ÿWPCd …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dt w@¸ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` U,Õ 0dU,eU>‘ BÏU*ìB)DC? AM‚,Ï D3ûv~.vÓ¬ 0@ AO¿Æ 0DÔ D/ BG˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡»{s ppppdp3|x± ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó › œ  Dž Ÿ V  D¡ D¢ Ó€® ¯ 2 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< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òJune€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € Ñ›Ñ7€æ0XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ ` °œXӜـ€ÙßL€()';+'h|«ÿ` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àMARCH€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€02C01„9510„CR„00295Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€L.€TERRY€LAFFERTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE€ÌDAVID€T.€PANN,à àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€(Vehicular€Homicide€„€Sentencing)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€€ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌEdwin€C.€Lenowà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ100€North€Main€Buildingà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌNo.€2325à àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌMemphis,€Tennessee€38103à àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRobin€L.€HarrisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Atty.€Gen.€&€ReporterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKevin€R.€RardinÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àThird€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€Tennessee€38103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóà àÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÓÓœòò›Ó Ð Óà@ àOPINIONóóÌThe€appellant,€David€T.€Pann,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€judgment€of€theÏShelby€County€Criminal€Court€ordering€him€to€serve€his€three€(3)€year€sentence€forÏvehicular€homicide€in€the€Shelby€County€Correctional€Center.€The€sole€issueÏpresented€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€to€order€anÏalternative€sentence.€€ÌWe€find€that€the€appellant€is€entitled€to€an€alternative€sentence€andÏaccordingly€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€the€case€forÏresentencing.€€ÌOn€September€5,€œ1993,›€at€approximately€10:00€a.m.,€the€victim,€Albert€Emory,Ïwas€traveling€with€his€granddaughter,€Daphne€Wilson,€westbound€on€Shelby€Drive€inÏShelby€County,€Tennessee.€€The€appellant€was€traveling€on€Kirby€Parkway€andÏignored€a€stop€sign€at€the€intersection€of€Shelby€Drive€and€Kirby€Parkway.€€As€aÏresult,€the€appellant€struck€the€car€driven€by€Mr.€Emory€causing€serious€injury€to€bothÍMr.€Emory€and€Ms.€Wilson.€€Mr.€Emory€was€taken€to€the€hospital€and€died€almost€twoÏmonths€after€the€collision€as€a€result€of€pneumonia€and€septic€shock€with€auto€renalÏfailure,€all€secondary€to€the€injuries€sustained€in€the€collision.€The€appellant€admittedÏto€deputies€who€arrived€on€the€scene€of€the€accident€that€he€had€been€drinking.€ÏAdditionally,€the€appellant€had€two€six„packs€of€beer€in€his€car€at€the€time€of€theÏaccident.€€The€defendantððs€blood€alcohol€level€was€.10.€€The€appellant€pled€guilty€toÏvehicular€homicide€with€an€agreed€sentence€of€three€years.€Ì€€The€record€reveals€that€at€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing€the€appellantÏwas€twenty„seven€years€old,€had€a€high€school€degree,€and€had€been€employed€byÏthe€Walgreenððs€Drug€Company€for€the€past€ten€years.€€The€appellant€has€no€priorÏcriminal€history.€€The€Department€of€Correction€recommended€an€intensiveÏsupervision€program.€€ÌThe€trial€court€denied€any€form€of€alternative€sentencing€to€the€appellant€andÏordered€him€to€serve€his€three€(3)€year€sentence€confined€in€the€Shelby€CountyÏCorrectional€Center.€ÌWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóóÏreview€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990ÏRepl.).€€This€presumption,€however,€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€theÏrecord€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€factsÏand€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€€However,Íthe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€ÌIn€determining€an€appropriate€sentence,€the€Court€shall€consider€theÏfollowing:€€(1)any€evidence€from€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€theÏpresentence€report;€(3)the€principles€of€sentencing;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristicsÏof€the€offense;€(5)information€offered€by€the€parties€concerning€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors€as€found€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€40„35„113€andÏ114,€and€(6)€the€defendant's€statement€in€his€or€her€own€behalf€concerningÏsentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)€(1995€Supp.).€€€€€As€a€defendant€withÏno€significant€criminal€history€convicted€of€a€class€C€felony,€the€appellant€wasÏð ðpresumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.ðð€œ€Tenn.›€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„102(6)€(1995€Supp.).€€However,€this€presumption€can€be€overcome€byÏð ðevidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€òòId.óó€ÌAs€a€threshold€matter€it€is€necessary€to€address€the€trial€courtððs€statement€that€Ïalternative€sentencing€ð ðmeans€probation.ðð€€Probation€is€merely€one€of€severalÏsentencing€alternatives€to€which€a€defendant€may€be€entitled.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104€(1995€Supp.).€€The€trial€court€correctly€recognized€that€as€aÏClass€C€felon€with€no€prior€criminal€history,€the€appellant€was€presumed€to€be€aÏfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€toÏthe€contrary.€€However,€the€trial€court€was€under€the€misconception€that€in€cases€ofÍvehicular€homicide€the€presumption€for€alternative€sentencing€is€against€theÏdefendant€unless€there€is€ð ðclear€convincing€proof€on€the€record€they€[are]€fitÏcandidates.ðð€€€The€court€stated€that€€ð ðin€cases€of€violent€crimes€involving€homicides€.€.Ï.€individuals€who€ask€for€.€.€.€€probation€are€not€presumed€to€be€good€candidates€forÏalternative€sentencing,€because€of€the€very€nature€of€the€offense,€those€beingÏhomicides.ððÌIn€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€thisÏCourt€made€clear€that€the€law€of€this€State€is€that€ð ð[w]here€a€defendant€is€entitled€toÏthe€statutory€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing,€the€òòStateóó€has€the€burden€ofÏovercoming€the€presumption€with€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€(emphasis€added).ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103(1)€sets€forth€the€sentencingÏconsiderations€for€determining€whether€or€not€a€defendant€should€be€incarcerated.€€ÌEvidence€sufficient€to€overcome€the€statutory€presumption€includes€proof€ofÏthe€need€ð ðto€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€ofÏcriminal€conduct,ðð€the€need€to€ð ðavoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,ðð€Ïthe€determination€that€ð ðconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effectiveÏdeterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses,ðð€or€the€determination€thatÏð ðmeasures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€appliedÏunsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)€(1990€Repl.).€€TheÏevidence€introduced€by€the€State€established€none€of€the€above€considerations.€€ÍHowever,€the€trial€court€referred€to€two€of€the€above€considerations€when€giving€itsÏreasons€for€denying€probation.€€€The€first€of€these€was€that€because€a€death€hadÏoccurred€as€a€result€of€the€appellantððs€criminal€conduct,€to€order€probation€wouldÏdepreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€The€evidence€does€not€support€such€aÏconclusion.Ì€Inòò€State€v.€McKenzie€Monroe€Blackóó,€No.€01C01„9401„CC„00006€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€July€14,€1995),€we€held€that€ð ðin€cases€where€the€defendantÏis€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing,€the€existence€of€aÏdeath€by€itself€cannot€justify€a€sentence€of€total€confinement€under€the€provisions€ofÏthe€Sentencing€Act.ðð€€As€in€òòBlackóó,€we€understand€and€sympathize€with€the€trial€courtððsÏunwillingness€to€sentence€one€who€has€taken€the€life€of€another€to€anything€less€thanÏtotal€confinement.€€€However,€the€legislature€has€made€it€clear€that€in€the€absence€ofÏð ðevidence€to€the€contrary,ðð€€a€defendant€convicted€of€vehicular€homicide€is€presumedÏentitled€to€precisely€that.€€Accordingly,€we€are€constrained€to€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€refusal€to€order€an€alternative€sentence€on€grounds€that€the€appellantððsÏcriminal€conduct€resulted€in€a€death€was€error.€ÌThe€second€consideration€relied€upon€by€the€trial€court€in€denying€anÏalternative€sentence€was€that€full€confinement€was€necessary€to€deter€others€in€theÏcommunity€from€similar€crimes.€€The€trial€court€mentioned€that€drinking€and€driving€isÏa€problem€throughout€the€State.€€However,€the€State€introduced€no€evidence€to€thatÍeffect.€€In€order€for€general€deterrence€to€provide€a€sufficient€basis€to€overcome€theÏpresumption€for€alternative€sentencing,€there€must€be€proof€in€the€record€that€totalÏconfinement€will€have€a€deterring€effect€on€similar€crimes€in€the€community.€€òòState€v.ÏDowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€€There€is€no€evidence€in€theÏrecord€that€appellantððs€confinement€would€have€a€deterring€effect€in€the€communityÏbeyond€that€inherent€in€the€punishment€for€any€criminal€offense.€€As€in€òòDowdyóó,€theÏtrial€courtððs€comments€concerning€the€problem€of€drinking€and€driving€in€theÏcommunity€do€not€constitute€evidence.€€òòId.óó€at€œ305.€›€Accordingly,€the€need€for€generalÏdeterrence€was€an€insufficient€basis€upon€which€to€deny€an€alternative€sentence.€ÌAlthough€we€hold€that€the€appellant€was€entitled€to€an€alternative€sentence,Ïwe€do€not€hold€that€the€appellant€is€necessarily€entitled€to€full€probation.€€In€òòBinghamóó,Ïwe€recognized€that€when€determining€whether€probation€is€an€appropriateÏalternative€sentence,€€the€burden€of€proof€rests€upon€the€òòdefendantóó.€€òòId.óó€€òòSee€alsoóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€(1995€Supp.).€€€ÌThis€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€resentencing€in€accordance€withÏthe€holding€of€this€opinion.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGE