ÿWPCO …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ  w@4 t 0Jz 0TÄ 0^ 0hv 0rÞ 0|P 0†Ì 0R 1uâ 0dW B» D3Ø U>  0@IU *‰B)³DCÜ AMílv~YvÓ× AOªÆù 0D¿ D/ B2˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡·‚^!3|xùÿBYERSÿÿBYERSÿ åæçèEéêëìDíÊîÓ€HR2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d%%%%'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ãÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òNovember€14,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPt HHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{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  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ ž ÒÒ £ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€.ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›ÌÌÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€120;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌSEPTEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÒ ž ÒÒ î ÒÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAppellee,à àà à)à àNO.€03C01„9505„CR„00130Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMcMINN€COUNTY€ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€94„620€and€94„621Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€R.€STEVEN€BEBB,€JUDGE€€€€€€ÌSHIRLEY€ANNETTE€KIRBY,à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœ(Sale€of€marijuana,€two€counts)›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌAshley€L.€Ownbyà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ180€North€Ocoee€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌFourth€Judicial€Districtà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àÌP.€O.€Box€176à àà àà àà àà àœSteven€M.€Roderick›ÌCleveland,€Tennessee€37364„0176à àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€œ37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJerry€N.€EstesÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à203€East€Madison€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€647Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAthens,€Tennessee€37371›ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAmy€ArmstrongÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌÒ ž ÒÒ , Òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœ203€East€Madison€Avenue›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAthens,€Tennessee€œ37371›Ì̛̜ÌOPINION€FILED:___________________Ì̛̜ÌAffirmed̛̜ÌÌLee€Russell,€Special€œJudge›Ì̛̜ÌÒ ž ÒÒ X ÒÓ` °ŽXB'0*ŒXÓÌÑ7€Å XXdìXXdì7ÑÌÓ  Óòòò òœÌOPINIONó ó›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àóóThis€appeal€is€taken€as€of€right€from€the€trial€courtððs€requirement€that€theÏDefendant€serve€thirty€days€of€a€two€year€sentence€imposed€at€a€sentencing€hearingÏfollowing€pleas€of€guilty€to€two€charges€of€selling€a€Schedule€VI€controlledÏsubstance.€€The€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€suspended€theÏentire€period€of€her€concurrent€sentences€based€upon€the€presumption€contained€inÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Ô€,Ô€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€€€Ô€.ÔThe€State€contends€that€the€trial€judgeÏproperly€required€service€of€thirty€days€of€incarceration€based€upon€the€need€to€deterÏthe€sale€of€drugs€and€based€upon€the€Defendantððs€untruthfulness€in€the€informationÏshe€provided€for€her€presentence€report.€€This€œcourt›€affirms€the€trial€courtððsÏrequirement€of€incarceration€for€thirty€days.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOn€June€29,€1993,€an€agent€of€the€C.I.D.€Department€of€the€TennesseeÍHighway€Patrol€visited€the€home€of€the€Defendant,€Shirley€Kirby,€to€attempt€toÏpurchase€marijuana€from€the€Defendant.€€The€agent€gave€the€Defendant€$1,150.00Ïwith€which€to€make€a€purchase,€and€one€of€the€Defendantððs€three€children€present€inÏthe€home€asked€the€agent€whether€he€wanted€a€ð ðhalfðð€or€a€œð ðquarterðð,›€obviouslyÏreferring€to€the€amount€of€marijuana€to€be€purchased.€€The€agent€responded€that€heÏwanted€a€half.€€The€Defendant€returned€to€her€home€in€forty€minutes€and€delivered€aÏlarge€plastic€bag€of€marijuana€to€the€agent.€€A€second€controlled€purchase€from€theÏDefendant€occurred€on€July€7,€1993.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€July,€1993,€term€of€the€McMinn€County€Grand€Jury€returned€indictmentsÏon€two€counts€of€the€sale€of€marijuana€in€an€amount€more€than€one€half€ounce€butÏless€than€ten€pounds,€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Ô€,Ôðð€Ô€.Ô39„17„417(g)(1).€ÏThe€Defendant€subsequently€entered€pleas€of€guilty€to€two€counts€of€selling€aÏSchedule€VI€controlled€substance.€€At€a€sentencing€hearing€on€December€5,€1994,Ïthe€trial€judge€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€œtwo€two›€year€terms,€one€term€for€each€ofÏthe€two€œoffenses,›€and€allowed€the€sentences€to€run€concurrently.€€The€trial€judgeÏfined€the€Defendant€$2,000.00€for€each€offense€and€required€her€to€serve€only€thirtyÏdays€of€her€sentence,€plus€thirty€days€of€community€service,€with€the€balance€of€herÏsentence€suspended.€€The€Ñ7€Å XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑDefendant€appeals€only€the€requirement€that€thirty€daysÏof€the€sentence€be€served.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àNo€live€testimony€was€offered€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€only€evidenceÍwas€the€stipulated€presentence€report,€plus€representations€made€by€counsel.€€TheÏreport€revealed€that€the€Defendant€was€a€thirty„three€year€old€female€who€had€beenÏmarried€to€the€same€husband,€a€co„defendant,€since€1978.€€The€Defendant€had€threeÏœchildren›€and€was€gainfully€employed€as€an€inspector€at€œDamien€Industries,›€whereÏshe€has€worked€since€1988.€€This€employer€advised€that€the€Defendant€would€beÏable€to€keep€her€job€if€her€sentences€were€suspended.€€The€presentence€reportÏindicated€that€the€Defendant€had€no€prior€criminal€record,€and€the€report€containedÏthis€assessment€by€the€author€of€the€report:€ð ðBecause€of€the€Defendantððs€apparentÏlack€of€a€prior€criminal€record€and€her€expressed€remorse,€it€is€the€opinion€of€thisÏofficer€that€Mrs.€Kirby€may€be€a€good€candidate€for€a€suspended€sentence,Ïunsupervised.ððÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€presentence€report€contained€this€handwritten€statement€by€theÏDefendant:€€ð ðThis€incident€was€a€one€time€offense€and€I€deeply€regret€doing€it.ðð€€TheÏpresentence€report€included€the€statement€of€the€agent€who€made€the€controlledÏpurchase,€and€the€agent€reported€as€follows€concerning€the€occasion€of€the€firstÏpurchase:€ð ðBefore€[the€Defendant]€left,€one€of€the€kids€went€to€the€door€[of€the€mobileÏhome]€as€[the€Defendant]€was€turning€around€and€asked€this€writer€whether€thisÏwriter€wanted€a€half€or€a€quarter€referring€to€marijuana.ððÌÓÓÌà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing€the€trial€judge€made€this€statement:€€ÌÌà8 àNow,€in€this€case€I€want€you€all€to€realize€one€thing:€I€want€you€to€realizeÏright€quick€that€this€Court€does€not€believe€for€one€instant,€one€instant,Íthat€this€was€your€only€involvement€in€selling€marijuana,€and€I€donððtÏbelieve€that€because€it€is€ludicrous€to€believe€it,€and€it€is€ludicrous€evenÏmore€so€when€you€read€the€undercover€agentððs€side€of€what€happenedÏhere€when€you€left,€Mrs.€Kirby,€to€go€get€these€drugs€one€of€the€childrenÏsaid,€ð ðDid€you€want€a€half€or€a€quarter?ðð€€I€mean€to€me,€you€know,Ïmaybe€you€have€got€three€children€and€maybe€you€are€good€parents,€IÏdonððt€know,€but€it€sounds€to€me€like€you€had€them€involved€in€a€criminalÏenterprise.€€And€I€do€not€believe€for€one€instant€that€this€is€a€one€timeÏoffense.€€However,€I€must€take€into€consideration€that€you€have€no€priorÏconvictions.€.€.€œ.›ÌÌÓÓThere€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€concerning€the€extent€of€the€drug€problem€inÏœMcMinn›€County,€and€there€is€no€explicit€discussion€of€the€presumption€in€favor€ofÏalternative€sentencing,€the€overcoming€of€that€presumption,€or€of€precisely€how€theÏtrial€judgeððs€disbelief€of€the€Defendantððs€claim€to€be€a€first€time€offender€entered€intoÏhis€decision€to€require€her€to€serve€thirty€days€of€incarceration.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€Defendant€in€this€case€was€eligible€for€consideration€of€probation€basedÏupon€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Ô€,Ô€Ô€.ÔððÔ€,Ô€40„35„303(a).€Ô€.ÔTennessee€Code€œAnnotated›€€œðð€40„35„303(b)›€states€that€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€probation€at€the€trialÏcourt€level€rests€with€the€criminal€defendant.€€Under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€€ððÏ40„35„401(d),€this€appellate€courtððs€review€of€the€manner€in€which€a€trial€judgeÏorders€a€criminal€defendant€to€serve€a€sentence€is€òòde€novo€óówith€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€trial€judgeððs€determination.€€This€presumption€of€correctness€isÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏthe€sentencing€principles€contained€in€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€and€considered€allÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€See€òòState€v.€Ashby,€óó823€S.W.2d€166,€at€169Í(Tenn.€1991).€€The€Sentencing€Commission€œComments›€to€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€€ðð€40„35„401€state€that€the€burden€of€showing€on€appeal€that€the€sentenceÏis€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àReview€òòde€novo€óóof€the€partial€denial€of€probation€requires€application€of€theÏsentencing€principles€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€€ðð€40„35„103€to€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€in€the€record€which€are€deemed€relevant€in€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€Ô€,Ô€Ô€.Ôðð€40„35„210(b).€€œThese€facts€and€circumstances›€include€theÏevidence€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€presentence€report,€the€arguments€ofÏcounsel€as€to€sentencing€alternatives€and€on€other€issues,€the€nature€andÏcharacteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved,€the€prior€criminal€record€of€theÏcriminal€defendant,€any€statement€by€the€criminal€defendant€and€any€other€evidenceÏin€the€record€which€bears€on€the€criminal€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€œÌÓÓ›ÌÓÓà àA€criminal€defendant€is€œrebuttably›€presumed€to€be€entitled€to€a€sentence€notÏinvolving€incarceration€provided€that€he€or€she€meets€the€requirements€of€TennesseeÏCode€AnnotatedÔ€,Ô€Ô€.Ôðð40„35„102(6).€€The€State€concedes€that€the€presumption€exists€inÏthis€case,€and€the€issue€then€is€whether€the€State€presented€sufficient€evidence€atÏthe€sentencing€hearing€to€rebut€the€presumption.€€The€evidence€to€overcome€theÏpresumption€must€be€of€a€type€which€bears€on€the€sentencing€considerations€set€outÏin€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð40„35„103.€€The€consideration€contained€inÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð40„35„103(1)(A)€applies€to€defendants€who€have€longÍhistories€of€criminal€conduct,€and€that€does€not€apply€to€the€Defendant€here.€€TheÏconsideration€contained€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103(1)(C)€applies€toÏdefendants€for€whom€less€restrictive€measures€have€ð ðfrequently€or€recently€beenÏapplied€unsuccessfully.ðð€€This€consideration€does€not€apply€because€this€DefendantÏhas€not€previously€been€the€object€of€discipline€by€the€court€system.€€TheÏconsideration€contained€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€isÏwhether€confinement€is€ð ðnecessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÏoffense€œ€or›€where€incarceration€is€œparticularly›€suited€to€provide€an€effectiveÏdeterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€œoffenses.ð𛀀This€consideration,€plus€theÏconsideration€of€rehabilitation€œpotential›€mentioned€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ððÏ40„35„103(5),€have€application€to€the€facts€of€the€case€now€before€this€œcourt.›ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€presented€by€theÏState€€œat›€the€sentencing€hearing€to€rebut€the€presumption€in€favor€of€alternativeÏsentencing.€€The€Defendant€points€out€a€number€of€facts€contained€in€theÏpresentence€report€which€in€fact€support€the€granting€of€probation,€including€lack€ofÏany€prior€criminal€record,€a€good€employment€record,€a€stable€marital€relationship,Ïand€expressions€of€remorse.€€The€Defendant€relies€heavily€on€the€case€of€òòState€v.ÏHartley,€óó818€S.W.2d€370€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€for€the€proposition€that€theÏpresumption€of€suitability€for€alternative€sentencing€has€not€been€overcome€by€theÏState.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing€in€the€present€case,€the€trial€judge€did€not€explicitlyÏacknowledge€the€existence€of€the€presumption€in€favor€of€alternative€sentencing€andÏdid€not€expressly€acknowledge€any€requirement€on€the€State€to€overcome€thatÏpresumption.€€The€trial€judge€did€not€state€expressly€that€the€presumption€had€beenÏovercome€and€did€not€œrecite›€in€any€formal€manner€to€which€of€the€sentencingÏconsiderations€he€applied€the€facts€which€he€found€in€order€to€overcome€theÏpresumption€in€favor€of€alternative€sentencing.€€However,€it€is€implicit€in€the€trialÏjudgeððs€statements€and€actions€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€he€made€theÏappropriate€analysis€required€by€statute.€First,€the€trial€judge€suspended€a€year€andÏeleven€months€of€the€sentence,€all€except€one€month€or€about€four€percent€of€theÏsentence.€€The€trial€judge€expressly€referred€to€the€absence€of€a€prior€criminal€recordÏas€a€ð ðfactorðð€in€suspending€most€of€the€sentence.€€He€œmade›€a€finding€that€theÏDefendant€œhad›€been€untruthful€in€providing€information€for€the€presentence€reportÏand€points€out€that€the€Defendant€œhad›€exposed€her€minor€children€to€a€criminalÏenterprise,€both€factors€that€a€trial€judge€can€legitimately€consider€when€applying€theÏsentencing€considerations€contained€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€œðð40„35„103,€asÏdiscussed€below.€›€€Finally,€although€the€trial€judge€did€not€mention€deterrence€andÏheard€no€testimony€on€the€need€to€deter€drug€use€in€McMinn€County€the€StateÏasserts€that€the€trial€judge€considered€deterrence€as€a€sentencing€œconsideration›€inÏthis€case.€€Therefore€the€untruthfulness€of€the€Defendant,€the€need€for€œdeterrence€ofÏthe€crimes€and›€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€its€surrounding€œcircumstances,›€are€theÏsentencing€considerations€to€be€considered€in€our€review€of€this€partial€denial€ofÍprobation.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€trial€judge€concluded€that€the€Defendant€had€been€untruthful€because€sheÏdenied€in€a€written€statement€œprepared€for›€œher›€presentence€report€that€she€hadÏpreviously€been€dealing€drugs.€€The€trial€judge€logically€inferred€from€the€agentððsÏreport€of€his€conversation€with€the€Defendantððs€child€that€the€child€had€witnessedÏprior€drug€sales€by€the€Defendant.€€The€child€demonstrated€a€knowledge€of€theÏjargon€of€the€drug€trade€and€demonstrated€a€knowledge€of€the€appropriate€inquiry€œtoÏbe€made›€of€a€customer€in€a€drug€transaction.€€The€child€was€allowed€by€theÏDefendant€to€be€present€for€the€transaction,€suggesting€familiarity€with€suchÏtransactions€and€reflecting€no€fear€of€an€adverse€reaction€to€a€first€exposure€to€drugÏdealing.€€The€evidence€was€that€the€Defendantððs€minor€children€lived€in€this€home,Ïwith€both€their€parents,€and€not€in€another€household€where€they€might€have€beenÏexposed€to€drug€trafficking.€€The€trial€judgeððs€inference€of€untruthfulness€on€the€partÏof€the€Defendant€is€altogether€justified.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àUntruthfulness€by€a€criminal€defendant€is€a€factor€that€may€be€considered€inÏdetermining€the€appropriateness€of€probation.€€See€òòState€v.€Chrisman,€óóS.W.2d€1834,Ï840€(Tenn.€Cr.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Byrd,€óó861€S.W.2d€377,€380€(Tenn.€Cr.€App.Ï1993);€òòState€v.€Neely,€óó678€S.W.2d€48,€49€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Bunch,€óó646€S.W.2dÏ158,€160€(Tenn.€1983).€€Lack€of€truthfulness€is€probative€on€the€issue€of€amenabilityÏto€rehabilitation,€the€impetus€behind€probation.€€œòòSee›€Byrd;€United€States€v.€Grayson,Íóó438€U.S.€41,€50,€98S.Ct.€2610,€2616,€57€L.Ed.2nd€582€(1978).€€Prior€to€passage€ofÏthe€Sentencing€Reform€Act,€untruthfulness€at€trial€could€be€the€primary€and€indeedÏthe€only€expressed€grounds€for€denying€probation,€provided€that€the€untruthfulÏstatements€were€more€than€a€mere€refusal€to€admit€œguilt.€€òòSee›€State€v.€Bunch,€óó646ÏœS.W.2d€at›€œ160.›€€Untruthfulness€at€a€sentencing€hearing€œas€opposed€to€untruthfulnessÏat€trial,€has›€expressly€been€held€to€be€a€factor€that€may€be€considered€in€denyingÏprobation.€€òòSee€State€v.€Dykes,€óó803€S.W.2d€250€(Tenn.€Cr.€App.€1990).ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€nature€of€the€offense€and€circumstances€surrounding€the€offense€areÏimportant€considerations€in€determining€suitability€for€œprobation›€but€is€only€oneÏconsideration€and€will€not€by€itself€warrant€denial€of€probation€unless€the€act€wasÏð ðespecially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€anÏexcessive€or€exaggerated€degree.ðð€€œòòSee›€Byrd,€œóó861€S.W.2d€at›€380;€œòò€Hartleyóó,›€818ÏS.W.2d€œat€›€œ374;›€òòState€v.€Travis,€óó622€S.W.2d€529,€534€(Tenn.€1981).€€In€the€presentÏcase,€the€Defendant€mother€not€only€allowed€drug€sales€to€occur€in€the€family€homeÏwhere€her€three€minor€children€lived€and€in€the€presence€of€one€or€more€of€theÏchildren,€but€she€also€allowed€this€to€occur€with€enough€frequency€for€one€of€theÏchildren€to€learn€the€jargon€and€the€appropriate€inquiries€to€be€made€of€customers.€ÏThe€Defendant€allowed€a€minor€child€actually€to€participate€in€the€transaction€byÏconsulting€the€customer.€€Such€conduct€is€at€the€very€least€reprehensible€andÏoffensive,€and€although€it€might€not€standing€alone€justify€denial€of€probation,€it€isÏcertainly€a€factor€to€be€considered€in€assessing€whether€probation€would€depreciateÍthe€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€whether€denial€of€probation€would€deter€similarÏoffenses.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àDeterrence€of€crime€is€a€valid€consideration,€at€least€where€there€is€proof€of€aÏspecific€kind€of€crime€problem€in€a€specific€industry.€€œòòSee›€œByrd,€861€S.W.2d€›€óóat€380Ï(thefts€of€jewelry€by€jewelry€store€employees).€€On€the€other€hand,€it€has€been€heldÏthat€a€finding€of€deterrence€cannot€be€conclusory€only€but€must€be€supported€byÏœproof.€òòSee€State€v.›€œAshby,€óó823€S.W.2d€166,òò€óóat›€œ170€(Tenn.€1991)›€(sixty€year€oldÏretired€farmer€reselling€prescription€valium).€€In€order€to€be€the€sole€grounds€forÏdenying€probation,€there€should€be€proof€that€those€likely€to€violate€criminal€laws€willÏbe€deterred€by€the€incarceration€of€this€particular€criminal€defendant,€because€aÏneed€to€deter€is€inherent€in€every€crime€and€is€not€by€itself€a€realistic€and€reasonableÏway€to€distinguish€between€those€who€should€receive€probation€and€those€whoÏshould€œnot.€€òòId.óó›ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€the€òòDykesóó€case,€relied€upon€œby€›the€State€and€decided€under€theÏSentencing€Reform€Act,€drug€trafficking€was€singled€out€as€particularly€in€need€ofÏdeterrence€and€as€being€a€problem€of€such€œstatewide€magnitude›€as€to€obviate€theÏœnecessitÔ% € Ôy›€of€producing€a€great€deal€of€location„specific€evidence€on€the€need€toÏdeter.€€This€court€held€as€follows€while€affirming€denial€of€probation:ÌÓÓÌà8 à€€€€€Deterrence€is€also€a€factor€which€may€be€considered.€€Today,€theÏsale€and€use€of€illicit€narcotics€are€running€rampant€in€every€TennesseeÏcommunity.€€While€our€federal€government,€state€government,€localÍgovernment,€and€law€enforcement€officials€are€continually€taking€stepsÏto€curtail€the€sale€and€use€of€illicit€narcotics€as€well€as€to€rehabilitate€theÏusers,€drug€trafficking€continues€to€flourish.€€In€fact,€the€gross€sales€andÏuse€of€narcotics€continue€to€increase€annually;€and€crimes€that€areÏdirectly€related€to€the€sale€and€use€of€illicit€narcotics€also€continue€toÏincrease.€€Ìà àÌà8 à€€€€While€the€record€is€void€of€any€evidence€that€the€sale€or€use€of€drugsÏis€€running€rampant€in€Hawkins€County,€this€crime€is€deterrable€òòper€se.€ÏóóThere€has€been€and€is€an€increasing€public€awareness€of€the€need€toÏdeter€individuals€who€engage€in€the€sale€of€illicit€narcotics;€and€thisÏawareness€continues€to€be€a€matter€of€growing€concern.€€Therefore,€theÏ[Defendant]€is€not€entitled€to€probation€due€to€the€deterrent€effect€thatÏsuch€judgment€will€have€on€those€who€are€engaged€in€like€or€similarÏœconduct.ÌÌòòId.€óóat€260.Ì›ÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€òòHartleyóó€case€on€which€the€Defendant€œrelies,€the€eighteen›€œyear€oldÏaccused€›€was€a€guest€in€the€home€of€the€intended€object€of€a€controlled€buy€ofÏcocaine.€€The€contact€called€the€home,€and€the€homeowner€stated€that€he€did€not€atÏthat€time€have€access€to€any€cocaine.€€Another€guest€in€the€home€spoke€up€that€heÏmight€be€able€to€obtain€a€quantity€of€the€drug.€€The€homeowner€could€not€leave€theÏpremises€to€drive€the€other€guest€to€his€source€because€the€homeowner€wasÏbabysitting€his€nephew.€€Therefore€Defendant€Hartley€drove€the€vehicle€thatÏtransported€the€other€guest€to€his€source€and€ultimately€was€arrested€in€the€vehicle€inÏwhich€the€other€guest€had€the€cocaine.€€There€was€no€evidence€that€DefendantÏHartley€had€any€pecuniary€interest€in€the€transaction,€but€he€was€of€course€œaware›€ofÏwhy€he€was€transporting€the€other€man.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€trial€judge€in€òòHartleyóó€sentenced€the€young€man€to€three€years€in€theÏworkhouse€and€declined€to€grant€probation.€€Defendant€Hartley€had€only€relativelyÏminor€offenses€on€his€record,€had€a€job€available€to€him€if€he€could€receiveÏprobation,€was€enrolled€in€high€school,€and€expressed€remorse€for€his€actions.€€TheÏtrial€judge€denied€probation€after€noting€that€cocaine€is€a€ð ðparticularly€bad€kind€ofÏpoisonðð€and€equating€it€with€ð ðshooting€a€rifle€in€a€crowd.ðð€€The€œtrial€judge›€stated€thatÏalthough€he€was€not€saying€that€he€ð ðwould€never€grant€œprobation€.€.€.€it›€would€have€toÏbe€a€very€unusual€case€and€this€is€not€an€unusual€œcase.ð𛀀This€court€reversed€theÏdenial€of€probation€and€ordered€probation€with€split€confinement.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€òòHartleyóó€this€court€held€that€the€trial€court€imposed€its€own€standard€forÏsuitability€for€probation€ð ðwhich€was€not€authorized€by€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time€ofÏsentencing.ðð€€òòId.€óóat€374.€€This€court€held,€ð ðOnce€the€legislature€has€specificallyÏauthorized€the€use€of€sentencing€alternatives€to€confinement€for€a€particular€offense,Ïtrial€courts€may€not€summarily€impose€a€different€standard€by€which€probation€isÏdenied€solely€because€of€the€defendantððs€guilt€for€that€offense.ðð€€òòId.€€óóThe€court€inÏòòHartleyóó€noted€that€neither€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A)€œnor›Ï103(1)(C)€applied€because€of€the€limited€past€record€and€absence€of€pastÏconfinement€of€Defendant€Hartley.€€Focus€was€therefore€on€subsection€103(1)(B),€theÏissue€of€whether€confinement€was€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousnessÏof€the€offense€or€œconfinement€was€›€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effectiveÏdeterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses.€€òòId.€€óóThe€court€found€thatÍsubsection€103(1)(B)€could€not€be€relied€upon€to€overcome€the€presumption€ofÏsuitability€because€Defendant€Hartley€had€a€minor€role€in€the€offense,€no€personalÏintent€to€commit€a€crime,€and€no€financial€interest€in€the€transaction.€€òòId.€óóat€375.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€court€in€òòHartleyóó€noted€that€probation€may€properly€be€denied€based€solelyÏœonÌ›the€circumstances€surrounding€the€offense,€but€only€where€the€circumstances€of€theÏoffense€committed€are€ð ðespecially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,Ïoffensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree.ðð€€òòId.€œóóat›€œ374;€›€òòState€v.ÏCleavor,€óó691€S.W.2d€541,€543€(Tenn.€1985).€€The€court€in€òòHartley€óóappeared€to€holdÏthat€the€need€for€deterrence€in€drug€cases,€in€the€abstract€and€not€tied€to€conditionsÏin€the€judicial€district,€and€standing€alone€as€a€sentencing€consideration,€would€notÏsupport€a€denial€of€probation€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€œ40„35„103(1)(B).›€ÏœòòId.›€óóat€375.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€various€cases€examining€the€need€for€deterrence€as€a€sentencingÏconsideration€can€readily€be€reconciled.€€There€is€a€general€acknowledgment€of€aÏwidespread€and€serious€problem€with€drugs€which€must€be€deterred.€€However,€theÏGeneral€Assembly€has€not€seen€fit€to€declare€drug€offenders€as€a€group€unfit€forÏœprobation,›€and€therefore€the€usual€sentencing€criteria€should€be€applied.€€When€aÏpast€criminal€history€or€repeated€or€recent€failures€to€rehabilitate€are€not€present,Ïthen€an€examination€is€made€of€the€particular€offender€or€œthe›€particular€locality€toÍdetermine€whether€there€is,€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B),€aÏneed€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€an€offense€or€to€deter€others€likely€toÏcommit€similar€offenses.€€In€the€case€of€a€sixty„odd€year€old€farmer€who€resells€onlyÏvalium€prescribed€to€him,€there€is€no€œuniquely€acute€need€to€deter,€as€the€òòAshbyÏóócourt€held.€€In€the€case€of€a€very€young€adult€who€drove€a€vehicle€for€a€casual€sellerÏof€drugs€and€who€had€no€pecuniary€interest€in€the€transaction€and€provided€neitherÏthe€drugs€nor€the€customer€for€them,€there€is€relatively€little€likelihood€of€depreciatingÏthe€seriousness€of€the€offense€or€of€others€committing€similar€offenses,€€as€theÏòòHartley€óócourt€held.€€In€the€case€of€a€seller€of€marijuana€making€multiple€sales€ofÏmarijuana€to€a€stranger,€who€also€at€trial€presents€an€elaborately€concocted€andÏfraudulent€alibi€for€his€whereabouts€at€the€time€of€the€sales,€there€is€a€need€to€deterÏothers€and€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€as€the€òòDykes€óócourtÏheld.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judice,€óóthe€trial€judge€concluded,€€based€on€a€very€reasonableÏinterpretation€of€the€facts,€that€the€Defendant€was€a€repeat€seller€of€marijuana€inÏrelatively€substantial€quantities,€half€and€quarter€bags,€out€of€her€own€home.€€ThisÏconduct€clearly€needed€to€be€deterred,€especially€as€it€involved€sales€in€theÏpresence€of€and€with€the€participation€of€one€or€more€minor€children.€€The€need€toÏdeter€other€similar€activity,€the€need€not€to€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€involvingÏchildren€in€the€drug€trade,€and€the€logical€conclusion€that€the€Defendant€wasÏuntruthful€in€submitting€information€for€her€presentence€report€combine€to€support€aÍfinding€that€the€trial€judge€was€correct€in€determining€that€the€State€overcame€theÏpresumption€of€suitability€for€alternative€sentencing.€ÌÓÓÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.òò›ÌÓÓÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àóóLEE€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌ̛̜ÌCONCUR:Ì̛̜Ì____________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌ̛̜Ì____________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌòòÌÓ  ÓÌóó