ÿWPCQ" Ú£+ñ§„G£“T¶^Ë4=@Re²Ahâ/È2NdÑÈ'c,R˜‘qêšé¬fÓ^ÌCC Ê¡|âdÆàIöݺf'Í]+ ï{\1Áÿ•±G¼»ÞîXñpípƒY¢¬Q)BS†L¥ïËaE(¨úÊ;Á¹[•?˜ºûW{›KD¡b’ ÂÖúƒÉ¶kÙ•¼Ñ¡eú÷ó‡ß‰ìùS§H ˜Y§ã¦êÃ#²àRè%ÿhXîÁ%¢¯ aû6õ­‡UÞ®*Ár' ·­]ó‘3K+_Teq@±´øéÂGaEt¹Ðg› &ö_ð 6èÆ6ª·áãº#?6KðO¾’_’õ¢ &ßÁ`Šd‘óLˆ"ALgÖõå 6YÝ^®¸‚óo{Ðã]òÛEã¶ÞÉy¸ö²Ÿqƒƒ”Ùåߪ×?Â(þÆW±¶‰7ì=µå9BÄÂ*Ìtƒ{’Pç-„!mÝs²Õ㣊: Òm,HªP¤üµµRmº&zÈNZ°þ’Äpl&QÊîÍÜÕ_£c<Ž*iLHt¬¥ vs:^–Ÿ;î[‹´ôN0º®,ö¦ûë»´×GÂ891½g Ü^Ä-¾Sëæ£.4?%I©6´~dU.x %¦b¬-°Ý~òpn­€- 0(5 U:] w— 4› ²¯ 0™a 0Dú U :> ’x ^ faN,f.”#!– m·fÎ 4Æ:ÆÆÆÆŒÆR B|5±fÈaÊÊðÞÞÞòÎÎÎ?ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ D5ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 0D4!4!4! AQx!x! 0DÉ! 0D "<þ6X9`(CourierX ù #Ñ#€Xd#Ñ Ñ  Ñ tÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'Legal\Ñ3|x«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial RegulartpO' PTOSHAEddinsHigbeeHigbeesSchnecklothBustamonteJacuminRoberson(I(2 …$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X9¢XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ï4 ' Tom Kulaga0Tom Kulaga .   D­'L TÄTABLE A \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\јHP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\ÑHLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d rÝ ƒ Å$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XŒžXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ X<¨XXXŒžÔNothing€in€the€record€suggests€that€defendant€Wyatt€requested€aÐ `  Ðcontinuance€after€receiving€the€notice€of€impeaching€convictions.€€We€note€thatÐ P ð Ðthe€defendant€had€the€benefit€of€a€jury„out€hearing€regarding€the€admissibility€ofÐ @ à Ðthe€impeaching€convictions.€€Nothing€in€the€record€suggests€that€he€requested€aÐ 0 Ð Ðrecess€or€additional€time€before€the€hearing.Ô#†XŒžXX X<¨€#Ô Ý ƒb¯#"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ÉTXXÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X9¢XÉTÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€29,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAYÔó ó°¸TABLE C æÝ ƒ Å$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XŒžXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ X<¨XXXŒžÔDefendant€Wyatt€was€convicted€of€three€counts€of€burglary€in€1982,€Ð `  Ðforgery€and€passing€bad€checks€in€Arizona,€passing€a€worthless€check€in€1993Ð P ð Ðfor€which€he€received€a€suspended€sentence,€and€driving€on€a€revoked€license,Ð @ à Ðamended€to€no€driverððs€license€in€1997.Ô#†XŒžXX X<¨€#Ô€€Ô‡ X<¨XXXŒžÔ€Additionally,€the€trial€court€noted€thatÐ 0 Ð Ðdefendant€Wyatt€had€several€worthless€check€charges€which€were€dismissedÐ "  Ðafter€he€made€restitution.€€Defendant€Thomas€was€convicted€and€sentenced€toÐ ² Ðprobation€for€seven€counts€of€passing€worthless€checks€in€1996,€and€she€wasÐ ¢ Ðfired€from€her€last€employer€for€taking€money€from€petty€cash.€€Ô#†XŒžXX X<¨ #Ô èÝ ƒ Å$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XŒžXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€lieu€of€a€trial€transcript€of€stenographic€or€other€substantially€verbatimÐ `  Ðrecording€of€evidence€or€proceedings,€a€Statement€of€Evidence,€which€wasÐ F æ Ðapproved€by€the€trial€court,€provided€the€facts€of€this€case.€€Also,€the€trial€courtÐ , Ì Ðdetailed€his€findings€for€both€defendants€in€a€Sentencing€Order. 5Ý ƒ Å$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XŒžXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ X<¨XXXŒžÔUnlike€felony€sentencing,€the€trial€court€does€not€have€an€affirmative€dutyÐ `  Ðto€state€in€the€record,€either€orally€or€in€writing,€which€enhancement€andÐ P ð Ðmitigating€factors€it€found€and€its€findings€of€fact.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ @ à Ð40-35-209(c)€(1997);€ðð€40-35-210(f)€(Supp.€1998);€ðð€40-35-302(d)(1997);€òòState€v.Ð 0 Ð ÐTroutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€271,€274€(Tenn.€1998).€€However,€in€the€case€at€bar€theÐ  À Ðtrial€court,€in€its€sentencing€order,€addressed€sentencing€considerations€andÐ ° Ðmade€several€findings€of€fact.€€Ô#†XŒžXX X<¨€#Ô"""")ÿÿ!dxdx(3¯#$££Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ýb]cYCþÿ<<Cÿÿ(3¯#$¢¢Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[° AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ X9¢XXXÔÔ_ÔÌÑ€Ñò òÑ€ÑÑ€ÑÑ€Ñà@˜ ˜ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ F æ ÐÌ€à@FF'àAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ  ¾ ÐÌßx€`%YB2.jzØÿ¡`  `€€@ÿE —` 8ttxPØö ð ¡ xßà@NN#àOCTOBER€1999€SESSIONó óˆÐ ö – ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ*~ƒ&'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#~ÔÔ,Å d ÔÔ,Âdd ÔÔ,™ d ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  Fæ  Ðò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h à€ó óÐ ªJ  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,ÌÌvs.ÌÌò òSCOTT€WYATT€andÐ ´ ÐANGELA€THOMAS,ó óÐ   ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAppellants.Ð  Òr Ð)Ì)Ì)Ì)Ì)Ì)Ì)Ì)Ì)Ì)Ì)Ð  ¦F! ÐÌÌ€No.M199800470CCAR3CDÌÌCoffee€CountyÌÌHon.€Gerald€L.€Ewell,€Sr.,€JudgeÌÌ(Theft€of€Property€Valued€UnderÏ$500)Ð À`+ Ðò òó óÌÌÌÔ*~ƒd($ãdÅ d Âdd ™ d &'(#(#~ÔÔ,‡dÔÔ,™ d ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  n!. Ðò òFOR€THE€APPELLANTS:ó óÐ Ò!r/ Ðò òòòóóB.€CAMPBELL€SMOOT€ó ó(on€appeal)Ð ¾"^0 ÐDistrict€Public€DefenderÌÌò òMARGARET€C.€LAMB€ó ó(on€appeal)Ð v%3 ÐAssist.€Public€DefenderÌ605€E.€Carroll€StreetÌTullahoma,€TN€37388ò ò€Ð .(Î6 ÐÌGREGORY€M€OððNEALó ó€(at€trial)Ð *¦ 8 ÐAttorney€at€LawÌ2€S.€Jefferson€St.ÌP.O.€Box€555ÌWinchester,€TN€37398ÌÌÐ  p/&> Ðò òFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ó óÐ Ò!r? Ðò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERSó óÐ ¾"^@ ÐAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òKIM€R.€HELPERó óÐ v%C ÐAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌ425€Fifth€Ave.€NorthÌ2d€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€Bldg.ÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òC.€MICHAEL€LAYNEó óÐ à*€!I ÐDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òKEN€SHELTONÐ ˜-8$L Ðó óAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ „.$%M ÐP.O.€Box€147ÌManchester,€TN€37355ÌÐ 61Ö'P ÐÌÌOPINION€FILED:________________ÌÌò òÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÐ  ¨8H/W ÐÑÑâ âÑ8€7äXXdðdÈ8Ñâ âÑ  Ñâ âÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[ì AØ'Legal[ì AØ'Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÓ'X‚X¸ ˜Xÿÿ°œX'ÓÑ8€ <¨ XXdðXXdð8ÑÑ€†ÑÑ€† ÑÓ Óà@qq*àò òòòOPINIONó óóóˆÐ `  ÐÓ ÓÓÓà ¸ àThe€defendants,€Scott€Wyatt€and€Angela€Thomas,€appeal€their€CoffeeÐ @ à ÐCounty€Criminal€Court€convictions€and€their€resulting€sentences.€€A€jury€convictedÐ  À Ðthe€defendants€of€theft€of€property€valued€under€$500,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€Ð   ÐAfter€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€each€defendant€to€serve€elevenÐ à€ Ðmonths,€29€days€and€pay€a€fine€of€$60.€€Defendant€Wyatt€was€ordered€to€serve€180Ð À`  Ðdays€in€jail€with€the€balance€on€probation.€€Defendant€Thomas€was€ordered€to€serveÐ  @  Ð120€days€in€jail€with€the€balance€on€probation.€€In€this€appeal€the€defendants€raiseÐ €  Ðthe€following€issues:Ð ` ÐÓ wÓÓÓà0 ¸ à1.à8¸ (#¸ (#àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€defendantÐ @à ÐWyatt€to€be€impeached€by€burglary€convictions€moreÐ 0Ð Ðthan€ten€years€old;Ð ÀÐ Ð  Ðà0 ¸ à2.à8¸ (#¸ (#àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€defendantÐ   ÐThomas€to€be€impeached€by€worthless€checkÐ ð Ðconvictions;€andÐà€Ð Ð  Ðà0 ¸ à3.à8¸ (#¸ (#àwhether€the€trial€court€imposed€excessive€sentences.ÐÀ!`Ð Ð  ÐÓ¬ÓFollowing€a€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€applicable€law,€weÐ  #@ Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð €%  Ðà ¸ àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€findingÐ @)à" Ðthe€impeaching€convictions€admissible.€€Although€both€defendants€complain€ofÐ  +À!$ Ðexcessive€sentences,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€theÐ - #& Ðsentencing€factors.Ð à.€%( Ðà ¸ àThe€defendants,€husband€and€wife,€were€both€employees€of€the€CityÐ  2@), Ðof€Tullahoma.€€Testimony€at€trial׃,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€indicated€that€defendant€Wyatt,€who€wasÐ €4 +. Ðemployed€by€the€cityððs€recreation€department,€did€not€work€on€November€25,€26,Ð `6-0 Ðand€27,€1996.€€His€time€sheet€for€those€days€did€not€indicate€that€he€worked,€andÐ `  Ðfellow€employees,€who€did€work€those€days,€testified€that€they€did€not€see€himÐ @ à Ðworking.€€The€proof€showed€that€defendant€Thomas,€as€the€cityððs€record€keeper,Ð  À Ðadded€eight€hours€for€each€of€those€days€to€defendant€Wyattððs€payroll€calendar,€andÐ   Ðdefendant€Wyatt€was€paid€for€those€days.Ð à€ Ðà ¸ àDefendant€Wyatt€testified€in€his€defense,€stating€that€he€was€called€inÐ  @  Ðto€work€on€those€days.€€He€denied€being€paid€for€any€time€that€he€did€not€work.€Ð €  ÐDefendant€Thomas€testified€that€she€did€not€falsify€any€records€to€credit€herÐ ` Ðhusband€for€hours€that€he€did€not€work.€€Ð @à Ðà ¸ àOn€this€evidence,€the€defendants€were€found€guilty€of€theft€of€propertyÐ   Ðvalued€under€$500.€€Each€defendant€was€sentenced€to€serve€eleven€months,Ð à€ Ðtwenty„nine€days€and€fined€$60.€€They€were€each€ordered€to€pay€restitution€of€$100Ð À!` Ðto€the€city.Ð  #@ Ðò òÓ ÓÓ  ÓI.€€Impeachment€of€Defendant€Wyattó óÐ `'  ÐÓ ÓÓ(Óà ¸ àDefendant€Wyatt€complains€that€his€burglary€convictions,€which€wereÐ @)à" Ðmore€than€ten€years€old,€were€improperly€used€for€impeachment.€€In€1982,€he€wasÐ  +À!$ Ðconvicted€of€three€counts€of€burglary.€€The€state€notified€defendant€Wyatt€in€writingÐ - #& Ðthe€day€before€trial€that€it€intended€to€use€the€convictions€to€impeach€him€if€heÐ à.€%( Ðtestified.€€After€the€state€attempted€to€impeach€the€defendant€with€the€convictions,Ð À0`'* Ðthe€trial€court€found€in€a€jury„out€hearing€that€the€probative€value€of€the€convictionsÐ  2@), Ðfor€the€purpose€of€attacking€credibility€substantially€outweighed€their€prejudicialÐ €4 +. Ðâ âeffect.Ð `6-0 Ðà ¸ àUnder€Rule€609€the€state€may€use€a€conviction€in€which€more€than€tenÐ `  Ðâ âyears€have€elapsed€between€the€date€the€accused€was€released€from€confinementÐ @ à Ðand€the€commencement€of€the€subject€prosecution€to€impeach€the€testimony€of€anÐ  À Ðaccused€in€a€criminal€prosecution.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609.€€However,€the€followingÐ   Ðconditions€must€be€satisfied:€(1)€the€conviction€is€for€a€crime€punishable€by€deathÐ à€ Ðor€imprisonment€in€excess€of€one€year,€or€the€conviction€is€for€a€misdemeanor€whichÐ À`  Ðinvolved€dishonesty€or€false€statement;€(2)€defendant€receives€ð ðsufficient€advanceÐ  @  Ðnotice€of€intent€to€use€such€evidence€to€provide€[him]€with€a€fair€opportunity€toÐ €  Ðcontest€the€use€of€such€evidence;ðð€and€(3)€the€trial€court€ð ðdetermines€in€the€interestsÐ ` Ðof€justice€that€the€probative€value€of€the€conviction,€supported€by€specific€facts€andÐ @à Ðcircumstances,€substantially€outweighs€its€prejudicial€effect.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609.€Ð  À ÐOn€appeal,€aòòóó€trial€court's€ruling€under€Rule€609€will€not€be€reversed€absent€an€abuseÐ   Ðof€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blanton,óó€926€S.W.2d€953,€960€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);Ð à€ ÐòòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€596€S.W.2d€97,€104€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1979).Ð À!` Ðà ¸ àDefendant€Wyatt€does€not€contest€that€burglary€is€a€felony€punishableÐ €%  Ðby€more€than€one€year€of€imprisonment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„118€(1997)Ð `'  Ð(burglary€committed€between€1982€and€1989€is€classified,€for€sentencing€purposes,Ð @)à" Ðas€either€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony).Ð  +À!$ Ðà ¸ àDefendant€Wyatt€contests€the€second€condition,€that€the€state€did€notÐ à.€%( Ðgive€reasonable€notice,€because€the€notice€was€given€the€day€before€the€trialÐ À0`'* Ðbegan.€€Under€subsection€(a)(3)€of€Rule€609,€ð ðthe€State€must€give€the€accusedÐ  2@), Ðreasonable€written€notice€of€the€impeaching€conviction€before€trial.ðð€€UnderÐ €4 +. Ðsubsection€(b)€the€notice€requirements€for€impeaching€a€witness€with€convictions€tenÐ `6-0 Ðyears€old€or€older€provide€that€the€notice€avail€the€adverse€party€ð ða€fair€opportunityÐ @8à.2 Ðto€contest€the€use€of€such€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(b).Ð  :À04 Ðà ¸ àIt€is€undisputed€that€defendant€Wyatt€received€written€notice€before€theÐ `  Ðtrial€began.€€Defendant€Wyatt€argues€that€one€dayððs€notice€did€not€provide€sufficientÐ @ à Ðtime€to€research€the€history€of€his€1982€convictions;€however,€he€does€not€even€nowÐ  À Ðstate€how€more€time€would€have€allowed€him€to€challenge€the€convictions.€€AbsentÐ   Ðany€showing€that€the€notice€he€received€was€unreasonable,׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€we€are€not€convincedÐ à€ Ðthat€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€admitting€the€convictions.Ð À`  Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€also€contests€the€third€condition,€that€the€probativeÐ €  Ðvalue€of€the€convictions€does€not€substantially€outweigh€their€prejudicial€effect.€€InÐ ` Ðbalancing€whether€the€probative€value€of€an€impeaching€conviction€outweighs€itsÐ @à Ðunfair€prejudicial€effect,€ð ða€trial€court€should€(a)€ððassess€the€similarity€between€theÐ  À Ðcrime€on€trial€and€the€crime€underlying€the€impeaching€conviction,ðð€and€(b)€ððanalyzeÐ   Ðthe€relevance€the€impeaching€conviction€has€to€the€issue€of€credibility.ðð"€€òòState€v.Ð à€ ÐMixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€661,€674€(Tenn.€1999)òòóó€(quoting€N.€Cohen,€D.€Paine,€and€S.Ð À!` ÐSheppeard,€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidence€ðð€609.9€at€p.€376€(3rd€ed.€1995));€òòsee€alsoóóÐ  #@ ÐòòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€837,€839€(1992).€€The€standard€to€be€used€by€the€trialÐ €%  Ðcourt€ð ðis€not€whether€there€is€any€prejudice€to€the€defendant€by€allowing€the€StateÐ `'  Ðto€use€the€prior€conviction€for€impeachment,€but€whether€the€possible€prejudice€isÐ @)à" Ðoutweighed€by€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€as€to€the€defendant's€credibilityÐ  +À!$ Ðas€a€witness."€€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€943€S.W.2d€403,€408€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Ð - #& ÐUnder€evidence€Rule€609(b),€the€trial€court€evaluates€the€proposed€use€of€oldÐ à.€%( Ðâ âconvictions€by€determining€whether€the€probative€value,€ð ðsupported€by€specific€factsÐ À0`'* Ðand€circumstances,€òòsubstantiallyóó€outweighs€its€prejudicial€effect.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð `  Ð609(b)€(emphasis€added).€€Ð @ à Ðâ âà ¸ àIn€reviewing€the€trial€court's€determination,€this€court€"does€notÐ   Ðreevaluate€whether€the€probative€value€of€the€.€.€.€prior€convictions€outweighs€theÐ à€ Ðpossible€prejudicial€effect€it€might€have€had.€€We€only€evaluate€whether€the€trialÐ À`  Ðjudge€abused€his€discretion€.€.€.€."€òòRobertsóó,€943€S.W.2d€at€408;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.Ð  @  ÐHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€66€(Tenn.€1992).€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€notÐ €  Ðabuse€its€discretion.€Ð ` Ðà ¸ àDefendant€Wyatt€argues€that€the€crime€of€burglary€is€too€similar€inÐ  À Ðnature€to€the€crime€for€which€he€was€on€trial€because€both€crimes€involveÐ   Ðdishonesty.€€We€do€not€agree€that€the€crimes€are€similar.€€Using€the€defendantððsÐ à€ Ðlogic,€a€defendant€accused€of€a€crime€involving€dishonesty€would€not€be€subject€toÐ À!` Ðimpeachment€through€Rule€609€via€prior€convictions€which€involve€dishonesty.€€òòSee,Ð  #@ Ðe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Tuneóó,€872€S.W.2d€922,€927€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(crimes€involvingÐ €%  Ðdishonesty€are€highly€probative€of€credibility).€€Rather,€the€true€test€of€similarity€isÐ `'  Ðwhether€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€is€great€because€the€crimes€are€identical€orÐ @)à" Ðsubstantially€the€same.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€661,€674„75€(Tenn.€1999)Ð  +À!$ Ð(impeaching€conviction€inadmissible€because€identical€to€crime€for€which€defendantÐ - #& Ðis€being€tried).€€The€danger€of€impeaching€with€similar€crimes€is€that€it€mayÐ à.€%( Ðimproperly€show€a€propensity€to€commit€that€type€of€crime.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.Ð À0`'* ÐRobertsóó,€703€S.W.2d€146,€147€(Tenn.€1986)€(in€aggravated€assault€case,€could€notÐ  2@), Ðshow€prior€assault€and€battery€conviction);€òòLong€v.€Stateóó,€607€S.W.2d€482,€486Ð €4 +. Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€(in€assault€with€intent€to€commit€murder€case,€could€notÐ `6-0 Ðshow€prior€second€degree€murder€conviction).€€Ð @8à.2 Ðà ¸ àBurglary€is€a€crime€involving€entering€property,€such€as€a€home,Ð `  Ðbuilding,€or€automobile,€with€the€intent€to€commit€a€felony,€theft,€or€assault.€€Tenn.Ð @ à ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„14„402€(1997).€€In€the€case€at€bar,€defendant€Wyatt€is€accused€ofÐ  À Ðtheft€by€obtaining€compensation€for€time€not€worked.€€The€underlying€conduct€of€theÐ   Ðone€offense€is€dissimilar€to€the€other.Ð à€ Ðà ¸ àIn€the€case€at€bar,€defendant€Wyatt€denied€the€crime€of€theft€despiteÐ  @  Ðthe€testimony€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€to€the€contrary.€€Therefore,€the€defendant'sÐ €  Ðcredibility€as€a€witness€was€a€critical€issue.€€It€is€well€established€that€burglary€is€aÐ ` Ðcrime€involving€dishonesty€and€is€generally€admissible€to€impeach€credibility.€€òòSee,Ð @à Ðe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Dishmanóó,€915€S.W.2d€458,€463€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.Ð  À ÐCraneóó,€780€S.W.2d€375,€377€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€Accordingly,€it€was€withinÐ   Ðthe€trial€court's€discretion€to€allow€the€state€to€use€the€defendant's€prior€convictionsÐ à€ Ðto€impeach€his€credibility€as€a€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòRobertsóó,€943€S.W.2d€at€408„09€(findingÐ À!` Ðno€abuse€of€discretion€in€impeachment€by€prior,€similar€convictions€for€breaking€andÐ  #@ Ðentering€into€a€business€with€intent€to€commit€larceny,€grand€larceny,€andÐ €%  Ðtransporting€stolen€property€in€a€trial€for€burglary,€attempted€theft€of€motor€vehicles,Ð `'  Ðand€possession€of€burglarious€instruments).Ð @)à" Ðà ¸ àBased€upon€the€principles€discussed€above,€we€find€that€defendantÐ - #& ÐWyatt's€prior€convictions€for€burglary€were€highly€probative€because€(1)€theyÐ à.€%( Ðinvolved€dishonesty€and€(2)€his€credibility€was€an€important€issue€in€the€case.€€TheÐ À0`'* Ðprobative€value€of€the€evidence€of€the€impeaching€crimes€substantially€outweighedÐ  2@), Ðthe€prejudicial€effect.€€The€trial€court€acted€within€its€discretion€in€admitting€theÐ €4 +. Ðdefendant's€1982€convictions€for€burglary.€Ð `6-0 ÐÐ  :À04 Ðò òÓ ÓÓ  ÓII.€€Impeachment€of€Defendant€Thomasó óÐ `  ÐÓ ÁGÓÓÕGÓà ¸ àDefendant€Thomas€complains€that€her€1996€convictions€for€passingÐ @ à Ðworthless€checks€were€improperly€used€for€impeachment.€€She€claims€that€sheÐ  À Ðthought€that€she€had€sufficient€money€in€the€accounts€to€cover€the€worthlessÐ   Ðchecks.€She€pleaded€guilty€to€passing€the€checks.Ð à€ Ðà ¸ àThe€record€on€appeal€does€not€reflect€that€Thomas€objected€to€theÐ  @  Ðstateððs€use€of€bad€check€convictions€for€impeachment€purposes.€€Accordingly,€theÐ €  Ðissue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(1);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.Ð ` ÐRobinsonóó,€971€S.W.2d€30,€42„44€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).Ð @à Ðà ¸ àWe€note€that,€even€though€this€issue€is€disposed€of€via€waiver,€(1)€theÐ   Ðcrimes€of€passing€worthless€checks€are€misdemeanors€involving€dishonesty,€òòStateÐ à€ Ðv.€Shelby€A.€Driveróó,€No.€85„177„111€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Nov.€13,€1986),Ð À!` Ð(2)€the€defendant€received€reasonable€written€notice€of€the€proposed€impeachment,Ð  #@ Ðòòseeóó€òòsupraóó€section€I,€(3)€Thomasðð€credibility€was€an€issue,€and€(4)€the€probativeÐ €%  Ðeffect€of€the€impeachment€evidence€outweighed€the€prejudicial€effect.€€òòSeeóó€òòShelbyÐ `'  ÐA.€Driveróó.€€As€we€found€in€the€case€of€defendant€Wyatt,€we€would€have€found€noÐ @)à" Ðabuse€of€discretion€in€Thomasðð€case,€had€the€trial€court€allowed€the€evidence€afterÐ  +À!$ Ðevaluating€it€under€Rule€609.€€Of€course,€the€trial€court€never€had€the€opportunityÐ - #& Ðto€make€this€determination;€hence,€the€issue€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).Ð à.€%( ÐÓ  Óà @¸ àòòóóÓ Óò òIII.€€Sentencingó óÐ  2@), ÐÓ sOÓÓUOÓà ¸ àThe€defendants€complain€that€the€terms€of€confinement€imposed€wereÐ €4 +. Ðexcessive€and€that€the€trial€court€did€not€seriously€consider€the€juryððsÐ `6-0 Ðrecommendation€of€leniency.€€Ô‡XŒžXX X<¨ÔThe€jury€wrote€on€the€verdict€form€that€the€juryÐ @8à.2 Ðð ðadvise[d]€that€the€defendants€be€required€to€get€financial€counciling€[sic].ðð€€Also,€theÐ $:Ä04 Ðц Ñâ âÑTR[ì AØ'ÿ Legal[ì AØ'Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ âÑ  Ñjury€fixed€each€defendantððs€fine€at€$60.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€this€seemed€ð ðtoÐ `  Ðindicate€to€the€Court€that€they€do€not€consider€these€offenses€as€serious€as€couldÐ , Ì Ðbe€thought€by€some.ððÔ#† X<¨XXXŒž¼P#ԀРø ˜ Ðà ¸ àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length€or€manner€of€service€of€aÐ À` Ðsentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€on€the€record€withÐ  @  Ða€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ €  ÐAnn.€ðð€40-35-401(d)€(1997).€€Ð `  Ðà ¸ àMisdemeanor€sentences€must€be€specific€and€in€accordance€with€theÐ  À Ðprinciples,€purpose,€and€goals€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€Ð   ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-103,€104,€117,€302€(1997);€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€902€S.W.2dÐ à€ Ð391,€393€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€misdemeanor€offender€must€be€sentenced€to€anÐ À` Ðauthorized€determinant€sentence€with€a€percentage€of€that€sentence€designated€forÐ  !@ Ðeligibility€for€rehabilitative€programs.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-302€(1997).€€InÐ €#  Ðdetermining€the€percentage€of€the€sentence,€the€court€must€consider€enhancementÐ `% Ðand€mitigating€factors€as€well€as€the€legislative€purposes€and€principles€related€toÐ @'à  Ðthe€sentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d)€(1997);€òòPalmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€atÐ  )À" Ð393-94.€€Ð + !$ Ðà ¸ àThe€trial€court€retains€the€authority€to€place€the€defendant€on€probationÐ À.`%( Ðeither€immediately€or€after€a€period€of€periodic€or€continuous€confinement.€€Tenn.Ð  0@'* ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40-35-302(e)€(1997).€€The€trial€court€has€a€wide€latitude€of€flexibility.€Ð €2 ), ÐThe€legislature€has€encouraged€courts€to€consider€public€or€private€agencies€forÐ `4+. Ðprobation€supervision€prior€to€directing€supervision€by€the€Department€of€Correction.€Ð @6à,0 Ðâ âTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-302(f)€(1997).€€The€misdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€notÐ  8À.2 Ðentitled€to€the€presumption€of€a€minimum€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2dÐ `  Ð829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Ð @ à Ðâ âà ¸ àThe€misdemeanor€sentencing€statute€provides€that€the€percentage€ofÐ   Ðthe€sentence€to€be€served€in€confinement€before€the€defendant€is€eligible€forÐ à€ Ðrehabilitative€programs€shall€not€exceed€75€percent.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð À`  Ððð40-35-302(d)€(1997).€€Further,€the€statute€provides,€"If€no€percentage€is€expressedÐ  @  Ðin€the€judgment,€the€percentage€shall€be€considered€zero€percent€(0%)."€€òòId.óó€€WhenÐ €  Ðthis€court€has€been€faced€with€a€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€clearlyÐ ` Ðindicating€the€trial€court's€intention€that€the€defendant's€percentage€is€not€zeroÐ @à Ðpercent,€however,€we€have€deferred€to€the€trial€court's€express€pronouncement€asÐ  À Ðreflected€in€the€transcript.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€David€W.€Frazeeóó,€No.€02C01„9809„Ð   ÐCC„00291,€slip€op.€at€6„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Oct.€25,€1999);€òòState€v.€DionÐ à€ ÐAndres€Russellóó,€No.€03C01„9803„CR„0092,€slip€op.€at€15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð À!` ÐKnoxville,€Apr.€7,€1999);€òòState€v.€Rickey€Haileyóó,€No.€02C01„9705„CR„00198,€slip€op.Ð  #@ Ðat€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€May€14,€1998);€òòState€v.€Roscoe€C.€Smithóó,€No.Ð €%  Ð01C01„9502„CR„00031,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Oct.€12,€1995).Ð `'  Ðà ¸ àThe€trial€court€found€two€enhancement€factors.€€First,€both€defendantsÐ  +À!$ Ðhave€a€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÐ - #& Ðâ ânecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)Ð à.€%( Ð(1997).׃)×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Second,€the€defendants,€as€city€employees,€abused€a€position€of€publicÐ `  Ðtrust.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(15)€(1997).€€Ð @ à Ðâ âà ¸ àAs€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendantsðð€conductÐ   Ðdid€not€cause€or€threaten€serious€bodily€injury,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1)Ð à€ Ð(1997),€and€that€the€defendants€may€have€been€motivated€by€a€desire€to€provideÐ À`  Ðnecessities€for€their€family.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„113(7)€(1997).€Ð  @  Ðà ¸ àWe€find€no€fault€with€the€sentences€in€this€case.€€The€trial€court€foundÐ ` Ðthat€the€sentences€imposed€were€the€least€severe€measures€necessary€to€achieveÐ @à Ðthe€purposes€for€which€the€sentences€were€imposed.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð  À Ð35„103(4)€(1997).€€Although€the€trial€court€did€not€make,€and€was€not€required€toÐ   Ðmake,€factual€findings€to€support€his€conclusion€that€confinement€was€necessary€toÐ à€ Ðavoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses,׃/ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð À!` Ð103(1)(B)€(1997),€we€conclude€that€confinement€is€warranted€in€this€case€based€onÐ  #@ Ðthe€sentencing€considerations€of€Code€section€40„35„103(1)€(1997).€€DefendantÐ €%  ÐWyatt€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct,€dating€back€to€1982,€and€defendantÐ `'  ÐThomas€has,€within€a€shorter€time€span,€accumulated€seven€convictions€and€beenÐ @)à" Ðц Ñâ âÑTR[ì AØ'ÿ Legal[ì AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ âÑ  Ñfired€for€stealing€on€a€previous€occasion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A)Ð `  Ð(1997).€€Also,€both€defendants€have€had€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinementÐ @ à Ðwhich€have€been€unsuccessful€in€deterring€the€defendants€from€continued€criminalÐ  À Ðconduct.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(C)€(1997);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ   ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„103(5)€(potential€for€rehabilitation).Ð à€ Ðà ¸ àThe€defendants€argue€that€the€trial€court€did€not€seriously€consider€theÐ  @  Ðnature€and€character€of€the€offense€and€their€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€WeÐ €  Ðdisagree.€€The€trial€court€found€that€as€city€employees,€the€defendants€violated€theirÐ ` Ðpositions€of€trust.€€Also,€the€defendantsðð€extensive€criminal€histories€betray€theirÐ @à Ðclaim€that€they€have€potential€for€rehabilitation.Ð  À Ðà ¸ àThe€defendants€also€argue€that€they€should€have€received€a€lesserÐ à€ Ðsentence€because€the€jury€imposed€a€minimal€fine,€the€trial€court€recognized€thatÐ À!` Ðthe€jury€thought€the€offense€was€not€serious,€and€the€jury€advised€that€theÐ  #@ Ðdefendants€receive€financial€counseling.€€However,€it€is€the€duty€of€the€trial€court€toÐ €%  Ðdetermine€and€impose€sentence,€not€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„203Ð `'  Ð(1997).€€Ð @)à" Ðà ¸ àThe€defendants€have€neither€demonstrated€their€suitability€for€fullÐ - #& Ðprobation€nor€shown€that€their€sentences€are€improper.€Ð à.€%( Ðà ¸ àWe€note€that€the€trial€court€did€not€specify€a€percentage€of€theÐ  2@), Ðsentence€to€be€served€in€confinement€as€required€by€statute.€€The€trial€courtÐ €4 +. Ðimposed€split€confinement€and€incarcerated€defendant€Wyatt€for€180€days€andÐ `6-0 Ðdefendant€Thomas€for€120€days,€and€each€was€to€spend€the€remainder€of€his€or€herÐ @8à.2 Ðeleven€month,€twenty„nine€day€sentence€on€probation.€€The€trial€court€did€notÐ  :À04 Ðspecify€any€percentage€of€service€in€either€its€written€sentencing€order€or€on€theÐ `  Ðstandard€judgment€form.€€However,€€the€trial€court's€clear€intent€as€reflected€in€theÐ @ à Ðsentencing€order€was€that€the€defendant€Wyatt€actually€serve€180€days,€or€50Ð  À Ðpercent,€of€his€sentence€in€confinement€and€that€defendant€Thomas€actually€serveÐ   Ð120€days,€€or€33€percent,€of€her€sentence€in€confinement.Ð à€ Ðà ¸ àð ðEven€though€the€probation€that€the€trial€court€awarded€and€that€isÐ  @  Ðauthorized€by€Code€subsection€40„35„302(e)€does€not€equate€to€eligibility€forÐ €  Ðrehabilitative€programs€that€is€described€in€subsection€(d),€we€discern€that€the€trialÐ ` Ðcourtððs€intent€was€to€ððfix€a€percentage€of€the€òòsentenceóóðð€by€expressing€theÐ @à Ðconfinement€time€in€terms€of€[days]€rather€than€a€numerical€percentage.ðð€€òòDavid€W.Ð  À ÐFrazeeóó,€slip€op.€at€7€(emphasis€in€original).€€This€interpretation€assures€theÐ   Ðconfinement€which€the€trial€judge€expressly€articulated.€€Of€course,€ð ð[t]he€grant€ofÐ à€ Ðprobation€after€the€[stated€confinement€period]€is€served€renders€the€eligibility€forÐ À!` Ðrehabilitative€services€superfluous,ðð€òòidóó.,€but€in€this€case€we€believe€the€interpretationÐ  #@ Ðcomports€with€the€trial€courtððs€intent.Ð €%  Ðà ¸ àIn€òòDavid€W.€Frazeeóó,€we€pointed€out€that€this€court€ð ðcan€more€preciselyÐ @)à" Ðfathom€the€trial€courtððs€intentðð€on€the€issue€of€the€minimum€time€of€actualÐ  +À!$ Ðconfinement€to€be€served€in€misdemeanors€if€the€trial€court€will€ð ðsquarely€andÐ - #& Ðexpressly€address[]€the€section€40„35„302(d)€percentage€issue.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€statutoryÐ à.€%( Ðð ðpercentageðð€relates€to€the€time€to€be€served€ð ðin€actual€confinementðð€prior€toÐ À0`'* Ðð ðconsideration€for€work€release,€furlough,€trusty€status€and€related€rehabilitativeÐ  2@), Ðprograms.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d)€(1997).€€ð ðUpon€service€of€thatÐ €4 +. Ðpercentage,€the€administrative€agency€governing€the€rehabilitative€programsÐ `6-0 Ðdetermines€which€among€the€lawful€programs€available€is€appropriate€[,but]€the€trialÐ @8à.2 Ðcourt€retains€the€authority€to€place€the€defendant€on€probation€either€immediatelyÐ  :À04 Ðor€after€a€term€of€periodic€or€continuous€confinement.ðð€€òòDavid€W.€Frazeeóó,€slip€op.€atÐ `  Ð4.€€Section€40„35„302€contemplates€that€trial€courts€will€treat€separately€the€issuesÐ @ à Ðof€ð ðpercentageðð€and€probation.€€The€trial€court€should€state€the€percentage€thatÐ  À Ðapplies€and€insert€the€figure€into€the€appropriate€percentage€blank€on€the€standardÐ   Ðjudgment€form.€€Terms€of€probation€should€likewise€be€stated€and€reflected€on€theÐ à€ Ðjudgment€form.€€Trial€courts€which€express€the€term€of€probation€but€omit€theÐ À`  Ðpercentage€run€the€risk€of€the€appellate€court€applying€a€zero€percentage,€òòseeóóTenn.Ð  @  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d)€(1997),€with€the€result€that€the€defendant€may€avoid€anyÐ €  Ðconfinement€through€furlough€or€other€ð ðrehabilitativeðð€programs,€despite€the€courtððsÐ ` Ðattempt€to€allow€probation€only€after€a€stated€period€of€time€is€served€inÐ @à Ðconfinement.Ð  À Ðà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€theÐ à€ Ðjudgment€of€conviction€is€affirmed.Ð À!` ÐÌÓÓÓ Óà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________Ð @)à" Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ 0*Ð # ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð ð-$' ÐÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________Ð 30*- ÐJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÔ% € ÔÐ €4 +. ÐÌÌÌ_____________________________Ð @8à.2 ÐTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE