ÿWPC}) …U:V % 0 Ü–w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u©U, 0dJ B®U,ËU *÷B)!DCJ AM»Ú D3•Çȯ 0@>Ë~ìIR5v~‡ vÓ" AOØ'Æ'( 0Dí( D/1) B`), øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ ÌÍDÎeÏÕÓDÔÕUÖ™×ØÓ€Ô¡¨ ° ô3|xá(Ð(3-˜$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€æXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌJuneÏ11,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó'ÿÿdxd ½Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝFor€the€weapons€conviction,€the€appellant€received€a€suspendedÏsentence€of€60€days€and€a€fine€of€$50.00.Ì ¥Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€remained€on€supervised€probation€following€his€arrest€forÏrobbery.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€information€is€contained€in€the€"Uniform€Affidavit€of€Indigency"Ïcompleted€under€oath€by€the€appellant.Ì âÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€fixed€percentage€establishes€only€eligibility€for€release.€€It€does€notÏestablish€entitlement€to€release.€€òòPalmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€at€393.Ì HÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€support€of€his€argument,€the€appellant€alleges€the€following€mitigatingÏfactors:€€he€was€not€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„113(4)€(1990);€he€was€under€the€influence€of€his€older€half€brother€atÏthe€time€of€the€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113€(12);€the€appellant€did€notÏpersonally€injure€or€threaten€to€injure€anyone€during€the€theft,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„113€(13);€the€appellant€offered€to€testify€against€his€co„defendants€onÏbehalf€of€the€State,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113€(13);€the€appellantððs€criminalÏhistory€is€not€extensive€and€does€not€include€crimes€of€violence,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„113€(13);€and€the€appellant€is€not€a€ð ðmean€personðð€or€otherwise€aÏdanger€to€the€community,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113€(13).€€Assuming€theÏpresence€of€these€mitigating€factors,€we€conclude€that€the€failure€of€prior€lenientÏsentences€to€deter€the€appellantððs€involvement€in€criminal€activity€justifies€theÏsentence€imposed€in€this€case.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€$$X„d&ÓÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€Ùò ò›œßL€()';+'h|` # `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àMARCH€SESSION,Ï1996Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9509„CC„00313Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àRUTHERFORD€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€J.€S.ÏDANIEL,€JudgeÌò òJAMES€EDWARD€McKNIGHTó ó,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Theft€underÏ$500.)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌJohn€Bumpusà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ201€West€Main€Streetà àÌSuite€204à àà àà àà àà àCharlotte€H.€RappuhnÌMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130à 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 àWilliam€WhitesellÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPaul€A.€Holcombe,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRutherford€County€Judicial€Bldg.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€37130ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àOn€May€10,€1995,€the€appellant€pled€guilty€in€the€Rutherford€CountyÏCircuit€Court€to€theft€of€property€under€$500.00,€a€class€A€misdemeanor.€€OnÏJune€12,€1995,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€11€months€and€29€daysÏconfinement€in€the€Rutherford€County€Workhouse.€€The€trial€court€set€theÏpercentage€of€the€sentence€to€be€served€at€seventy„five€percent.€€The€appellantÏnow€presents€two€issues€for€our€review.€€First,€he€contends€that€a€releaseÏeligibility€percentage€of€seventy„five€percent€is€excessive.€€Second,€he€contendsÏthat€the€trial€court€improperly€ordered€that€his€sentence€in€the€instant€case€beÏserved€consecutively€to€two€unserved€sentences€previously€imposed€pursuantÏto€misdemeanor€convictions€for€possession€of€cocaine€and€drug€paraphernalia.ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€affirm€the€sentence.ÌÌà@ àò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌà àOn€December€14,€1994,€in€Murfreesboro,€the€appellant€was€driving€hisÏhalf€brother,€Jerry€Lee€Cantrell,€and€an€acquaintance,€Demont€Smith,€home€atÏapproximately€12:00€a.m.€€They€had€been€drinking.€€Cantrell€suggested€thatÏthey€stop€at€a€local€laundromat,€ð ðDuds€ððN€Suds.ðð€€The€appellant€and€SmithÏwaited€in€the€car€while€Cantrell€entered€the€laundromat.€€Inside€the€laundromat,ÏCantrell€grabbed€a€patronððs€purse.€€He€then€ran€to€the€appellantððs€vehicle.€ÍBefore€he€drove€away,€the€appellant€heard€someone€screaming€and€poundingÏon€the€side€of€his€car.€€The€offense€report€indicates€that€the€victimððs€hand€wasÏinjured€during€the€incident.ÌÌà àA€police€officer€observed€the€appellant€and€his€companions€fleeing€theÏlaundromat€and€pursued€them.€€At€some€point,€an€occupant€of€the€car€threw€theÏvictimððs€purse€from€a€window.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€appellant€stopped€his€car.€ÏHe€and€his€companions€were€arrested.ÌÌà àOn€December€12,€1994,€two€days€prior€to€the€commission€of€the€instantÏoffense,€the€appellant€had€been€placed€on€probation€for€misdemeanorÏconvictions€for€possession€of€cocaine€and€drug€paraphernalia.€€For€theseÏconvictions,€the€appellant€received€two€consecutive€sentences€of€11€monthsÏand€29€days,€which€were€suspended.€€The€trial€court€fixed€the€percentage€of€theÏsentences€to€be€served€at€seventy„five€percent.€€The€appellant€had€initially€beenÏgranted€diversion€for€these€offenses.€€However,€diversion€was€terminated€afterÏthe€appellant€was€convicted€of€a€prohibited€weapon€offense€committed€duringÏthe€diversionary€period.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€Finally,€between€the€time€of€his€arrest€for€robbery€andÍhis€plea€of€guilty€to€theft€under€$500,€the€appellant€failed€two€drug€screens.€œ× ƒ, ××  ×›ÏMoreover,€following€his€conviction,€the€appellant€admitted€to€a€probation€officerÏhis€continued€use€of€marijuana.ÌÌà àOn€June€12,€1995,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing€in€theÏinstant€case.€€Proof€at€the€hearing€consisted€of€the€presentence€report€and€theÏtestimony€of€the€appellant€and€his€grandfather.€€At€the€time€of€the€hearing,€theÏappellant€was€twenty„one€years€old€and€lived€with€his€grandmother.€€He€wasÏemployed€by€his€grandfather€in€the€scrap€metal€business.€€For€the€year€1994,Ïthe€appellant€reported€a€net€income€of€$600.× ƒ. ××  ×€€The€appellant€dropped€out€ofÏhigh€school€in€the€tenth€grade,€and€his€record€of€employment€is€sporadic.ÌœÌÌ›à à€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€in€support€of€the€sentence€imposed,€theÏtrial€court€made€the€following€findings:ÌÓÓà8 àThis€defendant€has€a€prior€criminal€record€that€involved€bothÏweapons€and€cocaine€or€drug€related€offenses€...€because€of€hisÏinability€to€follow€the€rules€of€...€diversion€status,€that€diversion€hadÏbeen€terminated,€...€and€he's€failed€drug€screens€in€February€of€'95Ïand€continues€to€admit€usage€of€illegal€drugs€after€these€events.€ÍSo€Iððm€faced€with€an€individual€who,€while€on€probation€and€thenÏearlier,€has€not€demonstrated€a€capacity€to€appreciate€thatÏprobationary€status.ÌÌÓÓWith€respect€to€consecutive€sentencing,€the€trial€court€concluded,€"The€sentenceÏshould€run€consecutive€to€that€of€the€prior€sentences€because€he€was€onÏprobation€at€the€time€of€the€event,€two€days€into€the€probation€...€."ÌÌà@ àò òANALYSISó óÌà àAppellate€review€of€a€sentence€is€òòde€novoóó,€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)(1990).€€The€presumption,€applicable€in€this€case,€is€conditioned€uponÏthe€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€and€allÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991).ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€recently€outlined€the€procedure€forÏsentencing€misdemeanor€offenders€under€the€Sentencing€Act€of€1989:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[T]he€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€requiresÏthree€things€of€trial€judges€sentencing€misdemeanorÏoffenders.€€First,€all€misdemeanor€offenders€must€beÏsentenced€in€accordance€with€the€principles,€purposes,€andÏgoals€of€the€Act.€€It€naturally€follows,€then,€that€the€sentenceÏmust€be€within€the€penalty€provided€for€the€offense.€ÏSecond,€the€court€must€either€conduct€a€sentencing€hearingÏor€provide€an€opportunity€for€the€parties€to€be€heard€on€theÍlength€and€manner€of€service€of€the€sentence.€€Third,€inÏaddition€to€setting€the€sentence€based€on€the€principles,Ïpurposes,€and€goals€of€the€Act,€the€court€must€set€a€releaseÏeligibility€percentage€which€cannot€exceed€seventy„fiveÏpercent€of€the€imposed€sentence.€€Alternatively,€the€courtÏcan€grant€probation€immediately€or€after€a€period€of€split€orÏcontinuous€confinement.€€ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòState€v.€Palmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1995)(citations€omitted).€€TheÏmisdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€a€minimumÏsentence.€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).€€Nevertheless,€a€primary€goal€of€the€SentencingÏReform€Act€is€that€the€"sentence€imposed€should€be€no€greater€than€thatÏdeserved€for€the€offense€committed."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2)€(1990).€ÏòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(1)€(Supp.€1994).€€The€Act€alsoÏmandates€that€the€sentence€imposed€"be€the€least€severe€measure€necessaryÏto€achieve€the€purposes€for€which€the€sentence€is€imposed."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„103(4).€€Finally,€"[t]he€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€the€rehabilitation€orÏtreatment€of€the€[appellant]€should€be€considered€in€determining€the€sentenceÏalternative€or€length€of€a€term€to€be€imposed."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€challenges€the€trial€court's€determination€that€he€shouldÏserve€seventy„five€percent€of€his€sentence.€€The€Sentencing€Act€provides€that,€inÏdetermining€the€percentage€of€the€sentence€to€be€served€by€the€misdemeanorÏoffender,€a€court€must€consider€the€purposes€of€the€Act,€the€principles€ofÍsentencing,€and€any€enhancing€or€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302€(d)€(Supp.€1994).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCreasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€833.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Although€aÏdiscussion€of€applicable€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors€would€be€the€betterÏpractice€for€purposes€of€appellate€review,€we€acknowledge€that€in€misdemeanorÏcases€we€have€not€required€that€trial€judges€explicitly€list€those€factors€on€theÏrecord.€€òòState€v.€Baggettóó,€No.€03C01„9401„CR„00031€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€July€11,€1995).€€The€purpose€of€the€statute€is€to€give€the€sentencingÏcourt€greater€flexibility€in€misdemeanor€sentencing.€€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d).€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€hasÏbroad€discretion€in€fixing€the€release€eligibility€percentage.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌÌà àThe€record€supports€the€trial€court's€finding€of€two€enhancing€factors:€theÏappellant€has€"a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior,"€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€(1994€Supp.),€and€the€appellant€has€ð ðaÏprevious€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentenceÏinvolving€release€in€the€community,"€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€òòSeeÏalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(C).€€Moreover,€the€appellant's€continuedÏuse€of€illegal€drugs€reflects€a€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„103(5).€€Finally,€the€sentence€imposed€should€ð ðencourage€respectÍfor€the€law€and€prevent€criminal€conduct.ðð€€òòState€v.€Gilboyóó,€857€S.W.2d€884,€889Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€aÏseventy„five€percent€release€eligibility€percentage€was€consistent€with€theÏprinciples,€purposes,€and€goals€of€the€Sentencing€Act.× ƒ0 ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€orderedÏconsecutive€service€of€his€sentences.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€contends€that,Ïin€order€to€impose€a€consecutive€sentence,€a€trial€court€must€find€that€aÏdefendant€is€a€persistent€offender,€a€professional€criminal,€a€multiple€offender,€aÏdangerous€mentally€abnormal€person,€or€a€dangerous€offender.€€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,Ï538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1976);€òòState€v.€Chapmanóó,€724€S.W.2d€378,€381Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€However,€in€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€936Ï(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€court€observed€that€ðð€40„35„115€of€the€CriminalÏSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€expanded€the€classifications€of€offenders€forÍwhich€consecutive€sentencing€should€be€reserved.€€Those€classifications€nowÏinclude€defendants€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€on€probation.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6)€(1990).€€The€record€clearly€supports€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€the€appellant€was€on€probation€when€the€instant€offense€wasÏcommitted.€€ÌÌà àHowever,€notwithstanding€the€presence€of€a€statutory€ground€for€theÏimposition€of€a€consecutive€sentence,€we€must€also€find€that€the€aggregateÏsentence€imposed€reasonably€relates€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed,Ïis€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€appellant,Ïand€is€consistent€with€the€sentencing€principles€set€forth€in€the€Sentencing€Act.€ÏòòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938„939.€€Based€upon€the€facts€of€this€case,€œtheÏescalation›€of€the€appellantððs€criminal€conduct,€and€the€appellantððs€blatant€andÏrepeated€refusal€to€conform€his€conduct€to€the€conditions€of€prior€lenientÏsentences,€we€conclude€that€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€wasÏappropriate.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JudgeÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€Special€JudgeÌ