ÿWPC  dg«s]mÛ³ÆX~jôiêäî€KN¹qó|B–e‚[l C?rP­¿c…@ˆ´ù3Ô‡z-Dþ½ ìˆMªM“ú÷K®§p!ꊫ t?´(›à„7Jý Týu$ m;½2+±LEÐÌwÁÇ:Þ‡>ßR>ÿǪ*]!®ñþ„ ’²¿9Ÿ4|Ø•JhÎmnô rß)Q{ùLmmØlɾÖx.K|¡Ùž´¶ÄorÐ,ÌmŒuãjþ ‰‚ÁÒs7’×Û,ëJShFÑû¯%ÿ®ÁjaË(•²vCŽfŽáL6SÉuå" Ïž^6¢5+~×ø x$t†^§­xX•-l¥Sd8ÄH''D#EÚÎl,7„kJi4è]¨Ç0UÓeü€›¶ŒyŸ8'{E½VÒ ·výJ¦7€UÁyÇ–rHOWUd«,Ñc:»œÇQ¾ÿÃä4åó¾ÝdU­C¸ôäëeÛ i·ü}y“Á¥ #ko5+ô›ùßÄëeëhSºªAk1–N¥—‚•Pb/9Pšró¢g45ü¾V»Ø` Œt}©Dv ÖGê üe«|.‹ºE¼Œ(ÜÑ£QÃùÇ0]6°‚c–†û¯'¿$Åì÷ÛŸƒNRqgõ“'‚a#!NU:o %© 0G¯wö4ú  % - N5 ^ 7 C mE E E 5\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ AQ‘ Æâ 0c¨ 0c 0Dn n D3² Bå ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(þ,$¡¡Ô€XoÌXXXÔtpO'xvwxyz{3|xcd'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ +Ý ƒ[[Ó"ÝÔ€XïÅXXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€_XXïÅÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XïÅX_ÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€19,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó óZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3[Ó$¢¢Ý ƒþ,!ÝÔ€XïÅXXXÔÝ  Ý(;3[Ó$££Ý ƒþ,!ÝÔ€XïÅXXXÔÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó````'ÿÿdxd dÝ ƒþ,!ÝÔ€XïÅXXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÒ°ÒÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  Óò òÓÓÑ8€ïÅXdædÈ8ÑÑ  Ñßx€Y_B2.jz5`  `€€@ÿEÙå` 8ttxPð È xßÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐAT€JACKSONó óÐ ˆØ Ðò òAUGUST€1999€SESSIONó óÐ `° ÐÌÓ  Óò òÓÓÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà h àà À àà  à)Ð ð @  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àò òAppelleeó ó,à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òC.C.A.€No.€02C01„9901„CR„00010ó óÐ Â  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òvsó ó.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òShelby€Countyó óÐ ”ä  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òKENNETH€PICKENS,ó óà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òHonorable€Arthur€Bennett,€Judgeó óÐ f¶  Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àó óà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð R¢ Ðà ` àà ¸ àò òAppellantó ó.à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò ò(Voluntary€Manslaughter)ó óÐ 8ˆ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌÌò òFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€FOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð ð@ Ðó óÌò òTERESA€JONESó óà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERSó óÐ Â ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÐ ®þ Ð201€Poplar€AvenueÌSecond€Floorà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òCLINTON€J.€MORGANÐ zÊ Ðó óMemphis,€TN€38103à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Counsel€for€the€StateÐ f¶ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌò òTONY€N.€BRAYTONà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ó óNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ð 2‚ ÐAssistant€Public€DefenderÌ201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€2„01€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òWILLIAM€L.€GIBBONSÐ  T Ðó óMemphis,€TN€38103à h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ ð @ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òLEE€COFFEEó óÐ ¼" ! Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Assistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€201€Poplar€AvenueÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Third€FloorÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Memphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€_____________ó óÐ Ø*(&* ÐÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÐ -à(- ÐÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÐ  4T/4 ÐÔ_ÔÓ  ÓOPINIONÐ ° ÐÌÌó óÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Kenneth€Pickens,€appeals€from€the€sentencingÐ b² Ðdetermination€of€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court.€€The€defendant€pleaded€guiltyÐ . ~ Ðto€the€Class€C€felony€of€€voluntary€manslaughter€and€agreed€to€accept€a€three„year,Ð ú J ÐRange€I€sentence,€with€the€manner€of€service€to€be€determined€by€the€courtÐ Æ   Ðfollowing€the€completion€of€the€presentence€report€and€a€sentencing€hearing.€€AfterÐ ’â  Ðthe€hearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€the€defendant€to€serve€his€three„year€sentenceÐ ^®  Ðin€incarceration.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€argues€that€he€should€have€beenÐ *z  Ðawarded€an€alternative€sentence€in€lieu€of€straight€incarceration.€€We€affirm€theÐ öF Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð Â ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€May€30,€1995,€the€defendant€and€the€victim,€Gregory€Gibson,€wereÐ Zª Ðdriving€their€respective€vehicles€on€a€street€in€the€neighborhood€in€which€they€bothÐ &v Ðlived.€€The€victim€maneuvered€his€car€to€block€the€defendantððs€truck,€exited€his€car,Ð òB Ðand€began€to€berate€the€defendant,€who€remained€inside€his€truck.€€The€victimÐ ¾ Ðthreatened€and€cursed€the€defendant,€who€obtained€a€pistol€from€inside€his€truckÐ Š Ú Ðand€shot€the€victim€at€point€blank€range.€€The€defendant€then€left€the€scene€byÐ V"¦! Ðdriving€his€truck€through€an€opening€between€the€victimððs€car€and€another€vehicleÐ "$r# Ðwhich€was€so€narrow€that€the€defendant€scratched€the€side€of€his€truck.€€At€theÐ î%>!% Ðsame€time,€the€victim€ran€around€his€car.€€After€the€defendant€left€the€scene,€theÐ º' #' Ðvictim€fell€to€the€ground€and€died€of€his€wounds.€€The€defendant€surrendered€himselfÐ †)Ö$) Ðapproximately€two€hours€later.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€testifiedÐ R+¢&+ Ðthat€the€victim€waived€a€pistol€at€him;€however,€the€defendantððs€passenger€and€aÐ -n(- Ðsecond€person€who€witnessed€the€shooting€from€the€adjacent€sidewalk€both€gaveÐ ê.:*/ Ðstatements€in€which€they€said€that€the€victim€had€no€weapon.€€No€weapon€wasÐ ¶0,1 Ðrecovered€from€the€scene.€€Ð ‚2Ò-3 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€time€of€the€shooting,€the€defendant€was€thirty€years€of€age€andÐ 6j17 Ðwas€operating€a€landscaping€business€in€Shelby€County.€€He€had€recently€beenÐ æ7639 Ðhonorably€discharged€from€the€U.S.€Army€after€completing€ten€years€of€militaryÐ ²95; Ðservice.€€His€criminal€record€consisted€only€of€a€1992€military€conviction€forÐ ° Ðdisobeying€a€lawful€order,€but€his€separation€from€the€service€reflects€that€it€wasÐ |Ì Ðbased€upon€alcohol€abuse€and€ð ðrehabilitation€failure.ðð€€At€the€time€of€sentencing,€theÐ H˜ Ðdefendant€received€a€veteranððs€disability€payment€of€$400€per€month.€€He€residedÐ  d Ðwith€his€wife€and€two€children,€whom€he€supported.€€Ð à 0 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€evidence€before€the€sentencing€court€consisted€of€the€pleaÐ xÈ  Ðsubmission€proceedings,€the€presentence€report€and€the€defendantððs€testimony.€Ð D”  ÐThe€court€expressed€concern€about€the€defendantððs€credibility€in€view€of€hisÐ ` Ðtestimony€the€victim€had€a€pistol€€and€that€the€victim€had€blocked€the€defendantððsÐ Ü, Ðvehicle€so€that€it€was€impossible€for€him€to€drive€away.€€The€trial€judge€said,€ð ðTheÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€believes€that€you€told€the€untruth€[sic]€throughout€your€testimony€here.€€AndÐ tÄ Ðthatððs€grave€when€youððre€asking€the€court€to€grant€the€relief€that€youððre€asking€.€.€.Ð @ Ð.ðð€€Additionally,€the€court€expressed€its€concern€about€the€gravity€of€the€offense,Ð  \ Ðwhere€the€defendant€took€a€life€that€he€ð ðdidnððt€have€to€take,ðð€and€the€court€found€thatÐ Ø( Ðgranting€probation€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€Specifically,Ð ¤ô Ðthe€court€found€that€the€defendant€did€ð ðnot€deserve€probation€at€this€time,€becauseÐ p!À  Ðof€the€fact€that€[the€defendant€feels]€it€necessary€to€not€come€clean€and€tell€theÐ <#Œ" Ðentire€truth€on€the€matter€and€the€serious€nature€of€the€matter.ðð€€Ð %X $ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àInitially,€we€respond€to€the€stateððs€argument,€set€forth€in€its€brief,€thatÐ  (ð#( Ðthis€court€is€without€jurisdiction€to€entertain€the€appeal€because€the€appeal€wasÐ l*¼%* Ðuntimely€and€is€moot.€€This€argument€apparently€stems€from€the€somewhatÐ 8,ˆ', Ðanomalous€appearance€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€The€guilty€plea€was€submittedÐ .T). Ðand€accepted€by€the€court€on€March€24,€1998.€€Also€on€that€date,€the€defendant,€hisÐ Ð/ +0 Ðattorney,€and€the€Assistant€Attorney€General€executed€a€ð ðnegotiated€pleaÐ œ1ì,2 Ðagreementðð€which€indicated€that€the€defendant€pleaded€guilty€to€voluntaryÐ h3¸.4 Ðmanslaughter€upon€the€stateððs€recommendation€of€a€three„year,€Range€I€sentence,Ð 45„06 Ðwith€the€provision€that€ð ðsuspension€of€the€defendantððs€sentence€is€.€.€.€[t]o€beÐ 7P28 Ðdetermined€by€the€court,€after€a€hearing.€.€.€.€A€presentence€report€is€.€.€.Ð Ì84: Ð[r]equested.ðð€€On€the€same€date,€the€court€entered€an€order€accepting€the€guiltyÐ ° Ðplea.€€A€presentence€report€was€prepared€on€April€28,€1998€and€was€filed€with€theÐ |Ì Ðcourt€sometime€thereafter.€€The€technical€record€contains€an€excerpt€from€the€trialÐ H˜ Ðcourtððs€minutes€which€reflects€that,€on€December€15,€1998,€the€trial€court€conductedÐ  d Ða€sentencing€hearing€in€order€to€consider€the€defendantððs€request€for€probation€andÐ à 0 Ðdenied€the€request.€€Next€appearing€in€the€technical€record€is€a€standard„formÐ ¬ ü  Ðð ðjudgment.ðð€€It€bears€no€clerkððs€stamp€showing€the€filing€date.€€It€reflects€that€theÐ xÈ  Ðplea€was€entered€on€March€24,€1998€and€that€the€sentence€was€imposed€onÐ D”  ÐDecember€15,€1998.€€It€reflects€a€handwritten€notation€that€says,€ð ðjudgment€exec.Ð ` Ð12„15„98,ðð€but€the€blank€for€the€date€of€entry€of€the€judgment€is€filled€in€to€read€ð ð3„Ð Ü, Ð24„98.ðð€€In€the€absence€of€a€filing€stamp,€this€latter€entry€makes€it€appear€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðjudgment€may€have€been€entered€on€March€24,€1998,€despite€the€fact€that€the€faceÐ tÄ Ðof€the€judgment€shows€that€sentencing€did€not€occur€until€December€15,€1998.€€Ð @ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€decline€to€dismiss€the€defendantððs€appeal€because€of€mootnessÐ Ø( Ðor€untimeliness€of€the€appeal.€€It€is€clear€from€the€plea€submission€documents€thatÐ ¤ô Ðthe€negotiated€plea€embraced€the€length€and€range€of€the€sentence€with€theÐ p!À  Ðquestion€of€alternative€sentencing€being€reserved€for€determination€by€the€trial€courtÐ <#Œ" Ðafter€the€completion€of€a€presentence€report€and€a€sentencing€hearing.€€The€dateÐ %X $ Ðof€the€filing€of€the€judgment€is€at€best€ambiguous,€but€given€the€facts€that€the€partiesÐ Ô&$"& Ðintended€a€sentencing€determination€to€be€made€after€March€24,€1998,€aÐ  (ð#( Ðpresentence€report€was€generated,€a€sentencing€hearing€was€conducted,€and€theÐ l*¼%* Ðjudgment€form€reflects€that€the€sentence€was€actually€imposed€on€December€15,Ð 8,ˆ', Ð1998,€we€deem€the€judgment€to€have€been€filed€on€the€latter€date.€€The€result€is€thatÐ .T). Ðthe€December€17,€1998€filing€of€the€notice€of€appeal€effected€a€timely€appeal€to€thisÐ Ð/ +0 Ðcourt.€€Ð œ1ì,2 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€now€consider€the€defendantððs€claim€that€the€trial€court€erroneouslyÐ 45„06 Ðimposed€a€sentence€of€incarceration.€€Ð 7P28 ÐÐ Ì84: Ðà ` àà ¸ àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÐ ° Ðof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€recordÐ |Ì Ðwith€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€Ð H˜ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÐ  d Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÐ à 0 Ðprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÐ ¬ ü  Ð166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðThe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€isÐ xÈ  Ðupon€the€appellant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€In€the€event€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€the€requiredÐ D”  Ðconsideration€by€the€trial€court,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòIdóó.€IfÐ ` Ðappellate€review€reflects€the€trial€court€properly€considered€all€relevant€factors€andÐ Ü, Ðits€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€this€court€must€affirm€theÐ ¨ø Ðsentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð @ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€theÐ Ø( Ðð ðconclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearingðð€and€after€determining€the€range€of€sentenceÐ ¤ô Ðand€the€specific€sentence,€€then€determines€the€propriety€of€sentencing€alternativesÐ p!À  Ðby€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencingÐ <#Œ" Ðhearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€argumentsÐ %X $ Ðas€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminalÐ Ô&$"& Ðconduct€involved;€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÐ  (ð#( Ðenhancement€and€mitigating€factors;€(6)€any€statements€the€defendant€wishes€toÐ l*¼%* Ðmake€in€the€defendantððs€behalf€about€sentencing;€and€(7)€the€potential€forÐ 8,ˆ', Ðrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210(a),€(b)€(1997);€Tenn.€CodeÐ .T). ÐAnn.€ðð40„35„103(5)(1990);€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ð/ +0 Ð1993).Ð œ1ì,2 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àA€defendant€who€ð ðis€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offenderÐ 45„06 Ðconvicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€forÐ 7P28 Ðalternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€Tenn.Ð Ì84: ÐCode€Ann.€ðð40„35„102(6)€(1997).€€Our€sentencing€law€also€provides€that€ð ðconvictedÐ ° Ðfelons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminal€histories€evincingÐ |Ì Ða€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€pastÐ H˜ Ðefforts€at€rehabilitation,€shall€be€given€first€priority€regarding€sentences€involvingÐ  d Ðincarceration.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„102(5)€(1997).€€Thus,€a€defendant€whoÐ à 0 Ðmeets€the€above€criteria€is€presumed€eligible€for€alternative€sentencing€unlessÐ ¬ ü  Ðsufficient€evidence€rebuts€the€presumption.€€However,€the€act€does€not€provide€thatÐ xÈ  Ðall€offenders€who€meet€the€criteria€are€entitled€to€such€relief;€rather,€it€requires€thatÐ D”  Ðsentencing€issues€be€determined€by€the€facts€and€circumstances€presented€in€eachÐ ` Ðcase.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ð Ü, ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€is€clearly€eligible€for€alternative€sentencing€in€general,Ð tÄ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5),€(6)€(1997),€but,€having€committed€a€violentÐ @ Ðoffense,€he€not€eligible€for€placement€in€a€community€corrections€program.€€Tenn.Ð  \ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(a)(2),€(3)€(1997).€€The€remaining€possibility€for€alternativeÐ Ø( Ðsentencing€would€involve€some€form€of€probation.€€òòSeeóóòògenerallyóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ¤ô Ððð€40„35„104€(1997).€€The€defendant€is€eligible€for€probation€as€an€alternative€toÐ p!À  Ðconfinement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(1997).€€The€court€is€required€toÐ <#Œ" Ðautomatically€consider€probation€an€a€ð ðpart€of€the€sentencing€determination€at€theÐ %X $ Ðconclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€(1997).€Ð Ô&$"& ÐMoreover,€the€defendant€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternativeÐ  (ð#( Ðsentencing,€but€the€presumption€of€suitability€for€alternatives€to€confinement€may€beÐ l*¼%* Ðovercome€by€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6);€„103(1)Ð 8,ˆ', Ð(1997).€€The€burden€rests€with€the€defendant€to€show€that€he€should€be€placed€onÐ .T). Ðprobation.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð Ð/ +0 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àOur€analysis€of€the€appropriateness€of€alternative€sentencing€includesÐ h3¸.4 Ðconsideration€of€the€factors€enumerated€in€code€sections€40„35„210(b)€and€„103(5).€Ð 45„06 ÐOne€of€these€considerations€is€the€ð ðnature€and€circumstances€of€the€criminalÐ 7P28 Ðconduct€involved.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(4)€(1997);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÐ Ì84: Ðat€169.€€In€addition,€we€utilize€the€considerations€for€ordering€confinement€thatÐ ° Ðappear€in€section€40„35„103(1).€€One€of€these€is€semantically€linked€to€the€natureÐ |Ì Ðand€circumstances€of€the€offense.€€It€is€the€consideration€that€confinement€may€beÐ H˜ Ðordered€when€it€is€ð ðnecessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.ðð€Ð  d ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€(1997).Ð à 0 Ѐ€Ð ¬ ü  Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€nexus€between€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense€andÐ xÈ  Ðsentencing€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€is€well€recognized.Ð D”  ÐòòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€375€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€nature€andÐ ` Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€may€serve€as€the€òòsoleóó€basis€for€denying€probationÐ Ü, Ðwhen€the€acts€are€ð ðespecially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensiveÐ ¨ø Ðor€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree;€and€it€would€have€to€be€clearÐ tÄ Ðthat,€therefore,€the€nature€of€the€offense,€as€committed,€outweighed€all€other€factors.Ð @ Ð.€.€€which€might€be€favorable€to€a€grant€of€probation.ðð€€òòState€v.€Travisóó,€622€S.W.2dÐ  \ Ð529,€534€(Tenn.€1981);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Cleavoróó,€691€S.W.2d€541,€543€(Tenn.Ð Ø( Ð1985).€€ð ðThis€standard€has€essentially€been€codified€in€the€first€part€of€T.C.A.Ð ¤ô ÐSection€40„35„103(1)(B)€which€provides€for€confinement€if€it€is€necessary€to€avoidÐ p!À  Ðdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.ðð€€òòHartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€at€375.€€Thus,Ð <#Œ" Ðthe€òòTravisóó€qualifiers€appear€under€the€first€clause€of€section€40„35„103(1)(B)€toÐ %X $ Ðassist€the€court€in€determining€when€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousnessÐ Ô&$"& Ðof€the€offense€overcomes€the€presumption€of€suitability€for€alternative€sentencing.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€capably€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€alternativeÐ 8,ˆ', Ðsentencing€based€upon€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÐ .T). Ðoffense€is€inadequate€because€the€òòTravisóóqualifiers€do€not€apply€to€the€facts€of€hisÐ Ð/ +0 Ðcase.€€However,€we€need€not€make€this€determination€because€the€òòTravisóó€qualifiersÐ œ1ì,2 Ðapply€only€when€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€is€theÐ h3¸.4 Ðòòsoleóó€basis€for€denying€alternative€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòCleavoróó,€691€S.W.2d€atÐ 45„06 Ð543.€€In€the€present€case,€although€the€trial€court€commented€at€length€about€theÐ 7P28 Ðgravity€of€the€loss€of€the€victimððs€life,€it€consistently€linked€the€need€to€avoidÐ Ì84: Ðdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€to€the€defendantððs€lack€of€credibility.€Ð ° ÐThe€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€based€its€denial€of€alternative€sentencing,€andÐ |Ì Ðprobation€in€particular,€on€both€of€these€factors.€€The€need€to€avoid€depreciating€theÐ H˜ Ðseriousness€of€the€offense€was€not€the€sole€basis€for€the€denial€of€relief.€€Ð  d ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€probation,€the€reviewing€courtÐ ¬ ü  Ðconsiders€ð ðthe€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€theÐ xÈ  Ðdefendantððs€social€history€and€present€condition,€the€need€for€deterrence,€in€the€bestÐ D”  Ðinterest€of€the€defendant€and€the€public.ðð€€òòState€v.€Goodeóó,€956€S.W.2d€521,€527Ð ` Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€A€defendantððs€lack€of€credibility€is€an€appropriateÐ Ü, Ðconsideration€because€it€reflects€on€the€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòIdóó.;Ð ¨ø ÐòòState€v.€Chestnutóó,€643€S.W.2d€343,€353€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€expressed€substantial€concerns€about€the€defendantððsÐ  \ Ðcredibility€and,€consequently,€about€his€suitability€for€any€form€of€probation.€€The€trialÐ Ø( Ðcourtððs€concern€for€the€defendantððs€credibility€is€supported€in€the€record,€with€theÐ ¤ô Ðresult€that€we€may€not€substitute€our€inferences€and€conclusions€as€to€thisÐ p!À  Ðsentencing€determination€for€those€made€by€the€trial€court,€even€if€we€would€haveÐ <#Œ" Ðpreferred€a€different€result.€€òòFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€at€789.€€Ð %X $ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________Ð 8,ˆ', Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ -n(- ÐÌÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð œ1ì,2 ÐÌÌÌÌ______________________________Ð 6j17 ÐDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ 7P28 ÐÌÌÐ ²95; ЇÌ_____________________________Ð –æ ÐJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE