ÿWPCz …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ ˜ 0”˜ 0D, w4p 0J¤ 0Tî 0^B 0h  0r 0|z 0†ö 0| 1u U, 0d­ BU,.U6ZB)DC¹ AMü D3IC|…¿ 0@Dv~„vÓ AOÕÆ$ 0Dê D/. B]<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X) «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó´½ (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó £ U D D  D  Ó€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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMayÏ30,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó {Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔÔ€ÔIn€her€brief,€the€defendant€complains€about€the€admission€of€ð ð[i]ncriminating›€statements€[she]Ïallegedly€made€.€.€.€,€including€she€did€not€know€where€she€wrecked,€that€she€did€not€tell€the€officer€that€aÏtire€blew€out,€[and]€that€she€requested€a€blood€test€or€not€[sic].ðð€€In€our€review€of€the€record,€however,€itÏdoes€not€appear€that€the€State€asked€her€about€any€statements€she€made€to€Officer€Roderick.€€Rather,€itÏappears€that€the€State€was€asking€her€questions€about€what€she€told€the€officers€at€the€scene€of€theÏaccident.€€The€only€questions€about€what€occurred€after€she€arrived€at€the€detention€center€wereÏwhether€she€was€informed€about€the€implied€consent€law,€whether€she€was€shown€the€œIntoximeter›€andÏasked€to€take€that€test,€and€whether€she€refused€to€take€any€blood€alcohol€tests.€€These€questions€didÏnot€involve€the€admission€of€any€statements€the€defendant€had€made€to€Officer€Roderick.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€%%X„d&ÓÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€çÌXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€)+(;+'h|` 81 `€€Lß›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àFEBRUARY€1996ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€œ03C01„9503„CR„00075ó ó›Ìà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœGREENE›ÏCOUNTYó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏJAMES€E.€œBECKNER›,ÌCAREYÏMONGER,à àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(œDUI›)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òROGER€A.ÏœWOOLSEY›à àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó ó118€S.€Main€St.à àà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌó óGreeneville,€TN€€€37743ò òÌó óà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àAMY€L.ÏœTARKINGTON›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌ€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertsonÍPkwy.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àC.€BERKELEY€BELLó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àCECIL€C.€MILLS,€JR.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à113€W.€Church€St.à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGreeneville,€TN€€€37743Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€anÏintoxicant€(œDUI›)€and€found€guilty€of€same€after€a€jury€trial.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,Ïthe€defendant€was€sentenced€to€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days,€with€ten€days€toÏbe€served€in€confinement.€€She€was€also€assessed€a€fine€of€$260.00.ÌÌà àà àShe€now€appeals€both€her€conviction€and€her€sentence,€alleging€in€herÏfirst€issue€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€admitted€into€evidence€certain€statementsÏshe€made€to€the€police.€€In€her€second€issue€she€contends€that€her€ten€day€period€ofÏincarceration€is€excessive.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€merit€to€either€ofÏthe€defendantððs€grounds€for€appeal€and€affirm€the€judgment€below.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àà àDuring€the€early€morning€hours€of€April€24,€1994,€Officers€DannyÏœGreene›€and€Rick€œCoyle›€responded€to€a€call€and€found€the€defendant€next€to€her€carÏon€the€side€of€œSnapps›€Ferry€Road€in€Greene€County.€€The€car€had€a€flat€left€front€tireÏand€had€sustained€some€damage€on€the€left€side.€€Officer€Greene€asked€theÏdefendant€where€she€had€been€and€she€responded€that€she€had€been€to€a€party.€ÏAfter€being€asked€if€sheððd€had€anything€to€drink,€the€defendant€stated€that€she€œhadÍhad›€two€beers.€€Officer€Greene€then€administered€three€field€sobriety€tests,€and€theÏdefendant€failed€all€three€of€them.€€Officer€Greene€œtestified›€that€he€had€œalso€noticed›Ïthe€odor€of€alcohol€around€her,€that€she€had€been€ð ðvery€unsteady€on€her€feet,ðð€thatÏshe€œhad€had›€ð ðtrouble€getting€her€license€out€of€[her]€billfold,ðð€and€that€her€eyes€hadÏbeen€glassy€and€bloodshot.€€After€administering€the€sobriety€tests,€Officer€GreeneÏarrested€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àà àFollowing€her€arrest,€the€defendant€was€taken€to€the€detention€center.€ÏWhile€there,€she€refused€to€take€a€blood€alcohol€test.€€She€also€gave€a€statement€toÏOfficer€Roderick,€which€was€tape€recorded.ÌÌà àà àPrior€to€the€trial€and€on€the€defendantððs€motion,€the€trial€court€issued€anÏorder€which€states,€in€pertinent€part,€ð ðthat€the€defendant€be€allowed€to€inspect€[and]Ïcopy€.€.€.€any€recorded€testimony€of€the€defendant€which€relates€to€the€offense(s)Ïœcharge[d›].ðð€€This€order€was€in€accord€with€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(A)€which€states,Ïð ðUpon€request€of€a€defendant€the€state€shall€permit€the€defendant€to€inspect€andÏcopy€or€photograph:€any€relevant€written€or€recorded€statements€made€by€theÏdefendant.ðð€€The€defendant€now€complains€that,€despite€repeated€requests,€the€StateÏnever€furnished€her€with€a€copy€of€the€tape€recorded€statement€she€made€to€OfficerÍRoderick€while€she€was€at€the€detention€center.€€Accordingly,€she€claims,€she€wasÏdenied€a€fair€trial€and€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial.ÌÌà àà àWe€disagree.€€We€must€also€confess€to€being€somewhat€confused€byÏthe€defendantððs€argument.€€In€her€brief€she€states€that€ð ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€allowingÏinto€evidence€statements€allegedly€made€by€[her].ðð€€However,€Officer€Roderick,€theÏofficer€who€took€the€contested€statement,€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€Nor€did€the€StateÏseek€to€introduce€the€tape„recorded€statement€into€evidence.€€The€State€did€not€evenÏuse€any€portion€of€the€statement€during€its€cross„examination€of€the€defendant€in€anÏattempt€to€impeach€her.œ× ƒ, ××  ×›€€Thus,€it€does€not€appear€that€any€portion€of€the€defendantððsÏtape„recorded€statement€was€introduced€at€trial.à àÌÌà àà à€Additionally,€the€defendantððs€lawyer€knew€about€the€statementsÏcontained€in€the€tape€prior€to€the€trial.€€We€recognize€that€the€State€violated€Tenn.€R.ÍCrim.€P.€16€when€it€did€not€produce€a€copy€of€the€tape.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏrecognized€the€violation€and€scolded€the€State€accordingly.€€€Given€that€the€State€didÏnot€use€the€statement,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€refusing€to€do€more.€€We€fail€to€seeÏhow€the€defendant€was€prejudiced€in€the€slightest€manner€by€the€Stateððs€failure€toÏturn€over€a€copy€of€the€tape€to€the€defendant.€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àRule€16€(a)(1)(A)€also€provides€that€ð ðthe€substance€of€any€oralÏstatement€which€the€state€intends€to€offer€in€evidence€at€the€trial€made€by€theÏdefendant€whether€before€or€after€arrest€in€response€to€interrogations€by€any€personÏthen€known€to€the€defendant€to€be€a€law„enforcement€officerðð€shall€be€producedÏð ð[œu]pon›€request€of€a€defendant.ðð€€To€the€extent€that€the€defendant€is€also€attempting€toÏargue€that€the€State€failed€to€produce€this€information,€that€is,€statements€to€officersÏother€than€Officer€Roderick,€the€defendant€did€not€raise€this€objection€at€trial.€€TheÏonly€statement€about€which€the€defendant€objected€at€trial€was€the€one€which€wasÏtape„recorded.€€Moreover,€the€trial€courtððs€order€in€this€matter€does€not€address€theÏproduction€of€this€information;€accordingly,€since€the€defendantððs€motion€is€not€in€theÏrecord,€we€can€only€presume€that€the€defendant€did€not€request€the€production€of€thisÏinformation.€€Therefore,€the€defendant€has€waived€any€issue€with€respect€to€theÏStateððs€production€of€ð ðthe€substance€of€any€oral€statement.ððÌÌà àà àIn€the€defendantððs€second€issue€she€complains€that€her€sentence€isÏexcessive.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€toÏeleven€months,€twenty„nine€days,€all€suspended€except€for€ten€days.€€The€defendantÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€found€mitigating€factors,€and€should€haveÏsentenced€her€to€the€minimum€incarceration€period€of€forty„eight€hours.ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€aÏòòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€TheÏburden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,€however,€"isÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏthe€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€œAshby›óó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àà àThe€misdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumptionÏof€a€minimum€sentence.€€òòState€v.€œCreasy›óó,€885€S.W.2d€829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994).€€However,€in€determining€the€percentage€of€the€sentence€to€be€served€inÏactual€confinement,€the€court€must€consider€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€asÍwell€as€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,Ïand€the€court€should€not€impose€such€percentages€arbitrarily.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„302(d).ÌÌà àà àAs€required€for€the€presumption€of€correctness,€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€ð ðthe€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€TheÏsentencing€court€found€no€mitigating€factors,€and€one€enhancement€factor:€ð ðthe€crimeÏwas€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€aÏvictim€was€great.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(16).€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€was€concernedÏthat€this€œDUI›€offense€involved€a€ð ðwreck.ðð€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏshould€also€have€found€two€mitigating€factors:€that€because€of€her€youth€she€lackedÏsubstantial€judgment,€and€that€she€had€no€prior€criminal€record.€€T.C.A.€ðð40„35„113Ï(6),(13).€€We€first€note€that€a€clean€record€is€not€a€specified€mitigating€factor€and€isÏmore€properly€taken€into€consideration€in€other€aspects€of€the€sentencing€calculus.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€almost€twenty€years€old€when€she€committed€thisÏcrime.€€The€trial€judge€specifically€found€that€the€defendantððs€ð ðage€and€.€.€.Ïcircumstances€[donððt]€fit€together€to€activateðð€the€mitigating€factor€for€lack€ofÏsubstantial€judgment€due€to€youth.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€thisÏfinding.ÌÌà àà àThe€weight€to€be€given€each€of€the€mitigating€and€enhancing€factors,€ifÏany,€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€œShelton›óó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€We€see€no€abuse€of€discretion€here.€€Moreover,€the€trialÏcourt€took€special€pains€to€ð ðhighlightðð€certain€sentencing€considerations€heÏconsidered€relevant€in€this€case,€stating:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒConfinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense.€€Confinement€is€particularlyÏsuited,€providing€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€toÏcommit€similar€offenses.Ì.€.€.€.ÌThe€sentence€imposed€should€be€no€greater€than€thatÏdeserved€for€the€offense€committed.€€Inequalities€inÏsentences€should€be€avoided,€and€the€sentence€imposedÏshould€be€the€least€severe€measure€to€achieve€theÏpurposes€for€which€the€sentence€is€œimposed.ÌÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓà à›à àThe€defendant€having€failed€to€show€how€the€evidence€preponderatesÏœagainst›€the€propriety€of€her€sentence,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€The€judgment€belowÏis€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌœÌÌ›Ì______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judge