ÿWPCd …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ w˜ 0”® 0DB † 0J† 0TÐ 0^$ 0h‚ 0rê 0|\ 0†Ø 0^ 1uî U,c 0d BóU,U6<B)rDC› D3Þ AME^ 0@£‹ãv~nvÓì AO¿Æ 0DÔ D/ BG<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó»{s Ó€ (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ 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`(Courier New% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ;Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ17,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÔ€ÔWe€are€not€willing€to€make€such€a€finding€based€only€on€the€defendantððs€testimony€that€he€andÏthe€victim€had€often€gotten€drunk€together€on€weekends.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€&&X„d&ÓÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X Ñ›Ñ7€GãXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€+,);+'h|,` 81 `€€Lß›Ìà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÓ  Óà@ àDECEMBER€1995ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€œ02C01›„9504„CC„00107ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMADISON€COUNTYó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏFRANKLIN€œMURCHISON›€,ÌALEX€HUGHÏMORROW,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Sentencing)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òPAMELA€J.ÏœDREWERY›à àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó ó227€West€Baltimoreà àà àà àà àAttorney€GeneralÏ&€Reporterò òÌó óJackson,€TN€€€38301ò òÌó óà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àSARAHÏM.€BRANCHó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCounsel€forÏthe€StateÌ€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÍRobertson€Pkwy.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€Ï37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àJERRY€œWOODALL›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àDONALD€P.€ALLENó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€€€38302Ìà 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  ÓÓÓó óóóà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€aggravated€robbery.€€He€pled€guilty€toÏrobbery€with€no€agreement€on€his€sentence.€€After€a€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏsentenced€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I€offender€to€five€years€in€the€penitentiary.€€TheÏdefendant€now€appeals€claiming€that€his€sentence€is€excessive€and€that€he€shouldÏhave€been€given€alternative€sentencing.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€alternativeÏsentencing€is€not€appropriate€for€this€defendant,€and€that€the€sentence€of€five€yearsÏincarceration€is€proper.Ìà àà àÌà àà àOn€the€night€of€April€17,€1993,€the€defendant€and€codefendant,€RufusÏGreer,€approached€the€victim,€W.€C.€Clark,€while€Clark€was€in€or€near€his€carÏspeaking€on€the€telephone.€€On€this€occasion,€the€defendant€had€been€looking€forÏClark€because€he€believed€that€Clark€had€earlier€been€harassing€his€girlfriend.€€ClarkÏand€the€defendant€were€cousins,€and€the€defendant€testified€that€they€had€spentÏmany€weekends€getting€drunk€together.€€There€was€testimony€that€Clark€was€veryÏintoxicated€on€this€occasion,€as€well.ÌÌà àà à€A€fight€broke€out€during€which€the€defendant€and€Greer€struck€ClarkÍabout€the€head€and€side,€knocking€him€unconscious.€€He€suffered€cuts€to€his€faceÏrequiring€stitches,€and€badly€bruised€ribs.€€After€the€defendant€knocked€Clark€to€theÏground,€he€and€Greer€got€in€Clarkððs€car€and€drove€it€some€distance€away.€€TheÏdefendant€testified€that€he€drove€off€to€get€away€from€Clark,€and€that€he€had€driven€ÏClarkððs€car€with€permission€many€times€before.€€He€testified€that€he€thought€Clark€œhadÏhad›€a€gun,€and€that€he€didnððt€realize€Clark€had€been€seriously€hurt.€€Clark€laterÏrecovered€his€car.€€Clark€and€the€defendant€each€testified€that€the€other€threw€the€firstÏpunch.ÌÌà àà àAfter€hearing€all€of€the€evidence€presented€at€the€sentencing€hearing,Ïthe€trial€court€found€that€three€enhancement€factors€were€applicable:€a€previousÏcriminal€history€of€several€prior€misdemeanors€including€an€assault;€bodily€injury€toÏthe€victim;€and€being€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114.€ÏThe€trial€court€made€no€reference€whatsoever€to€any€mitigating€factors,€statingÏsimply,€"The€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€Mr.€Morrow€got€his€break€when€this€chargeÏwas€reduced€to€robbery€[from€aggravated€robbery].€€And€with€his€record,€he€shouldÏnot€be€placed€on€probation€or€in€any€alternative€program."€€The€court€then€sentencedÏthe€defendant€as€recommended€by€the€State€to€five€years€incarceration.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.€Ìðð€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).ÌÔ€'ÔÌÔ€Ôà àà àThe€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€at€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,Ïfurther€provides€that€"[œw]henever›€the€court€imposes€a€sentence,€it€òòshall€place€on€theÏrecordóó€either€orally€or€in€writing,€what€enhance‚ment€or€mitigating€factors€it€found,€ifÏany,€as€well€as€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€ðð€40„35„209."€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(f)Ï(emphasis€added).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€enhancing€and€mitigating€factorsÏunder€the€sentencing€guide‚lines,€even€the€absence€of€these€factors€must€beÏrecorded€if€none€are€found.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210€comment.€€These€findings€by€the€trialÏjudge€must€be€recorded€in€order€to€allow€an€adequate€review€on€appeal.ÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ¢ ÒÓÓÌÔ€'Ôà àà àÔ€ÔIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€made€no€findings€whatsoever€with€respect€toÏmitigating€factors,€in€spite€of€the€fact€that€the€defendant€offered€proof€of€his€pastÏrelationship€with€the€victim€and€the€victimððs€provocation.€€The€defendant€also€offeredÍproof€of€a€positive€work€record€and€his€past€and€continued€support€of€his€girlfriendÏand€her€minor€child.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€making€no€findings€with€respect€to€thisÏproof.€€Accordingly,€we€review€the€record€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€ÏOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence€received€at€the€sentencingÏhearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€theÏarguments€concerning€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€ofÏthe€offense,€(5)€any€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€and€(6)€the€defendant'sÏstatements€in€his€or€her€own€behalf€concerning€sentencing.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(b).€ÏWe€must€also€consider€ð ðthe€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Breweróó,€875€S.W.2d€298,€302€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€contends€that€he€should€have€been€placedÏeither€on€probation€or€in€community€corrections.€€Our€legislature€established€certainÏsentencing€principles€which€include€the€following:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌ(5)€€In€recognition€that€state€prison€capacities€and€the€fundsÏto€build€and€maintain€them€are€limited,€convicted€felonsÏcommitting€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminalÏhistories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€moralsÏof€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€past€efforts€atÏrehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priority€regardingÏsentencing€involving€incarceration;€andÌÌ(6)€€A€defendant€who€does€not€fall€within€the€parameters€ofÏsubdivision€(5)€and€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standardÏoffender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D€or€E€felony€is€presumedÏto€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencingÏoptions€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ¢ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102.€€Thus,€because€the€defendant€is€a€standard€offender€convicted€ofÏa€Class€C€felony,€and€because€robbery€is€not€one€of€the€"most€severe€offenses,"€he€isÏentitled€to€the€presumption€that€he€is€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencingÏòòunless€there€is€evidence€to€the€contraryóó.€€The€issue,€then,€is€whether€there€is€suchÏevidence.ÌÌà àà àGuidance€as€to€what€constitutes€"evidence€to€the€contrary"€is€found€inÏthe€sentencing€considerations€codified€at€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1).€€These€include€theÏneed€"to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminalÏconduct,"€the€need€"to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,"€theÏdetermination€that€"confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effectiveÏdeterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses,"€or€the€determination€thatÏ"measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€appliedÏunsuccessfully€to€the€defendant."€€Ìà àà àAfter€reviewing€the€statutes€set€out€above,€it€is€obvious€that€the€intent€ofÍthe€legislature€is€to€encourage€alternatives€to€incarceration€in€cases€whereÏdefendants€are€sentenced€as€standard€or€mitigated€offenders€convicted€of€C,€D,€or€EÏfelonies.€€However,€it€is€also€clear€that€there€is€an€intent€to€incarcerate€thoseÏdefendants€whose€criminal€histories€indicate€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€andÏmorals€of€society€and€a€failure€of€past€efforts€to€rehabilitate.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€"has€a€criminalÏrecord.€€He€doesnððt€have€any€felonies,€but€he€has€some€serious€misdemeanors€„„Ïabout€six€of€them.€€He€has€an€assault.€€Heððs€got€an€11/29€sentence€there.€€Heððs€got€aÏsix€month€sentence€on€the€bad€check€law.€€Heððs€got€a€shoplifting€conviction.€ÏApparently,€a€forgery€conviction€which€was€reduced€to€some€minor€misdemeanor.€€IððmÏnot€going€to€pay€that€much€attention€to€that.€€Another€bad€check€case.€€He€had€anotherÏbad€check€case€where€he€got€eight€months€on€several€counts€each.€€He€has€a€longÏrecord."€€The€most€recent€of€these€was€the€assault€conviction€in€1988.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€"long€history€of€criminal€conduct"€is€sufficient€to€rebutÏthe€presumption€in€favor€of€alternative€sentencing.€€Moreover,€the€defendantÏcommitted€additional€misdemeanor€offenses,€and€finally€this€felony,€after€havingÏreceived€suspended€sentences€and/or€fines€for€his€earlier€convictions.€€Thus,€it€isÍobvious€that€"[œm]easures›€less€restrictive€than€confinement"€have€not€convinced€him€toÏrefrain€from€criminal€conduct.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1).€€This€sentencing€considerationÏalso€militates€against€probation.€€Therefore,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€theÏdefendant€is€not€entitled€to€probation€for€this€offense.ÌÌà àà àNor€is€the€defendant€eligible€for€community€corrections.€€OffendersÏconvicted€of€certain€crimes€against€the€person,€including€robbery,€are€eligible€forÏcommunity€corrections€only€where€they€"would€be€usually€considered€unfit€forÏprobation€due€to€histories€of€chronic€alcohol,€drug€abuse,€or€mental€health€problems,Ïbut€whose€special€needs€are€treatable€and€could€be€served€best€in€the€communityÏrather€than€in€a€correctional€institution."€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„36„106(a)(2),€(c).€€This€Court€hasÏconstrued€the€words€"who€would€be€usually€considered€unfit€for€probation"€asÏmeaning€that€the€defendant€must€otherwise€be€eligible€for€probation€to€be€consideredÏfor€community€corrections€under€this€provision.€€òòState€v.€Statenóó,€787€S.W.2d€934Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€The€defendant€in€this€case€does€meet€the€statutory€eligibilityÏcriteria€for€probation.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„303(a).€€However,€as€set€forth€above,€theÏdefendant€is€considered€unfit€for€probation€for€reasons€other€than€a€history€of€chronicÏsubstance€abuse€or€mental€health€problems.€€The€trial€court€made€no€finding€of€anyÏform€of€chronic€substance€abuse,€or€of€any€mental€health€problems,€and€the€recordÍdoes€not€support€such€a€finding€by€us.× ƒ. ××  ×€€Thus,€the€record€does€not€support€theÏdefendantððs€contention€that€he€is€eligible€for€community€corrections€under€the€"specialÏneeds"€provision.€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€sentencing€range€for€robbery€for€a€standard€offender€is€three€to€sixÏyears.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3).€€The€enhancing€factors€applicable€in€this€case€justifyÏthœe€senten›ce€imposed€of€five€years.€€Accordingly,€the€defendantððs€sentence€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€Judge