ÿWPCÑ …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 044 h w@p 4° 0JÄ 0T 0^b 0hÀ 0r( 0|š 0† 0œ 1u, U,¡ 0dÍ U,1U6]B)“DC¼ AMÿ BLÿiv~hvÓæ D3¹ 0@ì AO,Æ{ 0DA D/… B´<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|Xÿ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó ëìDíîDïðDñòóDôÓ€ypÑ Ô@Ôô2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d õÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òAugust€6,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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 ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔßL€$&#;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJANUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€œ03„C„01„9507„CC„00200›Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHawkins€CountyÌÓ  Óv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJames€E.€Beckner,€JudgeÌSHANE€WENDALL€YANKEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Vehicular€Homicide€and€Leaving€theÏà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Scene€of€an€Accident)Ìà àà àAPPELLANT.à àà à)ÌÌÌÓÓÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:à àÌÓÓDonald€A.€Boschà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌBosch,€Silvey€&€Luskà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ2000€First€Tennessee€Plazaà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌKnoxville,€TN€€37929à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497Ì(On€Appeal)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDarian€B.€TaylorÌHerbert€A.€Holcombà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ101€Church€Streetà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌRogersville,€TN€37857à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì(At€Trial)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àH.€Greeley€Wells,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€General€Pro€TemÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€526Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617„0526Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Douglas€GodbeeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHawkins€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRogersville,€TN€37857Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________________________ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌò òÇØØÙ  ÙÓ  ÓÑ7€7ÇXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Shane€Wendall€Yankee,€was€convicted€of€vehicular€homicide,€aÏClass€C€felony,€and€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident€involving€death,€a€Class€E€felony,Ïby€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€appellant€was€a€standard€offenderÏand€imposed€Range€I€sentences€consisting€of€a€fine€of€$10,000€and€confinement€forÏsix€(6)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€for€vehicular€homicide,€and€a€fine€ofÏ$3,000€and€confinement€for€two€(2)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€for€leavingÏthe€scene€of€an€accident€involving€death.€€Three€issues€are€presented€for€review:€€theÏappellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensions€by€(a)Ïadmitting€photographs€that€were€prejudicial,€(b)€excluding€testimony€regarding€lawÏenforcement's€policy€on€high€speed€chases,€and€(c)€imposing€excessive€sentencesÏand€refusing€to€sentence€him€to€an€alternative€sentence.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€theÏrecord,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€authorities€governing€these€issues,€it€is€theÏopinion€of€this€Court€that€the€appellant's€convictions€and€sentences€should€beÏaffirmed.Ìà àDuring€the€early€morning€hours€of€August€13,€1994,€Chip€Whitaker,€a€HawkinsÏCounty€deputy€sheriff,€was€on€patrol€in€Rogersville.€€He€saw€a€Corvette€traveling€at€aÏhigh€rate€of€speed.€€The€Corvette's€speed€and€the€manner€in€which€the€Corvette€wasÏbeing€driven€forced€Deputy€Whitaker€to€drive€into€a€parking€lot.€€The€deputy€lost€sight€ofÏthe€Corvette.€€However,€a€few€minutes€later€Deputy€Whitaker€saw€the€Corvette€pullÏfrom€the€driveway€of€a€service€station€in€a€reckless€manner.€€The€license€plate€on€theÏCorvette€said:€€"IT€BE€BAD."Ìà àWhen€the€deputy€activated€the€emergency€lights€on€the€patrol€car€and€the€siren,Ïthe€Corvette€took€off€"like€a€rocket."€€Although€Deputy€Whitaker€was€traveling€130€milesÏper€hour,€he€lost€sight€of€the€Corvette.€€As€Deputy€Whitaker€drove€along€the€highway,Ïhe€found€a€pickup€truck€lying€on€its€top.€€The€driver€of€the€pickup€truck,€Tommy€JoeÏYount,€had€died€before€Deputy€Whitaker€arrived€at€the€scene€of€the€crash.€€TheÏinvestigation€revealed€that€the€pickup€truck€was€traveling€in€the€œright„hand›€lane€andÏœthe€Corvette›€was€traveling€in€the€same€direction€in€the€left€lane.€€The€driver€of€theÏCorvette€went€from€the€left€lane€into€the€right€lane€and€struck€the€truck.€€The€driver€ofÏthe€Corvette€did€not€stop,€but€continued€to€a€nearby€store.€€The€Corvette€struck€anotherÏvehicle€and€came€to€a€stop.€€The€driver€and€a€passenger€exited€the€Corvette€and€fledÏon€foot.€€Ìà àThe€Corvette€was€registered€to€the€appellant.€€When€law€enforcement€officialsÏbegan€searching€for€the€appellant,€he€and€the€passenger€returned€to€the€situs€of€theÏsecond€collision.€€The€appellant€was€arrested€by€the€officers.€€His€blood€alcohol€levelÏwas€.18€percent.€€The€appellant€admitted€that€he€drank€approximately€ten€beers€priorÏto€the€collision.€€He€admitted€that€he€was€driving€the€Corvette€and€he€was€driving€fast€toÏavoid€being€stopped€by€Deputy€Whitaker.€€He€asked€one€of€the€officers€if€the€driver€ofÏthe€pickup€truck€had€been€killed€in€the€crash.€€When€the€officer€responded€in€theÏaffirmative,€the€appellant€stated:€€"I€want€to€go€to€jail."€€He€repeated€this€several€timesÏwhile€he€was€at€the€hospital.€€€Ìà àThe€state€established€that€the€appellant€had€made€a€U„turn€after€colliding€withÏthe€pickup€truck€and€drove€past€the€truck.€€The€fact€that€the€victim€had€died€in€theÏcollision€would€have€been€obvious€to€the€appellant.€€The€driver's€side€door€wasÍsheared€away€during€the€crash.€€The€victim€was€lying€upside€down€in€the€cab€of€theÏtruck€because€he€was€wearing€a€seatbelt.€€His€legs€were€protruding€into€the€roadway.€ÏWhen€the€appellant€passed€the€pickup€truck€after€the€collision,€it€would€have€beenÏobvious€that€the€victim€had€sustained€fatal€injuries.Ìà àThe€appellant€testified€in€support€of€his€defense.€€He€denied€that€he€almostÏstruck€Deputy€Whitaker€and€that€he€was€driving€recklessly.€€According€to€the€appellant,Ïhe€fled€from€Deputy€Whitaker€because€he€was€afraid€of€law€enforcement€officers.€€HeÏblamed€the€victim€for€the€collision.€He€testified€that€the€victim€drove€his€pickup€truck€intoÏthe€appellant's€lane€of€traffic.€€He€also€claimed€that€Deputy€Whitaker€chased€him€untilÏhe€struck€the€pickup€truck.€€The€appellant€stated€he€ran€from€the€Corvette€after€theÏsecond€collision€because€he€was€afraid€it€was€going€to€catch€fire.ÌÇÓ  Óò òI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicialÏdimensions€by€permitting€the€state€to€introduce€two€photographs.€€The€first€photographÏdepicted€the€victim's€overturned€pickup€truck€with€the€victim€inside€the€truck.€€TheÏsecond€photograph€depicted€the€appellant's€personalized€license€plate.€€He€arguesÏthat€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€outweighed€the€probative€value€of€theseÏphotographs.Ìà àThis€issue€has€been€waived.€€The€appellant€did€not€interpose€an€objection€whenÏthese€photographs€were€introduced€by€the€state.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€103(a)(1).€òòState€v.€Hudsonóó,€631€S.W.2d€716,€719€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1982);€òòseeóó€òòIn€re€Estate€of€Armstrongóó,€859€S.W.2d€323,€328€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).Ìà àIt€is€parenthetically€noted€that€if€this€issue€were€considered€on€the€merits,€thisÏCourt€would€hold€that€it€is€without€merit.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÏadmitting€the€photographs.€€The€photographs€were€relevant€to€the€issues€which€theÏjury€was€required€to€resolve;€and€the€probative€value€of€these€photographsÏoutweighed€any€prejudicial€effect.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicialÍdimensions€€in€ruling€that€defense€counsel€could€not€elicit€from€Deputy€Whitaker€theÏð ðpolice€departmentððs€general€orders€with€respect€to€high„speed€chasesðð€when€aÏsuspect€has€committed€a€misdemeanor€offense.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€generalÏobjected€when€defense€counsel€attempted€to€elicit€this€information.€€The€trial€courtÏsustained€the€stateððs€objection€on€the€ground€that€the€information€was€not€relevant€toÏthe€issues€which€the€jury€would€be€required€to€decide.Ìà àWhen€the€trial€court€sustained€the€stateððs€objection,€the€appellant€did€not€makeÏan€offer€of€the€proof€he€sought€to€elicit€from€Deputy€Whitaker.€€Consequently,€this€issueÏhas€been€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(2);€òòState€v.€Rhodenóó,Ï739€S.W.2d€6,€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï103(a)(2)€states€that€ð ð[e]rror€may€not€be€predicated€upon€a€ruling€which€.€.€.€excludesÏevidence€unless€a€substantial€right€of€the€party€is€affected,ðð€and,€when€the€issueÏinvolves€the€exclusion€of€evidence,€ð ðthe€substance€of€the€evidence€and€the€specificÏevidentiary€basis€supporting€admission€were€made€known€to€the€court€by€offer€or€wereÏapparent€from€the€record.ððÌà àIt€is€parenthetically€noted€that€if€this€issue€were€considered€on€the€merits,€thisÏCourt€€would€find€that€it€is€without€merit.€€The€Hawkins€County€Sheriffððs€DepartmentÏpolicy€regarding€chasing€vehicles€based€upon€a€misdemeanor€offense€was€notÏrelevant€to€the€issues€that€the€jury€was€required€to€decide.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Ì€€€€€€€ÌÓ  Óò òIII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àó óAs€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€complains€that€the€court€erred€in€sentencing€theÍappellant€to€the€maximum€allowed€under€the€ranges€and€erred€in€denying€him€anÏalternative€sentence.Ìà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÏis€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€a€presumptionÏthat€ð ðthe€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€areÏcorrect.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€presumption€does€not€apply€to€the€legal€conclusions€reachedÏby€the€trial€court€which€are€predicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900ÏS.W.2d€305,€311€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€929€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€166Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€However,€this€Court€is€required€to€give€great€weight€to€theÏtrial€courtððs€determination€of€controverted€facts€as€the€trial€courtððs€determination€isÏbased€upon€the€witnessesðð€demeanor€and€appearance.Ìà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€(a)€anyÏevidence€received€at€the€trial€and/or€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€the€presentence€report,Ï(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencingÏalternatives,€(e)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€(f)€any€mitigating€orÏenhancing€factors,€(g)€any€statements€made€by€the€accused€in€his€own€behalf,€and€(h)Ïthe€accusedððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€40„35„103€and€„210.€€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,€829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àWhen€the€accused€is€the€appellant,€the€accused€has€the€burden€of€establishingÏthat€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€erroneous.€€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401;€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169;€òòButleróó,€900ÏS.W.2d€at€311.Ìà àThe€appellant€was€a€Range€One€standard€offender€qualifying€for€a€sentenceÏbetween€three€(3)€and€six€(6)€years€for€vehicular€homicide€and€one€(1)€and€two€(2)Ïyears€for€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident€involving€death.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÏthe€evidence€established€two€enhancement€factors€allowing€an€increase€in€theÏappellantððs€punishment€within€the€appropriate€range.