WPC) Fޑw`pTfV/OG7֐=[lsP~8Э5w .2W2FPOe6_Z$ (d|7oѺ}[-JY ?X1|9#N=|R)`vvU45 EQ\Gg% 4ݒR.b(2񵯻NQT槉`3)Schyo>tM]sb?!+ 3iRF0 e7~n.Ƿv$찅. ((BU[=Ӿ6.Õ8$Xk~Rzü,w@7*z/f4#m< L>v`p`wQO8?ѵ,|YzIUO{el]o CFj¹ ^Xy.y"-ooGSDnN 'by(mޞkt/|szOI3$TEBZ@VF %. U.4 b nXr 0P 4 . 06 0D w@ U:N ( U: B D3    0D@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ AO 0D D/ B  XdXX XXXd   Ad FILEDXdX  February8,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM  X%2A`ArialTT3|X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  uM%(D(3$ !D      0  (#$  0   EDheDDDDӀ,cAZ"Arial Regular   $D     1     +X XԀThedefendantarguesthatthisconvictionwasexpungedfromhisrecordandthereforecannot `  beusedasabasistoapplypreviouscriminalhistoryasanenhancementfactor.However,assumingthedefendantiscorrect,theconductleadingtohisarrestcouldstillbeconsideredcriminalbehaviorandthereforeajustifiablebasisforuseofthisenhancementfactorbythetrialcourt.H,cAZ"Arial Regular d$$$$'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !D   ` X  TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'TX XX X7 d XXdd7r*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP `  rߛ  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE `  @cc:;ATNASHVILLE@##6;NOVEMBER1998SESSION STATEOFTENNESSEE,   T )  p     L      T )   C.C.A.NO.01C019803CC00131  `    Appellee,  򀀀   T ) P     L      T )  MARSHALLCOUNTY  @  VS.   L      T ) 0     L      T )  HON.CHARLESLEE,   WILEYANTHONYTIPTON,   T )  JUDGE p    L      T )  Appellant.      T )  (ViolationofWorthlessCheckLaw P    L      T   OverOneThousand($1000.00) d#  @    L      T   Dollars)  0  FORTHEAPPELLANT:     T   FORTHEAPPELLEE:   GREGORYD.SMITH     T   JOHNKNOXWALKUP !`  ContractAppellateDefender   T   AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  "P  OnePublicSquare,Suite321  #@  Clarksville,TN37040     T   DARYLJ.BRAND $0   (OnAppeal) L      T   Asst.AttorneyGeneral  %      L      T   CordellHullBldg.,2ndFl. p&  DONNAHARGROVE      T   425FifthAve.North `'  DistrictPublicDefender     T   Nashville,TN37243 P(!    L      T   MICHAELD.RANDLES      T   MIKEMCCOWN  0* # Asst.DistrictPublicDefender   T   DistrictAttorneyGeneral  +!$ P.O.Box1119 L      T  ,"% Fayetteville,TN37334     T   WEAKLEYE.BARNARD  -#&  (AtTrial&OnAppeal)   T   Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral -$'    L      T   MarshallCountyCourthouse   L      T   Lewisburg,TN37091   L      T        L      T      L   OPINIONFILED:򀀀 4 +.  AFFIRMED  @8.2  JOHNH.PEAY,  ;15 Judge  <37 X  @:; EXX OPINION `   X XE  Thedefendantwasfoundguiltybyajuryofpassingaworthlesscheckin  B violationofT.C.A.3914121.ThetrialcourtsentencedthedefendantasaRangeIstandardoffendertotwoandonehalfyearsintheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionwithallbutsixtydayssuspendedandfouryearsprobation.Thedefendantfiledamotionforanewtrial,whichwasdeniedbythetrialcourt.Thedefendantnowappealsandarguesthattheevidencewasinsufficienttosustainhisconvictionandthathissentenceisexcessive.  Afterareviewoftherecordandtheapplicablelaw,wefindnomerittothedefendantscontentionsandthusaffirmthejudgmentofthecourtbelow.  Thedefendantsconvictionaroseoutofabusinesstransactionwiththevictim,AlphaSignCompany.Thedefendantwasastickervendorandregularlysoldmerchandiseproducedbythevictim.Normallythedefendantwouldplaceanorderforcertainstickersandthevictimwouldfilltheorderonaconsignmentbasis.Thedefendantwasnotrequiredtopayforthestickersuntilafterhehadsoldthem.However,inApril1995,thedefendanthadasubstantialoutstandingbalanceregardingthevolumeofstickershehadinhispossessionversustheamounthehadpaidthevictimforthosestickers.Assuch,theownersandoperatorsofAlphaSignCompanyhadameetingwiththedefendantinordertocometosometypeofagreementregardingpayment.TheownersofAlphaSignCompany,Mr.andMrs.Hamilton,testifiedthattheydecidedtocontinuedoingbusinesswiththedefendantontheconditionthathepayupfrontforanystickersheorderedthatdayinsteadofpayingonaconsignmentbasis.Thedefendantthengavetheowners,Mr.andMrs.Hamilton,acheckforfourteenhundreddollars($1400.00),which 7b.1 theylaterdepositedintheiraccount.TheHamiltonstestifiedthatthecheckwaspayment 7\.3 forthestickerstheysoldtohimonthedayofthemeeting.Thechecksubsequently bounced.AttrialthedefendantadmittedthathegavetheHamiltonsthecheck,butthatheaskedthemtoholdituntilhewasabletopayitsbalance.However,Mr.andMrs.Hamiltontestifiedthatthedefendantinsistedthecheckwas goodwhenhegaveittothemandwithoutsuchanassurancetheyneverwouldhaveletthedefendantleavetheirplaceofbusinesswithanyoftheirinventory.  Thedefendantfirstcontendsthattheevidencewithwhichhewasconvictedwasinsufficienttosustainhisconvictionbecausethevictimshadgoodandsufficientreasontobelievethecheckwouldbouncebeforetheytriedtodepositit.  AdefendantchallengingthesufficiencyoftheproofhastheburdenofillustratingtothisCourtwhytheevidenceisinsufficienttosupporttheverdictreturnedbythetrieroffactinhisorhercase.ThisCourtwillnotdisturbaverdictofguiltforlackofsufficientevidenceunlessthefactscontainedintherecordandanyinferenceswhichmaybedrawnfromthefactsareinsufficient,asamatteroflaw,forarationaltrieroffacttofindthedefendantguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt.Statev.Tuggle,639S.W.2d  &  913,914(Tenn.1982).  Whenanaccusedchallengesthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence,wemustreviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecutionindeterminingwhether anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319(1979).Wedonot 0', reweighorreevaluatetheevidenceandarerequiredtoaffordtheStatethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheproofcontainedintherecordaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferenceswhichmaybedrawntherefrom.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d L6,2 832,835(Tenn.1978).  ThedefendantcontendsthathetoldtheHamiltonstoholdthecheckandthereforetheywereonnoticethatthecheckwouldbounceiftheytriedtodepositit.ThedefendantfurtherarguesthatalthoughtheHamiltonstestifiedthatthedefendantnevertoldthemtoholdthecheckorindicatedinanywaythatthecheckmightbounce,theywerelying.However,questionsconcerningthecredibilityofwitnesses,theweightandvaluetobegiventotheevidence,aswellasfactualissuesraisedbytheevidenceareresolvedbythetrieroffact,notthisCourt.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835.Aguilty ` verdictrenderedbythejuryandapprovedbythetrialjudgeaccreditsthetestimonyofthewitnessesfortheState,andapresumptionofguiltreplacesthepresumptionofinnocence.Statev.Grace,493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.1973).Asitappearsthatthe $ juryaccreditedtheHamiltonstestimonyoverthatofthedefendant,asiswithintheirprovince,thiscontentioniswithoutmerit.  Thedefendantnextarguesthathissentenceisexcessive.ThetrialcourtsentencedthedefendanttotwoandonehalfyearsintheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrectiontobeservedasfouryearsonprobationandsixtydaysinjail.Thedefendantarguesheshouldhavebeengiventheminimumpresumptivesentenceoftwoyearsonprobation.  Whenadefendantcomplainsofhisorhersentence,wemustconducta /%* denovoreviewwithapresumptionofcorrectness.T.C.A.4035401(d).Theburden 0', ofshowingthatthesentenceisimproperisupontheappealingparty.T.C.A.4035401(d)SentencingCommissionComments.Thispresumption,however, isconditionedupontheaffirmativeshowingintherecordthatthetrialcourtconsidered%  Ԁthesentencing L6,2 principlesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances.Statev.  Ashby,823S.W.2d166, `  169(Tenn.1991).  Inthiscase,itisclearthetrialcourtcarefullyconsideredapplicableenhancementandmitigatingfactorsandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances.Thetrialcourtnotedthedefendantspreviouscriminalhistoryandbehaviorasafactorindeterminingthelengthofthesentence.ThedefendanthadbeenarrestedinTexasforpossessionofmarijuanaandadmittedenteringaguiltypleatothatcharge.   #  1      Thedefendantalsoadmittedtoillegaldruguseinthepast.Inaddition,thetrialcourtnotedthedefendantsapparentuntruthfulnessregardingsupposedexculpatoryevidencethatwasneverproduced.Assuch,thedefendanthasfailedtoovercomethepresumptionthathissentencewascorrect.Therebeingnoabuseofdiscretiononbehalfofthetrialcourt,weaffirmthedefendantssentence.  Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthedefendantsconvictionandsentence.   L      T   _________________________________   L      T   JOHNH.PEAY,JudgeCONCUR:______________________________GARYR.WADE,PresidingJudge______________________________JERRYL.SMITH,Judge