ÿWPCH  àPÒ;‚àðä¿ÞhgnÉB%.9Ü6¨Œ€fúž”®©·AS$sXQ0ÝTË}~/Á ÃòĤÇrF^Üìéœé\6Vÿ*ù½Ìw6[s¼f¬ã;ãléÈc²9ˆ’:ZW~r÷-‰r§‹Er˜J­%¥m1þ’— ….ÝìäXOοEÌrM1»ìšn„ˆ%zòÏÁ“q=Ðk‡SÒgé jÈZý•M§²ë-"’þߨ/ùUãdíAårZU"C˜‘ ÀŠÉ΄…ß?¾0 D™( ß¡!ÍÕ4ÚG~q=ô(|Š?5<Ö# ýjÿi‚ æ3†—úšYú3ùF›lwy×¼'¥4Ò]’ÿY.MóåõjÕ6¨‹ÇŸß+GÛ™ å&Ý$¼Æz~úA*é,ûŒMY£eW»DŠ«¥þd´;¼66\sÍô5TXàÕè1‰Í…¹©ç¾&R“àwJ‰WnþŽv½ó×"ÄÙK®•¨¿´ŽÇÜ¸ÌÆ}Q〆s¤u—ˆf¸d„ß´`×ëáªN k{ 6ubCò=ÞB.|„Õ› phð%ŒhûÓ¶)Z©ñmº+_®O?.AÜØc¡ëvi¯8ž?A¹£È15ܸKóØQ,# hUNs %Á 0(ÇU:ïb)w@14q… 0‚”U: 0ÔPU:$^)fU: BÉ É 0Dæ D3* * * * AQ] Æ® 0Dt 0D¸ D/ü B+ ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MSÈðððððÈð0nLàÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- éDêëEìíîïDðñòÓ€P9&"|xý(AYA$Ô€ X|YXXXÔÔ€ Š’ŠX X|YÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(‚*20‡$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ X¤XXXÔÔ€ &|¿&X X¤ÔÓ  Óà ` àòò€€Ú  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xs XXXÔÔ€X+  XXsÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xs X X+ÔÐ  ÐÌò òFebruary€10,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôWªô XXsÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý'ÿÿdxd'(!)*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š@mŠXXÔÔ€Š3{ŠŠŠ@mÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€Ü´XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñòñßr€&"<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` ttx$,` ð ÚrßñòñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌOCTOBER€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9709„CC„00413Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àSEVIER€COUNTYÐ `  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€REX€HENRY€OGLEó óÐ `  Ðò òBRENDA€KAY€KEEFER,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àó ó(Sentencing)ò òÐ ` Ðó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÐ Pð ÐCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€SEVIER€COUNTYó óÐ Pð ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð @ à ÐÌDENNIS€C.€CAMPBELLà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ 0"Ð ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ (#È Ð140A€Court€AvenueÌSevierville,€TN€37862à h àà À àà  àELLEN€H.€POLLACKÐ %¸ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAL€SCHMUTZER,€JR.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSTEVE€HAWKINSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSevierville,€TN€37682ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ  ˆ6(-. ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°:°ŠŠ3{Ôò òòòÑ7€ ù ˆ ˆdXXdð7ÑOPINIONóóó óÔ€Š3{а°:ÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓ›à ` àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure.€€The€Defendant,€Brenda€Kay€Keefer,€pleaded€guilty€to€oneÏcount€of€Class€B€felony€theft.€€Sentencing€was€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trialÏjudge.€€After€conducting€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€sentenced€theÏDefendant€to€ten€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€On€appeal,€theÏDefendant€argues€that€she€should€have€received€the€minimum€sentence€of€eightÏyears€and€should€have€been€allowed€to€serve€the€sentence€on€probation.€€WeÏaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌœà ` àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€this€Court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€withÐ ~! Ða€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ððconditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÐ ^%þ Ðshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169Ð >)Þ  Ð(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà ` àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€(a)Ð /®%& Ðthe€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏmade€by€the€defendant€ñéñmadeñéññêñregarding€sentencingñêñ;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÐ ¾8^/0 Ðpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô‡Xs XŠŠ3{ÔððÔ#†Š3{Š XXs#ÔÔ‡Xs XŠŠ3{ÔððÔ#†Š3{Š XXsÓ#Ô€40„35„102,€„103,€„210.Ð P ð ÐÌà ` àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€that€the€court€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€dueÏconsideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principles€set€out€under€theÏsentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supportedÏby€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€haveÏpreferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð à€ ÐApp.€1991).Ì›Ìà ` àThe€Defendant€was€employed€as€the€bookkeeper€for€a€business€entityÏknown€as€Delozier€Management,€which€essentially€operated€and€maintained€theÏpayroll€for€several€retail€establishments,€both€in€the€Sevier€County€area€and€outÏof€state.€€Apparently,€the€Defendantððs€primary€responsibility€was€writing€theÏchecks€and€maintaining€the€payroll€accounts.€€Between€1993€and€1995,€theÏDefendant€developed€and€utilized€a€œfraudulent€checkñëñ›€ñëññìñ„ñìñwriting›€scheme€throughÏwhich€she€stole€œalmost€a€quarter€of€a€million€dollars›€œfrom›€her€employer.€€BecauseÏshe€kept€the€companyððs€books,€she€was€able€to€conceal€her€theft€during€the€twoÏand€one„half€year€period€in€which€the€thievery€occurred.€€The€theft€eventuallyÏforced€her€employer€into€bankruptcy€and€obviously€caused€the€owners€of€theÏbusiness€financial€hardship.€€One€of€the€business€owners€testified€that€theÏamount€of€money€embezzled€by€the€Defendant€œtotaled€$248,441.37.›€€ÌÌà ` àAt€the€time€of€œsentencing,›€the€Defendant€was€forty€years€old,€œmarried,›€andÏhad€two€adult€children.€€She€graduated€from€high€school€and€had€been€steadilyÐ Ð9p02 Ðemployed€all€of€her€adult€life.€€She€was€described€as€very€smart,€œcapableñíñ,ñíñ›€and€aÏgood€employee.€€She€testified€that€once€she€started€taking€the€money,€sheÏthought€she€would€pay€it€back€later,€ð ðand€then€it€just€got€easier€and€easier€fromÏthat,€and€I€just€got€in€way€over€my€head.ðð€€She€said€she€did€not€spend€all€of€theÏmoney€on€herself,€but€let€some€other€employees€share€in€her€scheme€and€gaveÏsome€of€the€money€to€members€of€her€family.€€Although€she€did€not€keep€up€withÏhow€much€she€took,€at€the€time€the€theft€was€detected€she€told€the€police€that€sheÏthought€œshe€took€about€$120,000.00.›€€She€said€that€she€had€always€had€troubleÏdealing€with€finances.€€During€this€time€the€Defendant€and€her€husband€built€aÏhouse€for€œabout€ninety„eight€thousand€dollars,›€but€she€testified€that€there€was€aÏninety„two€thousand€dollar€œmortgage›€on€it.€€Other€than€saying€that€she€spent€theÏmoney€on€œbills,€clothing,€furnitureñèñ›ñèñ,›€and€general€expenses,€the€Defendant€neverÏœñîñeñîñxplained€where›€all€the€stolen€money€went.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€had€no€history€of€prior€criminal€convictions.€€On€directÏexamination€she€stated€that€she€left€her€prior€job€with€the€Sevierville€HousingÏAuthority€œto›€work€for€Delozier€Management€because€she€ð ðwanted€a€change€ofÏjob.ðð€€On€cross„examination,€however,€she€admitted€that€she€was€forced€to€quitÏthe€previous€job€because€she€œhad€been›€caught€stealing€from€petty€cash.€€SheÏalso€admitted€that€earlier€in€her€employment€with€Delozier€Management,€she€hadÏused€checks€from€her€employer€to€pay€personal€expenses€amounting€to€aboutÏfifteen€hundred€œdollars.€€When›€confronted€with€this,€the€Defendant€admitted€herÏmistake€and€eventually€paid€the€money€back.€€Her€employer€allowed€her€to€œkeepÏher€job€because›€she€was€a€good,€smart€employee.Ìâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àWhile€the€Defendant€was€out€on€bond€on€these€charges,€and€obviouslyÏâ âafter€œhaving€been›€terminated€from€her€employment,€the€Defendant€utilized€theÏservices€of€United€Parcel€Service€œ(UPS)€to›€deliver€œpersonal€items›€for€her€butÏcharged€the€services€to€her€former€œemployerððs›€UPS€account.€€She€also€wroteÏsome€bad€checks€during€the€time€she€was€out€on€bond€awaiting€disposition€œofÏand›€sentencing€œfor›€these€charges.ÌÌà ` àIn€sentencing€the€Defendant,€the€œcourt›€found€œand€applied€three›Ïenhancement€factors:€(1)€that€the€Defendant€œððhas›€a€previous€history€of€criminalÐ à€ Ðconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€œrangeðð;›€(2)€that€the€amount€of€property€taken€from€the€victim€wasÏparticularly€great;€and€(3)€that€the€Defendant€œððabused›€a€position€of€œ.€.€.€private›Ð °P Ðtrust,€or€used€a€special€skill€in€a€manner€that€significantly€facilitated€theÏcommission€œ.€.€.€of›€the€œoffense.ð𛀀œòòSeeóó€Tenn.›€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„114(1),€(6),€(15).›Ð "0 ÐÌà ` àBecause€the€punishment€for€theft€is€enhanced€based€upon€the€amountÏtaken,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€applying€as€anÏenhancement€factor€that€the€amount€of€property€taken€from€the€victim€wasÏparticularly€great.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Grissomóó,€œ956€S.W.2d€514,€518›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð @,à"$ Ð1997).€€In€òòGrissomóó,€the€Defendant€pleaded€guilty€to€one€count€of€Class€C€felonyÐ 0.Ð$& Ðtheft,€which€is€the€theft€of€property€valued€at€ten€thousand€œdollars›€or€œmore,›€butÏless€than€sixty€thousand€œdollars.€€òòId.óó€at€516.€€The›€Defendant€had€embezzledÐ 2°(* Ðapproximately€twenty„nine€thousand€œdollars.›€€The€òòGrissomóó€œcourt›€pointed€out€thatÐ 4 *, Ðenhancement€had€been€allowed€in€other€cases€when€the€amount€stolen€hadÏapproached€the€amount€necessary€to€put€the€offense€into€the€next€higher€gradeÏof€theft.€€òòId.óó€œat€518€n.4.€›€Here,€even€though€the€Defendant€pleaded€guilty€to€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðhighest€grade€of€theft,€same€being€a€Class€B€felony€when€the€value€of€theÏproperty€stolen€is€sixty€thousand€œdollars›€or€more,€the€proof€at€the€sentencingÏhearing€showed€that€the€Defendant€stole€over€four€times€the€amount€necessaryÏto€qualify€as€a€Class€B€felony.€€Under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€we€believeÏthe€trial€court€œcorrectly›€œapplied›€this€enhancement€factor.ÌÌà ` àConcerning€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€DefendantððsÏconduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury€and€that€theÏDefendant€had€assisted€in€recovering€some€of€the€property€involved€in€the€crime.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„113(1),€(10).›€€At€the€time€the€Defendant€was€confrontedÏwith€her€crime,€she€voluntarily€turned€over€three€thousand€nine„hundred€elevenÏdollars€œin›€cash€which€she€had€on€her€person€at€the€time.ÌÌà ` àThe€sentencing€range€for€a€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felonyÏis€from€eight€to€twelve€years.€€The€trial€judge€set€the€Defendantððs€sentence€at€tenÏœyears€ð"ð›€the€œmidpoint›€in€her€œrange€ð"ð›€and€ordered€that€the€sentence€be€servedÏin€the€Department€of€Correction.ÌÌà ` àBecause€stealing€over€sixty€thousand€œdollars›€is€a€Class€B€felony,€œthere›€isÏno€presumption€that€the€Defendant€is€a€suitable€candidate€for€alternativeÏsentencing€options€as€afforded€those€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony.€€œòòSeeóóÐ  0À&( ÐTenn.›€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-102(6).€œ€Guidance›€in€determining€what€factors€are€toÏbe€considered€œfor€alternative›€sentences€may€be€found€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€œðð€40-35-103(1),›€which€states:ÌÒ°„ÒÒ` ÒÓÓSentences€involving€confinement€should€be€based€on€the€followingÏâ âconsiderations:Ð Ø8x/1 ÐñèñœñèñÒ` 41ÒÒ„°&1ÒÓB1ÓÒ°„ÒÒ` ÒÓÓ(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€aÏâ âdefendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;Ìœ(B)›€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€ofÏthe€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effectiveÏœdeterrenñèñ›ñèñce›€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€œor›Ìœ(C)›€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€orÏrecently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€œdefendant€.›€œ.›€œ.€.›ÌÒ` 2ÒÒ„°2ÒœÓ$2ÓÓÓÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1);€òòseeóó›€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€A€court€mayÐ  À Ðalso€apply€the€mitigating€and€enhancing€factors€set€forth€in€œTennessee›€CodeÏAnnotated€œðððð€40-35-113›€and€œ-114,›€as€they€are€relevant€to€the€œðð€40-35-103›Ïconsiderations.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(b)(5);€œòòState›€v.€Zeoliaóó,€928€S.W.2dÐ ð  Ð457,€461€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€œ€Finally,›€œððthe›€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÐ à€ Ðrehabilitation€of€a€defendant€should€be€considered€in€determining€whether€œ[she]›Ïshould€be€granted€an€alternative€œsentence.ð𛀀œòòState›€v.€Bostonóó,€938€S.W.2d€435,Ð À` Ð438€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1996)€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5)).›ÌÌà ` àFor€a€denial€to€occur€based€on€the€circumstances€of€the€œoffense,›€œððtheÐ "0 Ðcriminal€act,€as›€committed,€œmust›€be€œððespecially›€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,Ð €$  Ðreprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€œdegree,ñèñ›ñèñðð›Ïand€the€nature€of€the€offense€must€outweigh€all€factors€favoring€œprobation.ñèñ›ñèñð𛀀ϜòòState›€v.€Cleavoróó,€691€S.W.2d€541,€543€(Tenn.€œ1985)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Travisóó,€622Ð P*ð " ÐS.W.2d€529,€534€(Tenn.€1981)).€›€This€principle€has€been€codified€in€œðð€40„35„¼103(1)(B),›€which€œprovides€for€confinement›€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousnessÏof€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€375€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);Ð  0À&( Ðòòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€787€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€Ð 2°(* ÐSentencing€decisions€should€not,€however,€turn€on€a€generalization€of€the€crimeÏcommitted,€such€as€the€fact€that€a€death€occurred.€€œòòState›€v.€Binghamóó,€910Ð ð5,. ÐS.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1995)ñïñ;ñïñ›œñðñ.ñðññññ›€òòbut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Ramseyóó,€903€S.W.2dÐ à7€.0 Ð709,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ñññÐ à7€.0 ÐÐ Ð9p02 Ðà ` àWhen€a€defendant€is€not€afforded€the€presumption€of€suitability€forÏalternative€sentencing,€the€defendant€bears€the€burden€solely€to€establish€that€aÏsentence€alternative›€would€ñèñœñèñœð ðððsubserve›€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€œinterests›Ð @ à Ðof€both€the€public€and€the€œdefendant.ðððð›€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€456€(quotingÐ 0Ð МòòHooper€v.€Stateóó,›€œ297›€œS.W.2d€78,€81€(Tenn.ñèñ›ñèñ1956)).›€€œAfter›€sentencing€theÐ  À ÐDefendant,€the€trial€judge€stated,€œÌÓÓà8 ` à[j]ust›€let€the€Court€say€that€if€this€person€does€not€deserve€to€go€toÏthe€penitentiary€for€stealing€$248,000.00€over€several€œyearsðð€period,›Ïto€continue€to€commit€crimes,€to€continue€to€steal€from€the€sameÏvictims€after€youððve€been€charged€on€these€œoffenses,›€if€she€doesnððtÏdeserve€to€go€to€the€penitentiary,€thereððs€not€a€person€who€has€everÏlived€who€deserves€to€go€to€the€œpenitentiary.€Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓà ` àWe€interpret€this€statement€to€reflect€the€trial€judgeððs€rather€strong€concernÏwith€Defendantððs€history€of€theft,€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€the€need€forÏdeterrence,€and€the€Defendantððs€questionable€potential€for€rehabilitation.›ÌÌà ` àBased€upon€our€review€of€this€record,€we€simply€cannot€conclude€that€theÏtrial€judge€erred€or€abused€his€discretion€œby›€sentencing€the€Defendant€to€serveÏten€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender.€€TheÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€accordingly€affirmed.ÌœÌÓ  ÓñèñÓÓñèñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE