„quarter€tonÏtruck€when€he€attempted€to€make€a€right€turn€onto€a€residential€side€street.€€When€heÏattempted€to€negotiate€this€90„degree€turn,€he€was€traveling€at€30„35€mph.€€LikelyÏdue€to€his€excessive€speed,€inattention,€and€perhaps€intoxication,€appellant€made€aÏwide€right€turn€such€that€the€truck€veered€far€into€the€other€lane€of€oncoming€traffic.€ÏAs€a€result,€he€struck€a€young€girl€on€a€bicycle€riding€on€the€correct€side€of€the€streetÏabout€one€foot€from€the€curb.€€As€Mr.€Williams€described,€appellant€was€traveling€atÏsuch€a€rate€of€speed€when€he€made€the€turn€that€he€just€lost€control€of€the€truck€and€itÏjumped€up€onto€the€curb€on€the€opposite€side€of€the€street.€€We€believe€such€conductÏis€sufficient€to€warrant€an€inference€by€the€jury€that€appellant€consciously€disregardedÏa€risk€that€he€could€collide€with€another€vehicle€when€he€attempted€a€sharp€right€turnÏat€an€excessive€speed€while€not€looking€where€he€was€going€and€veered€into€theÏlane€of€oncoming€traffic.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Norrisóó,€874€S.W.2d€590,€595€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Í1993)€(finding€an€inference€of€recklessness€when€a€driver€drives€on€the€wrong€side€ofÏthe€road).Ìà àIn€addition,€Mr.€Chandler€observed€that€appellant€smelled€of€alcohol€and€bothÏChandler€and€Williams€observed€him€throw€beer€cans€out€the€window€of€his€truckÏwhile€fleeing€the€scene.€€Finally,€the€appellant€told€Chandler€that€he€was€drunk.€ÏConsidered€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€there€was€a€reasonable€inferenceÏfrom€which€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€conclude€that€appellant€grossly€deviated€fromÏthe€standard€of€care€that€an€ordinary€person€would€exercise.€€Ìà àIn€attacking€the€evidence,€appellant€also€points€out€several€inconsistencies€inÏthe€testimony€given€by€the€Stateððs€witnesses.€€He€contends€that€in€light€of€suchÏtestimony,€the€jury€could€not€have€found€his€conduct€reckless.€€However,€questionsÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€to€theÏevidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€ofÏfact,€not€this€Court.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€CourtÏis€in€no€position€to€re„weigh€the€evidence€and€we€find€that€the€juryððs€verdict€wasÏamply€supported€by€the€proof€at€trial.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ìà àAppellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€testimony€allegingÏintoxication€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€He€contends€that€the€probative€value€of€thisÏevidence€was€substantially€outweighed€by€its€danger€of€prejudice.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï403.€€à àThe€admissibility€of€evidence€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€thatÍdecision€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€it€is€arbitrarily€exercised.€€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785ÏS.W.2d€132,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)€(citing€òòState€v.€Hawkóó,€688€S.W.2d€467Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985)).€€We€cannot€say€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€inÏallowing€evidence€of€appellantððs€intoxication.€€The€evidence€of€intoxication€wasÏclearly€relevant€to€the€juryððs€determination€of€the€reckless€nature€of€appellantððsÏconduct.€€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€250€S.W.2d€534,€536€(Tenn.€1952)€(holding€that€evidenceÏwas€competent€on€the€question€of€intoxication€to€show€that€the€defendant€was€drivingÏin€a€reckless€manner).€€If€relevant,€evidence€is€generally€admissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï402.€€Ìà àHowever,€relevant€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€it€can€be€demonstrated€thatÏthe€probative€value€of€the€evidence€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€ofÏunfair€prejudice.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949Ï(Tenn.€1978).€€The€potential€unfair€prejudice€to€the€appellant€here€was€an€inferenceÏthat€he€was€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€when€he€had€not€beenÏcharged€with€that€offense.€€However,€the€evidence€was€highly€probative€in€the€juryððsÏevaluation€of€appellantððs€conduct€and€whether€it€was€a€gross€deviation€from€theÏordinary€standard€of€care.€€òòDavisóó,€250€S.W.2d€at€536.€€Regardless€of€whetherÏappellant€was€impaired€or€legally€intoxicated,€the€ingestion€of€alcoholic€beverages€isÏrelevant€in€that€it€makes€it€more€probable€that€appellantððs€conduct€was€reckless.€€òòSeeóóÍTenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€theÏevidence€of€alcohol€consumption.Ìà àAppellant€also€argues€that€the€State€should€have€charged€appellant€withÏvehicular€assault,€in€which€intoxication€is€an€element,€if€it€sought€to€introduce€thisÏproof€at€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„106€(1991).€€However,€the€districtÏattorney€has€wide€discretion€in€choosing€which€offenses€to€charge.€€òòState€v.€Gilliamóó,Ï901€S.W.2d€385,€389€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citations€omitted).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.ÏTurneróó,€919€S.W.2d€346,€350€n.2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citations€omitted).€€We€seeÏno€abuse€of€that€discretion€here.€€The€fact€that€the€district€attorney€did€not€chargeÏappellant€with€vehicular€assault€has€no€bearing€upon€whether€evidence€ofÏappellantððs€intoxication€was€relevant€in€the€prosecution€for€aggravated€assault.€€TheÏStateððs€theory€was€that€evidence€of€alcohol€consumption€was€probative€of€whetherÏappellantððs€conduct€was€reckless.€€We€agree.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ìà àAppellantððs€final€issue€challenges€the€sentence€rendered€by€the€trial€court€andÏthe€manner€of€service.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€him€communityÏcorrections.€€Also,€he€contends€that€the€imposition€of€a€twelve€(12)€year€sentence€forÏa€Class€D€felony€is€tantamount€to€cruel€and€unusual€punishment.€€These€argumentsÏare€without€merit.Ìà àIt€is€our€duty€to€conduct€a€de€novo€review€of€appellantððs€sentence€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€ThisÍpresumption€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conducting€this€review,€weÏmust€follow€certain€procedures€as€set€forth€in€the€statute€and€consider€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencingÏhearing;€(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€of€sentencingÏand€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€[t]he€nature€andÏcharacteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€[e]vidence€andÏinformation€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€in€ðððð40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]ny€statement€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalf€about€sentencing.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210€(Supp.€1996).Ìà àIn€sentencing€the€appellant,€the€trial€court€examined€the€appellantððs€previousÏcriminal€history€and€determined€that€appellant€had€more€than€the€requisite€number€ofÏfelonies€to€be€classified€as€a€career€offender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„108Ï(1990).€€In€fact,€appellant€had€nearly€double€the€number€of€required€felonies.€€TheÏappellant€did€not€contest€this€classification€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€nor€does€heÏobject€to€it€on€appeal.€€When€a€trial€court€sentences€a€career€offender,€the€sentence€isÏmandatory.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„108(c)€(1990).€€The€trial€court€has€noÏdiscretion€and€does€not€consider€enhancing€or€mitigating€factors.€€òòId.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòStateÏv.€Albert€Franklinóó,€No.€02C01„9404„CR„00081€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,ÏDecember€14,€1994);€òòState€v.€Bernard€Woodardóó,€No.€03C01„9204„CR„00129€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€February€2,€1993).€€The€statute€provides€that€a€careerÍoffender€ð ðòòshallóó€receive€the€maximum€sentence€within€the€applicable€Range€III.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð40„35„108(c)€(1990)€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€the€trial€courtððs€order€ofÏtwelve€(12)€years€on€the€aggravated€assault€conviction€represents€the€maximumÏRange€III€sentence€for€a€Class€D€felony€and€is€proper.Ìà àHowever,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€does€have€discretion€inÏordering€the€manner€of€service€of€the€sentence.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€appellantÏrequested€community€corrections€as€an€alternative€to€confinement.€€While€admittingÏthat€he€does€not€meet€the€minimum€eligibility€standards€for€community€corrections€setÏforth€in€the€statute,€appellant€maintains€that€such€an€alternative€sentence€comportsÏwith€the€guidelines€of€the€Sentencing€Act€considering€his€particular€circumstances.€ÏWe€believe,€as€this€Court€has€remarked€on€a€previous€occasion,€that€ð ðit€isÏinconceivable€that€a€career€offender€would€be€eligible€for€an€alternative€toÏconfinement.ðð€€òòJerry€Lynn€Hopson€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9308„CR„00249€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€at€Knoxville,€September€27,€1994),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).€ÏAppellantððs€argument€is€without€merit.€Ìà àIn€addition€to€conceding€in€his€brief€that€he€fails€to€meet€the€minimum€statutoryÏeligibility€requirements€for€community€corrections,€he€also€admits€that€he€does€not€fallÏwithin€the€special€needs€provision€of€that€statute.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„36„106(c)Ï(Supp.€1996).€€Regardless,€appellant€still€argues€for€this€alternative€contending€thatÍhis€poor€physical€health€and€questionable€mental€health€make€confinementÏimproper.€€We€strongly€disagree.€€Ìà àDenial€of€appellantððs€request€for€a€community€corrections€sentence€comportsÏfully€with€the€guidelines€and€principles€of€our€Sentencing€Act.€€StatutoryÏconsiderations€militating€against€alternative€sentencing€include:ÌÓÓà8 àConfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendantÏwho€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;€[c]onfinement€is€necessaryÏto€avoid€depreciating€the€serousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€isÏparticularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€toÏcommit€similar€offenses;€or€[m]easures€less€restrictive€than€confinementÏhave€frequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€theÏdefendant.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„103(1)(A)„(C)€(1990).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÏ166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Appellantððs€long€history€of€criminal€conduct€indicates€thatÏconfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€from€further€violations.€€AppellantððsÏcriminal€history€dates€back€to€1962,€spanning€a€period€of€thirty„three€(33)€years.€ÏAppellant€admittedly€has€abused€alcohol€and€drugs€almost€continuously€during€thisÏtime.€€His€offenses€have€been€repetitive€and€numerous.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÏappellant€had€eleven€(11)€felony€convictions,€basing€that€determination€only€uponÏprevious€sentencing€orders€of€one€year€or€more.€€Not€even€considered€were€a€host€ofÏother€convictions€that€had€not€been€classified€under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act.€Ìà àFurthermore,€his€record€is€replete€with€orders€of€probation€and€relatively€briefÏsentences.€€Obviously,€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequentlyÍbeen€unsuccessful.€€New€violations€have€followed€the€completion€of€each€sentence.€ÏAppellantððs€criminal€conduct€has€not€been€deterred.€€A€significant€period€ofÏconfinement€is€the€only€effective€way€to€protect€society€from€appellant€and€hopefullyÏdeter€the€appellant€from€criminal€activity€in€the€future.€€One€of€the€inherent€purposesÏof€the€Sentencing€Act€is€the€incapacitation€of€a€career€offender.€€òòJerry€Lynn€Hopson€v.ÏStateóó,€No.€03C01„9308„CR„00249€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€September€27,Ï1994),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€length€of€the€sentences€imposedÏon€such€offenders€by€the€legislature€demonstrates€its€belief€that€extendedÏincarceration€is€the€effective€way€to€accomplish€this€purpose.Ìà àNeither€do€we€find€the€sentence€excessive€as€appellant€argues.€€It€is€true€thatÏnone€of€appellantððs€crimes€have€been€particularly€violent€offenses€and€only€a€fewÏhave€been€crimes€committed€against€a€person.€€However,€it€is€the€appellantððsÏprotracted,€repeated€and€blatant€disregard€for€the€laws€of€this€State€that€disturb€thisÏCourt.€€For€example,€three€days€after€committing€the€offense€at€issue€appellant€wasÏinvolved€in€another€vehicle€accident€and€ticketed€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license,Ïmaking€that€his€sixth€offense€in€that€class.€€Less€than€two€months€after€committing€theÏpresent€offense,€appellant€was€arrested€for€shoplifting.€€A€few€months€later,€appellantÏwas€arrested€for€driving€under€the€influence€for€a€third€time.€€This€continuing€criminalÏconduct€was€stopped€only€when€the€trial€court€revoked€appellantððs€bond€andÏincarcerated€him.€€Thus€far,€confinement€has€been€the€only€effective€deterrent€for€theÍappellant.€€One€of€the€purposes€of€the€Sentencing€Act€is€to€restrain€defendants€withÏlengthy€criminal€histories.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„102(3)(A)€(1990).€€AppellantððsÏextended€sentence€of€incarceration€is€necessary€to€accomplish€such€a€goal.Ìà àFinally,€appellantððs€argument€that€his€sentence€is€cruel€and€unusualÏpunishment€is€also€without€merit.€€He€does€not€argue€that€career€offender€sentencingÏis€per€se€unconstitutional,€but€as€applied€in€his€case,€he€asserts€that€it€is€aÏconstitutional€violation.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àThe€supreme€court€has€adopted€the€same€test€used€by€the€federal€courts€inÏevaluating€the€proportionality€of€a€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€844€S.W.2d€601,€603Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€First,€a€reviewing€court€must€compare€the€sentence€imposed€with€theÏcrime€committed.€€òòId.óó€€If€this€comparison€leads€to€an€inference€of€grossÏdisproportionality,€the€court€must€also€compare€the€sentences€imposed€on€otherÏcriminals€in€the€same€jurisdiction€and€the€sentences€imposed€for€commission€of€theÏsame€crime€in€other€jurisdictions.€€òòId.óó€€However,€if€there€is€no€inference€of€grossÏdisproportionality,€the€inquiry€ends.€€òòId.óó€€Successful€challenges€to€the€proportionalityÏof€sentences€outside€the€context€of€capital€punishment€are€exceedingly€rare.€€òòIdóó€atÏ602€(citations€omitted).€€We€do€not€find€appellantððs€case€to€be€such€a€rare€instance.Ìà àAppellant€received€twelve€(12)€years€to€be€served€at€sixty€(60)€percent€for€theÏoffense€of€aggravated€assault.€€The€sentence€requires€7.2€years€of€service€beforeÏparole€eligibility.€€His€reckless€conduct€injured€a€young€girl€riding€a€bicycle€on€a€quietÍresidential€street,€a€place€normally€considered€safe€for€her€to€ride.€€Because€he€wasÏdriving€too€fast€and€not€maintaining€a€proper€lookout,€his€truck€careened€into€herÏbicycle€causing€two€bone€fractures€and€several€minor€injuries.€€Considering€theÏevidence€of€alcohol€consumption€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€along€with€appellantððsÏlong€history€of€alcohol€and€drug€abuse,€the€sentence€does€not€lead€to€an€inference€ofÏgross€disproportionality.€€This€conclusion€is€strengthened€by€appellantððs€extensiveÏcriminal€record.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àFor€the€above€stated€reasons,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€committed€no€error.€ÏAppellantððs€convictions€and€sentences€are€affirmed,€including€the€classification€as€aÏcareer€offender.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge