WPC  KPVwnK]}%pp $MiѤ!7XF!mt+6kg m9Tss3D7x~ggOe?>KCVQ%~3 G4=!iMM;IfF#NX9%#6-L6~Co MElnFEh=qƅ/$ɒJMߊbjQ㺿\a>/5L$Kc5C6p'UwHlw6ڵ[Nv`q)_$.vB84пX(x T!{aį1U9lu,c$cB<&, /k6yMJt[D. 15}ão ,+heoo>@"a>ш* 9w PU'\CL_ j@#ڠ E_{tǣU.F %t bz ]~   ~ n ; 0(C U :k w 4QU:e 0 0D8U :|[U:????? 1my 0d BJJJJJJJJ D3ggg 0D 0 0m 0 0 0K 0 0 AO++ 0D D/5 Bd<6X9`(CourierX  S $X!XXX `   3    Inthepresentcase,weviewthe300drugcasesasthefactnoticed,not `  theneedfordeterrenceitself.Basedonthe300cases,thecourtfoundthata P  needfordeterrenceexisted. $XiXXX `   1    ݀Tenn.CodeAnn.3911403,3917417(a)(4),(c)(1)(1997). XiXXXjXXi   Ad FILEDXiXj  July12,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM 3|xcT<6X9`(CourierXx6X@`7X@($,  AZ"Arial Regular=T>TD?TD@TATDBTCTDTDETFTEGTHTEITJTEKTLTEMTNTEOTPTEQTRTST{TTUTDVT<eWTӀaTuM%,cAZ"Arial Regular(I(2$  !  XiXXX `   0  (#$  0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular  $X!XXX `   2    Thefollowingdiscussionexaminestheroleofjudicialnoticeinatrial `  judgessentencingdetermination.Itdoesnotaddressjudicialnoticeincriminalproceedingswherejuriesareinvolvedinthefactfindingprocess.SeeTenn.R. @  Evid.201(g). XiXXXjXXi   Ad FILEDXiXj  July9,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regulartuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$26.  0  3  0   d""""'dxd(3$  !  (gfi$0  2(6.  0  .  0  3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2A   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xr$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2A(  0  )3  0 (# (#(U$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2A(  a  )3  0h(#(#(@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2A(   )3  0h(#h(#(t$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2A  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2A  a  )3  0p(#(#-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd  !  VTVTVTVT`   TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T XoXXX7 o XXdd7  WTWTaTWTr*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP`  rWTaTaTr*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP`  raTWTWT @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  ̀@@@'ATNASHVILLE 0  @$APRIL1999SESSION    STATEOFTENNESSEE, h     ) p  p   `     h     ) p  `   `  Appellee, h     ) p C.C.A.No.01C019809CC00395 P   `     h     ) p  @  vs. `     h     ) p CoffeeCounty 0   `     h     ) p       JENNIFERNUNLEY, h     ) p Hon.GeraldL.Ewell,Judge p  `     h     ) p  `   `  Appellant. h     ) p (Sentencing) P  `     h      p  `     h      `     h      p FORTHEAPPELLANT: h      p FORTHEAPPELLEE:   ROBERTS.PETERS h      p PAULG.SUMMERS   Swafford,Peters&Priest h      p AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  100FirstAve.,S.W. h       p Winchester,TN37398  h      p GEORGIABLYTHEFELNER  !`  `     h      p AssistantAttorneyGeneral "P  `     h      p 425FifthAve.N.,2dFloor  #@  `     h      p Nashville,TN372430493  $0   `     h    `     h      p C.MICHAELLAYNE  p&  `     h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral `'   `     h      p KENNETHSHELTON,JR.  @)"   `     h      p AssistantDistrictAttorney 0* #  `     h      p 307S.Woodland,P.O.Box147 `     h      p Manchester,TN37349 ` OPINIONFILED:________________AFFIRMEDJAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE  @8.2  <26 @qq* OPINION  `  XiXX Xo'X, XX' # XoXXXi2#Thedefendant,JenniferNunley,appealsfromhersentenceimposed   forfacilitationofpossessionofcocainemorethan.5grams, #  1      ׀aClassCfelony,inthe  CoffeeCountyCircuitCourt.ThetrialcourtimposedasentenceofthreeyearstobeservedintheCommunityCorrectionsprogramafter60daysofconfinementinthecountyjail.Inthisdirectappeal,thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourtshouldhaveplacedherimmediatelyintotheCommunityCorrectionsprogramwithoutaperiodofconfinement.Afterareviewoftherecord,thebriefsoftheparties,andtheapplicablelaw,weaffirmthesentence. Thedefendantwaslivingwiththefatherofherelevenmontholdchild,Mr.Braston,whenofficersoftheTullahomaCityPoliceDepartmentcametoarresthim.Astheofficersenteredtheresidence,theyfound8.8gramsofcrackcocaineinplainview.Althoughthestatedidnotchargethedefendantwiththesaleofcocaine,thestatesattorneybelievedthedefendantknewthecrackcocainewasinherresidence.Therefore,thestateallowedthedefendanttopleadguiltytofacilitationofpossessionofcocainemorethan.5grams. Atthetimeofsentencing,the24yearolddefendantwasemployedasaqualityinspectorwithDeutchIndustrialProductsDivisioninTullahoma.Sheprovidedthesolesupportofheronechild.Shegraduatedfromhighschoolandhadnopriorcriminalrecord. XiXX XoThedefendantchallengestheimpositionofaperiodofconfinement. `6-0 Whenthereisachallengetothelength,range,ormannerofserviceofasentence,itisthedutyofthiscourttoconductadenovoreviewoftherecordwitha @  presumptionthatthedeterminationsmadebythetrialcourtarecorrect.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d)(1997).Thispresumptionis conditionedupontheaffirmativeshowingintherecordthatthetrialcourtconsideredthesentencingprinciplesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances.Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,169(Tenn. `  1991). Theburdenofshowingthatthesentenceisimproperisupontheappellant.Id.Intheeventtherecordfailstodemonstratetherequiredconsiderationbythe   trialcourt,reviewofthesentenceispurelydenovo.Id.Ifappellatereviewreflects ` thetrialcourtproperlyconsideredallrelevantfactorsanditsfindingsoffactareadequatelysupportedbytherecord,thiscourtmustaffirmthesentence, evenifwewouldhavepreferredadifferentresult.Statev.Fletcher,805S.W.2d785,789  (Tenn.Crim.App.1991). Inmakingitssentencingdetermination,thetrialcourt,attheconclusionofthesentencinghearing,determinestherangeofsentenceandthendeterminesthespecificsentenceandtheproprietyofsentencingalternativesbyconsidering(1)theevidence,ifany,receivedatthetrialandthesentencinghearing,(2)thepresentencereport,(3)theprinciplesofsentencingandargumentsastosentencingalternatives,(4)thenatureandcharacteristicsofthecriminalconductinvolved,(5)evidenceandinformationofferedbythepartiesontheenhancementandmitigatingfactors,(6)anystatementsthedefendantwishestomakeinthedefendantsbehalfaboutsentencing,and(7)thepotentialforrehabilitationortreatment.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035210(a),(b)(1997);Tenn.CodeAnn.4035103(5)(1997);Statev.Holland,860S.W.2d53,60(Tenn.Crim.App.1993). `6-0  Therecordofthecaseatbarreflectsthatthetrialcourtreliedupon  :04 animproperfactor,a sorrysocialhistory,fortheimpositionofashortperiodofconfinement.Accordingly,itsdeterminationisnotentitledtothepresumptionofcorrectness.Wewillreviewthesentenceunderapurelydenovostandard.# X!XXX!Q#X!XX X!    TobeeligiblefortheCommunityCorrectionsprogram,anoffendermustmeetthefollowingcriteria: ` (1)Personswho,withoutthisoption,wouldbeincarceratedinacorrectionalinstitution;(2)Personswhoareconvictedofpropertyrelated,ordrug/alcoholrelatedfelonyoffensesorotherfelonyoffensesnotinvolvingcrimesagainsttheperson...(3)Personswhoareconvictedofnonviolentfelonyoffenses;(4)Personswhoareconvictedoffelonyoffensesinwhichtheuseorpossessionofaweaponwasnotinvolved;(5)Personswhodonotdemonstrateapresentorpastpatternofbehaviorindicatingviolence;(6)Personswhodonotdemonstrateapatternofcommittingviolentoffenses;andPersonswhoaresentencedtoincarcerationoronescapeatthetimeofconsiderationwillnotbeeligible. ` Tenn.CodeAnn.4036106(a)(1)(6)(1997).Adefendant whoisanespeciallymitigatedorstandardoffenderconvictedofaClassC,D,orEfelonyispresumedtobeafavorablecandidateforalternativesentencingoptionsintheabsenceofevidencetocontrary.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035102(6)(1997).Thus,adefendantwhomeetsthecriteriaofsection4035102(6)ispresumedeligibleforalternativesentencingunlesssufficientevidencerebutsthepresumption.However,offenderswhomeetthecriteriaarenotautomaticallyentitledtosuchreliefbecausesentencingissuesshouldbedeterminedbythefactsandcircumstancespresentedineachcase.Statev.Taylor,744S.W.2d919,922(Tenn.Crim.App.1987). 09/3 # X!XXX! #X!XX X! Thedefendant,aRangeIstandardoffender,enjoyedthepresumptionoffavorablecandidacyforalternativesentencingfortheClassCfelonyinvolvedinthiscase.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035102(6)(1997).Moreover,shewaseligible  forsentencingpursuanttotheCommunityCorrectionsprogram.SeeTenn.Code  Ann.4036106# X!XXX!'#X!XX X!(a)(1)(6)(1997).Inthiscase,thestaterecommendedthatthe `  defendantbeplacedontheCommunityCorrectionsprogramforfouryears.However,thecourtrejectedthisproposal.# X!XXX!Y)#X!XX X!   Ѐ# X!XXX!e*# `  X!XX X!ԀIndeterminingthesentence,thetrialcourtfoundmitigationfactor(1), @ thedefendantsconductneithercausednorthreatenedseriousbodilyinjury,applied.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035113(1)(1997).Thetrialcourtfoundno  enhancementfactorswereapplicable.Therefore,thecourtimposedtheminimumsentenceofthreeyears.Thecourtfoundconfinementtobenecessary# X!XXX!*#X!XX X!Ԁinorderto !` deterotherslikelytocommitthistypeofoffense.Inmakingthisfinding,thejudgenotedthatcourtrecordsshowedover300indictmentsforthesaleofcontrolledsubstancesinCoffeeCounty.Additionally,thetrialjudgefoundthatthedefendantrefusedtocooperatewiththepoliceregardingMr.Brastonswhereabouts,thatthebeeperinherpurseatthetimeofherarrestindicatedshewasadrugdealer,andthatshehada sorrysocialhistory.# X!XXX!,# -#&  Weagreewiththetrialcourtthatmitigationfactor(1)appliedandnoenhancementfactorsareapplicable.Theminimumsentenceofthreeyearsisappropriateunderthesecircumstances.Thedeterminationofthemannerofserviceofthethreeyearsentenceiswherethedefendantcontendsthetrialcourterred.π Thedefendants socialhistorymustbeconsideredindetermining  :04 whethertograntprobation.Stillerv.State,516S.W.2d617,620(Tenn.1974). `  VTVTHowever,socialhistoryisnotspecificallymentionedbythecodeasafactortobeusedinovercomingthepresu;Tmptionofsuitabilityforalternativesentences;TT񛀛>TSeeVTVTVTVT   Tenn.CodeAnn.4035103(1)(A)(C)VTVT(1997)?T(considerationsforsentencesinvolvingconfinement,whichdonotinclude socialhistory)?T.VTVTVTVTVTVTCTCTDTCTCTDTVTVTVTVTVTVT@TInanyevent,@TATTATBTtBTheVTVTVTVTonlysocialhistorycontainedintherecordwasinformationregardingthedefendantsrelationshipwithMr.Braston,whoisthefatherofthedefendantschild.Mr.Brastonwasincarceratedatthetimeofthesentencinghearing.ThedefendanthadpreviouslybeenmarriedanddivorcedbeforebecominginvolvedwithMr.VTVTBraston.ETTherecorddoETFTETisETFTGTesnotreflectthatthedefendGTHTGTntsGTHTITantssocialhisITJTITotryITJTKTtorysupportsinKTLTKTnnnanyKTLTMTanysignificantwaythedenialofsplitconfinementinvolvingproMTPTMTvationMTPTQTbation.QTNTMTMTNTPTOT.OTPTVTVT̀     VTVTSTRTaRTSTSTASTTTlso,tTTUTTUTheVTVTVTVTtrialjudgereliedongeneraldeterrenceinorderingaperiodofconfinement.Inordertorelyongeneraldeterrenceasajustificationforaperiodofconfinement,evidencemustbepresentedthatshows confinementisparticularlysuitedtoprovideaneffectivedeterrencetootherslikelytocommitsimilaroffenses.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035103(1)(B)(1997).Theevidencepresentedshould indicat[e]somespecialneedorconsiderationrelativetothatjurisdictionwhichwouldnotbeaddressedbythenormaldeterrenceinherentinanycriminalactivity.Statev.Hartley,818S.W.2d370,375(Tenn.Crim.App.1991).Theonly  +!$ informationintherecordregardingthespecialneedfordeterrenceinCoffeeCountywasthetrialjudgesstatementduringthesentencinghearingthat [t]hecourtrecordsofCoffeeCountyshowthatinthelasttwoyears,therehavebeenover300indictmentsforthesaleofcontrolledsubstances,thereforeshowinganeedfordeterrence. PursuanttoTennesseeRuleofEvidence201,judicialnoticeofadjudicativefactsmaybetakenwhetherrequestedornotatanystageofthe  :04 proceeding.Tenn.R.Evid.201(a),(c),(f). Ajudiciallynoticedfactmustbeonenotsubjecttoreasonabledispute,inthatitiseither(1)generallyknownwithintheterritorialjurisdictionofthetrialcourtor(2)capableofaccurateandreadydeterminationbyresorttosourceswhoseaccuracycannotreasonablybequestioned.Tenn.R.Evid.201(b). Toexaminethisissue,weVTVTmustVTVTVTVTdeterminewhethertheneedfordeterrence,asabasisforimposingincarceration,maybeestablishedbyjudiciallynoticedfacts.Ifso,wemustthendeterminewhetherthetrialcourtproperlynoticedthefactthat300drugcaseindictmentshadbeenrenderedinthetrialcourtinatwoyearperiod.Ifso,wemustthendeterminewhetherthenoticedfactsupportsafindingthataneedfordeterrenceexisted.   First,weconsidertheproprietyofusingjudicialnoticeinacourtssentencingdetermination. #  2      ׀TheprovisionsofTennesseeRuleofEvidence #@ 201couldbeunderstoodtoconflictwiththeprovisionsofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4035401(d).WithrespecttofactsnoticedunderRule201, noevidenceisnecessary.Tenn.R.Evid.201advisorycommncomments.Thenoticeisinlieuofevidence.Werecognizethat,asapracticalmatter,theeffectofRule201isnotonlytoexpeditethetrial,seeNeilP.Cohen,SarahY.Sheppeard -#& &DonaldF.Paine,TennesseeLawofEvidence38(3ded.1995),butalsotoabbreviatetheappellaterecord. Requiringthatthetrialcourtsbasisforjudicialnoticeappearinthe 4 +. recordwouldbe,insomecases,tantamounttorequiringadmissionoftheevidencethatRule201isdesignedtoobviate.Ontheotherhand,Codesection4035401(d)mandatesthatappellatereviewofcriminalsentencesshallbe denovoontherecordof[the]issues.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d)(1997).Thesentencerisobligedtobasethesentence onevidenceintherecordofthetrial,the  sentencinghearing,thepresentencereport,andtherecordofpriorfelonyconvictionsfiledbythe[prosecutor].Tenn.CodeAnn.4035210(g)(1997)(emphasisadded).Whenthesentencerisconsideringdeterrence,inparticular,asabasisforimposingincarceration,thiscourthassaidthatproofsupportingtheneedforgeneraldeterrenceinthatjurisdictionisnecessary.SeeAntonioS.Moore,No. @ 02C019701CR00035,slipop.at506(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,Mar.18,1998);   Statev.Hartley,818S.W.2d370,375(Tenn.Crim.App.1991).InStatev.Smith,  735S.W.2d859,964(Tenn.Crim.App.1987),thiscourtwarnedthatshouldtrialcourtsbe permittedtoassumefactsnotintherecord,baseasentenceonextraneousfacts,ortakejudicialnoticeoffactsnotavailabletothiscourtnorincludedintherecordtransmittedtothiscourt,itwouldbeimpossibleforthiscourttoconductadenovoreviewofthesentenceimposedbythetrialjudge.Id.In `'  Statev.Jenkins,733S.W.2d528,535(Tenn.Crim.App.1987),thiscourtcriticized @)" atrialcourtbasingadenialofprobationondeterrencewhenthetrialcourt VTVTassume[dVTVT]factsnotintherecordorVTVTbase[dVTVT]asentenceimposedonextraneousfacts,[making]itimpossibleforthiscourttoreviewthesentencingissue.Id. .%(  However,SmithandJenkinsweredecidedbeforetheadoptionofthe 2@), TennesseeRulesofEvidencewhichbecameeffectiveJanuary1,1990.Rule201(e)mandatesprocedureforcontemporaneouslychallengingthetrialcourtsproposedjudicialnotice,bygivingapartytherighttobeheard astotheproprietyoftakingjudicialnoticeandthetenorofthemattertobenoticed.Tenn.R.Evid.  :04 201(e)(emphasisadded).Uponrequestmadeeitherbeforeorafternoticeistaken,theaggrievedpartymaychallengetheproprietyofthenoticeandcontroverttheaccuracyorapplicabilityofthefactbeingnoticed.Id.TheimpliciteffectofRule201   isthat,iftheaggrievedpartydoesnotactundersubsection(e),thenoticedfactistakenasgivenforpurposesofboththetrialandappellateproceedings.SeeState  v.RichardDouglasLowery,No.VTVT03C01VTVT9604CC00146,slipop.at1113(Tenn. `  Crim.App.,Knoxville,May19,1997)(onappellatereviewofsentencingdetermination,recordsupportedfindingsofdefendantspriorcriminalconvictionbaseduponthetrialcourtjudiciallynoticing,withoutcontradictionorobjection,thedefendantspriorconvictionwhichwasrenderedinthesametrialcourt,eventhoughnodocumentreflectingthepriorconvictionappearedintheappellaterecord);see   alsoStatev.DavidVTVTRuckerVTVT,No.248,249(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,Oct.16,  1987)(approvingthesentencingcourtsjudicialnoticethatLSDis adangerousdrugthatcancauseseriousinjuryordeathtotheuser,basedupontheappellatecourts viewthatthedangerouspotentialof[thedrug]isofsuchcommonknowledgethatatrialjudgemay,onasentencinghearing,consider[it]inweighingthenatureofthecrime). UnderthisviewofRule201judicialnotice,ajudiciallynoticeablefactthatisdulynoticedbythetrialcourtwithouttimelyobjectionisapartoftherecord -#& asstatedbythetrialcourtandisinlieuof evidencethatCodesection4035 .%( 210(g)otherwiserequires.SeeNeilP.CohenetVTVTal.,VTVTVTVTat45( Failuretorequesta 0`'* hearingcanbarlaterappellatereviewofjudicialnotice.).Moreover, [VTVTh]istoricallyVTVT,judiciallynoticedfactshavebeengiventhesameweightasfactsproventhroughformalproof.Id.at38. `6-0  Ofcourse,certainadmonitionsapply.Anycourttakingjudicialnotice  :04 of adjudicativefactsmusttakecarethatthefactsnoticedfallwithinthepermittedcategoriesdelineatedinRule201(b):facts(1) generallyknownwithintheterritorialjurisdictionofthetrialcourtor(2)capableofaccurateandreadydeterminationbyresorttosourceswhoseaccuracycannotreasonablybequestioned.Tenn.R.Evid.201(b).Ineithercase,thefactmust beonenotsubjecttoreasonabledispute.Id.Thislimitationmeans, [VTVTa]lmostVTVTbydefinition,ifapartyoffersanything `  otherthandilatoryorVTVTpretextualVTVTreasonsforopposingthetakingofjudicialnotice,thecourtshouldviewthefactassubjecttoreasonabledisputeanddeclinetotakejudicialnoticeofit.NeilP.CohenetVTVTal.,VTVTVTVTat44.Furthermore,acourtmaynotconsiderfactsoutsidetherecordthatarewithinthejudgespersonalknowledgeundertheguiseoftakingjudicialnotice.VTVTVaughnVTVTv.VTVTShelbyVTVTWilliamsofTennessee,   813S.W.2d132(Tenn.1991);NeilP.Cohenetalat42. Havingconcludedthatproperjudicialnoticeoffactsmayserveasabasisforsentencingdeterminations,wenowexaminethenoticetakeninthecaseatbar.Courtrecordsfallwithinthegeneralrubricoffactsreadilyandaccuratelydetermined.NeilP.CohenetVTVTal.,VTVTVTVTat43;U.S.v.VTVTMontemayorVTVT,666F.VTVT2dVTVT235,237 `'  (VTVT5thVTVTCir.1982).Inthepresentcase,thenatureandnumberofindictmentsrenderedinthetrialcourtoveratwoyearspaceweregenerallynoticeablebythatcourt,andthedefendantdisputedneithertheproprietyoftakingsuchnoticenorthetenorofthefactnoticed.Weconcludethatthetrialjudgeproperlytookjudicialnoticeoftherenderingof300drugcaseindictmentsinthetrialcourtduringatwoyearperiod,andthedefendantsfailuretorequestaRule201(e)hearingnowprecludesappellatereviewoftheunderlyingfact.NeilP.CohenetVTVTal.,VTVTVTVTat45. Itdoesnotfollownecessarily,however,thatthefactproperlynoticedprovidesanadequatebasisforthetrialcourtsdeterminationthataneedfor  :04 deterrenceexisted. #  3      ׀Thetrialcourtdidnotinterpretthemeaningof,norprovideany `  perspectivefor,the300drugcases,andweareunabletogleanfromtherecordpertinentfacts,suchaswhetheranyoftheindictmentsresultedinconvictions,thetotalnumberofoffenderswhowereindicted,whethertheallegedoffensesoriginatedinsmallclustersofpopulationconcentration,orwhetherthenumberwasexcessivecomparedtoothersimilarlocalitiesduringthesametimeperiod.Ifrelevant,thefactnoticeddoesnotipsofactoestablishthataneedfordeterrence @  existed.     Nevertheless,therecordprovidesanotherbasisforaffirmingthetrialcourtsimpositionofashortperiodofconfinementcoupledwithCommunityCorrections.X!XX X!Thetrialjudgefound,atleastbyimplication,thatthedefendantlacked  credibilityandcandorwiththecourt.ThedefendanttestifiedatthesentencinghearingthatshedidnotknowthewhereaboutsofMr.Brastonwhenaskedbythepoliceandthatshewasnotinvolvedindrugactivity.Itisapparentfromthetrialjudgesfindingsthathedidnotbelievethedefendantstestimonybecausehefoundthedefendantrefusedtocooperateandthatshewasadrugdealer.Lackofcandorandcredibilityareindicationsofadefendantspotentialforrehabilitation.Statev. @)" Bunch,646S.W.2d158,160(Tenn.1983);Statev.VTVTZeoliaVTVT,928S.W.2d457,463  +!$ (Tenn.Crim.App.1996);Statev.Williamson,919S.W.2d69,84(Tenn.Crim.App. -#& 1995);Statev.Dowdy,894S.W.2d301,30506(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).Thetrial .%( judgeisinthebestpositiontoassessadefendantscredibilityandpotentialforrehabilitation.Adefendantspotentialforrehabilitation shouldbeconsideredindeterminingthesentencealternativeorlengthofatermtobeimposed.Tenn. 4 +. CodeAnn.4035103(5)(1997).Weconcludethatthetrialjudgecorrectlyconsideredthisfactorinorderingashortperiodofconfinement.# X XXX qd#Ԁ @  Ѐ Inconsiderationoftheforegoingandtherecordasawhole,weaffirmthesentenceimposedbythetrialcourt.    h     ________________________________    h     JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:_______________________________JOHNH.PEAY,JUDGE_______________________________DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE