ÿWPC¹ ¨N/Œ‚¡Šðfw>±êX¡g‘ d‰ßÙp³ÈyÕ {pE_Ýšñ¯8`aãhõÜßT^`;|xï<ýUŸÅvÂËÃFªA@‡ÀoŒH p6Ц”•¬&Ðx¯(Hů§»ZŸ‹ÇmwkBRO8m l0вXÏì“õ…A¢¼òyŸhîIod8vWŠ~¸ÚÓãyï‘y:utíÃÐÞ/mo/_€9ÜŒ YFy‰üµê3Ö“…‡m'ß7¤V¹ä-#³pôWU“Lëߊ(Ôú`¯ÂÚþžß>qTÜïò>N %_Zl>~ÿ>3bi&Ì‹|¡Ò ï“PnßtÇ{/¼¾Ë,?ü›^Éún8ÒÅÊñC_¾ !Ì~1%¹J æ$ʲà“Ãå`XFêŸYO§–c¤ì¤,Å\¶~¿&–w3LÕÄ ¯+‚ÈXmdì‡Ç‚áü—lyóÿä·÷ÏÍ~s§ÝÎÚöCôÔ³ôÇ0³a¯U‹ñ™ŒÆÂþV¾ö,è¶ÆÍü•%µÜn°&M1üöaúû=ŒT,׬Uá H¸­%~‹Du–—t€œY 2¼ÀL.w0Z’-RˆÉ®‡×Û§ø"ë 6F º.zDR˧¸ÑV®LbUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ vÐ #ÁF Æ ÆÍ Æ“ ÆYUNNmmmEoooooooooooooooooooooooobqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqùyyy 0Drrr 0ë¶¶¶¶ B¡¡ 0¤¾ D3b D-• 0K AS Æ` 0¤& 0DÊ A«(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó-ru-s Yo†)¦3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ WeakleyAshbymisdemeanantSeaton Crim DUI˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù- ïÝ ƒRÌ-$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôœ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSpecifically,€in€the€Appellantððs€brief,€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€imposed€ð ða€less€restrictiveÐ ° Ðalternative,€such€as€house€arrest,€.€.€.€straight€probation,€or€in€the€alternative€a€weekend€sentence€coupled€with€a€reductionÐ tÄ Ðor€the€elimination€of€his€fine.ðð€€A€trial€court€is€not€required€to€permit€periodic€confinement.€€Furthermore,€this€court€isÐ 8ˆ Ðunaware€of€any€statutorily€authorized€house€arrest€or€Community€Corrections€program€available€to€misdemeanants.€€òòSeeÐ üL ÐóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(a)€(Supp.€2001).€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(|G2Ì-$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€)Ô»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôœ ò»»Ô d(|3 L$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€)Ô»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 L$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€)Ô»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€)Ô»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼)Ô»»»ÔÑ8€x˜XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î:õ)ÔÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼)Ô»îî:õ#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€September€10,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡Xx˜X»¼)ÔÔÌò òÔ#†¼)Ô»XXx˜1#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JOE€L.€JONESòòóóÔ‡Xx˜X»¼)ÔÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Weakley€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€CR119„2001€€€€€€William€B.€Ô_ÔAcreeÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2002„00168„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€15,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡Xx˜XXXx˜ÔThe€Appellant,€Joe€L.€Jones,€appeals€from€the€sentencing€decision€of€the€Weakley€County€CircuitÐ xÈ  ÐCourt.€€After€a€trial€by€jury,€Jones€was€convicted€of€casual€exchange,€a€class€A€misdemeanor.€Ð d´ ÐFollowing€a€sentencing€hearing,€Jones€received€a€split€confinement€sentence€of€eleven€months€andÐ P  Ðtwenty„nine€days,€with€forty„five€days€to€be€served€in€the€county€jail€followed€by€probation.€€The€trialÐ <Œ Ðcourt€also€imposed€a€$500€fine.€€On€appeal,€Jones€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€aÐ (x Ðsentence€of€continuous€confinement€and€that€the€fine€was€excessive.€€Finding€no€error,€the€judgmentÐ d Ðis€affirmed.Ô#†Xx˜XXXx˜#ÔÔ#†¼)Ô»XXx˜¥#ÔÔ‡Xx˜X»¼)ÔÔÐ P ÐÓõÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼)Ô»àXx˜;#ÔÔ‡Xx˜X.¼)ÔÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€and€òòJoe€G.Ð ° ÐRileyóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌClifford€K.€Ô_ÔMcGownÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Ô_ÔWaverlyÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€(on€appeal€only);€Joseph€P.€Ô_ÔAtnipÔ_Ô,€District€PublicÐ tÄ ÐDefender;€Colin€Johnson,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Dresden,€Tennessee,€(at€trial€and€of€counselÐ `° Ðon€appeal).Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Braden€H.Ð $"t! ÐÔ_ÔBoucekÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Thomas€A.€Thomas,€District€Attorney€General;€and€€Allen€J.Ð #`" ÐÔ_ÔStrawbridgeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÔ#†¼)Ô»XXx˜ #ÔÔ‡Xx˜X»¼)ÔÔÌÓÚÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼)Ô»XXx˜ #ÔÔ‡Xx˜X»¼)ÔÔÐ À&"& ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ ˜(è#( ÐòòóóÔ#†¼)Ô»XXx˜€ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xx˜X»¼)ÔÔÌÔ‡Xx˜XXXx˜Ôà  àOn€January€19,€2001,€the€Appellant€sold€cocaine€to€an€undercover€agent€of€the€Martin€PoliceÐ p*À%* ÐDepartment.€€On€September€4,€2001,€a€Weakley€County€grand€jury€indicted€the€Appellant€for€saleÐ \+¬&+ Ðof€less€than€.5€grams€of€cocaine.€€On€November€26,€2001,€after€a€trial€by€jury,€the€Appellant€wasÐ H,˜', Ðconvicted€of€the€lesser€offense€of€casual€exchange.€€A€sentencing€hearing€was€conducted€on€JanuaryÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ô10,€2002,€and€the€Appellant€received€an€eleven„month€and€twenty„nine„day€sentence€and€wasÐ ° Ðordered€to€serve€forty„five€days€of€that€sentence€in€continuous€confinement.€€He€was€also€assessedÐ œì Ða€fine€of€$500.€€On€appeal,€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€imposing€totalÐ ˆØ Ðprobation€and€that€the€fine€was€excessive.€€ò òÐ tÄ ÐÌÓÓANALYSISó óÐ L œ ÐÌÓæÓÓ  Óà  àò òó óWhen€an€appellant€complains€of€his€sentence€on€appeal,€this€court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€reviewÐ $ t Ðcoupled€with€a€presumption€that€the€trial€court's€sentencing€determinations€are€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ  ` ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997);òò€State€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€However,€thisÐ ü L  Ðpresumption€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€relevantÐ è 8  Ðsentencing€principles€and€all€pertinent€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€Ð Ô$  ÐRegardless€of€whether€the€presumption€of€correctness€is€applied,€the€burden€of€showing€theÐ À  Ðimpropriety€of€the€sentence€is€on€the€appealing€party.€€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.Ð ¬ü  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àMisdemeanor€sentencing€is€governed€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40-35-302€(Supp.Ð pÀ Ð2001).€€Although€otherwise€entitled€to€the€same€considerations€under€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€ofÐ \¬ Ð1989,€unlike€a€felon,€a€misdemeanant€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€a€minimum€sentence.€Ð H˜ ÐòòState€v.€Seatonóó,€914€S.W.2d€129,€133€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citation€omitted);€òòState€v.€Warrenóó,Ð 4„ ÐNo.€01C01-9605-CC„00218€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€May€21,€1997)€(citation€omitted).€€AÐ  p Ðmisdemeanor€sentence,€as€opposed€to€a€felony€sentence,€contains€no€sentence€range.€€òòState€v.Ð  \ ÐThompsonóó,€No.€03C01-9703-CR-00105€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€May€6,€1998).€€Moreover,Ð øH Ðthe€relative€short€length€of€sentences€for€class€A,€B,€and€C€misdemeanors€eliminates€the€òòóópotentialÐ ä4 Ðfor€unjustified€disparity€in€sentencing.€€òòIdóó.€€Accordingly,€in€misdemeanor€cases,€the€trial€judge,€whoÐ Ð  Ðis€able€to€observe€first-hand€the€demeanor€and€responses€of€the€defendant€while€testifying,€must€beÐ ¼  Ðgranted€discretion€in€arriving€at€the€appropriate€sentence.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€alternative€sentencing€provision€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„104(a)€(1997)Ð €Ð Ðprovides€that€a€misdemeanant€is€entitled€to€sentencing€alternatives.€€Although€this€Appellant€wasÐ l¼ Ðgranted€a€sentence€of€split€confinement,€the€Appellant€contends€that€he€should€have€been€granted€fullÐ X ¨ Ðprobation.׃L×Ý ƒO#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòóóTo€meet€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€total€probation,€the€defendant€mustÐ D!” Ðdemonstrate€that€probation€will€"subserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€publicÐ 0"€  Ðand€the€defendant."€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÐ #l! Ðdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995),€òòoverruled€in€part€byóó€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€9€(Tenn.€2000)€(citationÐ $X" Ðomitted).€€When€deciding€suitability€for€probation,€although€not€controlling,€the€sentencing€courtÐ ô$D # Ðshould€use€the€following€criteria:€(1)€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved,Ð à%0!$ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„210(b)(4)€(1997);€(2)€the€defendant's€potential€or€lack€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðpotential€for€rehabilitation,€including€the€risk€that€during€the€period€of€probation€the€defendant€willÐ ° Ðcommit€another€crime,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103(5)€(1997);€(3)€whether€a€sentenceÐ œì Ðof€full€probation€would€unduly€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ ˆØ Ððð€40„35„103(1)(B)€(1997);€and€(4)€whether€a€sentence€other€than€full€probation€would€provide€anÐ tÄ Ðeffective€deterrent€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€crimes,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„Ð `° Ð103(1)(B).òò€€See€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€456.€€Denial€of€probation€may€be€based€solely€upon€theÐ L œ Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€when€they€are€of€such€a€nature€as€to€outweigh€all€other€factors€favoringÐ 8 ˆ Ðprobation.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€788„ÓÓ89€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÓӀР$ t ÐÌà  àThe€statutorily€authorized€sentence€and€fine€for€a€casual€exchange€conviction€is€ð ðnot€greaterÐ ü L  Ðthan€eleven€(11)€months€twenty„nine€(29)€days€or€a€fine€not€to€exceed€two€thousand€five€hundredÐ è 8  Ðdollars€($2,500),€or€both,€unless€otherwise€provided€by€statute.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„111(e)(1)Ð Ô$  Ð(1997).€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days,€with€aÐ À  Ðcontinuous€incarceration€period€of€forty„five€days€and€the€balance€of€the€sentence€to€be€served€onÐ ¬ü  Ðprobation.€€The€trial€court€exercising€its€discretion€found€that€the€Appellant€was€not€suitable€forÐ ˜è  Ðprobation.€€The€trial€court€also€imposed€a€fine€of€$500€and€in€pronouncing€the€Appellantððs€sentence,Ð „Ô  Ðthe€trial€court€concluded€that:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àThe€Court,€in€view€of€the€record,€finds€that€there€are€no€mitigating€factors€that€applyÐ H˜ Ðin€this€case.€€There€is€one€enhancing€factor.€€Enhancing€factor€Number€1,€priorÐ 4„ Ðcriminal€behavior€on€the€part€of€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€was€convicted€of€theftÐ  p Ðin€1998,€DUI€in€1997€ð!ð€in€fact,€twice€in€1997,€and€also€driving€on€revoked€license€inÐ  \ Ð1997.€€Enhancing€factor€Number€1€applies€in€this€case.€€The€Court€looks€at€theÐ øH Ðgeneral€principles€of€sentencing,€and€the€Court€thinks€that€two€principles€ð!ð€excuseÐ ä4 Ðme,€one€principle,€and€one€sentencing€consideration€is€addressed,€that€is€the€need€toÐ Ð  Ðprovide€an€effective€deterrent€to€those€likely€to€violate€the€criminal€laws€of€the€State.€Ð ¼  ÐThe€Court€thinks€some€confinement€is€necessary€because€it€is€necessary€to€provideÐ ¨ø Ðan€effective€deterrent.€€The€Court€will€take€judicial€notice€of€a€very€high€number€ofÐ ”ä Ðdrug€cases€that€are€in€this€jurisdiction.€€Itððs€extremely€high.€€The€Court€will€also€noteÐ €Ð Ðthat€the€activity€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€in€the€case€was€intentional,€that€is€heÐ l¼ Ðintentionally€sold€the€cocaine.€€ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIrrespective€of€the€nature€of€his€conviction,€the€fact€remains€that€the€Appellant€distributedÐ 0"€  Ðdrugs€into€his€community.€€Additionally,€he€has€a€previous€criminal€history,€and€the€trial€court€foundÐ #l! Ðthat€deterrence€was€needed€in€that€jurisdiction.€€Moreover,€the€record€reflects€that€while€on€probationÐ $X" Ðin€1997,€the€Appellant€was€convicted€of€two€misdemeanor€offenses€while€on€probation,€although€noÐ ô$D # Ðviolation€of€probation€was€sought.€€For€these€reasons,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€AppellantÐ à%0!$ Ðhas€met€his€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€excessive€and,Ð Ì&"% Ðtherefore,€affirm€the€period€of€incarceration€ordered€by€the€trial€court.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€imposed€a€$500€fine,€which€the€Appellant€argues€is€excessive€due€to€a€work„Ð )à$( Ðrelated€injury.€€It€is€clear€that€an€appellate€court€has€the€authority€to€review€a€fine€imposed€by€a€juryÐ |*Ì%) Ðor€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bryantóó,€805€S.W.2d€762,€766€(Tenn.€1991).€€When€reviewing€fines,Ð h+¸&* Ðthis€court€must€examine€"the€defendant's€ability€to€pay€that€fine,€and€other€factors€of€judgmentÐ ° Ðinvolved€in€setting€the€total€sentence."€€òòId.óó€€òòóóThus,€although€the€defendant's€ability€to€pay€a€fine€is€aÐ œì Ðfactor,€it€is€not€necessarily€a€controlling€one.€€òòSee€State€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€542€(Tenn.Ð ˆØ ÐCrim.€App.€1993),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993)òòóó.€€A€fine€is€not€automatically€precluded€justÐ tÄ Ðbecause€it€works€a€substantial€hardship€on€the€Appellant;€it€may€be€punitive€in€the€same€fashionÐ `° Ðincarceration€may€be€punitive.€€òòIdóó.€€In€consideration€of€the€foregoing€principles€and€the€impositionÐ L œ Ðof€a€reasonable€fine€by€the€trial€court,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ  ` ÐÌÓe4Óà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€imposing€aÐ è 8  Ðcontinuous€forty„five€day€period€of€confinement€or€a€fine€of€$500.€€The€judgment€of€the€WeakleyÐ Ô$  ÐCounty€Circuit€Court€is€affirmed.ò òÐ À  ÐÌó óÔ#†Xx˜XXXx˜7#ÔÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 4„ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE