ÿWPCŒ# …U:V % 0Ü–w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u© 0d B‚U *ŸB)ÉDCò AM5¶‚08»hv~#vÓ¡ D3t! 0@§! AOç!Æ6" 0Dü" D/@# Bo#, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ 9D:U;<D=>D?@UAUBÓ€·‚^!ô3|xM(Ð(3Çš$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€\àXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¬Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òFeb…ruaryÏ12,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À\àXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€offense€captioned€"computer€fraud"€on€the€judgment€of€conviction€is€the€violation€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„602(a)(2)€and€is€defined,€in€relevant€part:Ìà8 àWhoever€knowingly€.€.€.€causes€to€be€accessed€.€.€.€any€.€.€.€computer€program,Ïdata,€computer,€computer€system€.€.€.€for€the€purpose€of:ÌÌà8 à€€€(2)€causing€computer€output€to€purposefully€be€false,€for,€but€not€limited€to,€theÏpurpose€of€obtaining€money,€property€.€.€.€for€oneself€or€another€by€means€ofÏfalse€or€fraudulent€pretenses€.€.€.€is€subject€to€penalties€of€ðð€39„14„105€[grading€ofÏtheft€offenses].Ìà8 àÌ ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„306(a)€(1990),€which€provides,ÌÌà8 à(a)€€A€defendant€receiving€probation€may€be€required€to€serve€a€portion€of€theÏsentence€in€continuous€confinement€for€up€to€one€year€in€the€local€jail€orÏworkhouse,€with€probation€for€a€period€of€time€up€to€and€including€the€òòstatutoryÏmaximum€timeóó€for€the€class€of€the€conviction€offense.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò òÙ€€ÙßR€$%#A1-j|` e `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àDECEMBER€SESSION,€1996Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9606„CR„00248Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOX€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Mary€Beth€Leibowitz,€JudgeÌò òLYNDA€GAYLE€KIRKLAND,à à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Theft€over€$60,000;€computer€fraud)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àState€AppealÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellantóó:ÌÌJames€A.€H.€Bellà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌJackson€L.€Case,€IVà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ110€W.€Summit€Hill€Driveà àÌKnoxville,€TN€€37902à àà àà àElizabeth€T.€RyanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRandall€E.€NicholsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJeff€BlevinsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€37902ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó ớ̜à àThe€appellee,€Lynda€Gayle€Kirkland,€pled€guilty€in€the€Knox€CountyÏCriminal€Court€to€theft€of€property€over€$60,000€and€to€computer€fraud€overÏ$60,000,€both€class€B€felonies.× ƒ& ××  ×€€Following€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trialÏcourt€imposed€concurrent€eight€year€sentences€for€each€conviction€with€all€timeÏsuspended€except€for€nine€months€which€were€ordered€to€be€served€in€the€KnoxÏCounty€Penal€Farm€at€one€hundred€percent.€€Additionally,€the€appellee€wasÏplaced€on€supervised€probation€with€various€conditions€for€a€period€of€twelveÏyears,€including€payment€of€restitution€in€the€amount€of€$202,096.75.ÌÌà àThe€State€brings€this€appeal€contending€that€the€sentence€imposed€is€tooÏlenient.€€Specifically,€the€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€sentencingÏthe€appellee€to€the€maximum€term€of€twelve€years€in€the€state€penitentiary.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trialÍcourt.ÌÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Backgroundó óÌÌà àIn€1985,€Robert€Unger,€part€owner€of€the€Chalet€Ice€Rink€in€Knox€County,Ïemployed€the€appellee€as€the€corporation's€bookkeeper.€€In€this€position,€sheÏmaintained€the€business'€financial€records€in€both€paper€and€computer€format.€ÏAs€a€trusted€employee,€she€had€unrestricted€access€to€the€accounts€of€theÏbusiness.€€Prior€to€November€1,€1989,€the€appellee€began€making€false€entriesÏinto€the€computer€to€withdraw€the€company's€funds€for€her€personal€use.€€OverÏthe€next€five€years,€until€January€1994,€the€appellee€used€her€position€to€signÏextra€payroll€checks€to€herself€and€to€write€checks€to€her€mortgage€company.€ÏDuring€this€period,€the€appellee€misappropriated€approximately€$202,096.75.€ÏMoreover,€to€hinder€the€corporation's€discovery€of€her€theft,€the€appelleeÏcreated€fraudulent€bank€reports,€destroyed€all€canceled€checks€received€fromÏthe€corporation's€bank,€impeded€the€delivery€of€the€corporation's€mail€relating€toÏfinances,€and€transferred€$4236.49€from€Mr.€Unger's€personal€Visa€card€to€theÏcorporation's€checking€account€to€thwart€overdrafts€threatened€by€her€theft.ÌÌà àThe€appellee's€activities€were€only€discovered€when€Larry€LaBorde,€aÏco„owner,€investigated€missing€bank€statements€in€February€1994.€€ThroughÍthis€investigation,€LaBorde€learned€that€the€bank€had€discontinued€the€practiceÏof€sending€quarterly€reports€ten€years€prior,€even€though,€Mr.€Unger€was€stillÏreceiving€such€reports€by€facsimile.€€He€also€discovered€that€the€corporation'sÏsavings€account,€which€the€owners€believed€to€have€a€balance€of€$230,000,Ïcontained€only€$1,000.€€Additionally,€he€noticed€that€there€were€numerousÏunaccountable€checks€written€to€the€appellee.ÌÌà àOn€June€21,€1994,€the€Grand€Jury€of€Knox€County€returned€an€indictmentÏcharging€the€appellee€with€one€count€of€theft€of€services€over€$60,000,€oneÏcount€of€theft€of€property€over€$60,000,€one€count€of€computer€fraud€overÏ$60,000,€and€one€count€of€forgery€over€$60,000.€€On€January€16,€1996,€theÏappellee€entered€guilty€pleas€to€one€count€of€theft€of€property€over€$60,000€andÏto€one€count€of€computer€fraud.€€All€sentencing€decisions€were€submitted€to€theÏtrial€court€for€its€determination.ÌÌà àOn€April€30,€1996,€the€Knox€County€Criminal€Court€conducted€aÏsentencing€hearing.€€The€evidence€presented€revealed€that€the€appellee€was€aÏforty„five€year€old€wife€and€mother.€€The€presentence€report€indicates€that€sheÏhas€a€twenty„six€year€old€son,€a€fourteen€year€old€daughter€and€a€twenty„oneÏyear€old€stepson.€€She€is€a€high€school€graduate€and€has€completed€someÏadditional€schooling.€€The€appellee€has€no€prior€criminal€record€and€does€notÏhave€a€problem€with€alcohol€or€drugs.€€The€appellee€explained€that€she€wasÍremorseful€for€her€actions€and€that€she€"was€stupid€for€trying€to€help€everyoneÏinstead€of€asking€for€help€myself."€€She€continued€to€state€that€many€differentÏcircumstances€triggered€her€crimes€including€late€payments€to€creditors,€herÏhusband's€inability€to€handle€financial€pressures,€the€discovery€that€herÏhusband€was€diabetic€and€manic€depressive,€and€her€self„imposed€duty€toÏsupport€extended€family€members.€€The€appellee€also€stated€that€sheÏmisappropriated€funds€to€provide€necessities€for€her€fourteen€year€old€daughter.€ÏHowever,€the€record€reflects€that€these€necessities€included€skating€outfits,Ïskating€lessons,€and€other€material€possessions.€€€The€appellee€explained€thatÏœshe€was€denied€these€possessions›€œand€activities€as€a€child.›ÌÌà àBoth€Mr.€Unger€and€Mr.€LaBorde,€the€co„owners€of€the€Chalet€Ice€Rink,Ïtestified€at€the€hearing.€€Both€related€that€they€"trusted€the€appellee€withÏeverything€.€.€.€,"€and€that€the€appellee€took€care€of€all€of€the€corporation'sÏfinancial€transactions.€€Mr.€Unger€stated€that€"I€never€expected€that€she€wouldÏsteal€anything."€€Mr.€LaBorde€confirmed€that€the€appellee€was€a€friend€and€alsoÏan€employee.€€€Moreover,€Mr.€LaBorde€stated€that,€upon€his€discovery€of€theÏmissing€bank€statements,€the€appellee€made€no€attempt€to€cooperate€in€theÏinvestigation.ÌÌà à€At€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€court€emphasized€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense€and€that,€although€the€appellee€suffers€from€a€varietyÍof€problems,€so€do€many€other€people.€€The€trial€court€applied€€threeÏenhancement€factors.€€First,€the€court€determined€that€the€amount€of€propertyÏtaken€from€the€victim€was€particularly€great.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(6)Ï(1996€Supp.).€€Next,€the€court€determined€that€the€appellee€committed€theÏoffenses€to€gratify€her€desire€for€pleasure.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(7).€ÏFinally,€the€court€found€that€the€appellee€abused€a€position€of€trust.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(15).€€In€mitigation,€the€court€considered€that€the€appellee€wasÏunder€great€mental€stress,€but€applied€little€weight€to€this€factor.€€ÌÌà àBefore€imposing€a€sentence,€the€court€remarked€that€its€goal,€in€theÏpresent€case,€was€to€structure€a€sentence€that€would€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense€and,€at€the€same€time,€permit€restitution€to€theÏvictims.€€The€court€then€sentenced€the€appellee€to€eight€years,€the€minimumÏsentence€in€the€range,€all€suspended€except€for€nine€months,€with€twelve€yearsÏof€supervised€probation.€€The€court€also€ordered€the€appellee€to€pay€restitutionÏin€the€amount€of€$202,096.75.€€€ÌÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Review€of€SentenceÌÌà àó óWhen€the€State€challenges€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court,€thisÏcourt€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÍmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„402(d)€(1990).€ÏHowever,€this€presumption€is€only€applied€if€there€is€an€"affirmative€showing€inÏthe€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€relevant€sentencing€principles€and€allÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€The€record€before€this€court€supports€application€of€the€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€to€the€trial€court's€conclusions.€€Moreover,€the€party€challenging€theÏsentence,€herein€the€State,€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€impropriety€of€saidÏsentence.€€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(1990).€€ò òÌÌà àó óOur€review€requires€that€we€consider€the€evidence€received€at€the€trialÏand€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€presentence€report,€the€principles€ofÏsentencing,€argument€of€counsel,€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offenses,Ïexisting€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€statements€made€by€the€offender,Ïand€the€defendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168;ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(1990).€€If€our€review€reveals:€(1)€that€the€recordÏadequately€supports€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact,€(2)€that€the€trial€courtÏfollowed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€and€(3)€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€and€properly€weighed€applicable€sentencing€factors,€then€we€mayÏnot€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€ÏòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ò òÌÌà@ àA.€€Length€of€Sentenceó óÌÌà àInitially,€the€State€contends€that,€because€the€trial€court€found€"theÏpresence€of€three€enhancement€factors€and€no€mitigating€factors,"€€the€courtÏinappropriately€imposed€the€minimum€sentence€(eight€years)€within€the€range.€ÏConsequently,€the€State€avers€that€the€trial€court€should€have€enhanced€theÏappellee's€sentence€to€the€maximum€within€the€range€(twelve€years).€€ÌÌà àAgain,€the€trial€court€found€the€presence€of€three€enhancement€factors:€Ï(6),€the€amount€of€property€taken€was€particularly€great;€(7),€the€offense€wasÏcommitted€to€gratify€the€appellee's€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement;€and€(15),Ïthe€appellee€abused€a€position€of€private€trust.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.€ÏNeither€party€contests€the€trial€court's€findings€regarding€the€applicableÏenhancement€factors.€€Moreover,€the€State€does€not€contend€that€any€additionalÏenhancement€factors€exist.€€Despite€the€State's€assertion€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€find€any€mitigating€factors,€the€record€reflects€that€the€court€considered€oneÏmitigating€factor,€the€mental€stress€of€the€appellee.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(8)€(1990).€€Thus,€the€only€issue€before€this€court€is€whether€the€trial€courtÏdetermined€the€length€of€the€appellee's€sentence€according€to€applicableÏsentencing€guidelines€and€principles.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellee€pled€guilty,€as€a€range€I€offender,€to€two€class€B€felonyÍoffenses.€€The€sentence€range€for€a€class€B€felony€is€eight€to€twelve€years.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(2)€(1990).€€In€determining€the€appropriateÏsentence€for€a€felony€conviction,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€instructs€theÏsentencing€court€that€"[t]he€presumptive€sentence€shall€be€the€minimumÏsentence€in€the€range€if€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors."€€IfÏthere€are€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€at€theÏminimum€sentence€in€the€range,€then€enhance€the€sentence€according€to€theÏenhancement€factors,€then€reduce€the€sentence€in€accordance€with€theÏmitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€ÌÌà àInitially,€we€are€aware€that€a€sentence€is€not€determined€by€theÏmathematical€process€of€adding€the€sum€of€enhancing€factors€present€thenÏsubtracting€from€this€figure€the€mitigating€factors€present€for€a€net€number€ofÏyears.€€€Rather,€the€weight€to€be€afforded€an€existing€factor€is€left€to€the€trialÏcourt's€discretion€so€long€as€the€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principlesÏof€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€the€record€adequately€supports€its€findings.€ÏòòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995)€(citing€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€237€(Tenn.€1986);€òòseeóó€ÏòòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169).ÌÌà àTrial€courts€may€exercise€their€discretion€in€determining€the€sentencingÍalternatives€or€the€length€of€the€term€of€confinement€and€by€imposing€differentÏsentences€depending€upon€the€nature€of€the€crime,€the€characteristics€andÏhistory€of€the€criminal,€and€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€particular€offenseÏinvolved.€€The€sentencing€act,€however,€guides€the€trial€court's€discretion€byÏestablishing€general€sentencing€principles€that€the€courts€must€follow.€€In€orderÏfor€the€act€to€be€successful,€sentencing€courts€must€apply€the€act€on€a€case„by„case€basis,€tailoring€each€sentence€to€that€particular€person€based€upon€theÏfacts€of€that€case€and€the€circumstances€of€that€defendant.€€òòMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€atÏ235.€The€policy€expressed€is€that€the€punishment€imposed€should€fit€the€crimeÏòòas€well€asóó€the€offender.€€òòIdóó.€(emphasis€added).€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894ÏS.W.2d€301,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(discussing€the€individualized€natureÏof€alternative€sentencing).€ÌÌà àFor€the€purpose€of€review,€the€trial€court€must€preserve€in€the€record€theÏfactors€it€found€to€apply€and€the€specific€findings€of€fact€upon€which€it€appliedÏthe€sentencing€principles€to€arrive€at€the€sentence.€€òòHayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€185Ï(citation€omitted).€€This€was€done€in€the€present€case.€€The€record€reflects€thatÏthe€trial€court€imposed€the€minimum€sentence,€eight€years,€in€order€that€theÏappellee€would€remain€eligible€for€probation.€€The€court€then€imposed€aÏsentence€of€split€confinement.€€The€sentence€included€nine€monthsÍincarceration€coupled€with€twelve€years€of€supervised€probation.× ƒ' ××  ×€€€As€the€trialÏcourt€stated,€"[t]his€way€the€Court€will€both€avoid€the€deprecation€[sic]€of€theÏoffense€and€the€Court€will€also€control€restitution€and€Ms.€Kirkland€for€sometimeÏto€come."€€Again,€the€presumption€of€correctness€applies€to€the€trial€court'sÏdetermination.€€Thus,€the€trial€court's€imposition€of€the€minimum€sentence€ofÏeight€years€is€justified.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òB.€€Probationó óÌÌà àIn€its€second€challenge€to€the€sentence,€the€State€contends€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€by€granting€a€term€of€probation,€rather€than€total€confinement.ÏSpecifically,€the€State€argues€that€the€appellee's€split€confinement€sentence€isÏimproper.ÌÌà àA€sentence€of€split€confinement€is€an€alternative€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c)(3)€(1995€Supp.).€€In€determining€the€appellee'sÏsuitability€for€an€alternative€sentence,€we€first€determine€whether€she€is€entitledÏto€the€statutory€presumption€that€she€is€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternativeÍsentencing.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€453€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.Ïto€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995)€(citing€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€167Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)).€€To€be€eligible€for€the€statutory€presumption,€threeÏrequirements€must€be€met.€€The€appellee€must€be€convicted€of€a€class€C,€D,€or€EÏfelony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(1994€Supp.).€€She€must€be€sentencedÏas€a€mitigated€or€standard€offender.€€òòIdóó.€€And,€she€must€not€fall€within€theÏparameters€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5)€(1994€Supp.).€€This€means€thatÏthe€appellee€cannot€have€a€criminal€history€evincing€either€a€"clear€disregard€forÏthe€laws€and€morals€of€society"€or€"failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation."€€òòIdóó.€ÏThe€appellee€was€convicted€of€two€class€B€felonies.€€Therefore,€she€is€notÏafforded€the€presumption€favoring€alternative€sentencing.€€Moreover,€theÏdefendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€her€suitability€for€probation.€€òòSeeóó€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„303(b).€€To€meet€this€burden,€the€defendant€mustÏdemonstrate€that€probation€will€"subserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€bestÏinterest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant."€€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€456Ï(citing€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)).ÌÌà àAlthough€not€afforded€the€presumption€favoring€alternative€sentence,€theÏappellee€is,€nonetheless,€eligible€for€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a)€("a€defendant€shall€be€eligible€for€probation€.€.€.€€if€the€sentence€actuallyÏimposed€.€.€.€€is€eight€years€or€less.€.€.€.).€€While€not€controlling€the€discretion€ofÏthe€sentencing€court,€the€following€criteria€shall€be€accorded€weight:€"(1)€theÍnature€and€[circumstances]€of€the€conduct€involved,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(4);€(2)€the€defendant's€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5);€(3)€whether€a€sentence€of€probation€willÏunduly€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B);€and€(4)€whether€a€sentence€other€than€probation€would€provide€anÏeffective€deterrent€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€crimes,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„103(1)(B)."€€òòIdóó.€€The€trial€court€properly€considered€these€factors,Ïincluding€the€ongoing€nature€of€the€offense,€the€appellee's€lack€of€a€priorÏcriminal€record,€the€appellee's€work€history,€the€appellee's€position€as€a€wifeÏand€mother,€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€and€the€need€for€restitution.€€TheÏtrial€court's€imposition€of€a€sentence€involving€a€period€of€confinement€followedÏby€supervised€probation€reflects€consideration€of€these€factors.€€Again,€applyingÏthe€presumption€of€correctness€afforded€the€sentencing€court's€determination,Ïwe€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€granting€the€appellee€aÏsentence€which€includes€probation.€€This€issue€is,€similarly,€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€Conclusionó óÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€the€sentencingÏprinciples€to€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€case.€€Moreover,€the€recordÏsupports€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€As€such,€we€cannot€find€errorÍin€the€trial€court's€sentencing€decisions.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€is€œaffirmed.Ì›ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÌ̛̜Ì__________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge