WPC c)uSĭ$f<ՙFB>Rqg+Zb-]|7=;3I.bPw6X|C,;deXϸQ+}'zÓA)۞~l$&~SW1zX^I CTAzfڨ"ݿirT w /|9aċ ~5,9aHbQ/Hsjb!fcφVέLc]:PaW/݋cvs)FL򬩘d \M {鹒IYe@/q23uTG[ޥ|WACi~Ȩ9k!&w[&9lJ%֯و]}wŽp]Uyl]L=\!!Ajp(Fa6hqvdk ؿ祕{̬'nlg> IrޡP- a# F UNQ % 0( 4  U>: * b E N w@ E M mO f 0E 0D U@:O 0DU:U:U:A{_U:SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS D3 0D B AO!pp 0D6 D/z BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($uM% @ d3|xh,cAZ"Arial Regular  Ә$X~XXX/XX~    1    ݀//TheSimsopinion,forexample,speaksof// otherpotentialvictims.  Sims,909S.W.2dat50#//#.- - ;  #Xd#   |hD}h~hDhhhDhhDhhӀU  Ә$X~XXX/XX~    2    ݀//Inthepresentcase,forexample,theevidencesuggeststhatmultiple  additionalcountsofrecklessendangermentmighthavebeenchargedrelatingtothedefendantspassengerandotherdriverswhowereintheimmediateareaandsubjecttoimminentdanger.(v(2Ә$ !  XXXXCXX    0  (#$  0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular(3$ !  ,  AZ"Arial Regular,yAZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular X~XXXb! XX~   Ad FILEDX~X b!  May12,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM  JOHNELLHOSKINSMONDELLIWALKUPBEHAN xxxxJohnellHoskins wAtAshby CrimJerniganMillsaps,cAZ"Arial RegularUUUU'dxd(3$ !   d-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  ݛ_4__ H   X~XXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T__hr*<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  rߛhINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  ATNASHVILLEFEBRUARY1999SESSION  ` |  4X 474STATEOFTENNESSEE, 7 )  :   4 747  7 )C.C.A.No.01C019806CC00246 Appellee, 7 )     7 )PerryCountyV. 7 )     7 )HonorableCorneliaA.Clark,Judge  n    7 )  T  CHARLESJUSTINOSBORNE,0 7 )0@(CriminallyNegligentHomicide,:7T$7T$   7 )RecklessEndangerment)  7 ) Appellant. 7 ) B 4c4 FORTHEAPPELLANT: c FORTHEAPPELLEE: p JERRYC.COLLEY c hJOHNhhPAULG.hhKNOXhhSUMMERShhWALKUPh < P.O.Box1476 c AttorneyGeneral&Reporter "r Columbia,TN384021476X~XXX~ c ELIZABETHB.MARNEY >  c AssistantAttorneyGeneral#X~XXX~v# $  c 425FifthAvenueNorth c Nashville,TN37243 c RONALDL.DAVIS c DistrictAttorneyGeneral c DONALDW.SCHWENDIMANN c AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral c P.O.Box937 c Franklin,TN370650937 c OPINIONFILED:___________________ AFFIRMEDINPART,REVERSEDINPART,MODIFIED J617  JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,  9R4: Judgeh H  7XXdXXd7    H  #Xd#    h ; 7=  H  7XXdXXd7   h H  7XXdXXd7   h  4 D4c  7RXX~OPINION#X~X7R #    X~XXX~ Thedefendant,CharlesJustinOsborne,wasconvictedoftwocountsof ( criminallynegligenthomicideandonecountofrecklessendangerment.#X~XXX~r #X~XXX~ԀThetrial  courtsentencedhimtotwoyearsoneachcountofcriminallynegligenthomicideandtoelevenmonths,twentyninedaysontherecklessendangerment,withallsentencestorunconsecutively.Ofthesesentences,thetrialcourtorderedthedefendanttoserveoneyearsconfinement,dayforday,oncountoneandsuspendedtheremainingbalanceofallsentenceswithsupervisedprobation.Thedefendantargues(1)thatthesesentencesareexcessive;(2)thatthetrialcourterredinorderingconsecutiveservice;#X~XXX~` #X~XXX~Ԁand(3)thatthetrialcourterredin 8 denyinganalternativesentence,specificallyfullprobation.#X~XXX~#X~XXX~ԀUponreview,we T REVERSEtheimpositionofconsecutivesentencingandMODIFYthedefendantssentencetoreducehisdayfordayconfinementfromoneyeartotwohundredandnineteendays.Inallotherrespects,weAFFIRMthejudgmentofthetrailcourt.#X~XXX~#X~XXX~#X~XXX~#X~XXX~  BACKGROUND  !  #X~XXX~#=X~XXX~ #X~XXX~#X~XXX~WhiledrivingatgrosslyexcessivespeedthoughLinden,Tennessee,the #" defendantranaredlightandswervedtoavoidavehicleenteringtheintersection.Whenheswerved,thedefendantlostcontrolofhisvehicleandcollidedheadonwithanautomobiledrivenbyCharlesCarroll.Mr.Carrollstwopassengers,EleanorandAliceCarroll,werekilled,andMr.Carrollwasinjured.Witnessesestimatedthatthedefendantwasdrivingasfastasninetymilesperhourimmediatelybeforethecollision,andthedefendanthimselfestimatedthathewasgoingsixtytosixtyfive.Thepostedspeedlimitwasthirtymilesperhour. Thedefendantwasindictedontwocountsofvehicularhomicideandonecountoffelonyrecklessendangerment.Ajuryfoundthedefendantguiltyof criminallynegligenthomicide#X~XXX~#X~XXX~Ԁoncountsoneandtwoandguiltyofmisdemeanor h728 recklessendangermentoncountthree.#X~XXX~#X~XXX~Thedefendantdoesnotcontestthese  convictions;heappealshissentencesonly. #X~XXX~3#X~XXX~  H   STANDARDOFREVIEW   p ^#X~XXX~&#X~XXX~ Appellatereviewofachallengetothelengthormannerofserviceofa  H sentenceisdenovoontherecord,#X~XXX~#X~XXX~Ԁ withapresumptionthatthedeterminations    madebythecourtfromwhichtheappealistakenarecorrect.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d).#X~XXX~#X~XXX~ԀThispresumption isconditionedupontheaffirmativeshowing \  intherecordthatthetrialcourtconsideredthesentencingprinciplesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances.Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,169(Tenn. D 1991).Ifourreviewreflectsthatthetrialcourtproperlyconsideredallrelevantfactorsanditsfindingsoffactareadequatelysupportedintherecord,thenthisCourtmaynotdisturbthesentenceevenifwewouldhavepreferredadifferentresult.#X~XXX~#X~XXX~SeeStatev.Fletcher,805S.W.2d785,789(Tenn.Crim.App.1991). $t Theappellantcarriestheburdenofshowingthathissentenceisimproper.See#X~XXX~#X~XXX~ @ Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d)#X~XXX~#X~XXX~sentencingcommn#X~XXX~I#X~XXX~Ԁ#X~XXX~#X~XXX~cmts#X~XXX~#X~XXX~;#X~XXX~(#X~XXX~Statev.Jernigan,   929S.W.2d391,395(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).#X~XXX~m#X~XXX~Ԁ#X~XXX~#X~XXX~ !   Inconductingourreview,thisCourtwemustconsider(1)theevidence,ifany,receivedatthetrialandthesentencinghearing;(2)thepresentencereport;(3)theprinciplesofsentencingandargumentsastosentencingalternatives;(4)thenatureandcharacteristicsofthecriminalconductinvolved;(5)anystatutorymitigatingorenhancementfactors;(6)anystatementmadebytheaccusedinhisownbehalf;and(7)thepotentialorlackorpotentialforrehabilitationortreatment.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035102,103,210;Statev.Smith,735 /8+0 S.W.2d859,863(Tenn.Crim.App.1987).#X~XXX~K#X~XXX~ 1-2  844:   SENTENCINGFACTORS   x! Thedefendant#X~XXX~,!#X~XXX~firstassertsthatthetrialcourtmisapplied,orerroneously  failedtoapply,certainenhancementandmitigatingfactorsandthathisϜsentence{hs{hare,therefore,excessive.ThetrialcourtfoundthedefendanttobearangeIoffender.Criminallynegligenthomicide#X~XXX~!#X~XXX~isaClassEfelony,carryinga  < rangeIsentenceofonetotwoyears.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.#X~XXX~k##X~XXX~3913212;#X~XXX~+$#X~XXX~Ԁ40    35112(a)(5).RecklessendangermentcommittedwithoutadeadlyweaponisClassAmisdemeanor,seeTenn.CodeAnn.3913103(b),andispunishable P  byuptoelevenmonths,twentyninedays.#X~XXX~w$#X~XXX~Thepresumptivesentencefora l ClassEfelonyistheminimumsentenceintherange,absentenhancementormitigatingfactors.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035210(c).#X~XXX~%#X~XXX~ԀMisdemeanor  sentencesdonotcommandapresumptiveminimum.#X~XXX~&#X~XXX~   Thetrialcourtrecognizednomitigatingfactorsbutdidfindtwoenhancementfactorsapplicabletoeachofthedefendantsconvictions: Thedefendanthadnohesitationaboutcommittingacrimewhentherisktohumanlifewashighand [t]hecrimewascommittedundercircumstancesunderwhichthepotentialforbodilyinjurytoavictimwasgreat.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035114(10),(16).Inaccordancewiththesefindings,thetrialcourtsentencedthedefendanttotherangeImaximumoftwoyearsoneachfelonyconvictionandtoelevenmonths,twentyninedaysonthemisdemeanor. CitingStatev.Bingham,910S.W.2d448(Tenn.Crim.App.1995),#X~XXX~E'#X~XXX~Ԁthe D,', defendantfirstarguesthatenhancementfactor(16)isinapplicabletoaconvictionforcriminallynegligenthomicideasamatteroflawbecausethepotentialforbodilyinjuryisanessentialelementofthatoffense.InBingham,a 1,2 panelofthisCourtheldthatpotentialbodilyinjuryisinherentintheoffenseofvehicularhomicideandisthereforeinapplicabletoenhanceaconvictionforthatoffense.Seeid.at452.Inthepresentcase,thetrialcourtexpresslynotedthe  7\28 Binghamopinionandcorrectlyconcludedthat,aswithvehicularhomicide,the 8(4: proofnecessarytoestablishthedefendantsoffenseswouldcompriseproofofpotentialbodilyinjuryto|hthe|hanyoftheCarrolls.Nevertheless,__thetrialcourtfoundfactor(16)applicablebasedonthepotentialforbodilyinjurytopersonsotherthatthantheCarrolls,including,specifically,apassengerofthedefendant. ApanelofthisCourtspecificallyapprovedsuchanapplicationinStatev.    Sims,909S.W.2d46(Tenn.Crim.App.1995),stating [factor(16)]maybe x  appliedinsituationswhereindividualsotherthanthevictimareintheareaandaresubjecttoinjury.Id.at50.#X~XXX~`*#X~XXX~Nevertheless,thesubsequentopinionin ` Binghamappearstoconflictwiththisholding.#X~XXX~0#X~XXX~Ԁ ,  WhileBinghamdoesnotexpresslyrejectSims#X~XXX~0#X~XXX~,acarefulreadingallows t nootherconclusion.InBingham,thedefendantappealedapplicationofboth @ enhancementfactors(10)and(16).Althoughthepanelfoundthatbothfactorsareinherentintheoffenseofvehicularhomicidewhenconsideringonlythehomicidevictim,thepanelnotedthatpersonsotherthanthevictimwerepresentandsubjecttorisk.Basedonthisrisk,the#X~XXX~^1#X~XXX~Binghampanelfoundfactor(10) p!  applicable.Importantly,however,thepaneldidnotsimilarlyapplyfactor(16).Thus,Binghamimplicitly,butinescapably,distinguishesbetweenenhancement %X $ factors(10)and(16)inthatfactor(10)maybesupportedbyrisktopersonsotherthanavictimoftheconvictedoffensewhilefactor(16)maynot. Incontrast,theSimsopinionholds, Bothfactors[(10)and(16)]maybe 8,', appliedinsituationswhereindividualsotherthanthevictimareintheareaandaresubjecttoinjury.Sims,909S.W.2dat50(citingStatev.Makoka,885 / +0 S.W.2d366,373(Tenn.Crim.App.1994)).Thus,itappearsthattheseauthoritiescannotbesatisfactorilyreconciledastowhetherfactor(16)maybeappliedonthebasisofpotentialinjurytopersonsotherthanthevictimoftheconvictedoffense.Inresolvingthisconflict,wefirstnotethattheauthoritycitedbySimssupportsonlyapplicationoffactor(10)onthebasisofrisktoothers. 84: SeeMakoka,885S.W.2dat373.Moreimportantly,wefindthelanguageofthe  statuteinstructive. Unlikeenhancementfactor(10),factor(16)specificallyrequiresthattheriskorpotentialinjurybe toavictim.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035114(16)  0 (emphasisadded).Weread victimheretomeanavictimofthechargedoffense,nota potentialvictim, #  1      ׀avictimofsomecollateralinjury,oravictimof x  someunchargedoffense.  #  2      ׀ThisreadingofthestatutedirectlyrefutestheSims D  holdingthatfactor(16)isapplicablewhenpersons otherthanthevictimare ` subjecttoinjury.Sims,909S.W.2dat50#X~XXX~R3#X~XXX~Ԁ(emphasisadded).Thus,weconclude , thattheenhancementstatutedoesnotcontemplateapplicationoffactor(16)basedonrisktoothers.#X~XXX~;#X~XXX~Forthesereasons,weholdthatthetrialcourterredin t applyingenhancementfactor(16)inthepresentcase.Althoughthedefendantdoesnotchallengeapplicationoffactor(10),weaffirmitsapplicability.#X~XXX~<#X~XXX~ Thedefendantnextarguesthatthetrialcourterredinrejectingmitigatingfactor(6),regardinghisallegedlackofsubstantialjudgmentduetoyouth.See p!  Tenn.CodeAnn.4035113(6).#X~XXX~=#X~XXX~Inconsideringwhetheradefendantlacked <#" substantialjudgmentbecauseofhisyouth,chronologicalageisnotdeterminative.SeeStatev.AntonioD.Mason,No.01C01-9607-CC-00315 &$"& (Tenn.Crim.App.filedOct.24,1997,atNashville).#X~XXX~>#X~XXX~Rather,wearedirectedto (#(  considertheconceptofyouthincontext,i.e.,thedefendantsage,education,maturity,experience,mentalcapacityordevelopment,andanyotherpertinentcircumstancetendingtodemonstratethedefendantsabilityorinabilitytoappreciatethenatureofhisconduct.Statev.Adams,864S.W.2d31,33 / +0 (Tenn.1993). h3.4  Thedefendantwaseighteenyearsofageatthetimeofhisoffenses,andhereliesentirelyonthischronologicalagetosupportapplicabilityofthisfactor.Heoffersabsolutelynootherevidenceorargument,andwefindnothingintherecordfromwhichwemightinferalackofsubstantialjudgment.#X~XXX~W@#Tothecontrary,  d intheonlyevidenceonpoint,thedefendantexpresslydisavowedanylackofjudgmentduetohisyouth:4 4   X4 D STATE:Youknowthatwereobligatedtodrivethepostedspeedlimits? DEFENDANT:Yes,sir. STATE:Doyouthinkthatbecauseyouwereeighteenatthetimethishappenedthatyoudidntrealizethatyouwerentsupposedtospeed? DEFENDANT:Iknewyouwasnotsupposedtospeed. .... STATE:Youknewthatspeedingcanresultinfatalinjuries,forexample? DEFENDANT:Yes,sir. .... STATE:Soyouryouthdoesnotexplainyourdisregardforthelaw? DEFENDANT:No,sir.4 D4D" 4 D  X@D" .D Althoughthistestimonyisnotdeterminative,itdoestend todemonstratethedefendantsabilityorinabilitytoappreciatethenatureofhisconduct.Id. V"! Moreover,theactivityofdrivingissocommontoeverydaylife,andthedangersinherentinabusingthatactivityaresoevidentandsooftenobservable,that,absentsomespecificevidence,wewillnotsimplypresumethataneighteenyearoldlacked substantialjudgment.X~XXX~ԀTherecordindicatesthatthetrialcourt )$) carefullyconsideredthisproposedmitigatingfactorandconcluded, [thedefendant]hasconvincedmethatitisnotaquestionofyouthhere.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsdecision.Thedefendanthasfailedtocarryhisburdenofshowingthatthedecisionofthetrialcourtisimproper.̀#X~XXX~I#X~XXX~ Next,thedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourterredinrejectingmitigating 6j17 factor(11)!thatthedefendant committedtheoffense[s]undersuchunusualcircumstancesthatitisunlikelythatasustainedintenttoviolatethelaw 95; motivatedthecriminalconduct.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035113(11).Thedefendantarguesthatbecauseonecannot intendtocommitcriminally | negligenthomicide,hecouldnothavehadasustainedintenttoviolatethelaw. H Thisargumentisnotwelltaken.Itignoresthedefendantssustainedintenttoviolatetrafficlaws,whichisoverwhelminglysupportedbytheevidence.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. Insummary,wehaveconcludedthatthetrialcourtsapplicationofenhancementfactor(16)cannotbesustainedandthatfactor(10)properlyapplies.Wedonotdisturbthetrialcourtsfindingthatnomitigatingfactorsapply.Despitethetrialcourtsmisapplicationoffactor(16),wedonothesitatetofindthesentencesbelowappropriate.#X~XXX~J#X~XXX~Thetrialcourtfoundapplicable t enhancementfactors(10)and(16),butdidnotindicatetheweightitaccordedeach.Ifbothfactorswereapplicable,wewouldaccordgreatweighttoeitheronthefactsofthiscase.However,becausethefactorsaresimilarandwerebasedonthesamefacts,wewouldaccordtheotheronlyslightadditionalweight.Thus,oureliminationoffactor(16)doesnotsignificantlylessentheoverallweightofwarrantedsentenceenhancement.Factor(10)alonesufficientlyjustifiesthedefendantssentences.Thesentencesimposedbelowareappropriate.̀  Ӏ @ CONSECUTIVESERVICE  l*%* %R Thedefendantnextchallengesthetrialcourtsimpositionofconsecutivesentencing.Thetrialcourtorderedconsecutivesentencingbasedonitsfindingthat [t]hedefendantisadangerousoffenderwhosebehaviorindicatedlittleornoregardforhumanlifeandnohesitationaboutcommittingacrimeinwhichtherisktohumanlifeishigh.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035115(b)(4).Whilethisfinding,ifsupportedbytheevidence,satisfiesthestatutorycriteriaforconsecutivesentencing,theTennesseeSupremeCourthasheldthatwhenconsecutivesentencingispredicatedonafindingthatthedefendantisa 8(4: dangerousoffender, [t]heproofmustalsoestablishthatthetermsimposedarereasonablyrelatedtotheseverityoftheoffensescommittedandarenecessaryinordertoprotectthepublicfromfurthercriminalactsbytheoffender.Statev. H Wilkerson,905S.W.2d933,938(Tenn.1995).  d  Thetrialcourtmadenofindingsrelativetotheselattertwocriteria,andweareunabletoconcludethatbothapply.Wewouldfindthatconsecutivesentencingresultinginlessthanafiveyeareffectivesentenceisreasonablyrelatedtotheseverityofthedefendantsoffenses.Twopersonswereneedlesslykilledandothersinjuredbythedefendantsactions.Nevertheless,therecordcontainsinsufficientevidencetowarrantafindingthatconsecutiveserviceisnecessarytoprotectthepublicfromfurthercriminalacts.Thedefendantslackofremorseandapathetic,evendespiteful,attitudetowardhisvictimsmightindicatealesseramiabilitytorehabilitationand,thus,somedegreeofdangertosociety.However,thedefendantscompletelackofpriorcriminalhistorytendstosupportstheoppositeinference.Thus,althoughtheevidenceϜsupport}hs}hthetrialcourtsfindingthatthedefendantisadangerousoffenderwhosebehaviorindicatedlittleornoregardforhumanlife,weareconstrainedtoconcludethatthetrialcourterredinimposingconsecutivesentencing.#X~XXX~O#X~XXX~ %X $   ALTERNATIVESENTENCING  (#( 0[ #X~XXX~Z#X~XXX~Thedefendantnextassertsthatthetrialcourterredin failingtoordera x*%* fairalternativesentenceandfailingtograntprobation.#X~XXX~[#X~XXX~Asthetrialcourt D,', recognized,thedefendantispresumedtobeafavorablecandidateforalternativesentencing,absenceevidencetothecontrary.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. /,+0 40-35-102(6).#X~XXX~\#X~XXX~Findingthispresumptionpartially,butnotfully,rebutted,thetr~hai~hhiahl 1,2 courtgrantedsupervisedprobationafteroneyearsconfinementoncountoneandgrantedfullprobationoncountstwoandthree.#X~XXX~]#X~XXX~ԀThedefendantcomplains @506 that [t]hisisnotalternativesentencingasenvisionedbythelegislature.Wedisagree.Thiscomplaintis#X~XXX~^#X~XXX~withoutmerit. 8(4: Ї #X~XXX~_#X~XXX~Nevertheless,weexaminethetrialcourtsimpositionofaperiodof  confinement.Thetrialcourtjustifiedconfinementas necessarytoavoiddepreciatingtheseriousnessoftheoffense.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035103(1)(B).#X~XXX~T`#X~XXX~Towarrantconfinementonthisbasis, thecircumstancesofthe  d offenseascommittedmustbeespeciallyviolent,horrifying,shocking,reprehensible,offensiveorotherwiseofanexcessiveorexaggerateddegree,andthenatureoftheoffensemustoutweighallfactorsfavoringasentenceotherthatconfinement.Statev.Bingham,910S.W.2dat454(quotingStatev. D  Hartley,818S.W.2d370,374-75(Tenn.Crim.App.1991)).Thatdeaths ` occurredisnotitselfsufficienttowarrantsuchafinding.However,theevidenceshowedthatthedefendantsspeedwasgrosslyexcessiveinausuallycongestedarea,thathedidnotevenattempttobrake,andthathecursedthesurvivingvictimattheaccidentsceneandcontinuedtodemonstrateindifference,ifnotdetest,forthevictimsandtheirfamiliesthroughout.Thetrialcourtdulynotedthedefendantsyouth;lackofcriminalrecord;andcurrent,thoughunstable,employmentstatusbutfoundthatthecircumstanceofthedefendantsoffensesoutweighedtheseconsiderations.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfinding.#X~XXX~a#X~XXX~ <#"  Astothedenialoffullprobation,thesesameconsiderationsapply.Inaddition,adefendantslackoftruthfulnessorcandorreflectsnegativelyonthedefendantspotentialforrehabilitationandisthus,anappropriateconsideration.Statev.Dowdy,894S.W.2d301,306(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).Thetrialcourt 8,', foundthatthe#X~XXX~f#X~XXX~defendantdemonstratedlackofcandorinthatheoften .T). convenientlyforgotorcontradictedhimselfwhentestifyingtomattersthatmightbenegativetohim.#X~XXX~ch#X~XXX~ԀWefindthattheevidencesupportsthetrialcourt'sfindings. 1,2 Thisissueiswithoutmerit#X~XXX~Wi#X~XXX~.#X~XXX~ j#X~XXX~Ԁ h3.4 #X~XXX~Lj#X~XXX~ #X~XXX~j#X~XXX~Finally,althoughweaffirmthetrialcourtsimpositionofaperiodof 7P28 confinement,weobservethattheimposedoneyeartermwouldexceedtheterm 84: thatthedefendantwouldservepriortoreleaseeligibilityonafullconfinementtwoyearsentence.AsthisCourtrecentlyexplainedinStatev.JohnW.Hill,No. | 01C019802CC00072(Tenn.Crim.App.filedFeb.25,1999,atNashville),afelonyoffenderwhoissentencedtooneormorenonconsecutivetermsoftwoyearsorlessmaynotbesentencedtoaperiodofconfinementinexcessofthereleaseeligibilityonasentenceoffullconfinement.Id.(citingTenn.CodeAnn.    4035501(a)(3);306(a);102(5)(6)).Therefore,wemodifythedefendantssentencetoreducehisperiodofconfinementtotwohundredandnineteendays,dayforday,andtobeginsupervisedprobationattheexpirationofthattime.̀  ,   CONCLUSION   o Thesentencebelowismodifiedtoreducethedefendantsperiodofconfinementtotwohundredandnineteendays,dayforday.Wefurtherorderthatallsentencesshallrunconcurrently.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisinallotherrespectsaffirmed.#X~XXX~j#Ӏ QDD/D |!   QDD/D QD_____________________________ 4 4 D   JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JudgezpCONCUR:X~XXX~_____________________________DAVIDG.HAYES,Judge#X~XXX~q# .F*/ q_____________________________JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,Judge