ÿWPC¢+ …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µU:Ýw@ 4W k z ‚ 0lŠ 0Dö : 0JB 0TŒ 0^à 0h> 0r¦ 0| 0†” 0 1uª 0d BƒU >  D3ÞB)DC: 0@}U *½ AMçé4ß„üã€ÕcŒ8éÄÿ­ v~¬"vÓ*$ AOý)ÆL* 0D+ D/V+ B…+˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular ÜEÝÞDßàáâDãÓ€ïUðîR¦"Ù3|xð((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman%%%%'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òJune€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àAs€a€matter€of€policy,€this€court€does€not€name€minors€who€are€victims€of€sexualÏabuse.€€òòSee€State€v.€Schimpfóó,€782€S.W.2d€186,€188€n.1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÔ€.ÔÌ zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àÔ€.ÔDefendant€cites€òòState€v.€Pete€Fuquaóó,€No.€01C01„9003„CC„00076Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€April€26,€1991),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1991),Ïfor€the€proposition€that€records€of€prior€criminal€charges€which€have€beenÏdismissed€cannot€serve€to€justify€a€finding€of€a€history€of€criminal€behavior.€òòPeteÏFuquaóó,€slip.€op.€at€16.€€However,€in€òòFuquaóó€this€court€held€that€the€recordÏsupported€the€trial€judgeððs€finding€of€a€prior€history€of€criminal€behavior.€€WeÏnoted€that€such€record€included,€in€part,€a€criminal€trespass€conviction€whichÏwas€ð ðdismissedðð€after€the€defendant€had€ð ðmade€restitution€and€paid€the€courtÏcosts.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ô€)ÔÌ ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àBased€upon€the€distinction€made€in€òòPizzillo€v.€Pizzilloóó,€884€S.W.2dÏ749,€755€(Tenn.€App.€1994),€between€judicial€diversion,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313€(Supp.€1996),€and€pretrial€diversion,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„101€to€„105€(Supp.€1996),€the€North€Dakota€procedure€was€more€akin€to€the€TennesseeÏjudicial€diversion€because,€like€our€judicial€diversion,€a€guilty€plea€is€òòenteredóó.€ÏHowever,€this€distinction€has€no€impact€on€the€issues€now€under€review.€ÏòòPizzilloóó,€884€S.W.2d€at€755.Ó  Óà àÌ ËÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àDespite€the€stateððs€invitation,€we€decline€to€consider€whether€theÏdefendant,€while€acting€under€color€of€office€or€authority,€may€also€have€abusedÏa€òòprivateóó€trust.€€There€was€evidence€to€support€the€defendantððs€role€as€a€ð ðfatherððÏfigure,€and€this€role€may€have€had€its€origin€in€his€personal,€as€opposed€to€hisÏprofessional,€relationship€to€the€victim.€€However,€this€is€a€very€subtle€distinction,Ïand€the€mental€gymnastics€required€to€sort€it€out€are,€we€confess,€too€balletic€forÏus€to€master!Ì ‚Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àÔ€.ÔIn€òòDavid€L.€McClureóó,€the€time€for€filing€an€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court€does€not€expire€until€60€days€afterÏApril€30,€1997.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€11(b).Ì ßÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àThe€defendant€in€the€case€before€us€was€sentenced€as€a€standardÏ(Range€I)€offender.€€The€Release€Eligibility€Date€for€the€effective€four„yearÏsentence€is€7.2€months€longer€than€the€Release€Eligibility€Date€for€an€effectiveÏsentence€of€two€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501(c)€(Supp.€1996).Ìà àIn€òòBarry€Woodcockóó,€slip€op.€at€1,€the€effective€sentence€is€18€years;€inÏòòJerniganóó,€929€S.W.2d€at€393,€10€years;€in€òòHenryóó,€834€S.W.2d€at€274,€50€years;Ïand€in€òòDesireyóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€23,€18€years.Ìà àÌ õÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àWe€recognize€that€a€more€logical€ordering€of€the€sentences€wouldÏhave€linked€a€statutory€rape€conviction€with€an€official€misconduct€conviction€toÏrun€concurrently.€€Had€these€three€effective€sentences€of€two€years€each€beenÏset€to€run€consecutively,€the€aggregate€sentence€would€have€been€six€years.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÓÓÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÔ€.ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€/0,A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€CRIMINAL€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€KNOXVILLEó óÌò òJANUARY€SESSION€1997ó óÌÌò òÓÓÓ  ÓœÌÌÌSTATE›€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)€€€€€€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9607„CC„00259Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€Bradley€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òDAVID€KEITH€LANE,ó óà àà àà à)€€€€€€Honorable€R.€Steven€Bebb,€JudgeÌò òà àà àó óà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)€€€€€€(Statutory€rape;€official€misconduct)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌœòòFor€the€Appellantóó:›à àà àà à€€œà à›€€€€€€œ€€›€œòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:›ÌÌAt€trial:à àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€ò òJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌò òSCOTT€KANAVOSó óà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÌ166€N.€Ocoee€StreetÌCleveland,€TN€37364€à àà àà à€ò ò€€€€€€€€œTIMOTHY›€F.€BEHANó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€€Assistant›€Attorney€GeneralÌOn€motion€to€rehear:à àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€€450›€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌò òROBERT€W.€RITCHIEó óà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€€Nashville,›€TN€37243„0493ÌP.O.€Box€1126ÌKnoxville,€TN€37901„1126à àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€€ò òJERRY›€N.€ESTESÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€€District›€Attorney€GeneralÌOn€appeal:à àà àà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€€10th›€Judicial€CircuitÌò òKENNETH€F.€IRVINE,€JR.ó óà àÌ606€W.€Main€Street,€Suite€350à àà àœ€€€€€€€€€ò òREBBLE›€JOHNSONÌó óP.O.€Box€84à àà àà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€€Asst.›€District€Attorney€GeneralÌKnoxville,€TN€37901„0084à àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€€10th›€Judicial€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€€P.O.›€Box€1351Ìà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Cleveland,›€TN€37364„1351ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_____________ÌÌÌÌœò òAFFIRMED›ÌÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT,€œJUDGEó óÌÌÌÌ›ÓÓÑ7€¥ XXdìXXdì7ÑÓ  Óò òOPINIONó óÌÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant,€David€Keith€Lane,€directly€appeals€from€theÏsentencing€determination€of€the€Bradley€County€Criminal€Court.€€He€was€Ïindicted€for€€three€counts€of€statutory€rape€(Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„506)€andÏthree€counts€of€unlawful€exercise€of€official€power€(Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„402),€all€being€Class€E€felonies.€The€trial€court€accepted€guilty€pleas€on€allÏcounts,€and€after€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€court€sentenced€the€appellant€as€aÏstandard€(Range€I)€offender€to€a€two„year€sentence€on€each€of€the€six€counts.€ÏThe€three€sentences€for€statutory€rape€were€set€€to€run€concurrently,€and€theÏthree€sentences€for€official€misconduct€were€likewise€set€to€run€concurrently;Ïhowever,€€the€effective€two„year€sentence€for€the€statutory€rape€charges€was€setÏto€run€consecutively€to€the€official€misconduct€sentence.€€The€resulting€effectiveÏaggregate€sentence€is€four€years€to€be€served€in€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÍCorrection.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€raises€the€following€sentencing€issues:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àà àà à(1)€€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€à àà à€€€€€€€Ïà àà à€€€€€€€€certain€enhancement€factors;€€à àà à€ÌÌà àà àà à(2)€€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€Ìà àà àà à€€€€€€€€consecutive€sentencing;€andÌÌà àà àà à(3)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà à€€€€€€€Ïto€grant€alternative€sentencing.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌà àà àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€proceedings€in€the€trial€court€and€for€theÏreasons€explained€below,€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€€is€œaffirmed.›ÌÌà àà à€At€the€time€the€offenses€were€committed€in€1994,€the€defendantÏwas€approximately€29€years€of€age.€€He€held€a€1993€degree€in€psychology.€€HeÏwas€married€and€employed€as€a€foster„care€counselor€by€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Human€Services€(DHS).€€His€caseload€included€a€large€numberÏof€clients€who€were€young€people€with€a€wide€range€of€problems.€€One€of€theseÏclients€was€E.S.,× ƒ1 ××  ×€a€€€œsixteen„year„old›€female€who€came€to€DHS€because€of€aÏnumber€of€personal€problems,€including€substance€abuse€and€conflicts€with€herÏmother,€a€single€parent.€€€While€serving€as€DHS€counselor€for€E.S.,€defendantÏengaged€in€sexual€intercourse€with€her€on€five€occasions.€€On€two€occasions€heÏprovided€marijuana€to€E.S.,€and€on€other€occasions€he€provided€her€withÏcigarettes.€€€The€victim€testified€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€she€underwentÍsixty„one€days€of€inpatient€counseling€after€these€episodes€occurred,€followedÏby€additional€counseling€at€Vanderbilt.€€She€testified€that€the€defendantððsÏactions€necessitated€the€counseling,€at€least€in€part.€€Her€mother€testified€thatÏsince€these€episodes€E.S.€has€difficulty€sleeping€and€is€afraid€to€trust€anyone.€ÏShe€asserted€that€E.S.€had€looked€to€the€defendant€as€a€father€figure€in€theÏabsence€of€her€real€father.€€She€stated€that€E.S.€had€drug„related€problems€priorÏto€her€sexual€activity€with€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€father€testified€that€the€defendant€is€gainfullyÏemployed€with€the€father€in€Virginia,€that€the€defendant€is€very€remorseful€andÏhumiliated€by€his€actions,€and€that€the€defendant€is€trying€to€hold€together€hisÏfamily€that€includes€his€wife€and€young€daughter.€€The€defendantððs€wife€testifiedÏthat€she€was€pregnant€at€the€time€of€the€defendantððs€sexual€relationship€withÏE.S.€and€that,€at€that€time,€he€was€under€a€lot€of€stress€and€was€depressed.€€SheÏacknowledged,€however,€her€suspicion€that€defendant€used€marijuana.€€SheÏstated€that,€at€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€was€receivingÏcounseling.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€testified€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€He€stated€thatÏat€the€time€of€the€illicit€relationship€with€E.S.€he€was€stressed€by€financialÏpressures,€his€wifeððs€physical€problems,€and€a€heavy€caseload€at€DHS.€€He€wasÏœdrinking€›€excessively.€€He€said€that€E.S.€had€drug€and€alcohol€problems€andÏhad€a€long€history€with€DHS€before€being€assigned€to€him€in€1993.€€At€someÍpoint€he€realized€she€was€becoming€infatuated€with€him.€€He€testified€that€sheÏinitiated€the€sexual€contact€which€began€on€August€9,€1994.€€He€admitted€thatÏhe€knew€on€and€before€this€date€that€E.S.€was€in€a€vulnerable€state.€€TheÏdefendant€and€E.S.€first€had€sexual€relations€in€Knox€County€when€theÏdefendant€€transported€E.S.€to€a€runaway€shelter€in€Knoxville.ÌÌà àà àThe€presentence€report€shows€that€a€€few€weeks€after€theÏdefendant€delivered€E.S.€to€the€Knoxville€shelter,€she€called€him€and€stated€sheÏhad€run€away€from€the€foster€care€in€Sevier€County€in€which€she€had€beenÏplaced.€€The€defendant€went€to€Sevier€County€late€at€night,€picked€her€up€in€hisÏcar,€and€drove€her€to€Hamilton€County€where€they€slept€together€at€the€house€ofÏone€of€his€friends.€€During€this€last€episode,€the€appellant€twice€gave€marijuanaÏto€E.S.€€There€are€a€total€of€five€€sexual€encounters,€the€first€one€in€Knox€County,Ïthe€next€one€in€Hamilton€County,€and€the€last€three€in€Bradley€County€inÏOctober,€1994.€€In€addition€to€supplying€the€victim€with€marijuana,€the€defendant€Ïgave€her€cigarettes.€€After€rumors€of€these€activities€led€to€official€inquiries,€theÏdefendant€admitted€he€had€engaged€in€the€sexual€conduct.ÌÌà àà àAll€of€the€issues€raised€by€the€defendant€pertain€to€the€sentenceÏimposed€by€the€court€below.€€When€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€orÏmanner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóóÏreview€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€theÏtrial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€ThisÍpresumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€theÏtrial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðTheÏburden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appellant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€InÏthe€event€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€the€required€consideration€by€the€trialÏcourt,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòIdóó.€If€appellate€review€reflectsÏthe€trial€court€properly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€areÏadequately€supported€by€the€record,€this€court€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€ifÏwe€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,Ï789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àà àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€theÏconclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€determines€the€range€of€sentence€andÏthen€determines€the€specific€sentence€and€the€propriety€of€sentencingÏalternatives€by€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencingÏand€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristicsÏof€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€theÏparties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors;€(6)€any€statements€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendantððs€behalf€about€sentencing;€and€(7)Ïthe€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210(a),€(b)Ï(Supp.€1996);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„103(5)€(1990);€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860ÏS.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ìà àà àà àÌÓ  Óà àà àà àà àI.€€òòSentence€Enhancement.óóÌÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€sentencing€range€for€each€of€the€Class€E€felonies€of€which€theÏappellant€was€convicted€is€one€to€two€years.€€He€was€sentenced€to€theÏmaximum€of€two€years€on€each€count€and€complains€that€these€sentences€areÏexcessive.€€Specifically,€he€cites€as€error€the€trial€courtððs€reliance€upon€each€ofÏthe€following€enhancement€factors€:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àà à(1)€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÌà à€€€€à àconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏà àà àà ànecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.€Ìà àà àÌà àà à(4)€€€A€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularly€vulner„Ìà àà àable€because€of€age€or€physical€or€mental€disability.Ìà àÌÌÌà àà à(15)€The€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€or€Ìà àà àprivate€€€trust,€or€€used€a€€special€€€skill€€in€a€man„Ìà àà àner€that€significantly€€facilitated€the€commission€or€Ìà àà àthe€fulfillment€of€the€offense.ÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒTenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(4),€(15)€(Supp.€1996).à àà àÌÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€stated€on€the€record€that€he€relied€upon€the€aboveÏenhancement€factors.€As€a€mitigating€factor,€he€relied€upon€the€fact€that€theÏdefendant€cooperated€with€the€investigating€officer.€€The€trial€court€supported€itsÏuse€of€the€various€factors€with€findings€of€fact.€Therefore,€we€review€the€trialÏcourtððs€sentence€determination€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌÌÓ  Óà àà àa.€€òòEnhancement€factor€(1).óó€€Ì€€ÌÓ  Óà àà àIn€finding€that€the€defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏbehavior,€the€trial€court€relied€upon€an€expunged€North€Dakota€felony€theftÏconviction.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€judgment€of€this€conviction€was€enteredÏin€1984€upon€the€defendantððs€guilty€plea.€€The€defendant€was€placed€onÏprobation€for€a€period€of€five€years.€€The€order€provided€that,€upon€completion€ofÏprobation,€the€defendant€could€apply€to€the€North€Dakota€court€to€withdraw€theÏplea,€dissolve€the€judgment€of€conviction,€and€have€the€record€expunged.€TheÏdefendant€took€this€action,€and€the€North€Dakota€court€dismissed€theÏproceeding€on€March€4,€1993.€ÌÌà àà àThe€state€in€its€appellate€brief€concedes€that€the€trial€court€shouldÏnot€have€used€the€North€Dakota€conviction€as€evidence€of€a€prior€history€ofÏcriminal€€òòconvictionsóó.€€However,€the€trial€court€viewed€the€òòpleaóó€as€evidenceÏsupporting€a€finding€of€prior€history€of€criminal€òòbehavioróó.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€€A€previous€history€ofÍcriminal€behavior€may€be€shown€by€competent€evidence€of€such€behavior,€evenÏthough€the€behavior€did€not€result€in€any€criminal€conviction.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï404(b).€€A€form€of€competent€evidence€in€this€regard€is€an€admission€of€a€partyÏunder€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€803(1.2).€€A€guilty€plea,€such€as€the€oneÏentered€in€the€defendantððs€North€Dakota€case,€is€such€an€admission;€however,Ïð ð[s]tatues€may€affect€whether€a€particular€statement€is€an€evidentiary€admission.ðð€ÏNeil€P.€Cohen€et€al,€€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidence€ðð€803(1.2).10€(3rd€ed.€1995).€ÏIt€is€obvious€from€the€record€of€the€North€Dakota€conviction€that€the€plea,€theÏprobation,€the€withdrawal€of€the€plea,€and€the€dismissal€of€the€charges€wereÏgoverned€by€North€Dakota€statutes€which€allowed€for€dismissal€of€the€case€andÏexpungement€of€the€record€upon€successful€completion€of€probation.€TheseÏstatutes€have€an€application€and€effect€similar€to€Tennesseeððs€pretrial€diversionÏunder€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€40„15„101€to„105.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€In€òòPizzillo€v.ÏPizzilloóó,€884€S.W.2d€749€(Tenn.€App.€1994),€the€issue€was€the€admissibility€ofÏinculpatory€statements€of€a€party€that€were€contained€in€a€memorandum€ofÏunderstanding€that€was€filed€in€a€pretrial€diversion€of€a€previous€criminalÏproceeding.€€In€òòPizzillo,óó€the€court€held€that€ð ðrecords€expunged€following€theÍsuccessful€completion€of€a€pretrial€diversion€program€cannot€be€used€as€judicialÏadmissions€or€to€impeach€a€personððs€credibility.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€755.€€Based€on€òòPizzilloóóÏthe€North€Dakota€guilty€plea,€even€as€an€admission€apart€from€the€conviction,€isÏnot€admissible€as€evidence€of€criminal€behavior€of€the€œappellant.Ì›œÌ›œ›Ó  Óœ13Ì›à àà àb.€€òòFactor€(4)óó.€€ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€trial€court€relied€upon€the€particular€vulnerability€of€the€victimÏas€an€enhancement€factor€because€ð ðof€her€age,€and€because€of€her€mentalÏcondition.ðð€€€In€its€brief€the€state€concedes€this€factor€is€not€applicable.€€TheÏvictim€was€sixteen€years€of€age€at€the€time€the€offenses€were€committed.€ÏAlthough€there€was€proof€that€the€victim€was€in€need€of€counseling€and€otherÏremedial€assistance€prior€to€August€9,€1994,€there€is€no€proof€€she€laboredÏunder€a€mental€or€physical€disability.€€There€is€no€contradiction€that€the€sexualÏactivity€between€the€defendant€and€victim€was€consensual,€and€in€someÏinstances,€it€is€clear€that€she€initiated€the€activity.€Based€upon€the€record,€theÏenhancement€of€the€sentences€through€factor€(4)€is€not€justified.€€TheÏenhancement€factor€is€applicable€in€a€sex„offense€case€when€a€victim,€as€aÏresult€of€age€or€natural€physical€or€mental€limitations,€is€unable€to€resist€theÏcommission€of€the€offense,€to€summon€help,€or€to€testify€against€the€offender.€ÏòòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€€In€the€caseÏbefore€us,€there€are€no€such€œinabilities.€€òòSeeóó›€òòState€v.€œChad€Douglas€Pooleóó,Í____€S.W.2d€€____€(No.€02„S„01„9607„CC„00064€(Tenn.,€at€Jackson,€May€12,Ï1997);€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864›€S.W.2d€31,€35„36€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àc.€€òòFactor€(15)óó.ÌÓ  Ӝ̛à àà àThe€trial€court€found€that€factor€(15)€applies€because€defendantÏabused€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust.€€The€enhancement€factorsÏenumerated€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„114€are€notÏapplicable€when€they€are€ð ðthemselves€essential€elements€of€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(Supp.€1996).€€€Three€of€defendantððs€convictions€wereÏbased€upon€Code€section€39„16„402€which,€in€part,€provides:ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àà à(a)€A€public€servant€commits€an€offense€who,€withÏintent€to€obtain€a€benefit€or€to€harm€another,€intentionally€orÏknowingly:Ìà àà à(1)€Commits€an€act€relating€to€the€servantððs€office€orÏemployment€œthat›€constitutes€an€unauthorized€exercise€of€officialÏpower;Ìà àà à(2)€Commits€an€act€under€color€of€office€orÏemployment€that€exceeds€the€servantððs€official€power;Ìà àà à(3)€Refrains€from€performing€a€duty€that€is€imposedÏby€law€œor›€that€is€clearly€inherent€in€the€nature€of€the€publicÏservantððs€office€or€employment;Ìà àà à(4)€Violates€a€law€relating€to€the€public€servantððsÏoffice€or€œemployment;›€orÌà àà à(5)€Receives€any€benefit€not€otherwise€authorized€byÏlaw.Ìà àà à(b)€For€purposes€of€subdivision€(a)(2),€a€publicÏservant€commits€an€act€under€color€of€office€or€employment€whoÏacts€or€purports€to€act€in€an€official€capacity€or€takes€advantage€ofÏsuch€actual€or€purported€capacity.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„402€(1990).€€The€abuse€of€a€position€of€public€trust€isÏclearly€an€element€of€the€offense€as€alleged€in€the€indictment€under€section€39„16„402.€€As€such,€factor€(15)€is€not€available€to€enhance€the€sentences€for€theÏofficial€misconduct€convictions.× ƒ4 ××  ×€The€factor€is€available€to€enhance€the€statutoryÏrape€sentences.€In€the€sentencing€hearing,€however,€the€trial€judge€did€not€limitÏhis€consideration€of€factor€(15)€to€the€statutory€rape€cases.€€ÌÌÓ  Ód.€€òòApplication€and€weight€of€the€factors.óóÌà àà àÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€record€supports€the€enhancement€of€the€statutory€rapeÏsentences€through€factor€(15).€€Even€though€the€official€misconduct€sentencesÏmay€not€be€enhanced€by€the€use€of€this€factor,€and€even€though€none€of€theÏsentences€may€be€€enhanced€through€the€use€of€factor€(4),€we€find€that€all€of€theÏsentences€are€enhanced€through€the€use€of€factor€(1).€€We€hold€that€the€use€ofÏfactor€(1)€is€proper€and€is€entitled€to€significant€weight,€despite€our€conclusion,Ïdiscussed€in€section€I(a),€òòsupraóó,€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€used€theÏexpunged€North€Dakota€conviction€as€a€basis€for€applying€this€factor.ÌÌà àà àUpon€our€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€we€may€consider€any€enhancement€(orÏmitigating)€factors€supported€by€the€record€even€if€such€factors€were€not€reliedÏupon€by€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€34€(Tenn.1993).€€WeÏreadily€discern€from€the€record€evidence€of€prior€criminal€behavior€which€wasÏeither€confessed€by€the€defendant€or€was€not€controverted.€€The€defendantððsÏguilty€pleas€in€the€case€before€us€embrace€three€episodes€of€illicit€sexualÏintercourse€that€occurred€in€October,€1994,€in€Bradley€County.€€These€episodesÏwere€preceded,€however,€by€similar€episodes€which€occurred€in€August,€1994,Ïin€Knox€County€and€a€few€weeks€later€in€Hamilton€County.€€Furthermore,€thereÏis€evidence€that€the€defendant€not€only€possessed€and€used€marijuana€butÏillegally€distributed€the€controlled€substance€on€two€occasions€to€the€minorÏvictim.€€Also,€the€defendant€contributed€to€the€delinquency€of€this€victim€byÏsurreptitiously€removing€her€from€Sevier€County€after€she€absconded€from€herÏlawful€custodial€placement.€€These€actions€demonstrate€a€previous€history€ofÏcriminal€behavior€that€justifies€the€use€of€factor€(1)€to€enhance€the€sentences€inÏthis€case.€€After€considering€the€record€as€a€whole,€together€with€all€applicableÏenhancement€factors€and€the€mitigating€factor,€we€hold€that€the€enhancement€ofÏeach€sentence€to€the€maximum€of€two€years€is€appropriate.€€The€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€in€this€regard,€therefore,€will€not€be€disturbed.Ó  ÓÌà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€II.€€òòConsecutive€Sentencingóó.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àà àThe€trial€court€based€its€consecutive€sentencing€determinationÏupon€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„115(b)(5),€which€provides:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àà à(b)€The€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€ifÏthe€à àà àcourt€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€:Ìà àà à.€.€.Ìà àà à(5)€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutoryÏà àà àoffenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€withÏconsideration€à àà àof€the€òòaggravatingóó€òòcircumstancesóó€arising€fromÏthe€relationship€à àà àbetween€the€defendant€and€victim€or€victims,Ïthe€time€span€of€à àà àdefendantððs€undetected€sexual€activity,€theÏnature€and€scope€à àà àof€the€sexual€acts€and€the€extent€of€theÏresidual,€physical€and€à àà àmental€damage€to€the€victim€or€victims.€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(5)€(1990)€(emphasis€added).€TheÏcircumstances€which€the€court€found€to€support€its€reliance€on€section€40„35„115(b)(5)€are:€(1)€The€time€span€between€the€offenses,€although€not€great,€isÏsignificant;€(2)€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim€was€aÏspecial€relationship;€and€(3)€there€was€residual€physical€or€mental€damage€toÏthe€victim.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€relies€upon€òòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933.€€HeÏcontends€€the€trial€court€did€not€find€nor€does€the€record€support€a€finding€thatÏconsecutive€sentences€were€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€furtherÏcriminal€conduct€of€the€defendant€and€that€the€aggregate€length€of€theÏsentences€is€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses.€€Indeed,€the€record€containsÏno€findings€on€either€account.€€ÌÌœà àà àIt€is€not€cogently€clear,€however,€€that€òòWilkersonó󛀜applies›€to€anyÏcase€other€than€one€involving€the€sentencing€of€a€dangerous€offender€under€ððÏ40„35„115(b)(4).€€The€opinion€in€òòWilkersonóó€may€be€fairly€construed€to€apply€onlyÍto€consecutive€sentencing€of€dangerous€offenders.€€It€held€that€ð ðthe€imposition€ofÏconsecutive€sentences€òòon€an€offender€found€to€be€a€dangerous€offenderóóÏrequires,€in€addition€to€the€application€of€the€general€principles€of€sentencing,Ïthe€finding€that€an€extended€sentence€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public€...€andÏthat€[it]€must€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed.ðð€ÏòòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€939€(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àà àPre„òòWilkersonóó€law€œis›€equivocal€on€the€issue€of€the€non„statutoryÏrequirements€applying€to€consecutive€sentencing€under€section€40„35„115(b)(5).€€The€genesis€of€the€requirement€that€the€trial€court€make€a€findingÏð ðthat€confinement€for€such€a€term€is€necessary€in€order€to€protect€the€public€fromÏfurther€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendantðð€is€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393Ï(Tenn.€1976),€but€òòGrayóó€is€also€a€dangerous€offender€case.€€It€was€reasonable€toÏunderstand€òòGrayóó€to€apply€only€to€consecutive€sentencing€for€dangerousÏoffenders€or€otherwise€only€to€the€five€categories€of€offenders€for€whomÏconsecutive€sentencing€should€be€reserved€under€òòGrayóó.€€When€the€supremeÏcourt€added€a€consecutive€sentencing€category€for€offenders€committing€two€orÏmore€offenses€of€sexual€abuse€to€minors€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227Ï(Tenn.€1987),€it€made€no€mention€of€the€requirement€that€the€trial€court€find€thatÏconsecutive€sentencing€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public€(although€it€didÏindicate€the€trial€court€should€bear€ð ðin€mind€the€general€objectives€set€forth€inÏòòGrayóóðð.)€€òòIdóó.€at€230.€€òòTayloróó€contributed€the€requirement€that€the€aggregate€of€theÏconsecutive€sentences€must€be€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€theÍoffenses,€but€when€the€legislature€codified€the€categories€established€in€òòGrayóóÏand€òòTayloróó,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(1990),€it€made€no€mention€ofÏany€requirement€for€the€trial€court€to€make€either€finding.€€òòButóó€òòseeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commððn€Comments€(1990).ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€œ1989€sentencing›€enactment,€this€court€reviewed€aÏnumber€of€cases€in€which€consecutive€sentences€were€ordered€under€sectionÏ40„35„115(b)(5),€and€essentially€two€different€approaches€emerged.€€In€someÏcases,€we€indicated€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€whether€extendedÏterms€of€confinement€were€necessary€to€protect€the€public€and€that€such€termsÏcould€be€imposed€only€where€this€necessity€was€present.€€œòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€JohnÏJamesóó,€No.€01C01„9601„CR„00016,€slip€op.€at€15„17€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏNashville,€March€27,€1997);€òòState€v.€Jerniganóó,€929€S.W.2d€391,€399€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1996);€€òòState›€v.€Desireyóó,€909€S.W.2d€20Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995)€;€òòState€v.€Barry€Woodcockóó,ÏNo.€01C01„9503„CC„00087,€slip€op.€at€18„20,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÏDecember€15,€1995);€òòState€v.€Edward€Frank€Henryóó,€No.€01C01„9003„CC„00050,€slip€op.€at€œ10„12›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€November€29,€1990),Ïòòaffirmedóó€in€relevant€part,€834€S.W.2d€273€(Tenn.€1992).€€òò(Woodcockóó€was€filedÏDecember€15,1995,€after€òòWilkersonóó,€but€did€œnot€refer›€to€òòWilkersonóó.)€€In€other€ððÏ40„35„115(b)(5)€cases,€we€affirmed€consecutive€sentencing€if€sufficient€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstances€were€present,€without€referring€to€the€requirementsÏof€òòGrayóó,€òòWilkersonóó,€and€òòTayloróó€that€œadditional€€elements›€be€present.€€òòSeeóó€œòòStateÍv.€David€L.€McClureóó,€No.€01C01„9505„CR„00145,€slip€op.€€at€15„16€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Nashville,€April€30,€1997)× ƒ5 ××  ×;€›€òòState€v.€Charles€David€Castroóó,€No.€01C01„9408„CC„00273€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€April€13,€1995);€òòState€v.€PerryÏRileyóó,€No.€01C01„9201„CR„00040€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€October€22,Ï1992),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).€€ÌÌà àà àWe€note€in€passing€that€the€Tennessee€Criminal€SentencingÏReform€Act€of€1989€essentially€captures€the€òòTayloróó€(and€òòWilkersonóó)€requirementÏthat€the€aggregate€length€of€the€sentence€must€reasonably€relate€to€the€severityÏof€the€crimes.€€€One€of€the€principles€of€the€Act€is€to€assure€that€defendants€beÏpunished€ð ðby€the€imposition€of€a€sentence€justly€deserved€in€relation€to€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(1)€(Supp.€1996).€ÏFurther,€the€Act€provides€that€the€ð ðsentence€imposed€should€be€no€greater€thanÏthat€œdeserved›€for€the€offense€committed.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2)Ï(1990).€€Trial€courts€which€consider€the€principles€of€sentencing€in€theirÏsentencing€determinations,€as€they€are€required€to€do€pursuant€to€Code€sectionÏ40„35„210(b),€automatically€consider€the€factor€announced€in€òòTayloróó.€€ÌÌà àà àœIn€our€view,€the€consecutive€sentencing€in€this€case€must€beÏaffirmed€based€upon€either€of€two€grounds.€€First,€as€noted€above,€we€find€noÍconstraint€that€òò€Wilkersonóó€applies€to€the€sentencing€in€this€case.€€We€note€thatÏthe€reason€for€the€rule€in€òòWilkersonóó,€that€consecutive€sentencing€be€supportedÏby€a€need€to€protect€society€from€further€criminal€acts€of€the€defendant,€is€not€asÏevident€in€cases,€such€Ças€the€one€now€before€us,€in€which€the€established€sentences€are€relativelyÏshort.€€The€need€to€protect€society€has€a€rational€connection€to€ordering€theÏservice€of€longer€sentences€in€seriatim.€€However,€where€the€aggregate€time€toÏbe€served€in€confinement€does€not€vary€significantly€whether€the€sentences€runÏconcurrently€or€consecutively,€the€reason€for€the€rule€is€less€compelling.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€€InÏòòTayloróó,€the€supreme€court€acknowledged€€that€the€formulaic€regimen€set€forth€inÏòòGrayóó€was€inadequate€to€deal€with€multiple€cases€of€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor.€ÏSimilarily,€the€rule€of€òòWilkersonóó€may€be€inapposite€to€the€sentencingÏrequirements€for€cases€involving€short€sentences.ÌÌà àà àFurther€elucidation€by€the€supreme€court€would€be€well„received,Ïbut€if€òòWilkersonóó€is€not€applicable€to€the€case€at€bar,€the€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€is€intact,€and€the€consecutive€sentencing€isÏsupported€in€the€record.€€We€agree›€with€the€trial€court€that€the€record€supportsÏthe€findings€that€(1)€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim,Ïbeing€an€official€relationship,€was€important;€(2)€the€time€span€of€the€offenses,Ïalthough€short,€was€ð ðsignificantðð;€and€(3)€mental€damage€to€the€victim,€althoughÏnot€proven€to€be€extensive,€was€established€in€the€record.€€These€facts€supportÍa€finding€that€sufficient€aggravating€circumstances€exist€under€section€œ40„35„115(b)(5).ÌÌà àà àThe€second€ground€supporting€the€consecutive€sentencing€in€thisÏcase€assumes€the€applicability€of€òòWilkersonóó.€€Under€this€approach,€in€our€òòdeóóÏòònovoóó€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€action€we€first€examine€the€relationship€of›€theÏaggregate€effective€sentence€to€the€severity€of€the€offense€committed.€€In€view€ofÏthe€existence€of€a€number€of€uncharged€offenses,€and€given€the€fact€that€the€sexÏoffenses€were€exacerbated€by€the€defendant€furnishing€a€controlled€substanceÏto€the€juvenile€victim,€we€hold€the€aggregate€length€of€the€sentences€isÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€these€offenses.ÌÌà àà àœNext,›€we€must€examine€the€record€to€determine€if€the€extendedÏterms€of€confinement€are€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminalÏconduct€of€the€appellant.€€We€are€aware€that€a€number€of€witnesses€testified€atÏthe€sentencing€hearing,€one€of€whom€was€the€defendant.€€Furthermore:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓThe€trial€court,€as€the€trier€of€fact€at€sentencing€hearings,Ïhas€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€manner€and€theÏdemeanor€of€witnesses.€€Consequently,€this€court€givesÏgreat€weight€to€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€courtÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses[.]ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòState€v.€Melvinóó,€913€S.W.2d€195,€202€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóóÏ(Tenn.€€1995).€€We€find€that€under€the€unique€facts€of€this€case,€the€assessmentÏof€credibility,€particularly€the€credibility€of€the€defendant,€is€critical€in€determiningÏthe€necessity€of€protecting€the€public€from€further€criminal€acts€of€the€defendant.€€ÍThe€trial€judge€made€no€findings€on€these€issues€and€did€not€reflect€upon€theÏneed€to€protect€the€œpublic,€but€in€commenting€upon€the€evidence€at€a€hearingÏthat€was€held€upon€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing,€theÏtrial€judge€expressed€his€view€that€the€defendant€was€more€remorseful€aboutÏwhat€had€happened€to€him€than€about€what€had€happened€to€the€victim.ÌÌà àà àFurthermore€we€are€troubled€that€the€defendantððs€testimony€is€notÏattentive€to€the€issues€of€possessing,€using,€and€distributing€to€a€minor€aÏcontrolled€substance.€The€defendantððs€testimony€evinces€a€lack€ofÏaccountability€for€at€least€this€aspect€of€his€conduct.€€We€hold€that€the€lack€ofÏremorse€and€responsibility€supports€a€finding€that€the€limited× ƒ7 ××  ×€consecutiveÏsentencing€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€of€theÏdefendant.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€trial€courtððs€setting€of€consecutive€sentences€willÏnot€be€disturbed.›ÌÓ  ÓÌIII.€€òòAlternative€Sentencing.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àóóThe€trial€courtððs€decision€to€deny€alternative€sentencing€is€stated€inÍthe€record€without€elaboration€except€that€the€trial€court€refers€to€deterrence€andÏto€the€North€Dakota€conviction€(that€was€dissolved€and€expunged).€€NoÏreference€was€made€to€the€sentencing€principles€nor€were€there€any€otherÏfindings€of€fact.€€For€these€reasons,€this€aspect€of€the€sentencing€determinationÏcomes€to€us€for€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€without€the€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà àà àInitially€we€note€that,€for€the€reasons€stated€in€Section€I€of€thisÏopinion,€neither€the€North€Dakota€conviction€nor€the€underlying€admission€ofÏtheft€may€be€considered€for€purposes€of€denial€of€alternative€sentencing.€ÏFurthermore,€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€proof€of€any€particularized€need€forÏdeterrence€in€the€case€before€us,€and€for€this€reason,€denial€of€alternativeÏsentencing€based€on€deterrence€is€not€justified.€€òòState€v.€Zeoilaóó,€928€S.W.2dÏ457,€461„62€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.€2d€448,€455Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€is€clearly€eligible€for€alternative€sentencing€inÏgeneral,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„102(5),€(6)€(Supp.€1996),€and€he€is€eligibleÏfor€probation€as€a€particular€alternative€to€confinement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(Supp.€1996).€€The€trial€court€is€automatically€required€to€considerÏprobation€as€a€ð ðpart€of€the€sentencing€determination€at€the€conclusion€of€theÏsentencing€hearing.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€(Supp.€1996).€€TheÏpresumption€of€suitability€for€alternatives€to€confinement€may€be€overcome€byÏevidence€to€the€contrary.€€òòIdóó.€€Although€defendant€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorableÍcandidate€for€alternative€sentencing,€the€burden€rests€with€the€defendant€toÏshow€suitability€for€probation€as€a€particular€form€of€alternative€sentencing.€€òòIdóó.;ÏòòState€v.€Kyteóó,€874€S.W.2d€631,€633€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àà àWhen€the€defendant€has€requested€alternative€sentencing,€weÏlook€first€to€the€presumption€of€favorable€candidacy€and€to€the€presence€orÏabsence€of€evidence€that€would€overcome€the€presumption.€€Our€analysisÏincludes€the€considerations€enumerated€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsections€40„35„210(b)€and€103(5).€€One€of€these€considerations€is€the€ð ðnatureÏand€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(4)€(Supp.€1996);€€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€In€addition,€we€utilize€theÏconsiderations€for€ordering€confinement€that€appear€in€Code€section€40„35„103(1).€€One€of€these€is€semantically€linked€to€the€nature€and€circumstances€ofÏthe€offense.€€It€is€the€consideration€found€in€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B):€ConfinementÏmay€be€ordered€when€it€is€ð ðnecessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€ofÏthe€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€(1990).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€nexus€between€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offenseÏand€sentencing€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€is€wellÏrecognized,€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€375€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÏThe€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense€may€serve€as€the€sole€basis€forÏdenying€probation€when€they€are€ð ðespecially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,Ïreprehensible,€offensive€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree;Íand€it€would€have€to€be€clear€that,€therefore,€the€nature€of€the€offense,€asÏcommitted,€outweighed€all€other€factors€...€which€might€be€favorable€to€a€grant€ofÏprobation.ðð€€òòState€v,.€Travisóó,€622€S.W.2d€529,€534€(Tenn.€1981);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòStateÏv.€Cleavoróó,€691€S.W.2d€541,€543€(Tenn.€1985).€€ð ðThis€standard€has€essentiallyÏbeen€codified€in€the€first€part€of€T.C.A.€Section€40„35„103(1)(B)€which€providesÏfor€confinement€if€it€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÏoffense.ðð€€òòHartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€at€375.€€Thus,€€under€the€first€clause€of€sectionÏ40„35„102(1)(B),€the€òòTravisóó€qualifiers€assist€the€court€in€determining€when€theÏneed€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€overcomes€theÏpresumption€of€suitability€for€alternative€sentencing.€€While€the€statute€speaks€inÏterms€of€òòovercomingóó€òòtheóó€òòpresumptionóó,€œsufficient›€contrary€œevidence,€typically,›Ïalso€òòdefeatsóó€the€defendantððs€claim€to€alternative€sentencing.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€now€before€us,€the€record€shows€ample€evidence€toÏovercome€the€presumption€of€suitability€for€alternative€sentencing€and€to€justifyÏa€denial€of€same.€€There€were€two€uncharged€incidents€of€statutory€rape€and€atÏleast€four€uncharged€incidents€of€official€misconduct,€including,€in€addition€toÏsexual€intercourse€between€a€DHS€counselor€and€a€juvenile€girl€who€wasÏplaced€in€his€care,€two€incidents€when€this€counselor€distributed€illegal€drugs€toÏthe€child.€€We€observe€that€this€was€a€girl€who€was€under€DHS€supervision€inÏthe€beginning€due€to€her€involvement€with€controlled€substances.€€TheÏdefendant€provided€marijuana€to€the€victim€while€the€victim€was€in€flight€from€herÏcustodial€placement,€that€flight€being€facilitated€late€at€night€by€the€defendant.€€If,Íòòarguendoóó,€none€of€the€other€òòTravisóó€qualifiers€can€be€said€to€apply,€the€natureÏand€circumstances€of€the€defendantððs€conduct€toward€the€victim€from€AugustÏthrough€October,€1994,€are€clearly€reprehensible.€€We€find€that€they€outweigh€allÏother€factors€favoring€alternative€sentencing€and,€therefore,€confinement€isÏnecessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€œoffense.€€Furthermore,Ïas€we€noted€in€the€preceding€section,€a€lack€of€remorse,€òòState€v.€Piersonóó,€678ÏS.W.2d€905€(Tenn.€1984)€and€an€unwillingness€to€accept€responsibility€forÏoneððs€criminal€conduct,€òòState€v.€Andrew€H.€Leoneóó,€No.€02C01„9206„CR„00148,Ïslip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€September€9,€1993),€may€serve€asÏgrounds€to€deny€probation,€and€the€record€reflects€a€basis€for€applying€theseÏfactors.›€€For€these€reasons,€we€hold€that€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€alternativeÏsentencing€will€not€be€disturbedÌÌÓ  ÓIV.€€òòConclusion.óóÌÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€œaffirmed.›ÌÓÓœÌÌ›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCurwood€Witt,€JudgeÌ̛̜ÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌ̛̜Ì________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeœÔ€ÔÔ€Ô›