ÿWPC6! …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ ø 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ U>AU*B)© D3Ò BDC" 0@e AM¥òë Ïô}Ãv~@vÓ¾ AO‘Æà 0D¦ D/ê B!˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,hh,,,0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- EDDD Ó€·‚^!3|x+((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d++++'ÿÿdxd d))))7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òMarch€4,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó áÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„605(b)(2).Ì ÅÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔWe€do€note€that€a€defendant€may€assert€the€defense€of€necessity,€but€this€is€applicable€only€inÏà0 àthe€most€dire€of€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„609.€€This€Court€clarified€theÏstatutory€elements€a€defendant€needs€to€establish€for€the€defense€of€necessity€in€an€escapeÏcase.€€òòState€v.€Culpóó,€900€S.W.2d€707,€711€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€They€are€as€follows:Ìà àà à(1)€The€person€reasonably€believes€the€conduct€is€immediately€necessary€to€avoidÏà0 àà8 àimminent€harm;€(2)€The€desirability€and€urgency€of€avoiding€the€harm€clearlyÏoutweigh,€according€to€ordinary€standards€of€reasonableness,€the€harm€sought€toÏbe€prevented€by€the€law€proscribing€the€conduct;€(3)€There€is€no€time€for€aÏcomplaint€to€the€authorities€or€there€exists€a€history€of€futile€complaints€whichÏmake€any€result€from€such€compliance€illusory;€and€(4)€The€prisoner€immediatelyÏreports€to€the€proper€authorities€when€he€has€attained€a€position€of€safety€fromÏthe€immediate€threat.ÌÌòòà0 àIdóó.Ì sÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔWe€need€not€consider€the€issuance€and€disposition€of€the€first€probation€warrant€that€was€filed€on€à0 àNovember€5,€1990.€€Its€disposition€is€not€relevant€to€the€issue€on€appeal.ÌPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€'ŠÔÔ€(ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€l„XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€./,A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌDECEMBER€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9602„CC„00056Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àMONROE€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€MAYO€MASHBURNó óÌò òMARTY€MILLER,ó óà àà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(Escape)ò òÌó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€MONROE€COUNTYó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌCHARLES€M.€CORNà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌSTEVE€WARDà àà àà àà àEUGENE€J.€HONEAÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€647à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌAthens,€TN€37303à àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€N.€ESTESÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€647Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAthens,€TN€37303ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€(°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€(ŠÔÌÌÌà àà àÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure.€€The€Defendant€was€convicted€by€a€Monroe€CountyÏjury€of€œfelony›€œescape.›× ƒ0 ××  ×€He€was€sentenced€to€serve€two€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€and€ordered€to€pay€court€costs€within€six€months€afterÏhis€release€from€incarceration.€€The€Defendant€appeals€both€his€conviction€andÏsentence€and€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:€(1)€That€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€failing€to€rule€that€the€probation€warrant€for€which€he€was€under€arrestÏwas€issued€beyond€the€statute€of€limitations€and€therefore€void€or€voidable;€(2)Ïthat€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€the€Defendantððs€guilt€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt;€and€(3)€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€wasÏexcessive.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àWe€will€begin€with€a€discussion€of€the€œfacts,›€including€the€backgroundÏand€procedural€history€œrelative€to›€œthe€issues€presented€in€this€case.›€€BecauseÏthe€escape€for€which€the€Defendant€was€convicted€occurred€while€he€wasÏbeing€held€for€a€œcharge€of€probation›€violation€and€because€he€raises€œin€thisÍappeal€the›€issue€of€the€validity€of€the€probation€œviolation€warrant,›€we€will€alsoÏaddress€the€procedural€history€regarding€a€prior€conviction.ÌÌà à(1)€The€Defendant€was€convicted€of€kidnapping€on€October€20,€1989.€ÏAfter€a€sentencing€hearing€conducted€on€November€20,€1989,€he€wasÏsentenced€to€four€(4)€years€with€all€but€sixty€(60)€days€suspended.€€TheÏDefendant€was€placed€on€probation€for€the€remainder€of€the€term.€€The€effectiveÏcommencement€date€of€the€four„year€term€was€October€20,€1989.€Ìà à(2)€A€probation€violation€warrant€was€filed€on€November€5,€1990.€€AÏhearing€was€held€on€November€19,€1990.€€The€Defendant€was€ordered€toÏperform€community€service€two€times€per€week€and€pay€the€court€costs.Ìà à(3)€The€next€probation€violation€warrant€was€filed€on€October€7,€1991.€ÏThe€Defendant€could€not€be€found€to€be€served€and€was€placed€onÏœð ðabsconderðð›€status€in€July,€1992.Ìà à(4)€The€warrant€was€œsubsequently€served›€on€the€Defendant€onÏDecember€29,€1993.Ìà à(5)€A€hearing€on€the€probation€violation€œwarrant€was›€held€on€January€24,Ï1994.€€At€that€time,€the€trial€court€(a)€revoked€the€Defendantððs€probation€and€(b)Ïplaced€him€on€six€(6)€months€intensive€probation.Ìà à(6)€A€third€probation€violation€warrant€was€filed€on€June€1,€1994.€€TheÏDefendant€was€arrested€on€this€warrant€and€was€housed€at€the€MonroeÍCounty€jail.€€He€was€œin›€œthe€custody›€of€the€Monroe€County€Sheriffððs€DepartmentÏwhen€he€was€brought€to€the€courthouse€for€the€hearing€on€August€22,€1994€onÏthe€probation€violation€warrant€that€was€issued€on€June€1,€1994.ÌÌà àIt€is€at€this€point€when€the€escape€occurred.€€€Sergeant€Dan€Dixon€of€theÏMonroe€County€Sheriffððs€Department€was€responsible€for€transporting€andÏsupervising€several€prisoners€who€were€scheduled€to€appear€in€court€onÏAugust€22,€1994.€€Several€prisoners€were€shackled€and€some,€including€theÏDefendant,€were€not,€because€there€was€a€œshortage€of€shackles.›€€TheÏDefendant€requested€to€use€the€restroom€on€several€occasions€and€SergeantÏDixon€allowed€him€to€go€by€himself€on€the€second€trip.€€€On€possibly€the€thirdÏtrip€to€the€restroom,€the€Defendant€did€not€return.€€He€was€apprehended,€indictedÏfor€felony€escape€on€February€2,€1995,€and€was€convicted€on€July€28,€1995.€ÏThe€jury€imposed€a€fine€of€$1,500.€€The€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€two€œyears›Ïconfinement€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€It€is€from€the€conviction€andÏsentence€for€felony€escape€that€the€Defendant€appeals.ÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÏdetermine€that€the€probation€violation€warrant€for€which€he€was€being€held€wasÏvoid€or€voidable.€€€He€claims€that€the€statute€of€limitations€for€filing€a€warrant€hadÏexpired€when€the€June€1,€1994€warrant€was€issued.€€He€asserts€that€if€theÍwarrant€was€invalid,€he€was€being€held€illegally€and€could€not€be€convicted€ofÏescape.ÌÌà àHowever,€the€validity€of€the€probation€warrant€is€generally€irrelevant€inÏdetermining€whether€the€Defendant€is€guilty€of€escape.€€Assuming€that€the€arrestÏwarrants€were€invalid,€this€fact,€standing€alone,€would€not€entitle€the€DefendantÏto€relief.€€An€accused€has€no€constitutional€immunity€from€an€unlawful€arrest.€ÏòòState€v.€Manningóó,€490€S.W.2d€512,€514€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€ex€rel.€Carlson€v.ÏStateóó,€219€Tenn.€80,€87„88,€407€S.W.2d€165,€168€(1966);€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€608ÏS.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€The€fact€that€an€accused€has€beenÏunlawfully€arrested€generally€becomes€relevant€only€when€evidence€tainted€byÏthe€unlawful€arrest€is€sought€to€be€introduced€by€the€State.€€Consequently,€theÏmere€fact€that€an€accusedððs€arrest€was€unconstitutional,€invalid,€or€illegal,Ïstanding€alone,€will€not€afford€the€accused€relief€from€his€conviction€for€escapingÏfrom€custody.ÌÌà àEscape,€in€and€of€itself,€is€a€substantive€offense€codified€in€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€39„16„605.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcCaslin€v.€McCordóó,€116€Tenn.€690,Ï94€S.W.79,€8€Ann.€Cas.€245€(1906).€€Felony€escape€occurs€when€ð ðany€personÏarrested€for,€charged€with,€or€convicted€of€an€offense€[escapes]€from€a€penalÏœinstitution,›€as€defined€in€ðð€39„16„601"€and€it€is€a€ð ðClass€E€felony€if€the€personÍwas€being€held€for€a€felony.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„605.€€AppropriateÏdefinitions€are€contained€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„16„601Ï(Supp.€1990):ÌÌà àà à(2)€€ð ðCustodyðð€means€under€arrest€by€a€law€enforcement€officer€orÏà àunder€restraint€by€a€public€servant€pursuant€to€an€order€of€a€court;Ìà àà à(3)€€ð ðEscapeðð€means€unauthorized€departure€from€custody€or€failureÏà àto€return€to€custody€following€temporary€leave€for€a€specific€purpose€or€à0 àlimited€period,€but€does€not€include€a€violation€of€conditions€of€probation€orÏparole;€andÌà àà à(4)€ð ðPenal€institution€includes€any€institution€used€to€house€or€detainÏà àa€person:€(A)€Convicted€of€a€crime;€or€(B)€Who€is€in€direct€or€indirectÏà àcustody€after€a€lawful€arrest.ÌÌà àThe€State€demonstrated€that€the€Defendant€was€ð ðin€custody.ðð€€He€wasÏtransported€from€the€Monroe€County€Jail,€clearly€a€ð ðpenal€institutionðð,€and€wasÏunder€restraint€by€Sergeant€Dixon€while€at€the€courthouse.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Culpóó,Ï891€S.W.2d€232,€236€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€David€WayneÏBodenhammeróó,€C.C.A.€No.€1183,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979);ÏòòLaird€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2d€38,€41„42€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Also,€theÏDefendant€failed€to€return€following€ð ðtemporary€leave€for€a€specific€purpose,ððÏtherefore€satisfying€the€requirement€for€an€escape.€€And€finally,€the€DefendantÍhad€been€convicted€of€the€crime€of€kidnaping,€a€Class€C€Felony.€€Although€heÏwas€being€held€for€a€probation€violation,€the€terms€of€the€probation€are€notÏrelevant€to€the€proof€of€escape.€€What€is€relevant€is€that€he€had€been€convictedÏof€the€underlying€felony€and€was€being€held€in€connection€with€that€conviction.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€J.R.€Arpóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9112„CR„00401,€Monroe€CountyÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€2,€1992),€œòòperm.€to›€œappeal›€œdenied›óó€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€òòArpóó€addressed€this€issue€in€the€context€of€a€parole€violation,€treating€theÏviolation€as€an€extension€of€the€proceedings€for€the€original€conviction.€€òòIdóó.€œat›€3;Ïœòòseeóó›€òòAllen€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€715,€œ719€(Tenn.€1974).›€€Similarly,€it€is€unlawfulÏfor€one€to€escape€when€being€held€for€a€violation€of€probation€because€suchÏproceedings€are€also€an€extension€of€the€original€conviction.ÌÌà àIn€addition,€the€possible€invalidity€of€the€warrant€because€it€was€issuedÏbeyond€the€statute€of€limitation€does€not€affect€whether€the€Defendant€wasÏproperly€convicted€for€òòfelonyóó€escape,€as€opposed€to€the€alternative,Ïmisdemeanor€escape.€€òòCompareóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„605(b)(1)€òòwithóóÏ(b)(2).€€Hypothetically,€if€the€statute€of€limitation€had€run€for€the€probationaryÏperiod€imposed€on€the€Defendantððs€conviction€for€kidnaping,€a€warrantÏsubsequently€issued€would€not€be€filed€during€the€time€he€was€serving€for€aÏfelony.€€œThe€Defendant€asserts€that›€the€only€available€charge€would€be€forÏmisdemeanor€escape€because€the€Defendant€was€not€currently€incarcerated€orÍon€probation€for€a€felony.€€However,€the€escape€statute€only€requires€that€theÏDefendant€be€ð ðòòheldóó€for€a€felonyðð€to€be€guilty€of€felony€escape.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39„16„605(b)(2).€€Even€if€the€probation€violation€warrant€for€the€underlyingÏfelony€conviction€was€erroneous€and€it€was€determined€that€the€arrest€wasÏillegal,€this€is€of€no€consequence.€€òòSeeóó€òòChisom€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€831,€833Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Nor€would€it€matter€if€the€underlying€charges€wereÏultimately€dismissed.€€The€Defendant€was€being€òòheldóó€for€a€felony€and€heÏescaped.€€This€is€all€the€statute€requires.€€Thus,€a€conviction€for€felony€escapeÏwas€proper.ÌÌà àThe€validity€of€a€warrant€or€an€arrest€should€not€be€considered€a€defenseÏto€a€charge€for€escape.€€Once€a€defendant€is€held€in€custody€of€any€type€byÏanyone€vested€with€the€lawful€authority€to€do€so,€escape€is€not€a€lawfulÏoption.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€The€proper€forum€to€assert€defenses€of€any€kind€is€before€the€trial€court.€ÍHere,€the€Defendant€could€always€have€presented€the€defense€that€theÏissuance€of€the€warrant€exceeded€the€statute€of€limitation.€€Yet,€he€chose€toÏescape€while€òòwaiting€at€the€courthouseóó€for€a€hearing€before€the€trial€judge.€€If€theÏvalidity€of€the€probation€violation€warrant€was€indeed€a€valid€defense,€the€trialÏcourt€could€have€remedied€the€situation€by€dismissing€the€warrant.ÌÌà àEven€if€we€were€to€address€the€Defendantððs€issue€as€presented€on€itsÏmerits,€we€would€find€that€the€probation€violation€warrant€was€validly€issued.€€AÏtrial€court€has€the€power€to€revoke€a€suspended€sentence€ð ðat€any€time€withinÏthe€maximum€time€which€was€directed€and€ordered€by€the€court€for€suchÏsuspension€.€.€.€and€in€such€cases€the€original€judgment€so€rendered€by€the€trialÏjudge€shall€be€in€full€force€and€effect€from€the€date€of€revocation.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„310.€€The€trial€judge€has€the€discretionary€power€to€revokeÏprobation€at€any€time€during€the€period€of€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„310;€òòState€v.€Dukeóó,€902€S.W.2d€424,€427€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Further,€theÏSentencing€Commission€Comments€to€section€40„35„310€provide€that€uponÏrevocation,€the€original€sentence€ð ðcan€be€placed€into€effect.ðð€€This€implies€that€theÏtrial€judge€also€has€the€discretion€to€ð ðplace€into€effectðð€a€lesser€sentence€if€he€orÏshe€deems€it€appropriate.ÌÌà àWhen€it€becomes€known€that€a€defendant€has€violated€the€conditions€ofÏhis€or€her€probation,€the€trial€court€is€vested€with€the€power€to€issue€a€ð ðwarrantÏfor€the€arrest€of€such€defendant€as€in€any€other€criminal€case.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„311(a).€€Ordinarily,€the€time€for€filing€a€warrant€against€a€defendant€isÏlimited€to€the€ð ðmaximum€timeðð€ordered€for€probation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„310.›€€However,€filing€a€probation€violation€warrant€tolls€the€running€of€the€timeÏwithin€which€the€trial€court€may€revoke€a€defendantððs€probation.€€òòAllen€v.€Stateóó,Ï505€S.W.2d€715,€717€(Tenn.€1974).€€The€statute€of€limitation€is€tolled€and€noÏcredit€is€earned€from€the€date€the€warrant€is€issued.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€statute€of€limitation€was€tolled€beginning€onÏOctober€7,€1991,€the€date€the€second€probation€warrant€was€issued.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€ThisÏwarrant€was€not€served€upon€the€Defendant€until€December€29,€1993,€for€aÏtolling€period€of€over€two€years.€€Thus,€although€the€term€for€the€DefendantððsÏprobation€would€have€run€on€October€20,€1993,€the€tolling€of€the€limitation€periodÏrendered€the€validity€of€the€trial€courtððs€actions€in€full€force€and€effect.€€Furthermore,Ïthe€trial€court€òòrevokedóó€the€Defendantððs€probation€at€the€hearing€on€the€probationÏviolation€warrant€conducted€on€January€24,€1994.€€At€that€time,€although€vestedÏwith€the€authority€to€reinstate€the€Defendantððs€original€sentence€of€four€(4)€yearsÍin€the€Department€of€Correction,€the€trial€court€exercised€its€discretion€andÏimposed€a€€period€of€intensive€probation€to€last€for€six€(6)€months.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann€ðð€40„35„310.€€Absent€any€further€violations€and€tolling€of€the€statute,Ïthe€maximum€time€within€which€a€warrant€could€be€filed€was€œuntil›€July€23,€1994,Ïor€the€œend€of€the€six„month›€period.€€€€However,€a€warrant€was€issued€on€JuneÏ1,€1994,€which€resulted€in€the€Defendantððs€arrest€and€his€subsequent€escapeÏfrom€custody€on€August€22,€1994.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€any€warrants€issued€subsequent€to€theÏsecond€warrant€issued€on€October€7,€1991,€should€be€held€invalid€because€theÏtrial€court€did€not€expressly€order€an€extension€of€his€probation.€€In€other€words,Ïœhe€argues€that€the›€trial€court€must€expressly€order€an€extension€of€probationÏwhen€tolling€of€the€statute€of€limitations€occurs€before€any€subsequent€warrantsÏcan€be€issued.€€Otherwise,€he€argues€that€they€should€be€held€void€or€voidable.€ÏOn€the€basis€of€this€theory,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€third€warrantÏissued€on€June€1,€1994€was€invalid€and€that€he€was€being€held€illegally.€€HeÏacknowledges€that€there€is€no€case€law€on€this€point€and€we€decline€to€adoptÏsuch€a€rule.€€òòAllenóó€does€not€require€notification€to€a€defendant€of€any€extensionÏof€probation€time€due€to€the€tolling€of€the€statute€of€limitation.€€Moreover,€theÏDefendant€was€an€absconder€for€over€two€years;€any€lack€of€notice€wasÏcertainly€œhis€own€making.›ÌÌà àAs€a€result,€the€order€entered€by€the€trial€court€on€January€24,€1994,Ïrevoking€the€Defendantððs€probation€was€within€the€limitation€period€and€wasÏvalid.€€The€trial€judge€ordered€six€months€of€intensive€probation.€€The€nextÏwarrant€was€issued€on€June€1,€1994,€well€within€the€limitation€period.€€Likewise,Ïthe€subsequent€arrest€of€the€Defendant€was€valid.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err.€ÏAgain,€we€emphasize€that€the€validity€of€the€warrant€is€irrelevant€to€theÏœdetermination€of€›€whether€the€Defendant€was€guilty€of€felony€escape.€€œTherefore,›Ïthis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àNext,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€supportÏa€verdict€of€guilt€for€felony€escape.€€Namely,€he€contends€that€the€State€failed€toÏprove€that€he€was€on€probation€when€the€violation€warrant€was€issued.€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€asserts€that,€because€the€State€did€not€provide€proof€ofÏhis€ð ðprobationary€terms,ðð€they€failed€to€prove€every€element€of€the€crime€asÏrequired€by€òòIn€Re€Winshipóó,€397€U.S.€358,€364,€90€S.Ct.€1968,€1073,€25€L.Ed.2dÏ368€(1970)€and€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„201.€€Yet,€as€weÏhave€noted€in€the€previous€discussion,€proving€the€Defendantððs€probationaryÏterms€is€not€necessary€to€prove€felony€escape€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏWhat€is€relevant€is€that€the€State€prove€the€elements€of€felony€escape.€€It€isÍclear€from€the€record€that€this€has€been€shown€and€it€certainly€supports€theÏjuryððs€finding€the€Defendant€guilty€of€œescape.€€›€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÓÓÓÓÌà àAs€his€final€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€two„year€sentenceÏimposed€by€the€trial€court€is€excessive.€€When€an€accused€challenges€theÏlength,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€toÏconduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€theÏrecord€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevantÏfacts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€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€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€(XÔððððÔ€(ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€œprinciples›€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€enhancement€andÏmitigating€factors.€The€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€Defendant€was€aÏthirty„five€year€old€single€male.€€He€did€not€complete€high€school,€and€has€had€aÏnumber€of€jobs,€primarily€employed€by€family€members€as€a€construction€worker.€ÏHe€had€a€long€history€of€alcohol€abuse€and€arrests€related€to€intoxication.€€HeÏhad€obtained€mental€health€treatment€at€local€mental€health€centers.€€He€had€aÏlengthy€criminal€record,€with€convictions€for€possession€of€marijuana€(2Ïconvictions),€public€intoxication€(3€convictions),€kidnaping,€reckless€driving€andÏresisting€a€stop.€€The€State€submitted€three€enhancement€factors€pursuant€toÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„114:€(1)€That€the€Defendant€had€aÏprevious€history€of€criminal€convictions;€(2)€that€the€Defendant€had€a€previousÏhistory€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involvingÏrelease€into€the€community;€and€(3)€the€felony€was€committed€while€on€intensiveÏprobation.€€As€a€mitigating€factor,€the€Defendant€submitted€that€his€conductÍneither€caused€not€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€In€this€appeal,€he€also€argues€that€this€Court€should€consider€that€heÏwas€unaware€that€his€probation€was€still€in€effect€and€find€this€to€be€aÏmitigating€factor€under€the€catch„all€subsection€40„35„113(13).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing.€€The€Defendant€did€notÏtestify.€€Counsel€for€the€Defendant€presented€argument€and€the€State€relied€onÏthe€presentence€report.€€The€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factor€(1),€theÏDefendantððs€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€and€enhancement€factorÏ(13),€that€the€Defendant€was€on€probation.€€The€trial€court€did€not€address€orÏapply€enhancement€factor€(8),€that€the€Defendant€had€a€history€of€unwillingnessÏto€comply€with€the€terms€of€€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€ÏThe€trial€court€applied€mitigating€factor€(1),€that€the€Defendantððs€conduct€neitherÏcaused€nor€threatened€bodily€injury.€€ÌÌà àThe€State€concedes€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€enhancementÏfactor€(13),€in€that€the€Defendant€was€not€on€probation€when€the€offense€wasÏcommitted€because€he€was€in€the€custody€of€the€Sheriffððs€Department,€ratherÏthan€on€probation,€when€he€escaped.€€Nevertheless,€while€the€Defendant€wasÏbeing€held€in€custody€on€a€probation€warrant,€he€remained€on€probation€fromÏthe€trial€courtððs€order€for€six€months€ð ðintensive€probationðð€entered€on€January€24,Í1994.€€His€probation€remained€in€effect€either€until€the€probationary€term€expiredÏor€until€the€trial€court€revoked€his€probation.€€The€escape€occurred€while€he€wasÏon€probation€and€we€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€thisÏenhancement€factor.€€The€State€also€proposed€that€this€Court€should€applyÏenhancement€factor€(8)€regarding€the€Defendantððs€unwillingness€to€comply€withÏhis€probation.€€We€agree.€€Three€probation€violation€warrants€were€issuedÏduring€the€Defendantððs€probationary€period.€€Furthermore,€he€disappeared€forÏover€two€years€during€the€term€of€his€probation.€€There€is€little€evidence€ofÏcooperation€on€his€part.€€It€is€appropriate€to€apply€this€enhancement€factor.ÌÌà àHowever,€we€decline€to€apply€the€mitigating€factor€proposed€by€theÏDefendant;€that€he€did€not€know€his€probation€period€had€been€tolled€while€heÏwas€incommunicado.€€A€misunderstanding€as€to€the€validity€of€his€restraint€doesÏnot€provide€œmitigation€for›€an€escape€when€the€proper€forum€to€argue€the€issueÏwas€in€the€hearing€he€was€waiting€to€attend€that€day.ÌÌà àThe€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€E€felony€is€the€minimum€in€theÏrange€if€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„210(c).€€€Should€the€trial€court€find€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€itÏmust€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentenceÏbased€upon€any€applicable€enhancement€factors,€then€reduce€the€sentenceÍbased€upon€any€appropriate€mitigating€factors.€Tenn.€Code€€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„210(e).€€€The€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€within€the€trial€court's€discretionÏprovided€that€the€record€supports€its€findings€and€it€complies€with€the€SentencingÏAct.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.1991).€€The€œlength€of€theÏterm€for›€a€Class€E€felony,€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€is€one€to€two€(1„2)Ïyears.€€The€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€two€years€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€He€proposes€that€one€year€is€a€more€appropriate€sentence,Ïconsidering€the€application€of€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€However,€theÏDefendant€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€œoffenses›€and€he€has€failed€to€complyÏwith€the€terms€of€his€probation.€Even€if€some€evidence€of€mitigation€exists,€theÏapplicable€enhancement€factors€sufficiently€outweigh€the€mitigating€factor€suchÏthat€the€maximum€sentence€is€œproper.›€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766,Ï785€œ(Tenn.›€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àFinally,€the€trial€court€considered€the€Defendantððs€eligibility€for€alternativeÏsentencing€and€found€that€confinement€was€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense.€€Also,€the€trial€judge€found€that€less€restrictiveÏmeasures€had€proved€ineffective€and€that€it€was€necessary€to€protect€societyÏby€incarcerating€the€Defendant.€€€Moreover,€the€Defendant€does€not€argue€thatÏalternative€sentencing€is€warranted.€€Therefore,€we€feel€that€the€record€fullyÏsupports€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE