ÿWPC„ ìªÚ™ãCy‰´ÿ‹² Y»,{ôѽêR)DWÖõP!bD­¦¾9×`#P)ÕhìíRÕĪAá?tý1¨ýÐQÂüMF¬)•VDU2æ½^è[ŠžCO³ÀceÙs;£5ôlREf“ag¨›Óï£Ã„S”ª¯'1 ¹vlúÕ8p%Ïá†SHôÅšâP^´&¶é^ÑNCÛëü,Çm Ãñ˜—¾ËU¥õgÇXHH\¥ÉÆŒ1»ïÌ )üyÄS†í&_mryŸãAIW (TDˆ{Œ‘ªôê®8diLÿH(]vóaó ½œ[³ä”EüÞ|X‡•¤nîwûv3NÕ°Û¥Ýs+ÿë$g“Áß:Áºã‚]&û„Û ™IøG” ÅO¸ù¨kåÞ?\èÞ`8°KªW¦ÌêW…# F U>Q % 0í• UB‚ 4Ä Ø n­ç U:” fÎ -4 "a w@ƒ Þà 0 ¡U:ª%äU: U:C} 0D…ãÉU:¬úæU:ààààààààààààààààà D3 01MMM 0D~~ B AO߯.. 0Dô D/8 Bg˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiuM%3|x¥ «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ #Ñ#€Xd#Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ DŽ  D ‘ D’ “ ” • Ó€Ÿ  ÔÝ ƒŒÔ)ÝÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ÝÔ€XÊ:XXXÔÓ  ÓÚ  Ú10Ú  Ú(á3Žt$©©Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€KÖXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ý, øð AZ"Arial Regular Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÚLXXXÔÔ€ô5ÛôXXÚLÔÝ ƒ-Ì.ÿÝÑ @ ÑÑ7ÀKÖXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€record€of€the€actual€particulars€of€each€sentence€is€quite€confusing,€but€theseÐ  Ðsentences€will€be€reviewed€later€in€this€opinion.Ô€ô5Ûôôô5ÛÔ, øð AZ"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý ÙÔ€XìÛXXXÔÔ€ÿEXXìÛÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XìÛXÿEÔÐ  ÐÌMay€5,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ðÔ€XìÛXXXÔÔ€ÿEXXìÛÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XìÛXÿEÔÐ  ÐÌà @ àà @ àApril€29,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular2222'ÿÿdxd(á(3Ì.$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€KÖXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó d€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€KÖXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ݛѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XìÛXXXÔÑ7€ ìÛ XXdæXXdÈ7Ññ• ñœñ• ññŸ ññ• ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rßñ• ññŸ ññŸ ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rßñŸ ññ• ñ›ñ• ñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ƒƒ%DàAT€NASHVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€MAY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€01C01„9510„CC„00343Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àRutherford€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Robert€E.€Corlew,€III,€JudgeÐ œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌSAM€NEELY,à  àà h à€€€à À à)à  à(Reckless€endangerment€with€a€deadlyÐ h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€€weapon€and€passing€a€worthless€check)Ìà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌNancy€G.€Wallaceà  àà h àà À àà  àCharles€W.€BursonÐ ²ª Ð6€Public€Square€Northà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ ÐMurfreesboro,€TN€37130à h àà À àà  àà p àandà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ ~v Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àChristina€S.€ShevalierÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€¼à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€Northà x àà Ð àÐ 0 ( Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWilliam€C.€Whitesell,€Jr.Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€PriceÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJudicial€BuildingÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMurfreesboro,€TN€37130ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌCONVICTIONS€AFFIRMED;€SENTENCES€MODIFIED€ÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ >:639§ ЇÓÓà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Sam€Neely,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€convictions€forÏreckless€endangerment€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€passing€a€worthless€check€in€theÏamount€of€$808.20,€both€Class€E€felonies.€€The€convictions€were€the€result€of€twoÏseparate,€unrelated€jury€trials€in€the€Rutherford€County€Circuit€Court.€€However,€theÏrecords€from€both€cases€were€commingled€below€so€as€to€reflect€a€single,€consolidatedÏappeal.€€Therefore,€we€will€address€the€defendantððs€contentions€with€respect€to€eachÏconviction€in€this€opinion.€€The€defendant€received€concurrent€one„year€sentences€forÏboth€convictions€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€and€a€$2,000.00€fine€for€the€recklessÏendangerment€conviction.œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ0#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€œRegarding›€the€reckless€endangerment€œconviction,›€theÐ   Ðdefendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€œRegarding›€the€worthless€checkÏœconviction,›€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€him€to€be€triedÏon€a€dismissed€indictment€for€a€charge€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€In€bothÏcases,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€him€probation.€€WeÏaffirm€the€convictions€upon€the€jury€verdicts€but€modify€the€sentence€to€reflect€timeÏserved€with€the€remainder€of€the€one„year€sentence€to€be€served€on€supervisedÏprobation€for€each€conviction,€to€be€served€concurrently.ÌÌà@³ ³ Dàò òI.€€RECKLESS€ENDANGERMENT€CONVICTIONó óˆÐ 8)0"& Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€originally€charged€with€evading€arrest€and€two€countsÏof€reckless€endangerment€with€an€automobile€as€a€deadly€weapon.€€One€count€relatedÏto€the€reckless€endangerment€of€Rutherford€County€Deputy€Whit€Davis,€and€the€otherÏcount€related€to€the€reckless€endangerment€of€Marvin€Lester.€€The€defendant€wasÏacquitted€of€evading€arrest€and€the€reckless€endangerment€of€Deputy€Davis€but€wasÏconvicted€of€the€reckless€endangerment€of€Mr.€Lester.ÌÐ Ø5Ð.4 Ðà ¸ àDeputy€Davis€testified€that€on€April€21,€1993,€he€went€to€the€defendantððsÏhome€to€serve€a€writ€of€execution€upon€the€defendantððs€Cadillac€Seville€in€order€toÏsatisfy€a€civil€judgment€against€the€defendant.€€After€being€told€by€an€elderly€woman€thatÏthe€defendant€was€not€home,€he€went€around€the€corner€of€the€house€and€saw€theÏdefendant€getting€into€the€Cadillac.€€He€said€that€he€approached€the€car€and€told€theÏdefendant€to€get€out.€€He€said€that€he€opened€the€driverððs€side€door€and€tried€to€pull€theÏdefendant€out,€but€the€defendant€pushed€him€off€and€closed€the€door.€€Deputy€DavisÏtestified€that€he€threatened€to€shoot€the€defendant€but€did€not€pull€his€weapon.€€He€saidÏthat€the€defendant€drove€away€œbefore€he€could€release›€the€door€handle.€€ÌÌà ¸ àMurfreesboro€Police€Officer€Tom€Sissom€testified€that€he€received€aÏdispatch€regarding€the€defendant.€€He€said€he€saw€the€defendant€driving€at€a€high€rateÏof€speed€œcausing›€other€cars€œto€take›€evasive€action.€€Officer€Sissom€stated€that€theÏdefendant€was€driving€forty„five€to€fifty€miles€per€hour€in€a€thirty„mile„per„hour€zone.€€HeÏsaid€that€the€defendant€ð ðwhipped€up€into€a€drivewayðð€as€a€man€was€crossing€it.€€OfficerÏSissom€arrested€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà ¸ àMarvin€Lester€testified€that€he€was€in€his€yard€when€he€heard€a€siren,€andÏthen€he€saw€a€car€coming€into€his€driveway.€€He€said€that€he€had€to€run€to€get€out€of€theÏway€or€the€car€would€have€run€over€him.€€He€said€that€the€car€came€within€ten€feet€ofÏhim.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€was€unaware€that€Deputy€Davis€was€at€hisÏhouse€when€he€left.€€He€said€that€as€he€was€leaving,€Davis€ran€up€and€threatened€toÏblow€his€brains€out€if€he€did€not€get€out€of€the€car.€€He€said€that€Davisðð€testimony€wasÏincorrect.€€He€said€that€his€car€doors€automatically€locked€and€that€Davis€would€haveÏâ âhad€to€reach€into€the€car€to€unlock€the€door.€€He€said€that€Davis€did€not€touch€the€car.€Ð À5¸.4 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑThe€defendant€testified€that€he€felt€threatened€by€Davis€and€drove€away.€€He€explainedÏthat€he€did€not€think€about€Davis€being€a€deputy;€he€only€saw€a€gun.€€Ìâ âÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€denied€going€the€route€described€by€Officer€Sissom€andÏstated€that€he€was€going€to€visit€some€people.€€He€said€he€saw€Officer€Sissomððs€flashingÏlights€but€did€not€think€they€were€for€him.€€He€denied€hearing€a€siren.€€He€said€that€whenÏhe€realized€that€Officer€Sissom€was€pursuing€him,€he€pulled€into€a€driveway.€€TheÏdefendant€testified€that€he€was€driving€about€twenty„five€miles€per€hour,€and€he€pulledÏinto€the€driveway€at€a€slow€speed.€€He€claimed€that€Mr.€Lester€was€in€the€yard€aboutÏseventy„five€feet€from€the€driveway.€€Also,€he€said€that€there€were€no€skid€marks€œon›€theÏdriveway.€€He€said€that€he€was€unaware€of€any€outstanding€civil€judgment€against€him.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€prove€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt€that€Mr.€Lester€was€placed€ð ðin€imminent€danger€of€death€or€seriousÏbodily€injuryðð€as€required€by€the€reckless€endangerment€statute.€€œTenn.€Code€Añh ññe ñañe ññh ñnn.€ñg ñ›€ñg ñðð›€39„¼13„103(a).€€He€argues€that€the€evidence€fails€to€show€that€œñq ñhis€car€came€close€enough€toÏñq ñMr.›€œLesterñr ñ€was›€close›€enoughñr ñ›€to€œñs ñput€himñs ññt ñhis›€car›€to›€beñt ñ›€in€imminent€danger.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€Mr.€Lester€wasÏstanding€in€the€yard€when€the€car€pulled€into€the€driveway.€€Also,€he€claims€that€he€wasÏnot€violating€any€traffic€laws.€€The€state€contends€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient.ÌÌà ¸ àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questionedÏon€appeal€is€ð ðwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÐ .ˆ', Ðcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.Ð \0T). Ð2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€do€not€reweigh€the€evidence€but€presume€thatÏthe€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€all€reasonable€inferencesÏfrom€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547Ð À5¸.4 Ð(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àViewed€in€this€light,€we€believe€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€supportÏthe€reckless€endangerment€conviction.€€Although€the€defendant€claims€that€Mr.€LesterÏwas€seventy„five€feet€away€from€him€and€that€he€was€traveling€at€a€slow€speed,€the€juryÏobviously€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€stateððs€witnesses.€€Officer€Sissom€testifiedÏthat€the€defendant€was€traveling€about€fifteen€to€twenty€miles€per€hour€over€the€speedÏlimit€when€he€ð ðwhipped€up€intoðð€Mr.€Lesterððs€driveway.€€Mr.€Lester€testified€that€if€he€hadÏnot€been€looking,€the€defendant€would€have€run€over€him,€and€he€had€to€run€to€get€outÏof€the€way.€€He€testified€that€the€defendantððs€car€came€within€ten€feet€of€him.€€In€the€lightÏmost€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€is€sufficient.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.€€WORTHLESS€CHECK€CONVICTIONÐ ø Ðó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€him€to€beÐ ØÐ Ðtried€for€the€worthless€check€charge.€€He€argues€that€the€charge€had€been€dismissed€asÏpart€of€a€plea€agreement,€but€the€trial€court€reinstated€the€charge€when€the€defendantÏwithdrew€his€plea€agreement.€€He€contends€that€the€proper€procedure€to€reinstate€theÏcharge€would€be€to€issue€a€new€indictment.€€Because€this€procedure€was€not€followed,Ïhe€argues€that€he€could€not€properly€be€tried€for€the€charge.€€He€also€contends€that€theÏstatute€of€limitations€on€the€charge€has€now€run.€€The€state€argues€that€a€newÏindictment€was€not€required€in€order€to€reinstate€the€charge,€and€it€further€argues€thatÏthe€statute€of€limitations€has€not€yet€run.ÌÓ  Óò òÌó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€record€reveals€that€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€the€worthlessÐ Ü,Ô%* Ðcheck€charge€in€July€1992.€€On€December€28,€1992,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€chargeÏwithout€prejudice€as€part€of€a€plea€agreement.€€On€March€22,€1993,€the€defendant€filedÏa€motion€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€on€May€6,€1993,Ïand€set€aside€the€dismissal€of€the€worthless€check€charge,€reinstating€that€charge.Ìâ âÐ Ø5Ð.4 Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€now€contends€that€the€trial€court€did€not€properly€reinstateÏâ âthe€charge€and€that€a€new€indictment€should€have€been€issued,€relying€on€òòState€v.Ð ÔÌ ÐDððAnnaóó,€506€S.W.2d€200,€202€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€In€that€case,€a€panel€of€thisÐ   ˜ Ðcourt€determined€that€ð ð[w]hen€an€unconditional€order€òònolleóó€òòprosequióó€is€entered€afterÐ l d Ðindictment,€it€is€a€dismissal€of€the€indictment€and€no€conviction€can€be€had€except€byÏbeginning€a€new€case€against€the€accused.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòState€ex€rel.€Hobbs€v.€Murrellóó,€93Ð ü  ÐS.W.2d€628,€630€(Tenn.€1936)).€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€reasoning€in€òòDððAnnaóó€applies€to€the€presentÐ h` Ðcase€and€that€his€conviction€is€improper€because€a€new€indictment€was€not€issued.€€TheÏcrucial€difference€between€òòDððAnnaóó€and€the€present€case,€however,€is€that€in€òòDððAnnaóó,Ð ø Ðthe€order€òònolle€prosequióó€was€unconditional.€€In€òòState€ex€rel.€Hobbsóó,€our€supreme€courtÐ ÌÄ Ðconcluded€that€although€an€unconditional€òònolleóó€òòprosequióó€would€result€in€charges€beingÐ ˜ Ðdismissed,€ð ða€òònolleóó€may€be€entered€on€a€legal€condition€precedent,€and,€in€such€case,€itÐ d\ Ðis€not€final€or€effective€until€the€condition€is€performed[.]ðð€œòòñu ñState›€ex›€rel.›€Hobbsñu ñóóñu ñ,ñu ñ›€92€S.W.2d€at€œ630.€€In€theÐ 0 ( Ðpresent€case,€the€trial€court€stated€that,€ð ðUpon€the€entry€of€this€plea€and€theseÏsettlements,€[the€worthless€check€charge]€is€to€be€dismissed€without€prejudice€andÏwithout€costs.ðð€€Thus,€the€dismissal€of€the€worthless€check€charge€was€implicitlyÏconditioned€upon€the€defendant€honoring€his€plea€agreement€and€was€not€effective€orÏfinal€until€this€condition€was€performed.€€Because€the€condition€failed,€the€pleaÏagreement€was€not€binding,€and€the€trial€court€properly€reinstated€the€charge.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€the€statute€of€limitations€has€run,€thus€theÏstate€is€precluded€from€reindicting€him€on€the€worthless€check€charge.€€The€recordÏshows€that€the€offense€was€committed€on€July€7,€1990,€and€a€warrant€was€issued€forÏthe€defendant€on€April€10,€1992.€€At€that€time,€the€applicable€two„year€statute€ofÏlimitations€was€tolled,€and€approximately€three€months€remained€before€the€statuteÏexpired.€€The€charge€was€dismissed€pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement€on€December€28,Ð Œ7„06 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññu ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññu ññt ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññt ñ1992.€€The€defendant€moved€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea€on€March€2ñv ñ2ñv ññw ñ3ñw ñ,€1993,€and€theÐ  Ðorder€granting€the€motion€and€reinstating€the€worthlessñx ñ€check€chargeñx ñ€was€filed€on€MayÏ6,€1993.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€issue€of€the€subsequent€status€of€charges€dismissed€pursuant€to€aÏplea€agreement€in€which€the€defendant€pleads€guilty€to€another€charge€has€not€beenÏaddressed€in€Tennessee€in€the€context€of€the€statute€of€limitations€and€the€defendantððsÏattempt€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea.€€However,€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Whiteóó,€838€S.W.2dÐ œ”  Ð140€(Mo.€Ct.€App.),€is€on€point.€€White€pled€guilty€to€three€counts€of€rape,€and€twoÏremaining€rape€counts€were€dismissed€pursuant€to€the€plea€agreement.€€Subsequently,Ïhe€successfully€collaterally€attacked€the€convictions.€€However,€the€court€deemed€theÏcollateral€attack€to€be€a€breach€of€the€plea€agreement€and€set€aside€the€dismissal€of€theÏtwo€rape€counts.€€The€defendant€was€tried€and€convicted€on€the€five€rape€counts.€€OnÏappeal,€he€contended€that€the€statute€of€limitations€had€run€relative€to€the€twoÏdismissed€counts.€€The€Missouri€Court€of€Appeals€stated€the€following:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àThis€court€holds€that€under€the€case€law€tolling€criminal€Ïstatutes€of€limitations,€and€in€fairness€to€both€sides€ñy ñwhoñy ññz ñtoñz ñÏenter€a€plea€bargain€agreement,€the€statute€was€tolledÏduring€Whiteððs€collateral€review,€and€the€parties€areÏreturned€to€pre„agreement€status€by€his€breach.€ÏTherefore€the€statute€of€limitations€does€not€bar€theÏState€from€prosecuting€White€on€counts€IV€and€V,Ïoriginally€dismissed€under€the€plea€agreement.€€To€holdÏotherwise€would€allow€a€defendant€to€gain€the€benefitsÏof€a€plea€bargain,€and€then€successfully€attack€itÏcollaterally,€without€allowing€the€state€to€rescind€its€partÏof€the€bargain.€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  Ó838€S.W.2d€at€142.ÌÌà ¸ àñ{ ñApplyingñ{ ññ| ñUsingñ| ñ€the€òòWhiteóó€analysis€ñ} ñtoñ} ññ~ ñinñ~ ñ€the€present€case,€we€note€that€theÐ B1:*/ Ðpetitioner€filed€his€motion€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea€before€the€statute€of€limitations€hadÏrun.€€Such€would€be€sufficient€to€allow€reinstatement€of€the€worthless€check€charge.€ÏHowever,€we€also€believe€that€the€conditional€status€of€the€dismissal€operates€as€a€tollÏof€the€statute€of€limitationsñ ñ,€as€wellñ ñ.€€Otherwise,€the€defendant€could€successfully€attack€hisñ€ ñÐ r8j17 Ðagreed„uponñ€ ñ€convictionñ ñ,€which€he€agreed€to€incur,ñ ñ€while€the€state€could€not€rescind€its€part€of€the€bargain.€€In€anyÏevent,€the€statute€of€limitations€had€not€run€on€the€worthless€check€offense.Ìà ¸ àÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€DENIAL€OF€PROBATIONÐ l d Ðó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€himÐ D< Ðprobation€in€both€the€reckless€endangerment€and€worthless€check€cases.€€He€contendsÏthat€none€of€the€justifications€for€denying€probation€exist€in€his€case.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ ÜÔ  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„103.€€The€state€contends€that€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€hadÏseventy„two€days€of€jail€credit€and€ordered€the€defendant€to€begin€serving€probationÏimmediately.€€Thus,€the€state€claims€that€the€defendant€did€receive€probation.ÌÌà ¸ àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€aÐ ØÐ Ðpresumption€that€the€trial€court's€determinations€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„¼35„401(d).€€As€the€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€this€section€note,€the€burdenÏis€now€on€the€defendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€This€means€that€if€theÏtrial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€made€findings€of€fact€that€areÏadequately€supported€in€the€record,€and€gave€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€toÏthe€factors€and€principles€that€are€relevant€to€sentencing€under€the€1989€SentencingÏAct,€we€may€not€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€a€different€result€were€preferred.€€òòState€v.Ð l'd $ ÐFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð 8)0"& ÐÌà ¸ àHowever,€ð ðthe€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trialÏcourt's€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€respect,€for€the€purpose€ofÐ 42,+0 Ðmeaningful€appellate€review,€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àthe€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€forÏarriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€theÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€theÏspecific€facts€supporting€each€enhancement€factorÐ ~8v17 Ðfound,€and€articulate€how€the€mitigating€andÏenhancement€factors€have€been€evaluated€andÏbalanced€in€determining€the€sentence.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„¼210(f)€(1990).€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599€(Tenn.€1995).Ð † ~ ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ¸ àAlso,€in€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€must€consider€(1)€the€evidence,Ð 80 Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€natureÏand€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct,€(5)€any€mitigating€or€statutory€enhancementÏfactors,€(6)€any€statement€that€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf€and€(7)€theÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210;€òòseeóóÐ 4, ÐòòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229€(Tenn.€1986).€Ð ø ÐÌà ¸ àThe€sentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€for€a€Class€E€felony€isÏpresumptively€the€minimum€in€the€range€when€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigatingÏfactors€present.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€Procedurally,€the€trial€court€is€toÏincrease€the€sentence€within€Ñ€ Ñthe€range€based€upon€the€existence€of€enhancementÏfactors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€any€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d)ñ‚ ñ,ñ‚ ññƒ ñ€andñƒ ñ€(e).€€The€weight€to€be€afforded€an€existing€factor€is€left€to€theÏtrial€court's€discretion€so€long€as€it€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€theÏ1989€Sentencing€Act€and€its€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments;€òòMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€atÐ ø*ð#( Ð237;€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€Ð Ä,¼%* Ðà8 ¸ àÐ ¸ x¸ x Ðà ¸ àThe€record€in€this€case€with€respect€to€the€defendantððs€sentence€isÏconfusing€at€best.€€It€reflects€that€the€defendant€was€sentenced€to€one€year€as€a€RangeÏI,€standard€offender€for€each€conviction€and€that€the€sentences€were€to€be€servedÏconcurrently.€€Beyond€that,€it€is€difficult€to€determine€what€sentence€the€defendantÏreceived.€€The€judgment€form€reflects€that€the€defendant€was€sentenced€to€one€year€ofÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ ÑÑ7€kˆXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  Ññƒ ñÑ ÑÑ7€kˆXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ ÑÑ7€kˆXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ ÑÑ7€kˆXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ ÑÑ7€kˆXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  Ññƒ ññ‚ ñÑ ÑÑ7€kˆXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  Ññ‚ ññ ñÑ ÑÑ7€kˆXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  Ññ ñconfinement€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€However,€on€the€same€judgment€form,Ð  Ðthe€trial€court€handwrote€that€the€defendant€was€to€serve€his€sentence€in€the€RutherfordÏCounty€Workhouse.€€The€same€judgment€form€also€reflects€that€the€defendant€wasÏsentenced€to€one€year€of€supervised€probation.€€The€effective€date€of€the€probation€isÏMarch€24,€1995,€which€is€the€same€date€on€which€the€ñ… ññ„ ñtrñ„ ññ… ññ„ ññ„ ññ… ñtrial€courtñ… ññ„ ñ€ñ„ ññ† ñsentence€was€ñ† ñimposedñ‡ ñ€the€sentenceñ‡ ñ.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€does€not€help€clarify€the€record.€ÏThe€following€colloquy€took€place€at€the€sentencing€hearing:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àJUDGE:€Respectfully,€it€does€appear€though€to€theÏCourt€that€this€is€not€a€case€where€the€Court€shouldÏsimply€determine€that€Mr.€Neely€should€simply€beÏplaced€on€probation.€€Respectfully,€it€appears€and€theÏCourt€recognizes€that€Mr.€Neely€has€served€aÏsubstantial€period€of€the€sentence.€€It€appears€thoughÏthat€he€must€proceed€to€serve€the€balance€of€thatÏsentence.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àIt€appears€that€upon€his€release,€he€must€beÏplaced€on€supervised€probation,€conditioned€upon€hisÏgood€and€lawful€behavior,€conditioned€upon€hisÏpayment€of€the€fine€which€has€previously€been€imposedÏby€the€jury.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à.€.€.€.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENSE€ATTORNEY:€Were€you€asking€him€to€beÏincarcerated€or€on€supervised€probation?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àJUDGE:€I€think€he€needs€to€serve€the€balance€of€theÏsentence.€€Now,€if€heððs€standard€range€1,€30€percentÏoffender,€the€Court€recognizes€heððs€served€a€substantialÏportion€of€that€sentence.€€But€it€would€be€required€„„€andÏobviously€may€be€commuted€to€the€workhouse€for€theÏservice€of€the€balance€of€that.€€He€must€serve€theÏbalance€of€that€sentence€as€a€standard€range€1,€30Ïpercent€offender.€€And€at€the€time€he€serves€theÏbalance€of€that,€heððs€entitled€to€suspension€for€theÏremainder€of€that€period.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENSE€ATTORNEY:€I€misunderstood€you.€€I€thoughtÏyou€said€to€serve€the€balance€on€supervised€probation.€ÏSo€youððre€saying€he€needs€to€serve€the€balance€„„Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÖ€ÿÿÖà8 ¸ àJUDGE:€Yes,€maððam.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDEFENSE€ATTORNEY:€€„„€of€the€sentence.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àJUDGE:€Yes,€maððam.Ðr8j17¸ x¸ x Їà8 ¸ àDEFENSE€ATTORNEY:€See,€I€donððt€think€you€can€putÏthem€on€supervised€probation€if€he€goes€to€serve€theÏbalance€of€his€sentence.€€He€would€be€released€onÏparole.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àPROSECUTOR:€No.€These€are€determinative€releasedÏsentences.€€He€comes€out€the€expiration€of€30€percentÏwithout€the€actual€intervention€of€the€parole€board,€andÏhe€can€go€on€any€form€of€supervision€necessary.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à.€.€.€.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àPROSECUTOR:€.€.€.€.ñˆ ñ€€ñˆ ññ‰ ññˆ ñ€ñˆ ññ‰ ñWeððve€concluded€all€proceedingsÏ.€.€.€And€it€would€seem€appropriate€that€his€period€ofÏsupervised€probation€commenced€today€as€opposed€toÏsome€point€in€the€future.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à.€.€.€.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àJUDGE:€All€right.€€Very€well.€€All€right.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÓÓÌÓ  Óà ¸ àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€simply€cannot€determine€the€manner€ofÏservice€in€which€the€trial€court€ordered€the€defendant€to€serve€his€sentence.€ÏFurthermore,€if€the€trial€court€did€deny€probation,€it€failed€to€state€on€the€record€anyÏreason€in€support€of€the€denial.€€For€these€reasons,€we€have€conducted€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóóÐ 0 ( Ðreview€of€the€defendantððs€sentence€and€have€concluded€that€a€sentence€of€probation€isÏwarranted,€taking€into€consideration€the€time€that€the€defendant€has€already€served.ÌÌà ¸ àPursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6),€the€defendant€is€presumedÏto€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€ofÏevidence€to€the€contrary.€€This€means€that€although€the€defendant€is€not€automaticallyÏentitled€to€probation,ñŠ ñ€there€is€añŠ ñ€ñŒ ña€ñŒ ñrebuttable€presumptionñ‹ ñ€existsñ‹ ñ€that€a€sentence€other€thanÏincarceration€would€result€in€successful€rehabilitation.€€òòFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€at€787;Ð .ˆ', ÐòòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.€€The€presumption€can€be€rebutted€upon€a€showing€that:Ð \0T). ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€byÏrestraining€a€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€ofÏcriminal€conduct;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularlyÏsuited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likelyÏto€commit€similar€offenses;€orÐr8j17¸ x¸ x Їà8 ¸ à(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€haveÏfrequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€toÏthe€defendant[.]Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1).ÌÌÓ  Óà ¸ àUpon€a€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€presumption€in€favor€ofÏprobation€has€not€been€rebutted.€€Thñ ñere€is€no€evideñ ññŽ ñeñŽ ññ ñnce€in€theñ ñ€recordñ ñ€contains€no€evidenceñ ñ€that€the€defendantÏhad€a€lengthy€criminal€historyñ‘ ñ,ñ‘ ñ€or€that€less€restrictive€measures€were€frequently€orÏrecently€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.€€ð ðððThe€entire€theory€of€probation€is€thatÏit€is€in€the€public€interest€that€those€who€violate€societyððs€rules€of€conduct€should,€inÏproper€cases,€be€given€an€opportunity€to€rehabilitate€themselves€.€.€.€.ðððð€€òòAshbyóó,€823Ð 4, ÐS.W.2d€at€160€(quoting€òòStiller€v.€Stateóó,€516€S.W.2d€617,€620€(Tenn.€1974)).€€AnyÐ ø Ðconcern€about€the€lessñ’ ñ„ñ’ ññ’ ñ€ñ’ ñthanñ“ ñ„ñ“ ññ“ ñ€ñ“ ñmitigating€circumstances€surrounding€the€offense€reflectingÏa€particular€need€for€deterrence€or€need€for€acknowledging€the€seriousness€of€theÏoffense€is€more€than€fully€met€by€the€time€the€defendant€has€already€served.€€BasedÏupon€the€record€before€us,€we€conclude€that€his€concurrent€one„year€sentences€shallÏbe€suspended€upon€time€previously€servedñ” ñ,ñ” ñ€and€the€remainder€of€the€time€shall€beÏserved€on€probation.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€theÏdefendantððs€convictions€upon€the€jury€verdicts€for€felony€reckless€endangerment€andÏpassing€a€worthless€check.€€We€modify€the€defendantððs€sentences€to€reflect€for€eachÏoffense€a€sentence€of€one€year,€with€time€served€of€seventy„two€days€and€theÏremainder€of€the€year€to€be€served€on€supervised€probation.€€The€sentences€shall€be€Ìserved€concurrently.ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È à__________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÐ  ¦6ž/5 ÐCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Special€JudgeÌà ¸ à