ÿWPC  …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ ø 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh U,Ý 0d  D3m B  0@½U,ýU >)U*gB)‘DCº AMý!J,kf—ýv~vÓ” AOgƶ 0D| D/À Bï˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- F[GHEIPJEKPLMPQÓ€Ô¡¨ Ö3|xZ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô # ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ++++'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd€-4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌJuly€5,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ôÔAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€this€witness€was€listed€as€Trooper€ð ðOrvinðð€Hall.Ì \Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ôÔÔ€2ÔTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„120€was€repealed,€effective€May€10,€1995,€andÏà àis€now€à àfound€at€section€40„30„213.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ôÔÔ€2ÔThe€Agreed€Order€in€this€case€is€problematic€and€procedurally€flawed.€€We€note€that€although€à0 àtheÏDefendant€may€have€been€free€to€enter€into€such€an€agreement€with€the€State,€the€correct€route€for€theÏDefendant€would€have€been€to€follow€the€procedures€outlined€in€section€40„30„120€to€bring€the€directÏappeal.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÓ&€00X„d&ÓÑ#€00Xd#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€1ŠÔÔ€2ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€65XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€564;+'h|` ç `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLE›ÌÌœFEBRUARY›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ïœ01C01„9506„CC„00177›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœMAURY›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œJIM€T.€HAMILTONó ó›Ìò òœMICHAEL€PARKS,€€€€€ó ó€€€€›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌò òœa/k/a€PAC€MAN,ó ó›à àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àœ€€€€€€€€€€›à àà àà àœò ò)à àó ó(Sentencing)ò ò›Ìó óœà àAppellant.à àà à€à àò ò)ó ó›ÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCIRCUIT›€COURT€OF€œMAURY€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœDANIEL€L.€MURPHY›à àà àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌP.O.€Box€90à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌColumbia,€TN€38402„0090Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRENEE€F.€VIDELEFSKYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMIKE€BOTTOMSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€459Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLawrenceburg,€TN€38464›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€2°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€2ŠÔÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àThe€Defendant,€Michael€D.€Parks,€was€granted€this€delayed€appeal€byÏthe€trial€court€to€seek€review€of€the€denial€of€his€request€for€œa€community›Ïœcorrections€sentence.›€€The€Defendant€was€indicted€on€four€counts€of€the€sale€ofÏcocaine,€was€convicted€by€jury€trial€in€one€count,€and€pleaded€guilty€to€theÏremaining€three€counts.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€he€asked€to€be€consideredÏas€a€candidate€for€community€corrections.€€The€trial€court€denied€this€request,€andÏthe€Defendant€now€brings€this€delayed€appeal.€€œWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.›ÌÌà àWe€will€briefly€address€the€facts€of€this€case.€€The€Defendant€owned€andÏoperated€a€night€club€called€ð ðSweet€Daddyððs,ðð€in€Columbia,€Tennessee€forÏabout€one€year.€€During€this€time,€specifically€from€June€through€September€ofÏ1991,€the€œlocal€drug›€œtask›€œforce›€ran€an€undercover€drug€operation€in€the€areaÏwhere€Sweet€Daddyððs€was€located.ÌÌà àAt€the€trial€in€this€matter,€Trooper€Quinn€Erving€Hallœ× ƒ7 ××  ×›,€an€undercover€officerÏwith€the€narcotics€division,€testified€that€he€bought€cocaine€from€severalÍindividuals€inside€the€club€and€that€he€bought€cocaine€from€the€Defendant€fourÏtimes.€€Hall€testified€that€because€of€the€competitiveness€among€the€cocaineÏdealers,€the€Defendant€instructed€him€not€to€buy€from€any€other€dealer.ÌÌà àTwo€other€law€enforcement€officers,€Officer€Bill€Doley€and€Trooper€JohnÏAlbertson,€also€worked€the€areas€surrounding€the€bar,€generally€the€corners€ofÏNinth€and€Glade€and€œEighth›€and€Woodside.€€Officer€Doley€testified€that€the€drugÏtask€force€made€thirty€arrests€for€drugs€in€the€area,€sixteen€of€which€were€madeÏin€front€of€Sweet€Daddyððs.€ÌÌà àTrooper€Albertson,€as€a€member€of€the€narcotics€division€of€theÏTennessee€Highway€Patrol,€testified€that€he€worked€the€Defendantððs€night€club.€ÏHe€said€that€he€usually€worked€with€an€informant.€€The€informant€would€go€intoÏthe€night€club,€find€a€dealer,€and€return€to€where€the€trooper€was€waiting€in€theÏcar.€€Albertson€would€then€drive€the€dealer€around€the€block€and€buy€cocaineÏfrom€him.€€He€also€testified€that€he€saw€other€drug€deals€taking€place€outside€ofÏthe€club€in€a€parking€lot€across€the€street.€€Although€he€never€purchased€drugsÏfrom€the€Defendant,€Officer€Albertsonððs€undercover€work€resulted€in€the€arrest€ofÏeight€people€charged€with€fifteen€crimes.ÌÌà àOn€April€21,€1992,€the€Defendant€was€indicted€by€the€Maury€CountyÏGrand€Jury€on€four€counts€of€selling€cocaine.€€A€misdemeanor€theft€charge€wasÏlater€dismissed€by€the€prosecution€when€the€Defendant€agreed€to€forfeit€theÏweapon€involved.€€The€Defendant€was€tried€on€August€26,€1992€for€one€countÏof€the€sale€of€cocaine.€€The€jury€found€him€guilty€on€this€charge€and€fined€himÏ$50,000.€€The€Defendant€subsequently€pleaded€guilty€to€the€remaining€threeÏœcounts.€€In€exchange€for€his€guilty€pleas,€the€State€agreed€to€recommend€theÏlength€of€the€sentences€to€be€served.›€€ÌÌà àOn€February€12,€1993,€the€court€held€a€sentencing€hearing€andÏsentenced€the€Defendant€œto€the€following€terms€recommended€by€the€State:›€ForÏcase€number€7317,€the€jury€trial€conviction,€the€Defendant€was€ordered€to€serveÏeleven€years€imprisonment.€€In€case€number€7315,€he€was€ordered€to€serve€fiveÏyears€imprisonment€and€fined€$2,000.€€In€case€number€7316,€he€was€ordered€toÏserve€eight€years€imprisonment€and€fined€$2,000.€€For€case€number€7318,€heÏwas€ordered€to€serve€eight€years€imprisonment€and€fined€$2,000.€€The€courtÏordered€the€eight„year€sentence€and€the€eleven„year€sentence€to€be€servedÏconsecutively,€for€an€effective€term€of€nineteen€œyears.€€The›€other€two€sentencesÏwere€to€be€concurrently€served€with€the€eleven„year€œsentence.€€The€DefendantÏagreed€to€the€recommended€sentences.›€€ÌÌà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€Defendant€requested€that€he€be€consideredÏfor€community€corrections.€€The€prosecution€called€the€three€law€enforcementÏofficers€mentioned€above€as€witnesses€at€the€hearing.€€The€Defendant€was€theÏsole€witness€for€the€defense.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€that€he€knew€that€cocaine€was€being€sold€in€andÏaround€his€night€club,€but€that€he€could€do€nothing€to€stop€œit.›€€At€trial,€theÏDefendant€denied€ever€having€sold€cocaine€to€Trooper€Hall;€however,€at€theÏsentencing€hearing,€he€admitted€that€he€sold€cocaine€to€the€officer,€gave€theÏofficer€his€beeper€number,€and€told€the€officer€to€buy€only€from€him.€€TheÏDefendant€further€admitted€to€having€used€and€sold€œcocaine€on€other€occasions.›ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€that€he€wanted€to€serve€his€sentence€inÏcommunity€corrections€because€he€had€two€children€that€he€œwanted›€to€support.€ÏHe€said€that€he€wanted€to€get€a€college€education€and€start€a€career€in€theÏconcrete€business€and€eventually€learn€blueprinting.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€denied€the€Defendantððs€request€for€community€corrections.€ÏAs€a€basis€for€his€denial,€the€court€stated€that€the€Defendant€was€a€role€modelÏfor€many€of€the€black€youths€in€the€area€who€subsequently€were€serving€time€inÏjail€for€drug€charges.€€The€trial€œcourt€also›€noted€the€need€for€œdeterrence,›€œstating›Íthat€it€could€not€grant€community€corrections€because€of€the€large€volume€ofÏcocaine€sales€going€on€in€the€vicinity€of€the€Defendantððs€club.€€The€court€didÏallow€the€Defendant€to€be€placed€in€a€facility€that€had€œresources›€from€which€heÏcould€pursue€a€higher€education.€€The€Defendant€now€appeals€the€trial€courtððsÏdenial€of€a€community€corrections€sentence.Ìà àÌà àAlthough€the€Defendantððs€sole€issue€for€our€review€is€the€denial€ofÏcommunity€corrections,€the€State€also€argues€that€this€appeal€was€not€timelyÏfiled€and€is€not€properly€before€this€court.€€œWe€are€persuaded€to›€œdisagree.›ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€sentenced€on€the€four€drug€convictions€on€FebruaryÏ12,€1993,€and€the€judgment€in€the€case€was€filed€on€February€16,€1993.€ÏApparently,€the€Defendant€did€not€attempt€to€file€any€direct€appeal€after€theÏjudgment€was€entered.€€On€September€7,€1994,€more€than€a€year€and€a€halfÏlater,€the€Defendant€filed€a€pro€se€œð ðMotion›€to€Correct€œJudgment.ððÌÌà àHowever,€the›€œDefendant€had€also›€filed€a€post„conviction€relief€petition€œonÏMay€13,€1993,€alleging›€that€his€pleas€were€not€voluntarily€given,€that€he€wasÏunconstitutionally€denied€an€appeal€of€his€conviction€and€sentence€from€the€juryÏverdict,€and€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€DefendantÏand€the€district€attorney€then€œentered€into€an›€agreement€wherein€the€DefendantÍwould€dismiss€the€post„conviction€petition€with€prejudice,€and€in€return,€the€districtÏattorney€would€allow€the€Defendant€to€œpursue›€a€delayed€appeal€in€the€caseÏòòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€for€œthe€sole›€purpose€of€challenging€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€communityÏcorrections.€€The€Agreed€Order€between€the€district€attorney€and€the€DefendantÏwas€approved€by€the€Maury€County€Circuit€Court€on€March€3,€1995.€€OnÏMarch€31,€1995,€the€Defendant€filed€a€Notice€of€Appeal.€€On€June€7,€1995,€theÏtrial€court€issued€a€final€order€dismissing€the€Defendantððs€Motion€to€CorrectÏJudgment€and€granted€the€Defendant€a€delayed€appeal.€€€ÌÌà àWe€œmust€conclude›€that€the€delayed€appeal€was€incorrectly€obtained€byÏthe€Defendant€through€the€Agreed€Order.€€A€delayed€appeal€is€authorized€byÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„120œ× ƒ8 ××  ×›€if€the€petitioner€was€improperlyÏdenied€the€right€to€appeal€his€original€conviction€in€violation€of€the€United€StatesÏor€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€However,€to€obtain€a€delayed€appeal,€theÏpetitioner€must€comply€with€the€procedures€of€the€œPost„conviction›€œProcedure›€œAct.›€ÏòòHandley€v.€Stateóó,€889€S.W.2d€223,€224€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1994).€€Moreover,€while€the€right€to€a€delayed€appeal€may€beÏbrought€by€post„conviction€proceedings€in€appropriate€cases,€ð ða€post„convictionÍpetition€is€not€a€vehicle€to€review€errors€as€a€substitute€for€direct€appeal.ðð€ÏòòFrench€v.€Stateóó,€824€S.W.2d€161,€163€(Tenn.€1992).€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€agreed€to€dismiss€the€post„conviction€proceeding€if€theÏdistrict€attorney€would€œagree€to€a›€delayed€appeal€in€this€case.€€The€statute€doesÏnot€in€any€way€suggest€that€this€action€œis›€permissible.€€Thus,€the€delayedÏappeal€was€improperly€granted€because€of€procedural€œerrors.Ì›Ìà àThe€State€argues€that€the€delayed€appeal€was€improper€and€the€caseÏshould€be€dismissed€because€the€Defendant€did€not€comply€with€filingÏrequirements.€€The€State€contends€that€the€Motion€to€Correct€Judgment€was€notÏfiled€with€the€œ120€day›€filing€requirement€and€could€not€toll€the€time€within€which€toÏappeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€ÌÌà àThe€record€does€not€reflect€that€the€Defendant€at€any€time€tried€to€appealÏhis€sentence€through€a€direct€œappeal;€rather€he€sought€relief€through€the€post„conviction€petition€and€the€Motion›€to€Correct€Judgment.€€Rule€35€of€the€Rules€ofÏCriminal€Procedure€allows€a€motion€to€correct€or€reduce€a€defendantððs€sentenceÏonly€if€such€a€motion€is€filed€within€120€days€after€the€date€the€sentence€isÏimposed.€€The€rule€specifically€states€that€no€extensions€shall€be€allowed€on€theÏtime€limitation,€nor€can€other€actions€toll€the€running€of€the€time€limitation.€€Tenn.€R.ÍCrim.€œP.›€35(b).€€Thus,€the€Defendantððs€motion,€filed€€more€than€a€year€and€a€halfÏafter€the€sentence€was€imposed,€was€not€timely.€€Moreover,€a€Rule€35€motion€isÏintended€only€to€allow€the€trial€court€to€modify€a€sentence€when€the€interests€ofÏjustice€demand;€the€rule€is€not€intended€to€be€a€substitute€for€direct€appeal.€ÏThus,€the€State€is€correct€in€its€assertion€that€the€motion€under€Rule€35€was€notÏtimely.€€€€€€Ìà àÌà àThe€State€also€argues€that€the€case€should€be€dismissed€because€onlyÏthe€appellate€court,€not€the€trial€court,€had€jurisdiction€to€grant€a€delayed€appeal.€ÏThe€State€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€final€order€dismissing€the€DefendantððsÏMotion€to€Correct€Judgment€and€granting€the€delayed€appeal€was€œerror›€and€thatÏan€appeal€is€not€timely€filed€when€a€òòtrialóó€òòcourtóó€waives€the€thirty„day€filingÏrequirement€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€4(a).€€We€cannotÏentirely€agree€with€the€Stateððs€assertion.€€€ÌœÌ›à àThe€Defendantððs€proper€avenue€of€relief€was€to€file€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€which€he€did.€The€trial€court€should€then€have€held€anÏevidentiary€hearing€to€determine€if€the€Defendant€was€unconstitutionally€deniedÏhis€right€to€appeal€his€sentence€or€conviction.€€If€the€evidence€had€warranted,Ïthe€trial€court€could€have€then€granted€a€delayed€appeal.€€The€Defendant€wouldÏsubsequently€have€been€free€to€enter€œinto€the›€agreement€with€the€State€in€whichÍhe€agreed€to€œdrop€any€remaining€grounds€in›€his€post„conviction€relief€petition€inÏexchange€for€pursuing€the€delayed€appeal.œ× ƒ9 ××  ×›ÌÌà àœAlthough€the›€delayed€appeal€appears€to€have€been€improperly€œgranted,Ïfairness€dictates€that€we€consider€the€merits€of€the€appeal.›€€œThe›€DefendantððsÏoriginal€post„conviction€petition€was€dismissed€with€prejudice,€thereby€precludingÏhim€from€seeking€a€remedy€under€the€post„conviction€act.€€Moreover,€the€statuteÏof€limitations€has€now€expired,€and€the€Defendant€œwould€apparently€be›€time„barred€from€œproceeding€with›€œanother›€post„conviction€relief€petition.€€Thus,€theÏDefendant€œcould€be›€left€without€a€remedy.ÌÌà àThe€State€agreed€to€allow€the€Defendant€to€have€a€delayed€appeal,€if€heÏwould€dismiss€the€post„conviction€œpetition.€€The€post„conviction€petition,›€ifÏsuccessful,€was€the€only€avenue€œto€obtain›€a€delayed€appeal.€€For€the€State€toÏnow€cry€that€the€delayed€appeal€is€improper€and€preclude€the€Defendant€fromÏbringing€his€claim€on€the€merits€is€œsimply€unfair.›ÌÌà àWe€are€not€concluding€that€delayed€appeals€œshould€normally›€be€grantedÏwhen€a€petitioner€does€not€comply€with€the€procedures€clearly€outlined€in€theÏpost„conviction€act.€€However,€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€Defendant€hasÏœsuffered›€œprejudice€because€of€the€Stateððs€change€of€position.›€€The€StateÏspecifically€agreed€to€allow€the€Defendant€to€pursue€a€delayed€appeal;€itÏcannot€œnow€seek€to›€rescind€that€agreement€by€arguing€that€the€delayed€appealÏis€not€properly€before€this€court€and€asking€for€a€dismissal.ÌÌà àThe€Agreed€Order€allowing€the€œDefendant€to€appeal›€was€filed€on€MarchÏ3,€1995.€€The€granting€of€a€delayed€appeal€by€the€œtrial›€œcourt›€triggers€the€thirty„day€period€for€filing€a€Notice€of€Appeal.€€òòState€v.€Cordellóó,€645€S.W.2d€763,€765Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€The€Defendant€filed€a€Notice€of€Appeal€within€theÏthirty„day€time€limit,€on€March€31,€1995.€€Thus,€notwithstanding€the€fact€that€theÏdelayed€appeal€came€about€through€a€œtechnical€and€procedural›€œoddity,›€we€willÏaddress€this€Defendantððs€claim€on€the€merits.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€requested€that€the€trial€court€sentence€him€to€communityÏcorrections,€which€the€trial€court€denied.€€When€an€accused€challenges€theÏlength,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€toÏconduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€theÏdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€1ÔððÔ€2Ô€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€theÏrecord€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevantÏfacts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌÓ ` °œXÓà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€Ï(a)€€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€1Ôðððð€Ô€2Ô40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1991).›ÌÌà àIn€denying€the€request€for€community€corrections,€the€trial€court€cited€theÏneed€for€a€deterrent€effect€upon€the€rampant€drug€activity€in€and€around€theÏDefendantððs€business.€€The€court€also€noted€that€the€Defendant€had€held€aÏplace€of€high€esteem€among€the€youths€in€his€community,€served€as€a€roleÏmodel€for€them,€and€since€had€become€a€negative€influence.€€Because€of€hisÏrole€as€a€leader€in€the€community€and€the€need€for€establishing€a€deterrent€toÏothers€in€an€area€where€drug€sales€are€frequent,€the€court€concluded€that€aÏsentence€of€confinement€was€necessary€and€appropriate€in€the€DefendantððsÏcase.ÌÌà àThe€Community€Corrections€Act€allows€certain€eligible€offenders€toÏparticipate€in€community„based€alternatives€to€incarceration.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ€1ÔÏÔ€2Ô40„36„103.€€A€defendant€is€eligible€for€participation€in€a€community€correctionsÏprogram€if€he€satisfies€several€minimum€eligibility€criteria€set€forth€at€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„36„106(a).Ô€2XÔÌÌà àÔ€2ŠÔHowever,€even€though€an€offender€might€meet€the€requirements€ofÏeligibility,€the€Act€does€not€provide€that€the€offender€is€automatically€entitled€toÏsuch€relief.€€òòState€v.€Grandberryóó,€803€S.W.2d€706,€707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);ÏòòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Rather,€theÏstatute€provides€that€the€criteria€shall€be€interpreted€as€minimum€standards€toÍguide€a€trial€courtððs€determination€of€whether€that€offender€is€eligible€forÏcommunity€corrections.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(d).ÌÔ€2XÔÌà àÔ€2ŠÔA€trial€courtððs€determinations€must€also€be€guided€by€the€sentencingÏconsiderations€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103.€ÏThese€considerations€include€the€need€to€protect€society€by€restraining€aÏdefendant€having€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct,€whether€confinement€isÏparticularly€appropriate€to€effectively€deter€others€likely€to€commit€a€similarÏoffense,€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€andÏœcases€in€which›€less€restrictive€measures€have€often€or€recently€beenÏunsuccessfully€applied€to€the€Defendant.€€€€€€€œÌ›Ìà àIn€reviewing€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€of€correctness,€we€concludeÏthat€the€trial€judge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€the€DefendantððsÏrequest€for€community€corrections.€€The€trial€courtððs€determination€that€theÏDefendant€was€not€entitled€to€alternative€sentencing€is€supported€by€severalÏfactors.€€First,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony€in€the€jury€trial.€ÏThus,€he€is€not€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€that€he€is€a€favorableÏcandidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ô€2XÔ€ððÔ€2ŠÔ€40„35„102(6).€€€ÌÌà àAdditionally,€the€Defendant€was€not€candid€with€the€court€and€admittedlyÏlied€while€under€oath€at€trial,€saying€that€he€was€not€a€drug€dealer.€€He€claimedÏthat€he€did€not€sell€drugs€and€that€he€was€entrapped€by€the€police.€€He€madeÏthe€same€type€of€statement€for€the€presentence€report,€claiming€that€he€wasÏentrapped€and€that€he€was€operating€a€sports€bar€which€kept€the€people€ofÏthe€community€off€the€streets.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€DefendantÏrecanted€his€earlier€claims€of€entrapment€and€appeared€to€accept€responsibilityÏfor€his€actions.€€He€stated€that€he€sold€drugs€because€his€job€did€not€provideÏenough€money€to€buy€nice€things€like€the€other€people€in€the€community€had.€€€€€ÏÌÌà àFinally,€the€œDefendant€did€not€enter€into€a€blind€plea,€but€rather›€agreed€toÏeach€of€the€recommended€sentences€for€€the€four€convictions.€€He€understoodÏthat€the€effective€sentence€was€nineteen€years.€€He€does€not€contest€the€lengthÏof€the€sentence€or€the€imposition€of€consecutive€terms.€€Thus,€œhe›€realized€theÏlength€of€the€sentences€which€he€was€being€ordered€to€œserve€and€consented€toÏsame.›ÌÌà àA€trial€judge€has€a€certain€amount€of€discretion€in€setting€an€appropriateÏœsentence,›€and€œwhen€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€sentencing€guidelines,›€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€accompanies€œhis›€determination.€€We€conclude€thatÍthe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€sentencing€the€Defendant€to€serve€a€term€ofÏconfinement.€€œThis€court€should€not€place€trial€judges€in€a€judicial€straight„jacket€inÏthe€area€of€sentencing,€and€we€should€exercise€restraint€in€interfering€with€theirÏtraditional€discretionary€powers.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€171€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€Although›€the€Defendant€apparently€meets€the€minimum€criteria€forÏeligibility€in€the€community€corrections€program,€as€we€have€previously€stated,Ïeligibility€for€the€program€does€not€mean€that€the€Defendant€is€automaticallyÏentitled€to€a€sentencing€alternative€to€incarceration.€€The€burden€is€on€theÏDefendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€was€improper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(Sentencing€Commission€Comments).€€We€œdo€not€believe›€that€theÏDefendant€has€met€that€burden.€€ÌÌà àTherefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€œdenying›€community€correctionsÏand€ordering€the€Defendant€to€serve€a€term€of€confinement€is€affirmed.Ó  ÓÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE›