ÿWPCA …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ U *Ç B)ñ DC AM]ªv~»vÓ9 B  D3) 0@\ AOœÆë 0D± D/õ B$˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- tDuDvDwDxUyz{|}Ó€Ô¡¨ ‹"Ar3|x†2 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌFebruary€28,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÖXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€!" A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9511„CR„00391Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€J.€RANDALL€WYATT,€JR.ó óÌò òDEWAINE€LEGGS,ó óà àà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal„Sentencing)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJEFFREY€A.€DEVASHERà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌSenior€Assistant€Public€Defenderà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌDAVID€BAKERà àà àà àà àSARAH€M.€BRANCHÌSenior€Assistant€Public€Defenderà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ1202€Stahlman€Buildingà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€€37201à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37219ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKATRIN€MILLERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à102€Metropolitan€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37201ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€„ÔOPINIONó óóóÔ€ŠÔÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€XÔà àAppellant€Dewaine€Leggs€pled€guilty€to€aggravated€assault€in€the€DavidsonÏCounty€Criminal€Court.€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€Appellant€received€aÏsentence€of€six€years€in€the€workhouse.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€Appellant€presentsÏthe€following€issue€for€review:€Ô€ŠÔwhether€his€sentence€is€excessive.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDÌÓ  Óà àó óOn€the€evening€of€January€26,€1995,€Markus€Goodwin,€a€severelyÏmentally€retarded€resident€at€Clover€Bottom€Developmental€Center€in€Nashville,Ïwas€discovered€to€have€suffered€severe€bruising€to€his€buttocks€and€scrotum.€ÏDuring€the€course€of€a€subsequent€internal€investigation,€Appellant,€aÏdevelopmental€technician€at€Clover€Bottom,€admitted€to€kicking€Mr.€GoodwinÏtwice€in€the€groin€after€Mr.€Goodwin€had€kicked€him€in€the€same€area.ÌÌà àOn€February€16,€1995,€a€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€AppellantÏfor€aggravated€assault€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„13„102.€€On€May€18,€1995,€Appellant€pled€guilty€to€the€charged€offense€andÍwas€sentenced€to€six€years€in€the€workhouse.€€Appellant€appeals€only€hisÏsentence.€Ìò òÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓII.€€SENTENCINGÌÓ  Óó óà àAppellant€alleges€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€Specifically,€AppellantÏargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€the€length€of€his€sentence€and€inÏfailing€to€impose€an€alternative€sentence.ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdetermination€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ï(1990).€€However,€this€presumption€of€correctness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€that€the€trial€court€in€the€record€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€the€event€that€the€record€fails€to€demonstrateÏsuch€consideration,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòId.óó€€If€appellateÏreview€reflects€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€itsÏfindings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€this€Court€must€affirmÍthe€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€review,€this€Court€must€consider€the€evidence,€theÏpresentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€theÏnature€and€character€of€the€offense,€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€anyÏstatements€made€by€the€defendant,€and€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€orÏtreatment.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€TheÏdefendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€the€sentenceÏimposed.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àWe€note€initially€that€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€adequateÏconsideration€of€certain€principles€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act,€asÏrequired€by€òòAshbyóó.€€Most€significantly,€the€trial€court€failed€to€address,€on€theÏrecord,€Appellantððs€statutorily„mandated€presumption€in€favor€of€a€non„incarcerative€sentence.€€Also,€the€trial€court€failed€to€consider,€on€the€record,Ïcertain€mitigating€factors€proposed€by€Appellant€during€the€sentencing€hearing.€ÏFor€these€reasons,€our€review€of€Appellantððs€sentence,€both€its€length€and€itsÏmanner€of€service,€will€be€purely€òòde€novoóó.ÌÌà àAppellant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€assault,€a€Class€C€felony.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(d).€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender€convicted€ofÏa€Class€C€felony,€Appellantððs€statutory€sentencing€range€was€three€to€sixÏyears.€€òòSee€id.óó€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3).€€The€trial€court€found€the€followingÏenhancement€factors€applicable€to€Appellantððs€sentence:ÌÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` Òà à(1)€a€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularlyÏvulnerable€because€of€age€or€physical€or€mentalÏdisability;Ìà à(2)€the€defendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€beÏtreated€with€exceptional€cruelty€during€the€commission€ofÏthe€offense;€andÌà à(3)€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€orÏprivate€trust.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòId.óó€€ðð€40„35„114(4),€(5),€(15).€€The€trial€court€found€the€following€mitigating€factorÏapplicable€to€Appellantððs€sentence:ÌÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` Òà à(1)€the€defendant,€although€guilty€of€the€crime,Ïcommitted€the€offense€under€such€unusual€circumstancesÏthat€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€lawÏmotivated€his€conduct.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„113(11).€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏimposed€a€maximum€sentence€of€six€years.Ìò òÌÓ  ÓA.€€LENGTH€OF€SENTENCEÌÓ  Óà àó óAppellant€first€maintains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€the€length€ofÏhis€sentence€by€improperly€applying€certain€enhancement€factors€and€failing€toÏapply€certain€mitigating€factors.ÌÌà àIn€the€absence€of€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€the€presumptiveÏlength€of€sentence€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D,€and€E€felony€is€the€minimum€sentence€inÏthe€statutory€range€while€the€presumptive€length€of€sentence€for€a€Class€AÏfelony€is€the€midpoint€in€the€statutory€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)Ï(Supp.€1995).€€Where€one€or€more€enhancement€factors€apply€but€no€mitigatingÏfactors€exist,€the€trial€court€may€sentence€above€the€presumptive€sentence€butÏstill€within€the€range.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(d).€€Where€both€enhancement€andÏmitigating€factors€apply,€the€trial€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,Ïenhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€to€the€enhancementÏfactors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€to€theÏmitigating€factors.€€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€weight€afforded€an€enhancement€orÏmitigating€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€so€long€as€the€trial€courtÏcomplies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€Tennessee€CriminalÏSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€and€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€ÏòòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌÌÌò òÓ  Ó1.€€PARTICULAR€VULNERABILITYó óÓ  Óà àAppellant€first€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€improperly€applied€enhancement€factor€(4),€concerning€the€particularÍvulnerability€of€Mr.€Goodwin€due€to€his€severe€mental€retardation.€€ThisÏenhancement€factor€is€applicable€when€a€victim,€as€a€result€of€natural€physicalÏor€mental€limitations,€is€unable€to€resist€the€commission€of€a€crime,€to€call€for€help,Ïor€to€testify€against€the€perpetrator.€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€185,Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€order€to€establish€enhancement€factor€(4),€the€StateÏmust€show€that€the€victim€is€particularly€vulnerable€because€of€age,€physicalÏdisability,€or€mental€disability,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€35€(Tenn.Ï1993),€and€that€the€condition€of€the€victim€was€a€factor€in€the€commission€of€theÏoffense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sealsóó,€735€S.W.2d€849,€853„54€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àAppellant€maintains€that€there€is€no€nexus€between€the€disabilities€of€Mr.ÏGoodwin€and€the€aggravated€assault.€€Moreover,€Appellant€contends€that€heÏassaulted€Mr.€Goodwin€because€he€had€been€kicked€and€that€he€would€notÏhave€reacted€any€differently€had€he€been€kicked€by€a€nondisabled€person.€ÏNevertheless,€Mr.€Goodwinððs€disabilities€did€limit€his€ability€to€defend€himself€andÏto€cry€out€for€help.€€òòSee€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€185.€€Furthermore,€Mr.ÏGoodwinððs€disabilities€prevented€him€from€identifying€or€testifying€against€hisÏattacker.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Thus,€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(4)€was€proper.ÌÌò òÓ  Ó2.€€EXCEPTIONAL€CRUELTYÌÓ  Óó óà àAppellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€enhancementÏfactor€(5),€concerning€the€treatment€of€the€victim€with€exceptional€cruelty.€€TheÏapplication€of€this€enhancement€factor€requires€a€finding€of€cruelty€over€andÏabove€that€inherently€attendant€to€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Embryóó,€915€S.W.2dÏ451,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€fact€that€serious€bodily€injury€is€anÏelement€of€aggravated€assault€does€not€necessarily€preclude€the€application€ofÏenhancement€factor€(5).€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€No.€02C01„9306„CC„00126,€1994€WLÏ245481,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€8,€1994).€€€ÌÌà àAs€a€result€of€the€assault,€Mr.€Goodwin€suffered€severe€bruising€on€hisÏbuttocks€and€scrotum.€€Mr.€Goodwin€was€subsequently€hospitalized€on€at€leastÏthree€separate€occasions€and,€immediately€following€the€attack,€was€unable€toÏurinate€or€defecate€without€the€aid€of€a€catheter.€€The€injuries€suggest€a€moreÏextensive€and€protracted€beating€than€the€two€kicks€admitted€to€by€Appellant.€ÏHaving€viewed€the€photographs€taken€of€Mr.€Goodwin€following€the€assaultÏand€having€considered€the€extent€of€his€injuries,€we€believe€that€AppellantÏtreated€Mr.€Goodwin€with€exceptional€cruelty€over€and€above€that€inherentlyÏattendant€to€the€offense€of€aggravated€assault.€€Thus,€the€application€ofÏenhancement€factor€(5)€was€proper.ò òÌÌÓ  Ó3.€€ABUSE€OF€A€POSITION€OF€PUBLIC€OR€PRIVATE€TRUSTó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€enhancementÏfactor€(15),€concerning€the€abuse€of€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust.€€WithÏregard€to€the€application€of€this€enhancement€factor,€our€Supreme€Court€hasÏmade€the€following€observation:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[A]pplication€of€the€factor€requires€a€finding,€first,€thatÏdefendant€occupied€a€position€of€trust,€either€public€orÏprivate.€€The€position€of€parent,€step„parent,€babysitter,Ïteacher,€coach€are€but€a€few€obvious€examples.€€TheÏdetermination€of€the€existence€of€a€position€of€trust€doesÏnot€depend€on€the€length€or€formality€of€the€relationship,Ïbut€upon€the€nature€of€the€relationship.€€Thus,€the€courtÏshould€look€to€see€whether€the€offender€formally€orÏinformally€stood€in€a€relationship€to€the€victim€thatÏpromoted€confidence,€reliability,€or€faith.€€If€the€evidenceÏsupports€that€finding,€then€the€court€must€determineÏwhether€the€position€occupied€was€abused€by€theÏcommission€of€the€offense.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€488€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àAs€a€developmental€technician€at€the€Clover€Bottom€facility,€Appellant€didÏindeed€occupy€a€position€of€trust;€both€private€and€public,€with€regard€to€Mr.ÏGoodwin.€€The€record€reveals€that,€because€of€his€severe€mental€retardationÏand€impaired€vision,€Mr.€Goodwin€was€totally€reliant€on€the€assistance€of€thoseÏemployed€at€Clover€Bottom.€€While€Appellant€may€have€only€been€responsibleÏfor€Mr.€Goodwinððs€most€basic€care,€the€nature€of€that€relationship€required€Mr.ÏGoodwinððs€private€trust.€€Presumably,€Mr.€Goodwinððs€family€placed€him€inÏClover€Bottom€with€the€belief€that€he€would€be€cared€for€and€treated€humanely.€ÍIt€was€in€his€capacity€as€a€public€employee€entrusted€as€a€care„giver€thatÏAppellant€severely€beat€the€helpless€Mr.€Goodwin.€€Thus,€the€application€ofÏenhancement€factor€(15)€was€proper.€€€ÌÌò òÓ  Ó4.€€LACK€OF€SUBSTANTIAL€JUDGMENTÌÓ  Óó óà àAppellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€mitigatingÏfactor€(6),€providing€that€ð ð[t]he€defendant,€because€of€youth€or€old€age,€lackedÏsubstantial€judgment€in€committing€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(6).€€When€determining€the€applicability€of€this€mitigating€factor,€theÏsentencing€court€should€consider€"the€defendant's€age,€education,€maturity,Ïexperience,€mental€capacity€or€development,€and€any€other€pertinentÏcircumstance€tending€to€demonstrate€the€defendant's€ability€or€inability€toÏappreciate€the€nature€of€his€conduct."€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€33Ï(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€assault,€Appellant€was€twenty„one€years€of€age.€ÏAlthough€a€high€school€drop„out,€Appellant€maintained€and€continues€toÏmaintain€full„time€employment.€€The€record€is€devoid€of€any€evidence€supportingÏthe€contention€that€Appellant€lacked€substantial€judgment€to€appreciate€theÏnature€of€his€conduct.€€Thus,€mitigating€factor€(6)€is€inapplicable.Ìò òÌÓ  Ó5.€NON„STATUTORY€MITIGATING€FACTORSÌÓ  Óó óà àFinally,€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€otherÏnon„statutory€mitigating€factors€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€SectionÏ40„35„113(13).€€Specifically,€Appellant€points€to€his€lack€of€prior€felonyÏconvictions€and€his€expression€of€remorse€over€the€incident.€€The€trial€court€failedÏto€address€either€of€these€factors€during€the€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà àWe€will€first€address€Appellantððs€contention€that€his€lack€of€prior€felonyÏconvictions€deserves€consideration€under€mitigating€factor€(13).€€The€recordÏreveals€that€Appellant€was€convicted€of€assault€in€March€of€1994.€€According€toÏhis€wife,€Appellant€struck€her€in€the€face,€causing€an€eye€injury€that€requiredÏtwenty€stitches.€€The€record€further€reveals€that€Appellant€has€juvenileÏconvictions€for€assault€and€for€robbery.€€The€juvenile€record€of€an€offender€is€anÏappropriate€consideration€when€determining€the€sentence€for€an€adult€conviction.€ÏòòState€v.€Stocktonóó,€733€S.W.2d€111,€112„13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€RobberyÏis€a€Class€C€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401(b).€€We€therefore€concludeÏthat€Appellantððs€sentence€is€not€due€any€mitigation€for€a€lack€of€prior€felonyÏconvictions.ÌÌà àWe€now€turn€to€the€issue€of€whether€Appellantððs€expression€of€remorseÏwarrants€consideration€under€mitigating€factor€(13).€€During€his€sentencingÏhearing,€Appellant€made€the€following€statement:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓI€am€very€sorry€for€what€I€had€done.€€I€know€that€it€wasÏwrong€and€I€shouldnððt€have€done€what€I€done.€€I€justÏwant€to€apologize€for€that.€.€.€.€Iððm€sorry€that€I€kicked€him.€.Ï.€.€Iððm€very€sorry€for€what€had€happened.€€I€didnððt€meanÏto€put€his€family€or€him€in€any€kind€of€pain€or€agony.€€I€justÏwish€this€all€had€never€happened.ÌÓÓÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÌÓÓThis€Court€has€held€that€remorse€is€a€proper€consideration€under€mitigating€factorÏ(13).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€845€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€ÏBased€on€Appellantððs€recognition€of€the€wrongfulness€of€his€actions€and€hisÏexpression€of€remorse,€we€believe€that€some€marginal€consideration€isÏappropriate€under€mitigating€factor€(13).€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Mooneyóó,€No.€Ï03C01„9502„CR„00050,€1996€WL€183931,€at€*15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€April€18,Ï1996),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Oct.€28,€1996).Ìò òÌÓ  ÓB.€€MANNER€OF€SERVICEó óà àÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€impose€anÏalternative€sentence.€€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€grantedÏfull€probation€or,€in€the€alternative,€probation€following€a€period€of€confinement.Ô€ÔÌÌà àÔ€ÔThe€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€recognizes€theÏlimited€capacity€of€state€prisons€and€mandates€that€ð ðconvicted€felons€committingÏthe€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminal€histories€evincing€a€clearÏdisregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€past€effortsÏof€rehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priority€regarding€sentencing€involvingÏincarceration.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5).€€A€defendant€who€does€notÏqualify€as€such€and€who€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€of€aÏClass€C,€D,€or€E€felony€is€ð ðpresumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€forÏsentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€A€sentencing€court€may€then€only€deny€alternative€sentencing€whenÏpresented€with€sufficient€evidence€to€overcome€the€presumption.€€òòState€v.ÏAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Zeoliaóó,€928ÏS.W.2d€457,€461€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).ÌÌà àA€denial€of€alternative€sentencing€in€the€face€of€the€statutory€presumptionÏshould€be€based€on€the€following€considerations:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà à(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€byÏrestraining€a€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminalÏconduct;€Ìà à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciatingÏthe€seriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€isÏparticularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€toÏothers€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€or€Ìà à(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinementÏhave€frequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfullyÏto€the€defendant.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1).€€A€sentencing€court€may€also€apply€mitigatingÏand€enhancing€factors€as€they€are€relevant€to€these€sentencing€considerations.€ÏòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(b)(5).€€€Furthermore,€in€determining€whether€an€alternativeÏsentence€is€appropriate,€the€sentencing€court€may€consider€the€defendantððsÏpotential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„103(5).ÌÌà àAs€a€Range€I€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C€felony,€AppellantÏwas€and€is€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing.€€We€mustÏascertain€whether€the€trial€court€properly€denied€Appellant€any€form€of€alternativeÏsentence.ÌÌà àWe€first€address€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€attack.€€In€order€toÏdeny€an€alternative€sentence€because€of€the€nature€of€the€offense,€"theÏcircumstances€of€the€offense€as€committed€must€be€especially€violent,€horrifying,Ïshocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggeratedÏdegree,"€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€must€outweigh€all€factors€favoring€aÏsentence€other€than€confinement.€€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€374„75Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€We€believe€that€the€savage€kicking€of€a€blind€andÏseverely€mentally€retarded€individual€coupled€with€the€fact€that€the€aggressorÍpurported€to€be€a€qualified€care„giver€and€was€employed€and€entrusted€with€theÏvictimððs€most€basic€care€is€sufficiently€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€andÏoffensive€to€justify€incarceration.€€The€extent€of€the€victimððs€injuries€also€reflectsÏthe€seriousness€of€the€attack.€€The€nature€and€circumstances€of€this€attackÏclearly€outweigh€all€factors€favoring€an€alternative€sentence€and€support€theÏimposition€of€a€sentence€involving€incarceration.ÌÌà àWe€next€turn€to€the€deterrent€effect€a€sentence€involving€incarcerationÏmight€have€on€others€with€a€propensity€to€commit€similar€acts.€€Normally,€aÏfinding€of€effective€deterrence€cannot€be€conclusory€but€must€be€supported€byÏproof.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€170€(Tenn.€1991).€However,€certainÏcriminal€offenses€appear€to€be€sufficiently€unique€to€warrant€special€treatmentÏwith€regard€to€the€underlying€proof€requirement.€€òòSee€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Millsapsóó,€920ÏS.W.2d€267€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(embezzlement);€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€No.Ï02C01„9108„CC„00167,€1992€WL€133201€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€17,€1992)Ï(drug€trafficking);€òòState€v.€Cleavoróó,€691€S.W.2d€541€(Tenn.€1985)€(drunk€driving);ÏòòState€v.€Vinesóó,€No.€95,€1991€WL€21603€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€22,€1991)€(childÏsexual€abuse).€€It€is€our€opinion€that€the€need€to€deter€violent,€unlawful€behaviorÏby€those€individuals€entrusted€with€the€custodial€control€over€others,€especiallyÏthose€incapacitated€by€mental€retardation,€is€obvious.€€Therefore,€we€believeÍthat€this€sentencing€consideration€weighs€in€favor€of€denying€Appellantððs€bid€forÏan€alternative€sentence.Ì€Ìà àFinally,€the€record€supports€the€trial€court's€observation€that€Appellant,Ïwhile€remorseful€and€willing€to€accept€responsibility,€was€not€truthful€as€to€theÏseverity€and€protracted€nature€of€the€attack.€€This€Court€has€previouslyÏobserved€that€a€defendantððs€credibility€is€germane€to€his€rehabilitative€potential.€ÏòòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€306€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Here,ÏAppellantððs€lack€of€candor€reflects€poorly€on€such€potential.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓC.€€CONCLUSIONó óÌÓ  Óà àWith€regard€to€the€length€of€Appellantððs€sentence,€we€find€that€theÏfollowing€enhancement€factors€apply:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà à(1)€Mr.€Goodwin€was€particularly€vulnerableÏbecause€of€physical€and€mental€disability;Ìà à(2)€Appellant€treated€Mr.€Goodwin€with€exceptionalÏcruelty€during€the€commission€of€the€offense;€andÌà à(3)€Appellant€abused€a€position€of€trust.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(4),€(5),€(15).€€We€further€find€that€the€followingÏmitigating€factors€apply€to€Appellantððs€sentence:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà à(1)€Appellant,€although€guilty€of€the€crime,Ïcommitted€the€offense€under€such€unusual€circumstancesÏthat€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€lawÏmotivated€his€conduct;€andÌà à(2)€Appellant€expressed€remorse.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„113(11),€(13).€€As€mentioned€previously,€in€determining€theÏlength€of€Appellantððs€sentence,€we€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€theÏstatutory€range,€three€years,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€asÏappropriate€to€the€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€withinÏthe€range€as€appropriate€to€the€mitigating€factors.€€We€attribute€great€weight€toÏeach€of€the€three€applicable€enhancement€factors,€especially€factors€(4)€andÏ(15),€and€therefore€enhance€Appellantððs€sentence€to€the€maximum€of€six€years.€ÏIn€light€of€the€nature€of€the€assault€on€Mr.€Goodwin€and€Appellantððs€position€asÏa€public€caregiver,€we€attribute€only€marginal€weight€to€each€of€the€twoÏapplicable€mitigating€factors.€€€We€therefore€decline€to€reduce€AppellantððsÏsentence€from€that€imposed€by€the€trial€court.Ìà àÌà àWith€regard€to€the€manner€of€service€of€Appellantððs€sentence,€weÏconclude€that€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€and€the€offender€justify€the€trialÏcourtððs€imposition€of€a€sentence€involving€confinement.ÌÌÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌ€Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌà àÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE