ÿWPC2 ä^ƒm*Ÿ§» 8Ò,à$Éiú‘†ãån.ÛðuŠ:Ûceßð=œLµí®‚¶Škò.[Ïç%iÜ—ƒT}µ-¯+¹08ÿèjÚóöݺ§Ï+C‰½†Á0.ÓªàŒ¹H¯M ñ“+~ ß’ËØ2M»Ž¸óÓUùûMwæðv2¦lwŒ ¦]£Ÿ%ïÃÉ \ajæÂ•9X7Þ~!°î·­uÁŠ@ÿŠaöGF8÷CQ-¼F—Л—²ÙNž„R¤¸`ÒÚgöxØ€vmÜ^up׸O[¸§PIþjZpLUU_‰Æoºè.¨§™Ÿ7FæÆÑ—6KµõµËT}“ðÉÕ£|ʃ !¹×÷ß!Wqma—WmquÕ|8[OmVoC>hˆ½á6~üåyaÞƒ~Áœé—àû1ÀÝÚÿp ®/ÅžçÓ¾õŸ%×ù¸y““µÅPHÐÙ3ßWÂKäd`¦ó󘈧÷§;ê8Èlêëd }*<ÛEUGKKΊXbÁQŽ »d¸vJ-™hIØú_û˜MõîBM•¦&’h^ø•-Õ+<ÔWÆEP¯9¬ÕL› Ô]{ÅAB”Õš]Q”Ÿž3“…åF %+ U.1 _ nXo 0PÇ 4 + 0”3 0DÇ w@ U:K U:… U:¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ Bù ù ù ù ù ù D3 0DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII AOÆÜÜ 0D¢ D/æ B ÛÔ€XdÅXX XÔÔ€¦|XXdÅÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XdÅX¦|ÔÐ  ÐÌApril€8,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó X%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓuM%(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó DDUDUEÓ€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regularg"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýññ›ññÑ` °ÑÑX°ÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X™„XX XÔÑ7€ ™„ XXdðdÈ7Ñññßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@EÒf ` 8ttxP ` ð  rß›ññà œ àà ô àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌà@cc:;àAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌà@‚‚6;àJANUARY€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ¤ à€à ü àà T à)ó óÐ Ðp  Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àò ò)ó óà ¬ àò òC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9806„CR„00270ó óÐ À`  Ðà œ àà ô àAppellee,à ¤ àò ò€€€€€à ü àà T à)Ð °P  Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T à)à ¬ àWILSON€COUNTYó óÐ  @  ÐVS.à œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àò ò)Ð 0  Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T à)à ¬ àHON.€J.€O.€BOND,Ð €  ÐRICKY€HARLIN€NEAL,€€à ¤ à€à ü àà T à)à ¬ àJUDGEÐ p Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T à)Ìà œ àà ô àó óAppellant.ò òà ¤ àà ü àà T à)à ¬ àó ó(Sentencing)ò òÐ Pð Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà ¤ àà ü àà T à€€€€€òòà ¬ àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ ° Ðà œ àÌÌò òRICHARD€J.€BRODHEADà ü àà T àà ¬ àœà  àJOHN›€KNOX€WALKUPÐ à€ Ðó óCedars€Centerà L àà ¤ àà ü àò òà T àà ¬ àó óAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÐ Ð p Ðó ó307€West€Main€St.Ð À!` ÐLebanon,€TN€œ€37087›à ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àò òGEORGIA€BLYTHE€FELNERÐ °"P Ðó óà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àAsst.€Attorney€Generalò òÐ  #@ Ðó óà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àCordell€Hull€Bldg.,€2nd€Fl.Ð $0 Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àò òà T àó óà ¬ à425€Fifth€Ave.,€NorthÐ €%  Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àNashville,€TN€œ€37243„0493›Ìà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àà  àÌò òà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àTOM€P.€THOMPSONó óÐ P(ð! Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àDistrict€Attorney€General€Ìà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àò òROBERT€HIBBETTó óÐ  +À!$ Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ à119€South€College€St.Ìà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àLebanon,€TN€œ€37087›Ìà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àà  àÌÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àÌOPINION€FILED:òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ  2@), ÐÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ `6-0 ÐÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ 09Ð/3 ÐJudgeÌÐ  ;°15 ÐÑXÑÔ€¼7}¼XX™„ÔÓ  Óà@‡‡:;àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NˆÐ `  ÐÌÌó óóóà œ àà ô àÌÓÓÔ€X™„X¼¼7}Ôà œ àà ô àThe€Wilson€County€grand€jury€indicted€the€defendant€on€five€counts€ofÐ ¸ X Ðincest.€€The€defendant€pled€guilty€to€one€count€of€incest,€and€the€remaining€counts€wereÏdismissed.€€At€the€subsequent€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€denied€probation€andÏsentenced€the€defendant€to€a€term€of€five€years€to€be€served€in€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€The€defendant€now€appeals€this€sentence,€contending€thatÏit€is€ð ðexcessive€in€that€the€testimony€.€.€.€does€not€justify€that€the€[d]efendant€should€serveÏthe€five€year€sentence€in€the€[s]tate€[p]enitentiary€instead€of€on€probation€.€.€.€.€œð𛀀It€isÏunclear€if€the€defendant€is€attacking€the€length€of€his€sentence€or€only€the€denial€ofÏprobation.€€After€a€review€of€the€record€and€applicable€law,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€various€acts€of€incest€that€occurred€over€aÏperiod€of€one€year€while€his€daughter€was€in€her€early€teens.€€The€evidence€indicated€thatÏthe€defendant€had€sexually€abused€his€daughter€on€at€least€ten€different€occasions.€€TheÏabuse€consisted€of€sexual€intercourse€with€the€victim€and€ejaculation€on€the€victimððs€body.€ÏThis€abuse€continued€until€the€victimððs€stepmother€became€aware€of€the€situation.€ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€defendant€had€been€previouslyÏconvicted€of€failure€to€appear,€reckless€endangerment,€public€intoxication,€œassault,›€threeÏcounts€of€operating€a€motor€vehicle€on€an€expired€operatorððs€permit,€and€two€counts€ofÏdriving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€The€defendant€has€also€been€declared€aÏmotor€vehicle€habitual€offender€twice€since€1994.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€theÏdefendant€presented€evidence€that€he€is€employed,€living€in€a€stable€environment,Ð ø6˜-0 Ðattending€an€alcohol€abuse€program,€and€attempting€to€ð ðget€[his]€whole€life€changedÐ ü6œ-2 Ðaround.ððÌÌà œ àà ô àWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€a€deÏnovo€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€burden€ofÏshowing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„¼401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,€however,€ð ðis€conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ð ô”  Ð169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€at€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,Ïprovides€that€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€is€the€presumptive€sentence.€€IfÏthere€are€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentenceÏin€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€andÏthen€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€IfÏthere€are€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€thatÏrange€but€still€within€the€range.€€The€weight€to€be€given€to€each€factor€is€left€to€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ì'Œ" Ð1992).ÌÌà œ àà ô àIn€this€case,€the€sentencing€court€found€that€the€defendant€had€a€history€ofÏcriminal€conduct,€that€the€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularly€vulnerable€because€of€ageÏor€physical€or€mental€disability,€and€that€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€orÏprivate€trust.€€The€defendant€challenges€the€courtððs€use€of€two€of€these€enhancementÏfactors€and€the€courtððs€failure€to€consider€several€mitigating€factors.ÌÐ L6ì,2 Ðà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€enhancementÏfactor€(1),€that€the€defendant€has€a€history€of€criminal€conduct.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€ÏHowever,€as€set€out€earlier,€the€defendant€has€nine€prior€convictions,€and€the€evidenceÏindicated€that€the€defendant€had€sexually€abused€his€daughter€on€more€than€tenÏoccasions.€€This€aptly€supports€a€finding€of€a€history€of€criminal€conduct.€€As€such,€it€wasÏproper€for€the€trial€court€to€find€the€defendantððs€history€of€criminal€conduct€an€applicableÏenhancement€factor.ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€next€argues€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€find€that€theÏvictim€of€the€offense€was€particularly€vulnerable.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(4).€€The€trial€courtÏbased€this€finding€on€the€fact€that€the€victim€had€been€sexually€abused€by€an€uncle€andÏphysically€abused€by€her€stepfather€before€she€moved€in€with€her€father€and€stepmother.€ÏIn€fact,€the€victim€stated€that€one€of€the€reasons€she€did€not€report€her€fatherððs€actionsÏwas€that€she€did€not€want€to€be€removed€from€his€home€and€placed€in€foster€care.€€TheseÏcircumstances€support€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€this€enhancement€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ ˆ"( Ðv.€Jerniganóó,€929€S.W.2d€391,€396„97€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ð T$ô ÐÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€apply€severalÏmitigating€factors.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÏfailed€to€consider€as€a€mitigating€factor€that€substantial€grounds€exist€tending€to€excuseÏthe€defendantððs€conduct,€though€failing€to€establish€a€defense.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(3).€ÏTo€support€application€of€this€factor,€the€defendant€argues€he€had€a€problem€with€alcoholÏat€the€time€of€the€offense.€€We€find€that€voluntary€intoxication€is€not€an€acceptable€groundÏupon€which€to€sustain€the€use€of€this€mitigating€factor.ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€fact€that€he€was€suffering€from€theÐ L6ì,2 Ðeffects€of€alcohol,€a€physical€condition€that€significantly€reduced€his€culpability€for€theÏoffense,€should€have€been€applied€as€a€mitigating€factor€by€the€trial€court.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„¼35„113(8).€€However,€this€section€specifically€states€that€ð ð€the€voluntary€use€of€intoxicantsÏdoes€not€fall€within€the€purview€of€this€factor.ðð€€As€such,€this€contention€is€wholly€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€as€aÏmitigating€factor€the€fact€that€although€he€is€guilty€of€the€offense,€the€defendantÏcommitted€the€offense€under€such€unusual€circumstances€it€is€unlikely€a€sustained€intentÏto€violate€the€law€motivated€the€conduct€of€the€defendant.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(11).€€TheÏdefendant€again€refers€to€his€alcohol„induced€state€to€support€the€application€of€thisÏfactor.€€However,€the€defendant€sexually€abused€his€daughter€on€at€least€ten€occasions.€ÏThe€fact€that€the€defendant€may€have€been€intoxicated€during€these€incidents€does€notÏrise€to€the€level€of€ð ðsuch€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intentÏto€violate€the€law€motivated€the€criminal€conduct.ðð€€As€such,€this€contention€is€also€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€asÏa€mitigating€factor€the€fact€he€was€suffering€then,€and€continues€to€suffer€now,€from€aÏmental€condition,€i.e.,€depression,€œñ ñ€ñ ñthat›€substantially€reduced€his€culpability€for€theÏoffense.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(8).€€As€the€State€points€out,€however,€there€isÐ P-ð#( Ðabsolutely€no€proof€in€the€record€that€the€defendant€was€suffering€from€depression€at€theÏtime€of€the€offense.€€As€such,€it€was€proper€for€the€trial€court€not€to€consider€thisÏcontention€as€a€mitigating€factor.ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€fact€he€has€entered€a€treatmentÐ L6ì,2 Ðprogram,€as€well€as€Alcoholics€Anonymous,€and€ð ðhas€greatly€improved€his€mentalÏcondition€and€totally€cured€his€alcoholic€problemsðð€should€have€been€considered€as€aÏmitigating€factor€by€the€trial€court.€€However,€this€is€not€an€enumerated€mitigating€factorÏset€out€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113.€€Although€that€list€of€factors€is€not€exclusive,€a€trial€courtÏis€not€required€to€consider€any€other€factors.€€As€such,€the€trial€court€was€not€required€toÏconsider€this€assertion€as€a€mitigating€factor.€€ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€next€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€considering€hisÏsteady€employment€as€a€mitigating€factor.€€However,€as€this€Court€has€previously€noted,Ïð ð[E]very€citizen€in€this€state€is€expected€to€have€a€stable€work€history€if€the€economyÏpermits€the€citizen€to€work,€the€citizen€is€not€disabled,€or€the€citizen€is€not€independentlyÏwealthy.ðð€€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€423€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Thus,€we€seeÐ $Ä Ðno€reason€why€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€the€defendantððs€one€year€of€steadyÏemployment€as€a€mitigating€factor.€€Thus,€this€contention€is€also€without€merit.ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€him€toÏserve€his€sentence€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€rather€than€on€probation.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103€sets€out€sentencing€considerations€which€are€guidelines€forÏdetermining€whether€a€defendant€should€be€incarcerated.€€These€include€the€need€ð ðtoÏprotect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct,ðð€theÏneed€ð ðto€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,ðð€the€determination€thatÏð ðconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€toÏcommit€similar€offenses,ðð€or€the€determination€that€ð ðmeasures€less€restrictive€thanÏconfinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.ðð€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1).€€In€light€of€the€foregoing€applicable€enhancement€factors€and€lackÏof€applicable€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€sentencing€the€defendant€toÐ L6ì,2 Ðfive€years€on€the€count€of€incest,€a€Class€C€felony.ÌÌà œ àà ô àIn€determining€the€specific€sentence€and€the€possible€combination€ofÏsentencing€alternatives,€the€court€shall€consider€the€following:€(1)€any€evidence€from€theÏtrial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencingÏand€the€arguments€concerning€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristicsÏof€the€offense,€(5)€information€offered€by€the€State€or€the€defendant€concerningÏenhancing€and€mitigating€factors€as€found€in€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„113€and€œññÌññ„114,›€and€(6)€theÏdefendantððs€statements€in€his€or€her€own€behalf€concerning€sentencing.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„¼210(b).€€In€addition,€the€legislature€established€certain€sentencing€principles€which€includeÏthe€following:ÌññÓÓœññññÌññññÓÓññ›à œ àà ô à(5)€In€recognition€that€state€prison€capacities€and€the€funds€to€Ìà œ àà ô àbuild€and€maintain€them€are€limited,€convicted€felons€committing€Ìà œ àà ô àthe€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminal€histories€evincing€Ìà œ àà ô àa€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€Ìà œ àà ô àfailure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priority€Ìà œ àà ô àregarding€sentencing€involving€incarceration;€and€Ìà œ àà ô àÌà œ àà ô à(6)€A€defendant€who€does€not€fall€within€the€parameters€of€sub„Ìà œ àà ô àdivision€(5)€and€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€Ìà œ àà ô àconvicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favor„Ìà œ àà ô àable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€ÌœññÓ¥:Óññ›à œ àà ô àof€evidence€to€the€contrary.ÌœññÌññT.C.A.›€ðð€40„35„102.ÌññÓÓññÌà œ àà ô àAfter€reviewing€the€statutes€set€out€above,€it€is€obvious€that€the€intent€of€theÏlegislature€is€to€encourage€alternatives€to€incarceration€in€cases€where€defendants€areÏsentenced€as€standard€or€mitigated€offenders€convicted€of€C,€D,€or€E€felonies.€€However,Ïit€is€also€clear€that€there€is€an€intent€to€incarcerate€those€defendants€whose€criminalÏhistories€indicate€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society€and€a€failure€of€pastÏefforts€to€rehabilitate.ÌÐ L6ì,2 Ðà œ àà ô à€The€defendant€complains€that€the€court€should€not€have€denied€his€requestÏfor€probation.€€In€determining€whether€the€defendant€should€be€granted€probation,€theÏcourt€must€consider€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€social€history,€present€physical€andÏmental€condition,€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€deterrent€effect€upon€the€criminalÏactivity€of€the€defendant€as€well€as€others,€and€the€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitationÏor€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€169€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€We€noteÐ \ü  Ðthat€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€full€probation.€€T.C.A.€ððÏ40„35„303(b).€€ð ðTo€meet€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€full€probation,€theÏdefendant€must€demonstrate€that€probation€will€ððsubserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€bestÏinterest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.ðððð€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€456Ð Œ, Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Xø Ð1990)).€€Additionally,€this€Court€has€previously€held€that€denial€of€alternative€sentencingÏis€proper€even€when€based€solely€upon€the€defendantððs€numerous€incidents€ofÏunprosecuted€unlawful€sexual€contact.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Michael€W.€Wassonóó,€No.€02C01„Ð ¼ \ Ð9708„CR„00323,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€May€22,€1998,€at€Jackson)€(citingÏòòState€v.€Lloyd€Mills€Matthews,€Jr.óó,€No.€03C01„9505„CR„00153,€Washington€CountyÐ T$ô Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€May€1,€1996,€at€Knoxville)).ÌÌà œ àà ô àBased€on€the€defendantððs€lengthy€criminal€record,€his€history€of€sexualÏabuse€of€the€victim,€his€refusal€to€take€responsibility€for€his€own€actions,€and€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€offense,€the€trial€court€denied€probation.€€The€trial€judgeÏspecifically€stated€that€the€defendant€has€ð ðno€business€with€other€human€beings.ðð€€TheÏtrial€judge€concluded€that€the€defendant€has€a€problem,€ð ð[b]ut€it€had€to€do€with€sex,€didnððtÏhave€anything€to€do€with€drinking.ðð€€In€addition,€the€presentence€report€indicates€theÏdefendant€has€been€previously€convicted€of€numerous€offenses€and€has€a€history€ofÏsexually€abusing€his€daughter.€€The€evidence€presented€fully€supports€the€trial€courtððsÐ L6ì,2 Ðfindings,€and€the€evidence€rebuts€the€presumption€of€suitability€for€alternative€sentencing.ÌÌà œ àà ô àIn€light€of€the€foregoing,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€sentencing€theÏdefendant€to€five€years€for€incest,€a€Class€C€felony.€€It€is€also€clear€the€defendant€has€notÏestablished€his€suitability€for€full€probation.€€As€such,€it€was€not€error€for€the€trial€court€toÏsentence€the€defendant€to€serve€his€five€year€sentence€in€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€Accordingly,€the€defendantððs€sentence€is€affirmed.ÌññÓÓññÌœññÓÓññ›ÌœññÌññ›à œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ à______________________________Ìà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JudgeÌœññ€ññ›œññ€›€›€›€›€›€›€›€›€›€›€›à ô à›à L à›Ð '¦! Ðññ›