ÿWPCE 3# ÚUNå %3 0(9baw@i4©½ 0lÌ 0D8 0J| 0TÆ 0^ 0hx 0rà 0|R 0†Î 0T 1uä 0dY 0@½ D3ý U>0 Bn U*‹ B)µ DCÞ AM! AQn Æ¿ 0D… 0DÉ D/ B< 3Y hŒv~ôvÓr˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- BCDDDEFGDHIUJÓ€V§aö"3|xV((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd* 'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òAugust€27,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ^Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà0 àÔ€#ôÔÔ€%ÔCommon€experience€counsels€us€that€ordinarily€people€do€not€carry€plastic€bags€in€theÏfront€of€their€trousers.Ô€#ÔÔ€#XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€#ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€–rXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌJUNE€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÙ€*ÙÓ  ÓßR€(/'A1-j|f,` Å `€€@ÿRßSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9409„CR„00201Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà 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.€L.€T.€LAFFERTYó óÌò òVINCENT€D.€JONES,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Certified€Question€of€Law)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌHOWARD€L.€WAGERMANà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌHOWARD€B.€MANISà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€1313,€200€JeffersonÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àSARAH€M.€BRANCHÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCounsel€for€the€StateÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0485ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€L.€GIBBONSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKEVIN€R.€RARDINÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue„3rd€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€%„ÔOPINIONÔ€%ŠÔó óóóÌÌÓÓÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€Vincent€Jones€entered€a€plea€of€nolo€contendere€in€the€ShelbyÏCounty€Criminal€Court€to€a€charge€of€possession€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€toÏsell€or€deliver.€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony,ÏAppellant€received€a€sentence€of€eight€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€Pursuant€to€Rule€37(b)(2)(i)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure,€Appellant,€with€the€agreement€of€the€State€and€the€trial€court,Ïreserved€for€appellate€review€the€question€of€the€legality€of€the€search€which€ledÏto€Appellantððs€arrest.€€Appellant€also€contends€on€appeal€that€his€sentence€isÏexcessive.ÌÌà àAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌà àThe€proof€shows€that,€on€October€15,€1993,€Officer€Dennis€Benjamin€andÏhis€partner,€both€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department,€were€patrolling€the€GetwellÏGardens€area€of€Memphis,€notorious€for€its€drug€activity.€€From€across€the€street,ÏOfficer€Benjamin€observed€Appellant€flagging€down€cars€and€offering,€inÏexchange€for€money,€a€substance€contained€in€plastic€bags.€€Officer€BenjaminÏobserved€three€such€transactions€over€a€period€of€fifteen€minutes€and€thenÍproceeded€to€pull€up€beside€Appellant.€€Appellant€attempted€to€run€and€thenÏstuffed€a€plastic€bag€down€the€front€of€the€waistband€of€his€pants.€€OfficerÏBenjamin€apprehended€Appellant€and,€In€order€to€check€Appellant€forÏweapons,€Benjamin€ran€his€hand€around€Appellant's€waistband€and€felt€aÏbulge.€€According€to€Officer€Benjamin,€the€bulge€felt€like€a€pack€of€rock€crackÏcocaine.€€Officer€Benjamin€felt€the€bulge€a€little€bit€more,€pulled€up€Appellant'sÏshirt,€and€took€the€plastic€bag.€€Appellant€was€then€placed€under€arrest.ÌÌà àOn€March€31,€1994,€a€Shelby€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€Appellant€forÏpossession€of€a€controlled€substance€with€intent€to€sell€and€deliver€in€violation€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„17„417.€€On€June€25,€1994,€AppellantÏfiled€a€pretrial€motion€to€suppress€evidence€seized€during€his€arrest.€€FollowingÏan€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€€On€March€6,€1995,ÏAppellant€entered€a€plea€of€nolo€contendere,€reserving€the€suppression€issueÏas€a€certified€question€of€law€pursuant€to€Rule€37(b)(2)(i)€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Criminal€Procedure.ÌÌà àAt€his€sentencing€hearing,€Appellant€testified€that€he€had€learned€hisÏlesson€and€was€a€changed€man.€€He€pointed€to€the€fact€that€he€now€had€a€fullÏtime€job€with€Federal€Express,€was€enrolled€in€the€University€of€Memphis,€andÏwas€responsible€for€supporting€his€three€children.€€In€addition,€Appellant€testifiedÍthat€he€had€no€prior€criminal€record.€€However,€in€questioning€Appellant,€the€trialÏcourt€learned€that€Appellant€had€been€selling€crack€for€three€to€four€months€inÏorder€to€earn€an€extra€two€hundred€dollars€per€week.€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÏsentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€Appellant€to€eight€years,€orderingÏhim€to€serve€four€months€of€the€sentence€on€weekends€with€the€balance€of€theÏsentence€served€on€probation.€Ìà àà àà àÌòòÓ  Óà àà àà àóóò òII.€€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESSó óòòÌÓ  Óà àóóAppellant€first€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€grant€hisÏmotion€to€suppress€evidence€seized€during€his€arrest.€€The€Fourth€AmendmentÏguarantees€"the€right€of€the€people€to€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,Ïpapers,€and€effects,€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures."€€The€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€has€consistently€held€that€searches€and€seizuresÏ"conducted€outside€the€judicial€process,€without€prior€approval€by€judge€orÏmagistrate,€are€per€se€unreasonable€under€the€Fourth€Amendment„„subject€onlyÏto€a€few€specifically€established€and€well„delineated€exceptions.ðð€€òòKatz€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€389€U.S.€347,€357€(1967)€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÏBartramóó,€925€S.W.2d€227,€230€n.2€(Tenn.€1996).€€One€such€exception€wasÏrecognized€in€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[W]here€a€police€officer€observes€unusual€conduct€whichÏleads€him€reasonably€to€conclude€in€light€of€hisÏexperience€that€criminal€activity€may€be€afoot€and€that€theÍpersons€with€whom€he€is€dealing€may€be€armed€andÏpresently€dangerous,€where€in€the€course€of€investigatingÏthis€behavior€he€identifies€himself€as€a€policeman€andÏmakes€reasonable€inquiries,€and€where€nothing€in€theÏinitial€stages€of€the€encounter€serves€to€dispel€hisÏreasonable€fear€for€his€own€or€othersðð€safety,€he€isÏentitled€for€the€protection€of€himself€and€others€in€the€areaÏto€conduct€a€carefully€limited€search€of€the€outer€clothing€ofÏsuch€persons€in€an€attempt€to€discover€weapons€whichÏmight€be€used€to€assault€him.ÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ Ò392€U.S.€1,€30€(1968).€€€"The€purpose€of€this€limited€search€is€not€to€discoverÏevidence€of€crime,€but€to€allow€the€officer€to€pursue€his€investigation€without€fearÏof€violence."€€òòAdams€v.€Williamsóó,€407€U.S.€143,€146€(1972).€€If€the€protectiveÏsearch€goes€beyond€what€is€necessary€to€determine€if€the€suspect€is€armed,€itÏis€no€longer€valid€under€òòTerryóó€and€its€fruits€will€be€suppressed.€€òòSibron€v.€NewÏYorkóó,€392€U.S.€40,€65„66€(1968).ÌÌà àIn€òòMinnesota€v.€Dickersonóó,€508€U.S.€366€(1993),€officers€observed€theÏdefendant€leaving€what€they€believed€to€be€a€residence€where€drug€salesÏregularly€took€place.€€Upon€seeing€the€officers,€the€defendant€abruptly€turned,Ïwalked€in€the€opposite€direction€and€began€behaving€in€an€evasive€manner.€ÏThe€officers€stopped€the€defendant€and€conducted€a€pat€down€of€his€outerÏclothing.€€During€the€frisk€one€of€the€officers€felt€a€small€lump€in€the€defendantððsÏjacket€pocket.€€The€officer€realized€the€lump€was€not€a€weapon,€but€heÏcontinued€to€manipulate€the€object€inside€the€pocket€to€determine€what€it€was.€ÍBelieving€the€object€to€be€crack€cocaine,€the€officer€seized€the€object€which€inÏfact€was€a€small€packet€of€cocaine.€€The€Court€concluded€that€the€identity€of€theÏpacket€of€cocaine€was€not€ð ðimmediately€apparentðð€and€that€the€continuedÏmanipulation€of€the€packet€in€the€defendantððs€pocket€after€the€officer€recognized€itÏwas€not€a€weapon,€exceeded€the€permissible€bounds€of€a€òòTerryóó€search.€ÏTherefore€the€Court€held€that€the€search€was€illegal€and€affirmed€the€lowerÏCourtððs€suppression€of€the€cocaine.€€However,€the€Court€held€that€if€during€aÏlawful€òòTerryóó€ð ðfriskðð€an€officerÌÓÓà8 àà8 àpats€down€a€suspectððs€outer€clothing€and€feels€anÏobject€whose€contour€and€mass€makes€its€identityÏimmediately€apparent,€there€has€been€no€invasion€ofÏthe€suspectððs€privacy€beyond€that€already€authorizedÏby€the€officerððs€search€for€weapons;€if€the€object€isÏcontraband,€its€warrantless€seizure€would€be€justifiedÏby€the€same€practical€considerations€that€inhere€in€theÏplain€view€context.ÌÓÓÓÓÌòòIdóó.€at€375„76.ÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€Appellant€raises€no€issue€concerning€the€initialÏinvestigatory€detention€of€him€by€the€police.€€Neither€does€he€contend€that€a€patÏdown€of€him€for€possible€weapons€was€unlawful.€€He€does€however€equateÏthis€case€with€òòDickersonóó€and€maintains€that€the€identity€of€the€crack€cocaine€heÏwas€carrying€in€the€front€waistband€of€his€trousers€was€not€ð ðimmediatelyÏapparentðð€and€thus€its€seizure,€once€the€officer€determined€it€was€not€aÏweapon,€was€unlawful.ÌÌà àThis€Court€has€equated€ð ðimmediately€apparentðð€with€the€idea€of€probableÏcause.€€In€other€words,€if€immediately€upon€touching€the€suspicious€object€theÏofficer€has€probable€cause€to€believe€the€item€is€contraband€then€the€item€mayÏbe€lawfully€seized.€€òòState€v.€Bridgesóó,€No.€02C01„9412„CC„00298,€1995€WLÏ764998€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Dec.€28,€1995),€òòperm.€app.€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€June€3,Ï1996);€òòState€v.€Whiteóó,€No.€03C01„9408„CR„00277,€1997€WL€336977€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€June€7,€1995).€€In€òòTexas€v.€Brownóó,€460€U.S.€730€(1983),€theÏSupreme€Court€stated€that€an€object€is€considered€to€be€ð ðimmediately€apparentððÏwhen€the€officer€develops€a€reasonable€belief€as€to€the€objectððs€identity.€€òòId.óó€atÏ741„42.€€The€officer€has€then€established€probable€cause€and€the€seizure€of€theÏitem€is€justified€if€the€officer€can€reasonably€conclude€that€the€item€may€beÏcontraband€or€other€evidence€of€a€crime.€€The€òòBrownóó€Court€rejected€the€notionÏthat€the€officer€be€ð ðpossessed€of€near€certaintyðð€of€the€objectððs€identity.€€TheÏSupreme€Court€acknowledged€in€òòBrownóó€that€probable€cause€ð ðrequires€that€theÏfacts€available€to€the€officer€would€ððwarrant€a€man€of€reasonable€caution€in€theÏbeliefðð€that€certain€items€may€be€contraband€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€742€(citations€omitted).€ÏIn€òòBrownóó,€the€officer,€during€a€routine€driver€license€checkpoint,€observed€amongÏother€things€in€the€defendantððs€vehicle€an€opaque,€green€party€balloon€knottedÏat€the€tip€and€knew€from€his€experience€that€such€balloons€were€often€used€toÏpackage€narcotics.€€The€Court€determined€that€the€officer€possessed€sufficientÍprobable€cause€to€seize€the€balloons,€finding€that€it€was€irrelevant€that€theÏofficer€could€not€see€though€the€opaque€balloon.€€The€presence€of€the€balloonÏitself€under€the€circumstances,€ð ðparticularly€to€the€trained€eye€of€the€officer,ððÏstrongly€indicated€that€drugs€were€likely€to€be€found€inside.€€òòId.óó€at€743.ÌÌà àAlthough€òòBrownóó€dealt€with€the€ð ðplain€viewðð€doctrine,€the€same€analysis€isÏuseful€when€considering€the€ð ðplain€feelðð€doctrine€of€òòMinnesota€v.€Dickersonóó.€ÏApplying€this€reasoning€to€the€instant€case,€it€appears€that€the€officer€whoÏsearched€Appellant€observed€him€offering€a€substance€taken€from€a€plastic€bagÏto€the€occupants€of€cars€in€exchange€for€money.€€This€activity€was€occurring€inÏa€notoriously€high€crime€area€known€to€the€officer€to€be€rife€with€drug€dealing.€ÏWhen€the€officer€approached€Appellant,€he€ran€away€and€was€observedÏstuffing€the€plastic€bag€containing€what€appeared€to€be€rocks€in€the€front€of€hisÏpants.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€The€officer€stated€that€immediately€upon€touching€the€item€in€AppellantððsÏwaistband€he€recognized€it€as€containing€some€sort€of€rocks.€€The€officer€alsoÏtestified€that€he€had€experience€in€hundreds€of€cases€such€as€this.ÌÌà àWe€think€that€given€this€officerððs€experience€and€his€observation€ofÏAppellantððs€activities€in€this€high€crime€area€coupled€with€his€having€seen€andÍthen€felt€a€plastic€bag€of€rocks€in€the€front€of€Appellantððs€pants€constitutedÏprobable€cause€to€believe€that€the€plastic€bag€contained€contraband.€€WeÏtherefore€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€judge€in€denying€the€motion€to€suppress.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€SENTENCINGó óÌà àAppellant€also€alleges€that€his€sentence€was€excessive.€€Specifically,€heÏargues€that€he€should€have€received€full€probation.ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdetermination€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€ÏHowever,€this€presumption€of€correctness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€that€the€trial€court€in€the€record€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€In€the€event€that€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€suchÏconsideration,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòId.óó€€If€appellate€reviewÏreflects€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findingsÏof€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€this€Court€must€affirm€theÏsentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,Ï805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€conducting€a€review,€thisÏCourt€must€consider€the€evidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencingÍprinciples,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,Ïmitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant,Ïand€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,Ï60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€theÏimpropriety€of€the€sentence€imposed.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àWe€note€initially€that,€because€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€courtÏadequately€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances,€our€review€of€Appellantððs€sentence€will€be€òòde€novoóó€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€recognizes€theÏlimited€capacity€of€state€prisons€and€mandates€that€ð ðconvicted€felons€committingÏthe€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminal€histories€evincing€a€clearÏdisregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€past€effortsÏof€rehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priority€regarding€sentencing€involvingÏincarceration.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5).€€A€defendant€who€does€notÏqualify€as€such€and€who€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€of€aÏClass€C,€D,€or€E€felony€is€ð ðpresumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€forÏsentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€A€sentencing€court€may€then€only€deny€alternative€sentencing€whenÏpresented€with€sufficient€evidence€to€overcome€the€presumption.€€òòState€v.ÏAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€A€denial€of€alternative€sentencing€inÏthe€face€of€the€statutory€presumption€should€be€based€on€the€followingÏconsiderations:€€whether€confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€from€aÏdefendant€with€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct,€whether€confinement€isÏnecessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€whetherÏconfinement€would€provide€an€effective€deterrent,€and€whether€measures€lessÏrestrictive€than€confinement€have€failed€in€the€past.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1).ÌÌà àBecause€Appellant€was€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony,€he€is€not€entitledÏto€the€statutorily€mandated€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing.€€However,€inÏlight€of€certain€factors€favoring€an€alternative€sentence,€the€trial€court€ordered€aÏsentence€of€periodic€confinement€followed€by€a€period€of€probation.€€We€mustÏnow€address€whether€Appellant€should€have€been€granted€full€probation.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€always€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€fullÏprobation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b).€€In€order€to€justify€full€probation,€theÏdefendant€must€demonstrate€that€such€a€sentence€will€ð ðsubserve€the€ends€ofÏjustice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.ðð€€òòState€v.ÍDykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€When€determiningÏsuitability€for€full€probation,€the€sentencing€court€should€consider€the€followingÏfactors:€(1)€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(2)€theÏdefendantððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation,€including€the€risk€that,Ïduring€the€period€of€probation,€the€defendant€will€commit€another€crime;€(3)Ïwhether€a€sentence€of€full€probation€would€unduly€depreciate€the€seriousness€ofÏthe€offense;€and€(4)€whether€a€sentence€other€than€full€probation€would€provideÏan€effective€deterrent€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€crimes.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,Ï910€S.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citations€omitted).€€ÌÌÑ Ð Ñà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€concluded€that,Ïin€light€of€the€nature€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved,€the€total€suspension€ofÏAppellant's€sentence€would€undermine€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€The€trialÏcourt€pointed€out€that€Appellant€ð ðmade€a€decision€to€enter€into€the€drug€trafficÏbusiness."€€In€addition,€Appellant€admitted€that€he€sold€drugs€three€times€aÏweek€for€four€months€in€order€to€support€himself.€€The€trial€court€concluded€thatÏAppellant€was€a€"professional€drug€seller"€and€that€he€should€be€appropriatelyÏpunished€for€his€actions.€€The€trial€court€was€very€lenient€with€AppellantÏconsidering€the€nature€of€the€offense.€€Given€the€pervasive€problem€of€narcoticsÏin€our€society€generally,€and€the€problem€of€crack€cocaine€particularly,€we€agreeÏwith€the€trial€court€that€full€probation€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€thisÏoffense.ÌÌà àAppellant€claims€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€take€into€account€the€fact€thatÏhe€had€no€prior€criminal€record,€had€a€full„time€job,€and€supported€three€children.€ÏOn€this€claim,€Appellant's€arguments€are€clearly€misplaced.€€The€trial€court€wasÏvery€compromising€with€Appellant€by€allowing€him€to€serve€his€jail€time€on€theÏweekends€so€as€not€to€interfere€with€his€job€or€his€earnings.€€Therefore,€theÏsentence€must€be€upheld.ÌÌ€à àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.à àÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES