ÿWPC® 2U:Ì % 0Ü w@è4(<K 0 S 0Ds·U@·e÷ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0øô 0hì ÆT 0r 0|Œ AQ 0DY 0† 0# 1u³ 0d( BŒ 0@© D3é D/U *K BuB)’DC» AMþ¤Knïv~]vÓÛ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ ?@DAeBDCDEDFGÓ€Häzz!(3|xH(Ð(3t‰$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ìXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(Ð3(þ$¢¢Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ìXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2T 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("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÿÿdxd**'÷ÿ dxd< Œ 9p`(ArialüÿP Pd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd$,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔó óÌò òÔ€)¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€)XÔÌÌò òCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€)ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ dÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À¿XXdìdì7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€was€unable€to€provide€verification€for€his€military€service,€although€heÏasserted€that€he€received€a€medical€discharge€in€November€1976.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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò ò›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ àOCTOBER€SESSION,€1996Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9607„CC„00214Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àBENTON€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)̜ـÙßR€-.,A1-j|hA  `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Julian€P.€Guinn,€JudgeÌò òJOHN€STEPHEN€LEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Sexual€Battery)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌTerry€J.€Leonardà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ9€North€Court€Squareà àÌP.€O.€Box€424à àà àà àà àDeborah€A.€TullisÌCamden,€TN€€38320à 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 àG.€Robert€RadfordÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àTodd€A.€RoseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€94Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àParis,€TN€€38242ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€John€Stephen€Lee,€appeals€from€a€sentence€imposed€byÏthe€Benton€County€Circuit€Court€upon€his€plea€of€guilty€to€the€offense€of€sexualÏbattery,€a€class€E€felony.€€Pursuant€to€a€negotiated€plea,€the€appellant€receivedÏa€sentence€of€one€year€as€a€range€I€offender.€€The€manner€of€service€of€theÏsentence€was€submitted€to€the€trial€court€for€determination.€€Following€aÏsentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€any€form€of€alternative€sentence€andÏimposed€a€sentence€of€incarceration€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€TheÏappellant€now€appeals€this€decision.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌà@ àò òI.€€BackgroundÌÌà àà àó óOn€June€17,€1995,€the€appellant€confessed€to€Benton€CountyÏdeputies€that€he€had€made€sexual€contact€œwith›€his€fifteen€year€oldÏstepdaughter's€intimate€parts€"fairly€constant[ly]"€since€she€was€twelve€years€old.€ÏAlthough€he€admitted€a€continuing€sexual€attraction€to€his€stepdaughter,€heÏdenied€having€sexual€intercourse€with€her.€€The€appellant€indicated€that,€at€oneÏpoint€during€this€abuse,€his€stepdaughter€threatened€to€"tell€on"€the€appellant€orÍrun€away€if€the€touching€continued.€€Responding€to€this€threat,€the€appellantÏreplied€"that€if€she€told€anyone,€he€would€kill€her€and€her€family.€.€.€."€€He€furtherÏimplored€the€deputies€for€help,€explaining€that€he€was€sick,€that€he€loved€hisÏstepdaughter€and€his€family,€and€that€he€"[did€not]€want€to€do€it€anymore."ÌÌÌÌÌà àFollowing€the€appellant's€guilty€plea,€the€trial€court€conducted€aÏsentencing€hearing€on€February€12,€1996,€to€determine€the€appellant'sÏeligibility€for€alternative€sentencing.€€The€appellant€chose€not€to€testify€andÏrelied€on€the€presentence€report€and€argument€of€counsel€to€the€court.€€At€theÏtime€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€was€thirty„six€years€old€and€wasÏemployed€by€the€City€of€Camden.€€Although€the€appellant€dropped€out€of€highÏschool€in€the€tenth€grade,€purportedly€to€join€the€Army,€€he€currently€wasÏworking€toward€his€GED.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€€Besides€the€current€offense,€the€appellant€has€noÏother€criminal€history€with€the€exception€of€a€conviction€for€driving€on€aÏsuspended€licenses€in€1992.€€The€appellant€maintains€that€he€does€not€useÏalcohol€or€drugs.€€Additionally,€since€the€revelation€of€his€unlawful€behaviorÏtoward€his€stepdaughter,€he€and€his€wife€have€separated.€€His€wife€and€herÍchildren€left€the€area€and€their€whereabouts€are€unknown€to€the€appellant.ÌÌà àThe€appellant's€counsel€stated€that€the€appellant€has€begun€counselingÏfor€his€problems€and€that€he€is€remorseful€for€his€behavior.€€Trial€counsel€thenÏrequested€that€the€appellant€be€placed€in€community€corrections€or€receive€aÏsentence€of€split€confinement€in€order€for€the€appellant€to€continue€financiallyÏsupporting€his€family.€€The€State€responded€by€asking€the€court€to€impose€aÏsentence€of€incarceration.€€In€denying€an€alternative€sentence,€the€courtÏconsidered€the€ongoing€nature€of€the€appellant's€unlawful€conduct,€theÏappellant's€custodial€control€over€the€child,€and€the€appellant's€lack€of€remorseÏfor€his€actions.€€In€doing€so,€the€court€concluded€that€"anything€less€than€serviceÏwould€not€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€public,€it€wouldn't€be€in€the€best€interestÏof€you€and€it€certainly€would€not€be€in€the€best€interest€of€justice.€€.€.€.I€specificallyÏconsider€confinement€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€thisÏoffense."ÌÓÓà8 àò òÌÌÌà@ àII.€€Alternative€Sentenceó óÌÌÌÓÓà àà àWhen€a€defendant€challenges€the€manner€of€his€sentence,€thisÏcourt€must€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€the€presumption€that€theÏdetermination€made€by€the€trial€court€is€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)(1990).€€This€presumption€only€applies,€however,€if€the€record€shows€thatÏthe€trial€court€properly€considered€relevant€sentencing€principles.€€òòState€v.ÏAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€the€present€case,€the€recordÏmakes€no€such€showing.€€Accordingly,€we€do€not€apply€the€presumption.ÌÌà àIn€determining€the€appellant's€suitability€for€an€alternative€sentence,€weÏfirst€decide€whether€the€appellant€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€that€heÏis€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910ÏS.W.2d€448,€453€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995)Ï(citing€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€167€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)).€€To€beÏeligible€for€the€statutory€presumption,€a€defendant€must€meet€threeÏrequirements.€€The€defendant€must€be€convicted€of€a€class€C,€D,€or€E€felony.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(1994€Supp.).€€He€must€be€sentenced€as€aÏmitigated€or€standard€offender.€€òòIdóó.€€And,€the€defendant€cannot€have€a€criminalÏhistory€evincing€either€a€"clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society"€orÏ"failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5).€€TheÏappellant€satisfies€these€criteria.€€Accordingly,€he€is€entitled€to€the€presumptionÏfavoring€alternative€sentencing.€€ÌÌÌà à€This€presumption€may€be€rebutted€by€"evidence€to€the€contrary."€€€€ÏGuidance€as€to€what€constitutes€"evidence€to€the€contrary"€may€be€found€in€theÍsentencing€considerations€codified€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103€(1990).ÏSuch€evidence€may€be€found€in€the€presentence€report,€the€evidence€presentedÏby€the€State,€the€testimony€of€the€accused,€or€any€other€source€provided€that€it€isÏpart€of€the€record.€€òòBonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€at€167;€òòsee€alsoóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„102(6).ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€denied€alternative€sentencing€basedÏupon€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€A€trial€court's€denial€of€an€alternativeÏsentence€on€this€ground€can€only€be€upheld€if€there€is€evidence€in€the€recordÏthat€indicates€that€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€as€committed,€wereÏespecially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€ofÏan€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree,€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€outweighsÏall€factors€favoring€a€sentence€other€than€confinement.€€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€atÏ454€(citations€omitted).€€We€conclude€that€the€proof€in€the€record€establishesÏthat€the€appellant's€conduct€was€both€reprehensible€and€offensive.€€€The€proofÏalso€establishes€that€the€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularly€vulnerableÏbecause€of€her€age,€the€offense€was€committed€to€gratify€the€defendant's€desireÏfor€pleasure€or€excitement;€and€the€appellant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„114(4),€„114(7),€„114(15).€€The€mitigating€andÏenhancing€factors€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€ðð40„35„113€(1990)€and€„114Ï(1994€Supp.)€may€be€considered€in€determining€the€appropriateness€ofÏalternative€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Zeoliaóó,€No.€03C01„9503„CR„00080€(Tenn.ÍCrim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Mar.€21,€1996)€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210Ï(b)(5)).€€Additionally,€the€offense€is€excessive€and€exaggerated€based€upon€theÏperiod€of€œits€occurrence›€and€the€manner€in€which€it€was€perpetrated.€€Moreover,Ïdespite€the€assertions€of€the€appellant,€the€trial€court€found€a€lack€of€remorse€onÏbehalf€of€the€appellant€for€his€conduct.€€Lack€of€remorse€is€relevant€whenÏconsidering€a€defendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€and€sentencingÏalternatives.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).€€We€conclude€that€the€State€hasÏpresented€sufficient€evidence€to€the€contrary€to€rebut€the€presumption€favoringÏan€alternative€sentencing€option.€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€€òòSchmidt€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9501„CR„00016€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Aug.€3,€1995)€(citing€òòState€v.€Gennoeóó,Ï861€S.W.2d€833€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1992);ÏòòState€v.€Grossóó,€No.€03C01„9110„CR„00324€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,Ï1992)).€€A€sentence€of€incarceration€is€proper€under€the€facts€of€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌ______________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€Judge