€€The€enhancement€factors€foundÏby€the€trial€court€were:€(a)€the€defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€behavior,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€and€(b)€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€the€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10).€€The€judge€found€no€mitigating€factors.Ìà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€(a)€in€applying€the€enhancingÏfactors,€(b)€in€refusing€to€apply€mitigating€factors,€and€(c)€in€refusing€to€impose€anÏalternative€sentence.ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€evidence€established€two€enhancement€factors:€Ï(a)€the€appellant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€and€(b)€the€appellant€"had€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10).€€This€Court€finds€that€the€evidence€supports€both€enhancement€factors,€andÏthe€trial€court€properly€used€these€two€factors€to€enhance€the€appellant's€sentencesÏwithin€Range€I€since€the€appellant€was€a€standard€offender.ÌÌÓ  Óò ò(1)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€evidence€establishes€that€the€appellant€had€been€convicted€of€fourÏspeeding€violations€and€driving€a€motor€vehicle€after€his€license€had€been€revoked.€ÏThis€Court€has€found€that€such€offenses€are€sufficient€to€support€the€use€of€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€to€enhance€an€accused's€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912ÏS.W.2d€766,€784€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)(driving€while€license€revoked€among€otherÏconvictions);€€òòState€v.€Curtis€Anthony€Milleróó,€Davidson€County€No.€01„C„01„9309„CR„00329€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€2,€1994),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€SeptemberÏ12,€1994)(driving€while€license€revoked);€€òòState€v.€Jerome€D.€Upmanóó,€Hamblen€CountyÏNo.€03„C„01„9402„CR„00052€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€August€2,€1994)(speeding);€ÏòòState€v.€Michael€S.€Hurtóó,€Marshall€County€No.€01„C„01„9306„CC„00189€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Nashville,€December€9,€1993)(speeding€infractions€among€others);€€òòState€v.€MikeÏBoswellóó,€Weakley€County€No.€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€January€16,Ï1991)(speeding€among€other€acts€of€criminal€behavior).ÌÓ  Óò ò(2)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10)€should€not€beÏused€to€enhance€a€sentence€involving€vehicular€homicide.€€This€Court€has€held€thatÍthis€enhancement€factor€should€not€be€applied€if€the€only€risk€to€life€was€that€of€theÏvictim.€€òòState€v.€Norrisóó,€874€S.W.2d€590,€601€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1993).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Makokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€366,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€€However,€when€the€lives€of€other€people€are€at€risk€due€toÏthe€offense€committed€by€the€accused,€this€factor€is€applicable.€€òòState€v.€Dockeryóó,€917ÏS.W.2d€258,€263€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€€òòMakokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€373.€€MoreÏparticularly,€this€enhancement€factor€has€been€applied€in€vehicular€homicide€casesÏwhen€the€accused€places€the€life€of€a€third€party€at€risk.€€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919ÏS.W.2d€69,€83€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(other€citizens€using€the€same€highway€as€theÏaccused);€€òòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741€S.W.2d€127,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1987)€(other€citizens€using€the€same€roadway€as€the€accused);€€òòState€v.ÏBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€453€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995)Ï(other€citizens€using€the€same€roadway€as€the€accused);€òòState€v.€Upmanóó,€òòsupraóóÏ(passenger€in€the€accused's€vehicle);€€òòState€v.€Crawford€C.€Youngóó,€Franklin€CountyÏNo.€01„C„01„9301„CC„00001€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€November€18,€1993)€(otherÏcitizens€using€the€same€roadway€as€the€accused).€€òòSeeóó€òòDockeryóó,€917€S.W.2d€at€263Ï(this€factor€applied€in€DUI€case€due€to€the€fact€there€was€a€passenger€in€the€accused'sÏvehicle).Ìà àThere€are€two€reasons€which€justified€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€this€enhancementÏfactor€to€enhance€the€appellant's€sentence.€€First,€the€appellant€had€a€passenger€in€hisÏvehicle€from€the€time€Deputy€Whitaker€saw€the€Corvette€until€the€Corvette€struck€theÏsecond€vehicle,€and€the€appellant€and€the€passenger€abandoned€the€Corvette.€€TheÏlife€of€the€passenger€was€at€risk€due€to€the€manner€in€which€the€accused€drove€hisÍmotor€vehicle.€€Second,€the€appellant€would€have€struck€the€patrol€car€being€driven€byÏDeputy€Whitaker€if€he€had€not€driven€the€patrol€car€into€a€parking€lot€to€avoid€theÏcollision.€€Thus,€Deputy€Whitaker's€life€was€at€risk.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€found€the€existenceÏof€three€mitigating€factors€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€He€arguesÏthat€his€sentence€should€be€reduced€because€of€the€"lack€of€a€serious€prior€criminalÏrecord,€.€.€.his€exemplary€work€history,€and€status€as€provider€for€his€family."Ìà àThis€Court€has€held€that€the€lack€of€a€felony€conviction€and€a€stable€work€historyÏdo€not€entitle€an€accused€to€a€reduction€in€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€ÏòòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€423€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏFurthermore,€the€fact€that€an€accused€has€the€"status€of€a€family€provider"€does€notÏentitle€an€accused€to€a€reduction€in€sentence.Ìà àEvery€person€who€resides€in€this€state€is€expected€to€obey€the€laws€enacted€byÏthe€General€Assembly.€€However,€there€is€another€reason€why€the€appellant€shouldÏnot€be€entitled€to€a€reduction€on€this€ground.€€The€appellant€has€been€repeatedlyÏconvicted€of€the€very€offense€that€contributed€to€the€death€of€the€victim,€driving€a€motorÏvehicle€in€excess€of€the€posted€speed€limit.Ìà à€Every€person€who€resides€in€this€state€is€expected€to€maintain€employment€andÏhave€a€stable€work€history.€€Of€course,€there€are€exceptions€to€this€rule.€A€person€whoÏis€disabled,€retired,€self„employed,€independently€wealthy,€or€otherwise€cannot€workÍcannot€be€expected€or€required€to€maintain€employment€or€have€a€stable€work€history.€ÏToday,€the€Congress€and€state€legislatures€are€limiting€the€length€of€time€that€a€healthyÏperson€may€receive€welfare.€€The€legislation€provides€for€funds€to€train€people€toÏperform€the€duties€of€particular€occupations.€€The€purpose€of€this€training€is€to€haveÏthese€individuals€obtain€and€maintain€employment.€€In€short,€public€policy€expects€thatÏan€able„bodied€person€obtain€employment€and€eventually€a€stable€work€history.ÌÌÓ  Óò òC.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€imposed€an€alternativeÏsentence€to€confinement€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€This€Court€respectfullyÏdisagrees€with€this€contention.Ìà àAs€previously€noted,€the€appellant€testified€in€this€case.€€He€either€stated€orÏimplied€that€every€witness€called€by€the€state€testified€falsely.€€Obviously,€the€jury€didÏnot€believe€the€appellant€given€its€verdicts.€€The€trial€court€had€the€opportunity€to€listenÏto€the€appellantððs€testimony€and€to€observe€the€appellant's€demeanor€and€mannerismsÏwhile€he€testified.€€The€trial€court€did€not€believe€the€appellant's€version€of€theÏevidence.Ìà àIt€is€well„established€that€the€lack€of€candor€is€probative€of€an€accused'sÏprospects€for€rehabilitation.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Graysonóó,€438€U.S.€41,€50„2,€98€S.Ct.Ï2610,€2616,€57€L.Ed.2d€582,€589„91€(1978);€€òòState€v.€Neeleyóó,€678€S.W.2d€48,€49Ï(Tenn.€1984);€€òòWilliamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€84;€€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€305„06€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259„60€(Tenn.€Crim.ÍApp.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€Thus,€the€trial€court€properly€considered€thisÏfactor€when€sentencing€the€appellant.Ìà àThe€appellant's€willingness€to€violate€the€laws€of€this€state€and€his€œcavalier›Ïattitude€towards€law€enforcement€œwere›€properly€considered€by€the€trial€court.€€AsÏpreviously€noted,€the€appellant€had€four€prior€speeding€violations.€€Yet€the€appellantÏdid€not€hesitate€to€violate€this€same€law€on€the€morning€in€question.€€€It€œis€obvious€toÏthis€Court›€that€if€Deputy€Whitaker€reached€130€miles€per€hour€during€the€pursuit,€andÏthe€appellant€was€able€to€disappear€from€Deputy€Whitaker's€sight,€the€appellant'sÏspeed€must€have€approximated€150€to€160€miles€per€hour.€€Moreover,€the€appellantÏwas€traveling€at€this€speed€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€The€trial€courtÏwas€correct€in€considering€this€factor€in€sentencing€the€appellant.€€This€factor€alsoÏjustifies€the€trial€court's€need€to€deter€the€appellant€as€well€as€protect€the€citizens€of€thisÏstate€from€the€appellant's€reckless€conduct€in€operating€a€motor€vehicle.€€If€theÏappellant€is€not€deterred,€he€may€very€well€drive€his€motor€vehicle€at€a€high€rate€ofÏspeed€while€intoxicated€and€cause€the€death€of€an€innocent€citizen€who€just€happensÏto€be€in€harm's€way.€Ìà àThe€appellant's€failure€to€take€responsibility€for€his€conduct€was€properlyÏconsidered€by€the€trial€court€when€sentencing€the€accused.€€òòWilliamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€atÏ84„5.€€He€blamed€Deputy€Whitaker€for€the€fatal€collision€because€he€chased€theÏappellant.€€While€the€physical€facts€established€the€appellant€veered€into€the€victim'sÏlane€of€traffic€and€struck€the€truck,€the€appellant€testified€that€the€victim€drove€his€truckÏinto€the€lane€of€traffic€he€was€occupying.€€This€factor€is€also€probative€of€the€appellant'sÏamenability€to€rehabilitation.€€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€at€306.Ìà àBased€upon€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€enhancement€factors€foundÏby€the€trial€court€and€the€weight€given€these€factors€by€the€trial€court,€the€appellant'sÏlack€of€candor€and€willingness€to€accept€responsibility€for€his€conduct,€and€his€œcavalier›Ïattitude€towards€law€enforcement€officers,€the€trial€court€properly€sentenced€theÏappellant€to€confinement€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Furthermore,€these€factorsÏjustify€the€imposition€of€the€maximum€sentences€for€these€offenses.€€Several€principlesÏof€sentencing€justify€this€result.€€First,€confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€fromÏthe€appellant's€operation€of€a€motor€vehicle€on€the€highways€of€this€state.€€He€had€fourÏprior€speeding€violations,€the€offense€which€contributed€to€the€death€of€the€victim.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A).€€Second,€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoidÏdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B).€ÏWhile€the€General€Assembly€passes€legislation€practically€every€session€to€deter€theÏoperation€of€a€motor€vehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€the€problemÏpersists€and€it€seems€to€multiply.€€The€trial€court€noted€the€many€cases€involving€theÏuse€of€alcohol€that€are€on€his€docket.€€This€Court€has€seen€a€remarkable€increase€inÏvehicular€homicide€cases€during€the€last€five€years.€€Practically€every€docket€has€oneÏor€more€vehicular€homicide€cases.€€Third,€this€Court€is€convinced€that€the€appellantÏdoes€not€possess€the€attributes€necessary€to€rehabilitate€himself.€€This€opinion€isÏreplete€with€factors€that€illustrate€this€consideration.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).Ìà àIn€conclusion,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€overcome€the€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€that€accompanies€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€Therefore,€this€Court€affirms€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€JOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€DAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE€€€€€€€€€