ÿWPCà MêUÄöþ<â´³¡Ê, ¤Œ†©=J6‚G¯£?òë²›‘äcwܧՉ!ì+Ä¥5S¬ú õñÊÈÒ&Æ÷,’'„œÿ…SÆÎ•áðhUf5¦Á(5£Sæ²™ešë!º¸ºîùû‹Ï®áÈ%ÚÂ<Ǽ>(«Ãsá]Wã¾a¸jõù#×G4­ß²ú•H÷¼j¿M>«¹ò9EÛ‘Ý}±í¥0Aø^„ã”,Ø¿èžÝ¬×`  &/îHN‘Lt*¹tƒDx#ËgЮ;ø”r‰[SÃ/`ð;4FóŽ‹„Ε·Š‚;LÀ¸MD1ì¸^Â+(ÌÚGõó˜Ä"äãe¢¡ú °³¶²JJ!2“ ÷­„j:±+b£ê·B.ÖUl‹ÆQ2 ‰úaˆÿùh逖©Ù)ìL³ç0§ø5DpAž¢>Æ{ÀàÏ Jq›#L’  ½Î¶-[(]½¨±ŒÍ5J§@j?A¿ŒÇÚž³ݰ}¿„©¶8gVM$Ö×㢤+Vº9Üè±ç½mx’#$Ñð@G¬îòtãÍ“ÐÜ9øÄ?î¹W÷(®ÜÍzXJ‚¢Ÿâtî´³rЋ U¥ÿâ\Ê©õÍF*ãiŠÌ@`B0ÈÒáv¥‰ÙÊÿT[ÁbU,N\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N; 0 c= E¶ 1¸ 1EšÒ 1l 1ùU @†CÆ 1u  72~°°°°°°°°°°°°°°b¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸ 0ëÀÀÀÀ B«« 0¤È D3l D-Ÿ 0KÌÌ ASÆj 0¤0 0DÔ A«(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó@r}+â yG*bk2È¿¤3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à Ý ƒRÊX$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôœlò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOn€the€date€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€Dr.€Clayton€had€received€his€medical€degree€and€was€in€his€first€yearÐ ° Ðof€residency.0ÆÙCEMU]emu}AutoList3(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)0ÆåCEMU]emu}AutoList2(A)(1)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A) Ý ƒRÊX$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôœlò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Appellant€had€DUI€convictions€in€the€following€years:€€1993€DUI€conviction,€1996€DUI€conviction,€1997Ð ° ÐDUI€conviction.€€After€each€conviction,€the€Appellant€successfully€completed€his€probationary€period€for€each€of€theseÐ tÄ Ðoffenses.(öÙCEMU]emu}AutoList6(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(ÖÙCEMU]emu}AutoList4(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  9Ý ƒRÊX$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôœlò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€indictment€charged€that€the€Appellant€was€ð ðoperating€a€motor€vehicle€on€South€Roan€Street,€a€publicÐ ° Ðway/premise€generally€frequented€by€the€public€at€large.ðð3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) - ù-(|G2ÊX$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€'„»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôœlò»»Ô d(|3Gh$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€'„»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gh$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€'„»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€'„»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼'„»»»ÔÑ8€rhXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î.E'„ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼'„»îî.E #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€October€30,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XrhX»¼'„ÔÌò òÔ#†¼'„»XXrh!#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€ROBBIE€R.€BAILEYòòóóÔ‡XrhX»¼'„Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Washington€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€26013€€€€€€Robert€E.€Ô_ÔCuppÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„00210„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐNovember€29,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XrhXXXrhÔÌÌThe€Appellant,€Robbie€R.€Bailey,€was€indicted€by€a€Washington€County€Grand€Jury€for€one€countÐ P  Ðof€driving€under€the€influence,€fourth€offense,€one€count€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€and€twoÐ <Œ Ðcounts€of€vehicular€assault.€€On€December€1,€2000,€Bailey€pled€guilty€to€two€counts€of€vehicularÐ (x Ðassault€and€one€count€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing€on€January€10,Ð d Ð2001,€the€trial€court€sentenced€Bailey,€as€a€range€I€standard€offender,€to€the€maximum€term€of€€fourÐ P Ðyears€on€each€count€of€vehicular€assault€and€ordered€that€the€sentences€be€served€consecutively€inÐ ì< Ðthe€Department€of€Correction.Ð Ø( ÐÌOn€appeal,€Bailey€raises€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€sentences€imposed€forÐ ° Ðvehicular€assault€were€excessive;€and€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€Baileyððs€requestÐ œì Ðfor€a€non€Ô_ÔincarcerativeÔ_Ô€alternative€sentence.€€After€review,€we€find€no€reversible€error€and€affirm€theÐ ˆØ Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court.Ô#†XrhXX Xrhø#ÔÔ#†¼'„»XXrh™#ÔÔ‡XrhX»¼'„ÔÐ tÄ ÐÓìÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ L œ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼'„»àXrh #ÔÔ‡XrhX.¼'„ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.óó€andÐ $"t! ÐòòJohn€Everett€Williams,€Ô_ÔJ.óóJ.Ô_Ô,€joined.Ð #`" ÐÌSteve€Ô_ÔMcEwenÔ_Ô,€Mountain€City,€Tennessee,€and€David€F.€Bautista,€District€Public€Defender,€JohnsonÐ è$8 $ ÐCity,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€the€Appellant,€Robbie€R.€Bailey.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Elizabeth€B.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÔ_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Joe€C.€Ô_ÔCrumleyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€SteveÐ ˜(è#( ÐFinney,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌÌÔ#†¼'„»XXrhÓ #ÔÔ‡XrhX»¼'„ÔÌÓ¤ ÓÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼'„»XXrh¦#ÔÔ‡XrhX»¼'„ÔÐ ° ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ ˆØ ÐòòóóÔ#†¼'„»XXrhA#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XrhX»¼'„ÔÌÌÔ‡ XrhXXXrhÔà  àOn€the€evening€of€March€4,€2000,€Steve€Clayton,€a€third„year€medical€student׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€in€the€EastÐ L œ ÐTennessee€State€University€medical€program,€and€his€girlfriend,€Kara€Kuntz,€a€junior€pre„medÐ 8 ˆ Ðstudent€at€East€Tennessee€State€University,€were€returning€from€the€grocery€store€when€they€wereÐ $ t Ðstruck€head„on€by€a€pick„up€truck€driven€by€the€Appellant.€€Officer€Larry€Williams,€of€the€JohnsonÐ  ` ÐCity€Police€Department,€testified€that€the€Appellant€drove€his€truck€approximately€2€ðð€€feet€acrossÐ ü L  Ðthe€center€line€directly€into€the€path€of€the€1998€Honda€Civic€driven€by€Clayton,€pushing€ClaytonððsÐ è 8  Ðvehicle€approximately€70€feet€across€another€lane€of€traffic€before€it€came€to€rest€in€a€ditch.€€OfficerÐ Ô$  ÐWilliams€testified€that€the€Appellant€did€not€have€his€headlights€on€at€the€time€of€the€collision€andÐ À  Ðthat€the€Appellantððs€blood€alcohol€level€was€.228€percent.€€Officer€Williams€also€determined€that€theÐ ¬ü  ÐAppellant€was€traveling€55€mph€in€a€30€mph€zone€within€the€city€limits.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àClayton€suffered€various€injuries€as€a€result€of€the€collision,€including€fractures€to€the€rightÐ pÀ Ðradius€[forearm],€a€partial€ACL€tear€to€his€left€knee,€and€various€lacerations€to€his€head€and€hands.€Ð \¬ ÐTwo€surgeries€were€required€to€reduce€the€arm€fracture€through€pin€placement.€€The€damage€toÐ H˜ ÐClaytonððs€left€knee€also€required€various€MRIððs,€drainage€and€the€injection€of€steroids.€€In€additionÐ 4„ Ðto€his€physical€injuries,€Clayton€suffered€a€two„month€delay€in€his€residency€and€a€monetary€loss€ofÐ  p Ðapproximately€$28,000.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àClaytonððs€passenger,€Ms.€Kuntz,€faired€less€favorably,€with€the€most€significant€injury€beingÐ ä4 Ðto€her€head.€€This€injury€resulted€in€permanent€brain€damage.€€At€sentencing,€Ms.€Kuntzððs€injuriesÐ Ð  Ðwere€described€as€follows:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àMostly€she€had€bled€into€her€frontal€lobes,€and€she€had€what€they€call€anÐ ”ä Ðintraparenchymal€bleed€as€well€as€a€contrecoup€injury€.€.€.€She€bled€into€the€front€partÐ €Ð Ðof€[her]€brain€which€is€known€to€control€centers€for€personality,€memory,€andÐ l¼ Ðknowledge€„€socially€appropriate€behavior€I€guess€is€the€best€way€to€put€it€„€as€wellÐ X ¨ Ðas€various€other€bleeds.€€And€then€she€damaged€the€back€part€of€her€brain€thatÐ D!” Ðcontrols€your€ability€to€walk€and€initiate€walking€.€.€.€When€you€walk€you€donððt€haveÐ 0"€  Ðto€think€about€€taking€a€step€or€keeping€your€balance€because€that€part€of€your€brainÐ #l! Ðconstantly€adjusts.€€Well,€she€had€injured€it€and€[it]€just€made€all€types€of€coordinatedÐ $X" Ðmovement€like€that€very,€very€difficult.€€She€€[had]€several€other€injuries€„€the€biggestÐ ô$D # Ðinjury€by€far€was€.€.€.€the€brain€injury€.€.€.€she€had€a€.€.€.€fracture€.€.€.€in€her€right€tibia.€Ð à%0!$ ÐItððs€called€a€tibea€plateau€fracture€.€.€.€but€basically€she€had€shattered€the€main€boneÐ Ì&"% Ðof€the€lower€leg€and€actually€had€free€floating€bones€and€stuff€in€there.€€And€theÐ ¸'#& Ðmedical€treatment€required€[doctors]€to€go€in€and€actually€put€an€external€fixator€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthere€[which]€runs€wires€in€to€kind€of€push€all€the€bones€together€so€they€could€healÐ ° Ðappropriately.€€And€for€one€reason€or€another,€either€during€the€accident€or€as€a€resultÐ œì Ðof€the€medical€treatment€„€thereððs€a€nerve€that€runs€close€to€where€they€had€to€go€inÐ ˆØ Ðto€fix€those€bones.€€And€she€has€since€.€.€.€sustained€what€we€call€foot€drop€orÐ tÄ Ðinability€to€lift€her€foot€up€like€this€.€.€.€She€also€received€a€patellar€fracture€on€her€leftÐ `° Ðside€as€well€as€multiple€fractures€in€her€left€hand.€€She€had,€once€again,€a€fracture€ofÐ L œ Ðone€of€the€metacarpals€in€her€left€hand€which€the€orthopedic€surgeon€just€saidÐ 8 ˆ Ðbasically€had€[been]€just€totally€.€.€.€for€lack€of€a€better€word,€smushed,€I€mean,€justÐ $ t Ðtotally€destroyed€.€.€.€In€addition€to€this,€she€also€received€a€fracture€of€her€left€armÐ  ` Ðas€well.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌMs.€Kuntz€spent€a€total€of€77€days€in€the€hospital€and€in€rehabilitation€facilities.€€In€addition€to€herÐ Ô$  Ðphysical€injuries,€Karaððs€father€estimated€that€their€family€had€incurred€a€monetary€loss€of€$300,000Ð À  Ðto€$400,000.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àPrior€the€collision,€Ms.€Kuntz€was€working€to€complete€her€undergraduate€degree€and€hadÐ „Ô  Ðreceived€early€acceptance€into€the€East€Tennessee€State€University€medical€program.€€At€trial,€Ms.Ð pÀ ÐKuntzððs€father€described€her€prior€to€the€collision€and€the€effect€the€collision€has€had€on€their€lives:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àI€would€like€to€tell€you€about€Kara.€€Kara€is€the€perfect€daughter.€€Beginning€inÐ 4„ Ðelementary€school,€Kara€was€always€an€overachiever.€€She€competed€and€wonÐ  p Ðtrophies€and€ribbons€in€math,€art,€county€fairs€and€many€other€competitions.€€SheÐ  \ Ðtook€dance€and€music€lessons€for€years.€€Kara€seldom€received€a€grade€below€an€AÐ øH Ðin€all€subjects€and€she€rarely€missed€a€day€of€school.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThroughout€middle€school,€Kara€continued€to€excel€in€all€subjects.€€She€cluttered€ourÐ ¼  Ðhome€with€materials€for€science€fair€projects€and€the€Gifted€and€Talented€Program.€Ð ¨ø ÐKara€became€very€active€in€volunteer€work.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àWhen€Kara€entered€high€school,€we€thought€she€had€done€it€all,€but€this€was€only€theÐ l¼ Ðbeginning.€€Kara€received€straight€Aððs€throughout€high€school€and€was€on€theÐ X ¨ ÐPrincipalððs€List€for€all€four€years.€€She€continued€to€receive€award€after€award€for€herÐ D!” Ðacademic€achievements.€€She€was€a€member€of€the€high€school€marching€and€concertÐ 0"€  Ðbands.€€She€volunteered€at€the€Childrenððs€Center€for€abused€and€neglected€childrenÐ #l! Ðand€continued€to€do€so€on€her€summer€breaks€from€college.€€She€faithfullyÐ $X" Ðvolunteered€for€Special€Olympics,€Christmas€in€April€and€too€many€other€events€toÐ ô$D # Ðmention.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àKara€completed€her€high€school€credit€requirements€early€and€took€four€collegeÐ ¸'#& Ðcourses€in€her€junior€and€senior€years€of€high€school.€€Kara€graduated€high€schoolÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwith€a€4.5€grade€point,€scored€32€on€her€ACT,€and€1470€on€her€SAT€exams.€€KaraÐ )à$( Ðwas€the€valedictorian€in€her€class€of€400€students.€€We€were€proud€parents.Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àKara€was€offered€over€$500,000€in€college€scholarship€funds.€€She€visited€at€leastÐ ° Ðeight€colleges€and€chose€ETSU€because€the€people€were€friendly€and€the€faculty€wasÐ œì Ðvery€encouraging€and€supported€her€meeting€her€goals.€€Kara€was€given€a€fullÐ ˆØ Ðscholarship€and€admitted€in€the€pre„medicine€program.€€Kara€enjoyed€her€first€twoÐ tÄ Ðand€a€half€years€at€ETSU.€€She€continued€to€excel€academically€and€to€do€volunteerÐ `° Ðwork€in€the€community.€€Kara€became€a€sorority€member€and€enjoyed€theÐ L œ Ðcompanionship€of€her€sisters.€€Together€they€went€dancing,€hiking,€shopping,€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðchasing€boys.€€Unfortunately,€because€of€Karaððs€injuries€she€can€no€longer€participateÐ $ t Ðin€these€fun€things.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àDuring€her€sophomore€year€she€met€Mr.€Clayton€and€together€they€planned€marriageÐ è 8  Ðand€a€future€together.€€Sadly,€due€to€the€traumatic€situation€[the€Appellant]€hasÐ Ô$  Ðinflicted€on€our€family,€this€relationship€has€been€destroyed.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àKara€continues€to€attend€rehab€and€works€very€hard.€€Her€brain€injury€has€left€herÐ ˜è  Ðwith€a€lifelong€short„term€memory€loss.€€Her€cerebella€injury€has€made€it€difficult€forÐ „Ô  Ðher€to€walk€because€of€difficulty€balancing.€€She€will€need€another€surgery€on€her€leftÐ pÀ Ðhand€due€to€crushed€bones€that€have€left€her€hand€deformed.€€Her€left€arm€has€beenÐ \¬ Ðbroken€and€she€has€drop€foot€due€to€the€break€in€her€right€leg.€€She€has€aged€50€yearsÐ H˜ Ðdue€to€destroyed€nerves€in€her€entire€body.€€Kara€no€longer€has€her€beautiful€smileÐ 4„ Ðthat€always€lit€up€the€room€when€she€walked€in€.€.€.€€Kara€will€never€be€the€person€sheÐ  p Ðwas€born€to€be.€Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌAt€the€time€of€sentencing,€Ms.€Kuntz€had€re„entered€college€on€a€ð ðtrial€basisðð€and€was€struggling€toÐ ä4 Ðcomplete€her€undergraduate€degree€by€taking€only€seven€hours€a€semester.€€Due€to€the€vehicularÐ Ð  Ðassault,€Karaððs€father€and€mother€began€to€lead€virtually€separate€lives.€€Karaððs€mother€stayed€withÐ ¼  ÐKara€to€help€her€with€ð ðeveryday€livingðð€and€her€rehabilitation€program,€while€Karaððs€father€remainedÐ ¨ø Ðin€Maryland€with€their€thirteen„year„old€daughter.€€Karaððs€father€testified€that€he,€his€wife,€and€hisÐ ”ä Ðother€daughter€had€all€been€profoundly€traumatized€and€psychologically€affected€by€the€event.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€sustained€no€injuries€in€the€crash.€€At€the€time€of€these€offenses,€he€had€threeÐ X ¨ Ðprior€DUI€convictions€and€was€driving€on€a€suspended€license.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€sentencing,€the€AppellantÐ D!” Ðtestified€that€he€did€remember€drinking€at€home€that€night,€but€has€no€recollection€of€the€event€orÐ 0"€  Ðcollision€that€followed€until€the€ambulance€arrived€at€the€scene.€€He€was€apologetic,€remorseful,€andÐ #l! Ðadmitted€that€he€has€an€alcohol€abuse€problem.€€The€Appellant,€age€29€at€sentencing,€further€testifiedÐ $X" Ðthat€he€had€been€fully€employed€since€age€18€and€was€willing€to€pay€restitution€to€the€victims€andÐ ô$D # Ðtheir€families.Ð à%0!$ Ðâ âÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àAt€the€close€of€proof,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€Appellant€to€the€maximum€sentence€of€fourÐ ° Ðâ âyears€on€each€vehicular€homicide€conviction€and€ordered€that€those€sentences€run€consecutively,€forÐ œì Ðan€effective€sentence€of€eight€years.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€Whether€The€Sentences€Imposed€Are€ExcessiveÐ 8 ˆ Ðó óÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€sentencing€him€to€the€four„year€maximumÐ  ` Ðsentence€within€the€range€for€each€vehicular€assault€conviction.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€courtÐ ü L  Ðmisapplied€enhancement€factors,€failed€to€apply€or€properly€weigh€mitigating€factors,€and€erred€inÐ è 8  Ðordering€the€two€vehicular€assault€convictions€to€be€served€consecutively.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àÔ#†XrhXX Xrhù#ÔÔ‡XrhXXXrhÔThe€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€courtÐ ¬ü  Ðwas€erroneous.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€168€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,Ð ˜è  Ð473€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€786€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ô#†XrhXXXrh/>#ÔÔ‡ XrhXXXrhÔ€Ô#†XrhXX XrhÅ?#ÔÔ‡XrhXXXrhÔInÐ „Ô  Ðdetermining€whether€the€Appellant€has€carried€his€burden,€this€court€must€consider€the€evidenceÐ pÀ Ðreceived€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€pre„sentence€report,€the€principles€of€sentencing,Ð \¬ Ðthe€arguments€of€counsel,€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offenses,€existing€mitigating€andÐ H˜ Ðenhancing€factors,€statements€made€by€the€offender,€and€the€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòAshbyóó,€823Ð 4„ ÐS.W.2d€at€169òòóó;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210.Ô#†XrhXXXrh@#ÔÔ‡ XrhXXXrhÔ€€Furthermore,€when€a€defendant€challenges€theÐ  p Ðsentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court,€this€court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ  \ Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€ThisÐ øH Ðpresumption€is€only€applicable€if€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€court€properly€consideredÐ ä4 Ðrelevant€sentencing€principles.€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€Ô#†XrhXX Xrh|B#ÔÔ‡XrhXXXrhÔWith€respect€to€the€issue€of€the€lengthÐ Ð  Ðof€sentence€imposed,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€application€of€certain€enhancementÐ ¼  Ðfactors.€€Thus,€our€review€of€this€issue€is€conducted€€without€a€presumption€of€correctness€pursuantÐ ¨ø Ðto€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„401(d).€Ô#†XrhXXXrh¬D#ÔÔ‡XrhXXXrhÔòòÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àóóThe€Appellant€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€vehicular€assault,€both€Class€D€felonies.€€Tenn.Ð l¼ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„106(a)€&€(b).€€ð ðA€person€commits€vehicular€assault,€who,€as€the€proximate€resultÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€personððs€intoxication€as€set€forth€in€ðð€55„10„401,€recklessly€causes€serious€bodily€injury€toÐ D!” Ðanother€person€by€the€operation€of€a€motor€vehicle.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„106(a).€€€BecauseÐ 0"€  Ðthe€Appellant€is€a€range€I€standard€offender,€the€range€of€punishment€for€a€Class€D€felony€is€ð ðnot€lessÐ #l! Ðthan€two€(2)€years€nor€more€than€four€(4)€years.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(4).€€Ô#†XrhXXXrhHF#ÔÔ‡XrhXXXrhÔFurthermore,Ð $X" Ðthe€presumptive€sentence€would€be€the€minimum€sentence€in€that€range€if€there€are€no€enhancing€orÐ ô$D # Ðmitigating€factors€present.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€If€there€are€both€enhancing€andÐ à%0!$ Ðmitigating€factors€present,€the€trial€court€must€ð ðenhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriateÐ Ì&"% Ðfor€the€enhancement€factors,€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€theÐ ¸'#& Ðmitigating€factors.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant's€sentence€is€not€determined€by€the€mathematical€process€of€adding€the€sumÐ |*Ì%) Ðtotal€of€enhancing€factors€present€then€subtracting€from€this€figure€the€mitigating€factors€present€forÐ h+¸&* Ða€net€number€of€years.€€Rather,€the€weight€to€be€afforded€an€existing€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€court'sÐ ° Ðdiscretion€so€long€as€the€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€ActÐ œì Ðand€its€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€€òòBoggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€at€475.€€The€weight€toÐ ˆØ Ðbe€afforded€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€derives€from€balancing€relative€degrees€ofÐ tÄ Ðculpability€within€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€the€case€involved.€€òòId.€óóat€476.Ð `° ÐÌÔ#†XrhXXXrhvI#ÔÔ‡XrhXXXrhÔòòò òÓ  ÓóóA.€Enhancement€FactorsÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àAt€sentencing€the€trial€court€applied€four€enhancement€factors€to€each€of€the€AppellantððsÐ  ` Ðconvictions€for€vehicular€assault,€namely:€(1)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÐ ü L  Ðconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;Ð è 8  Ð(2)€the€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim;€(3)€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€or€the€amountÐ Ô$  Ðof€damage€to€property€sustained€by€or€taken€from€the€victim€was€particularly€great;€and€(4)€theÐ À  Ðdefendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€Tenn.Ð ¬ü  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(3),€(6),€&€(10).Ð ˜è  Ðò òÌà  àó óWith€respect€to€enhancement€factor€(1),€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€we€find€that€theÐ pÀ Ðtrial€court€properly€applied€this€factor€to€both€vehicular€assault€convictions.€€The€Appellant€had€threeÐ \¬ Ðprior€DUI€convictions.€€As€such,€the€Appellantððs€past€criminal€history€is€more€than€sufficient€to€applyÐ H˜ Ðthis€enhancement€factor.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€enhancement€factor€(3),€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3),€the€State€concedesÐ  \ Ðthat€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€apply€this€factor.€€We€agree.€€This€court€has€previously€held€thatÐ øH Ðenhancement€factor€(3)€may€not€be€applied€when€the€defendant€is€separately€convicted€of€theÐ ä4 Ðoffenses€charged€against€each€victim.€€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€69,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ð  Ð1995);€òòState€v.€Makokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€366,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ð ¼  Ð1994)(òòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó);€òòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741€S.W.2d€127,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¨ø Ð1987).ò ò€€ó óIn€the€present€case,€the€Appellant€was€separately€charged€and€convicted€of€vehicular€assaultÐ ”ä Ðagainst€both€victims.€Thus,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€this€factor.ò òÐ „Ô ÐÌà  àó óWith€respect€to€enhancementò ò€ó ófactor€(6),€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6),€the€AppellantÐ \ ¬ Ðargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€this€factor€because€ð ðthe€personal€injuries€sustained€by€theÐ L!œ Ðvictim€being€particularly€great€is€an€element€of€vehicular€assault.ðð€€The€State€again€concedes€thisÐ 8"ˆ  Ðerror€with€respect€to€the€conviction€involving€the€victim€Kuntz.€€We€agree.€€Enhancement€factor€(6)Ð $#t! Ðis€not€applicable€to€this€vehicular€assault€conviction€because€great€personal€injuries€or€its€equivalent,Ð $`" Ðserious€bodily€injury,€is€an€element€of€the€offense.€€òòWilliamson,óó€919€S.W.2d€at€82.€Ô#†XrhXXXrhQO#ÔÔ‡XrhXXXrhԀРü$L # ÐÌà  àThe€State€does,€however,€argue€that€the€trial€court€properly€applied€enhancement€factor€(6)Ð Ô&$"% Ðto€the€vehicular€assault€conviction€involving€the€victim€Clayton.€€Specifically,€the€State€asserts€thatÐ À'#& Ðthe€loss€of€Claytonððs€vehicle,€valued€at€approximately€$12,000,€is€sufficient€to€support€applicationÐ ¬(ü#' Ðof€factor€(6).ò ò€€ó óIn€òòState€v.€John€D.€Neblettóóò ò,€ó óNo.€01C01„9805„CC„00231€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ ˜)è$( ÐNashville,€Sept.€24,€1999),òò€perm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.,€Feb.€14,€2001),€this€court€upheld€the€trialÐ ˆ*Ø%) Ðcourtððs€application€of€enhancement€factor€(6)€where€a€vehicular€assault€victimððs€car€was€totaledÐ t+Ä&* Ðduring€the€wreck.€€In€this€case,€the€collision€totaled€Claytonððs€vehicle,€resulting€in€property€damageÐ ° Ðof€$12,000.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6).€€We€conclude€that€the€property€damage€incurredÐ œì Ðwas€particularly€great€and€that€the€trial€court€properly€applied€enhancement€factor€(6)€to€the€offenseÐ ˆØ Ðinvolving€the€victim€Clayton.ò òòòó óÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àóóFinally,€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€enhancement€factor€(10),Ð L œ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10),€because€ð ðthere€was€no€evidence€that€anyone€other€than€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðvictims€were€subject€to€be€injured€by€the€Appellant.ðð€€In€so€applying€this€factor,€the€trial€courtÐ $ t Ðconcluded,€ð ðhis€conduct€that€night€not€only€exposed€himself€but€everybody€on€the€highway€to€a€highÐ  ` Ðrisk€of€human€life.ðð€€Enhancement€factor€(10)€may€be€applied€in€circumstances€where€individualsÐ ü L  Ðother€than€the€victim€are€in€the€area€of€the€defendantððs€criminal€conduct€and€are€subject€to€injury.€Ð è 8  ÐòòState€v.€Simsóó,€909€S.W.2d€46,€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)(òòdistinguished€on€other€groundsóó).€Ð Ô$  ÐNotwithstanding,€in€òòState€v.€Rhodesóó,€917€S.W.2d€708,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€this€court€heldÐ À  Ðthat€enhancement€factor€(10)€does€not€apply€to€vehicular€assault€where€the€record€does€not€indicateÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€any€other€person€was€actually€threatened€by€defendantððs€driving€because€ð ðvehicular€assaultÐ ˜è  Ð[unquestionably]€reflects€the€legislatureððs€appreciation€of€the€substantial€risk€of€and€actual€degreeÐ „Ô  Ðof€harm€that€results€from€DUI€caused€injury.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€we€find€that€the€record€sufficiently€corroborates€the€trial€courtððsÐ H˜ Ðapplication€of€enhancement€factor€(10).€€At€the€time€of€the€impact,€the€Appellant€had€a€blood€alcoholÐ 4„ Ðcontent€of€.228€percent,€more€than€twice€the€legal€limit.€€We€note€that€the€vehicular€assaults€occurredÐ  p Ðwithin€the€city€limits€and€that€the€Appellant€was€traveling€55€mph€in€a€30€mph€zone.€€The€AppellantÐ  \ Ðremembers€nothing€about€getting€into€his€vehicle€and€driving€on€that€particular€evening.€€€TheÐ øH ÐAppellant€crossed€the€center€line€and€proceeded€into€on„coming€traffic,€colliding€head„on€with€theÐ ä4 Ðvehicle€driven€by€Clayton.€€Although€the€record€does€not€specifically€list€the€names€of€persons€onÐ Ð  Ðthe€road€that€night,€we€find€that€the€facts€of€this€case€sufficiently€infer€that€individuals€traveling€onÐ ¼  Ðthis€highway€were€also€subject€to€danger€or€injury€that€night.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee€State€v.€Davis€Oliver€Brown,€óóNo.Ð ¨ø Ð03C01„9608„CR„00313€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Dec.€16,€1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ð ”ä Ð(Tenn.€Oct.€12,€1998).€€The€trial€court€properly€applied€enhancement€factor€(10)€to€both€victims.Ð €Ð ÐÌÓ  Óò òB.€€Mitigating€Factorsó óÐ X ¨ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAt€sentencing,€the€trial€court€applied€only€one€mitigating€factor:€that€the€Appellant€was€trulyÐ 0"€  Ðremorseful.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€However,€when€weighing€the€enhancing€andÐ #l! Ðmitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€only€afforded€this€mitigating€factor€little€weightÐ $X" Ðbecause€a€defendantððs€remorse€will€always€occur€òòafteróó€damage€to€the€victim€has€been€doneÔ#†XrhXXXrh?[#ÔÔ‡XrhXXXrhÔ.€€TheÐ ô$D # ÐAppellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€this€factor€and€then€according€it€only€minimalÐ à%0!$ Ðweight.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€contends€that€ð ðby€this€reasoning,€this€factor€would€never€beÐ Ì&"% Ðentitled€to€any€weight,€since€logic€dictates€that€[it€is€only€when]€the€crime€has€already€occurred,€andÐ ¸'#& Ð[its]€consequences€brought€about,€[that]€remorse€can€be€demonstrated.ððÐ ¤(ô#' Їà  àAgain,€we€note€that€the€process€of€weighing€enhancing€factors€versus€mitigating€factors€isÐ ° Ða€matter€left€to€the€trial€courtððs€sound€discretion€so€long€as€it€complies€with€the€principles€andÐ œì Ðpurposes€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act.€€In€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€expressly€noted€that€itÐ ˆØ Ðbelieved€the€Appellant€to€be€remorseful€at€sentencing.€€Nonetheless,€after€considering€theÐ tÄ ÐAppellantððs€three€prior€DUI€convictions,€the€injuries€sustained€by€the€two€victims,€and€the€otherÐ `° Ðevidence€introduced€at€sentencing,€the€trial€court€found€the€Appellantððs€remorse€to€be€of€little€valueÐ L œ Ðor€weight€in€determining€the€appropriate€sentence.€€€Furthermore,€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€otherÐ 8 ˆ Ðactions€on€the€part€of€the€Appellant,€prior€to€sentencing,€where€he€showed€or€expressed€his€remorseÐ $ t Ðfor€the€incident.€€€When€comparing€the€enhancing€factors€found€at€sentencing€versus€the€AppellantððsÐ  ` Ðremorse,€we€do€not€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€affording€this€mitigator€onlyÐ ü L  Ðslight€weight€in€arriving€at€the€final€sentence.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€give€him€credit€for€a€stableÐ À  Ðemployment€history.€€Over€a€ten„year€period,€the€Appellant€worked€in€the€electronics€field€forÐ ¬ü  Ðvarious€employers.€€Although€he€worked€for€several€different€employers€during€this€period,€heÐ ˜è  Ðcontends€that€he€always€maintained€full„time€employment.€€The€Appellant€makes€no€argument€asÐ „Ô  Ðto€why€his€employment€history€should€operate€to€reduce€the€length€of€his€sentence.Ô#†XrhXXXrhnm#ÔÔ‡XrhXXXrhÔ€€Indeed,€weÐ pÀ Ðwould€note€that€a€stable€employment€history,€or€the€lack€thereof,€is€typically€viewed€as€a€factor€inÐ \¬ Ðdetermining€a€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation€within€the€context€of€entitlement€to€alternativeÐ H˜ Ðsentencing.€€As€noted€by€the€language€of€Section€113,€€in€some€situations€prior€employment€history,Ð 4„ Ðð ðif€appropriate,ðð€can€be€considered€as€a€proper€mitigating€factor€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÐ  p ÐAnnotated€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€Nonetheless,€application€of€this€factor,€absent€a€gross€abuse€ofÐ  \ Ðdiscretion,€is€a€decision€which€rests€with€the€trial€court.€€Even€if€we€assume€that€the€factor€wasÐ øH Ðapplicable€here,€this€factor,€when€compared€with€the€enhancement€factors€applied,€is€of€such€littleÐ ä4 Ðweight€that€it€would€not€have€affected€the€determination€of€the€specific€sentence€imposed.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àLastly,€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€consider€his€ð ðlengthyðð€ten„Ð ¨ø Ðmonth€incarceration€at€the€time€of€sentencing€as€a€mitigating€factor.€€Again,€the€Appellant€providesÐ ”ä Ðno€argument€or€reasoning€as€to€why€this€fact€should€be€considered€as€a€mitigating€factor.€€TennesseeÐ €Ð ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€40„35„113(13)€provides€that,€in€order€for€a€mitigating€factor€to€apply€under€thisÐ l¼ Ðsubsection,€the€factor€must€be€consistent€with€the€purposes€of€this€chapter.€€We€hold€that€service€ofÐ X ¨ Ðpretrial€confinement€by€a€defendant€is€not€a€factor€consistent€with€the€purposes€of€sentencingÐ D!” Ðmitigation.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€failing€to€apply€this€factor.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€summary,€we€apply€enhancement€factors€(1)€and€(10)€to€the€vehicular€assault€convictionÐ $X" Ðinvolving€Ms.€Kuntz.€€With€respect€to€the€vehicular€assault€conviction€involving€the€victim€Clayton,Ð ô$D # Ðwe€apply€enhancement€factors€(1),€(6),€and€(10).€€Mitigating€factor€(1)€is€also€applied€to€both€victims.€Ð à%0!$ ÐAfter€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€conclude€that€four„year€sentences€on€each€count€of€vehicular€assault€areÐ Ì&"% Ðappropriate€sentences€in€this€case.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* Ðò òÓ  ÓC.€€Consecutive€SentencingÐ ° ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€his€two€convictions€forÐ ˆØ Ðvehicular€assault€to€run€consecutively€to€one€another,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€eight€years.€Ð tÄ ÐSpecifically,€he€argues€that€ð ðhe€is€not€a€dangerous€offender€based€upon€this€one€reckless€act€ofÐ `° Ðcrossing€into€the€opposite€side€of€the€road,€when€there€was€not€proof€that€this€was€a€highly€traveledÐ L œ Ðroadway,€or€that€[his]€intoxication€caused€him€to€drive€recklessly€prior€to€swerving€over€and€strikingÐ 8 ˆ ÐMr.€Claytonððs€vehicle.ðð€€The€Appellant€also€argues€that€an€extended€sentence€was€not€necessary€toÐ $ t Ðprotect€the€public€because€his€three€prior€DUI€convictions€were€misdemeanors€and€not€crimes€ofÐ  ` Ðviolence.€€Thus,€the€Appellant€contends€that€his€sentences€for€vehicular€assault€should€be€servedÐ ü L  Ðconcurrently.Ð è 8  ÐòòÌà  àóóWith€reference€to€the€particular€facts€of€this€case,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„Ð À  Ð115(b)(4)€provides€that€the€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€the€court€finds€by€aÐ ¬ü  Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that:Ð ˜è  ÐÓ€ (ÆÙ83ÓØ! !ØÌÓ€ (ÖÙ88ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£à†ÝÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú4Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝThe€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€noÐ pÀ Ðregard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€whichÐ \¬ Ðthe€risk€to€human€life€is€great.݃3£à†‡ÝŒÐH˜` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àÐ Ð Ð  ÐThis€courtððs€review€of€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ  p Ðdetermination€made€by€the€trial€court€is€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€Following€òòdeÐ  \ Ðnovo€óóreview,€the€presumption€of€correctness€is€applied€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings€relative€to€theÐ øH Ðissue€of€consecutive€sentencing.€€The€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€impropriety€of€theÐ ä4 Ðconsecutive€nature€of€the€sentences€imposed.€€òòSentencing€Commission€Commentsóó,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð Ð  Ððð€40„35„401(d).€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àBefore€consecutive€sentences€can€be€imposed,€the€trial€court€must€(1)€first€determine€that€oneÐ ”ä Ðor€more€of€the€statutorily€enumerated€criteria€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115€exists;€and€(2)€if€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€is€found€to€be€a€dangerous€offender,€find€that€the€aggregate€sentence€is€reasonably€relatedÐ l¼ Ðto€the€severity€of€the€offenses€and€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€activity€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€offender.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€937€(Tenn.€1995);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€3Ð D!” ÐS.W.3d€456€(Tenn.€1999)(holding€òòWilkersonóó€factors€were€limited€to€sentencing€of€ð ðdangerousÐ 0"€  Ðoffendersðð).€€Notwithstanding€proof€of€these€criteria,€a€sentencing€court€retains€the€discretion€ofÐ #l! Ðimposing€consecutive€sentences.€€On€appeal,€the€exercise€of€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€is€affordedÐ $X" Ðgreat€weight,€provided€the€court€correctly€applied€the€principles€of€consecutive€sentencing.€Ð ô$D # ÐMoreover,€in€determining€whether€the€trial€court€providently€exercised€its€discretion,€ð ðthe€overridingÐ à%0!$ Ðconcernðð€is€the€fairness€of€the€resulting€sentence€under€all€the€circumstances.Ô#†XrhXXXrh½v#ÔÔ‡XrhXXXrhÔòòÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà  àóóIn€the€present€case,€when€ordering€that€the€two€convictions€for€vehicular€assault€be€servedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconsecutively,€the€trial€court€reasoned€in€relevant€part€as€follows:Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  à[B]efore€consecutive€sentence[s]€can€be€imposed,€the€trial€court€must,€one€(1),€firstÐ ° Ðâ âdetermine€that€one€or€more€of€the€statutory€enumerated€criteria€[of]€40„35„115€exists.€Ð œì ÐIððve€done€that.€€It€does.€€Two€(2),€ð ðIf€the€defendant€is€found€to€be€a€dangerousÐ ˆØ Ðoffender€while€the€aggregate€sentence€is€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€theÐ tÄ Ðoffenses€and€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€activity.ðð€AndÐ `° Ðit€goes€on€to€tell€us€consecutive€sentences€are€imposed€upon€dangerous€offenders€toÐ L œ Ðprotect€society€against€offenders€who€commit€aggravated€crimes€that€pose€a€high€riskÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€human€life.€€Thatððs€exactly€what€this€case€is€about.€€His€conduct€that€night€not€onlyÐ $ t Ðexposed€himself€but€everybody€on€that€highway€to€a€high€risk€of€human€life€.€.€.€HeÐ  ` Ðsucked€up€that€alcohol€and€chose€to€get€in€a€vehicle.€€He€knew€what€the€consequencesÐ ü L  Ðof€that€were.€€He€didnððt€care€because€the€alcohol€had€taken€away€his€ability€to€reasonÐ è 8  Ðthat.€€But€that€was€voluntary,€taking€of€that€alcohol.€€This€Court€finds€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefinitions€in€òòWilkersonóó€have€been€met€and€the€Court€does€find€that€he€is€a€dangerousÐ À  Ðoffender.€€Thatððs€evident€from€all€of€the€facts€in€this€case.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌIn€this€case,€the€record€clearly€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€Appellant€is€a€dangerousÐ „Ô  Ðoffender.€€The€Appellant€has€repeatedly€endangered€the€lives€of€other€motorists€by€persistentlyÐ pÀ Ðcommitting€the€offense€of€DUI.€€Indeed,€this€court€has€previously€held€that€a€defendant€with€multipleÐ \¬ ÐDUI€convictions€ð ðmay€be€classified€as€a€ððdangerous€offenderðð€for€whom€consecutive€sentencing€isÐ H˜ Ðappropriate.ððÔ#†XrhXXXrh#ÔÔ‡ XrhXXXrhÔ€òòState€v.€Bobby€J.€Young,óó€No.€M1998„00402„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ 4„ ÐNashville,€Dec.€15,€1999),€òòperm.€to€appeal€denied,€óó(Tenn.,€July€17,€2000)(citing€òòState€v.€Carl€E.Ð  p ÐCampen,€óóNo.€01C01„9512„CC„00433€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Oct.€24,€1997),€òòperm.€toÐ  \ Ðappeal€denied,óó€(Tenn.,€Sept.€21,€1998));€òòState€v.€Anthony€Raymond€Bellóó,€No.€03C01„9503„CR„00070Ð øH Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Mar.€11,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Sept.€3,€1996).€€WeÐ ä4 Ðfurther€find€that€a€consecutive€sentence€is€necessary€to€protect€society€from€the€Appellantððs€criminalÐ Ð  Ðconduct.€€The€Appellant€has€had€three€prior€DUI€convictions€and,€at€the€time€of€these€crimes,€wasÐ ¼  Ðdriving€on€a€revoked€license.€€Notwithstanding,€the€Appellant€again€chose€to€drive€in€a€highlyÐ ¨ø Ðintoxicated€state,€thereby€demonstrating€his€lack€of€concern€for€his€alcohol€problems€or€the€safetyÐ ”ä Ðof€others.€€Moreover,€it€is€obvious€that€his€prior€lenient€punishments€did€nothing€to€deter€his€conduct.€Ð €Ð ÐAccordingly,€we€find€that€the€aggregated€sentence€imposed€was€reasonably€related€to€the€severityÐ l¼ Ðof€the€offenses.€€Thus,€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€was€not€error.Ð X ¨ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Probation/Alternative€SentencingÐ 0"€  ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€finding€him€eligible€for€probation,€split„Ð $X" Ðconfinement€or€placement€in€Community€Corrections.€€ò òó óThe€determination€of€whether€the€AppellantÐ ô$D # Ðis€entitled€to€an€alternative€sentence€and€whether€the€Appellant€is€entitled€to€full€probation€areÐ à%0!$ Ðdifferent€inquiries.€€òòBoggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€at€477.€Where€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€the€statutoryÐ Ì&"% Ðpresumption€of€alternative€sentencing,€the€State€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€the€presumption€withÐ ¸'#& Ðevidence€to€the€contrary.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¤(ô#' Ð1995)(òòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó).€€ð ðConversely,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€[his]Ð )à$( Ðsuitability€for€total€probation,€even€if€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðalternative€sentencing.ðð€€òòId.óó;€òòBoggs,óó€932€S.W.2d€at€477.ò ò€ó óFurthermore,€we€must€review€the€trialÐ h+¸&* Ðcourtððs€sentence€òòde€novoóó€with€a€general€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168;Ð ° ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€Again,€with€respect€to€alternative€sentencing,€this€presumptionÐ œì Ðapplies€as€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€relevant€sentencingÐ ˆØ Ðprinciples.€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)òò.óó€€We€begin€our€review€withÐ tÄ Ðthe€fact€that€the€Appellant€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€of€an€alternative€sentence€in€viewÐ `° Ðof€his€convictions€for€Class€D€felonies€as€a€range€I€offender.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).Ð L œ ÐÌÌò òÓ  ÓA.€€Denial€of€Total€ProbationÐ  ` ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant,€in€effect,€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€him€total€probation.€Ð è 8  ÐAs€previously€stated,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€his€or€her€suitability€for€probation.€Ð Ô$  ÐòòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)(òòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó).€€ToÐ À  Ðmeet€that€burden,€the€defendant€must€demonstrate€that€probation€will€ð ðsubserve€the€ends€of€justiceÐ ¬ü  Ðand€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.ðð€òòId.óó€€Although€not€the€only€factor,€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendantððs€amenability€to€rehabilitation€is€an€important€consideration€when€determining€his€or€herÐ „Ô  Ðsuitability€for€probation.€€òòSee€Bingham,óóò ò€ó ó910€S.W.2d€at€455;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).ò ò€€ó óTheÐ pÀ Ðfollowing€criteria,€while€not€controlling,€shall€also€be€accorded€weight€by€the€sentencing€court€whenÐ `° Ðdeciding€the€defendant's€suitability€for€probation:€€(1)the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€criminalÐ Lœ Ðconduct€involved,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(b)(4);€(2)€whether€a€sentence€of€full€probationÐ 8ˆ Ðwould€unduly€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40-35-103(1)(B);€andÐ $t Ð(3)€whether€a€sentence€other€than€full€probation€would€provide€an€effective€deterrent€to€others€likelyÐ ` Ðto€commit€similar€crimes,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-103(1)(B).€€òòBinghamóó,€Ô#†XrhXX XrhÇ™#ÔÔ‡XrhXXXrhÔ910€S.W.2dÔ#†XrhXXXrh‘­#ÔÔ‡ XrhXXXrhÔ€at€456.€€Ð üL ÐDenial€of€probation€may€be€based€solely€upon€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€when€they€are€of€suchÐ è8 Ða€nature€as€to€outweigh€all€other€factors€favoring€probation.€€òòFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€at€788-89.€Ð Ô$ ÐÌà  àUpon€òòde€novo€óóreview,€we€find€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€case€to€be€clearlyÐ ¬ü Ðaggravated.€€The€record€reveals€a€callous€indifference€by€the€Appellant€for€the€safety€of€thoseÐ ˜è Ðtraveling€the€highways€of€this€state.€€Despite€his€three€prior€DUI€convictions,€the€Appellant€continuedÐ „Ô Ðto€drive€intoxicated€and,€as€a€result,€seriously€injured€two€victims.€€Common€sense€dictates€that€tragicÐ pÀ Ðresults€are€inevitable€when€a€person€chooses€to€drive€a€vehicle€on€a€public€street,€at€an€excessiveÐ \ ¬ Ðspeed,€without€lights,€at€night,€and€with€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€.22€percent.€€The€trial€court€alsoÐ H!˜ Ðfound€that€the€Appellant€was€not€subject€to€rehabilitation,€ð ðHe€chose€to€be€a€drunk€in€an€automobileÐ 4"„  Ðat€least€three€times€prior€to€this€date,€was€arrested€for€it,€served€time€for€it.ðð€€€We€agree€with€the€trialÐ  #p! Ðcourt€that€total€probation€in€this€case€would€not€ð ðsubserve€the€ends€of€justiceðð€or€be€in€ð ðthe€bestÐ  $\" Ðinterest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.ðð€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€properly€declined€to€grantÐ ø$H # Ðthe€Appellant€total€probation.Ð ä%4!$ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓB.€€Alternative€SentencingÐ ¼' #& ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àIn€the€alternative,€the€Appellant€contends€that€he€was€at€least€entitled€to€the€alternativeÐ ”)ä$( Ðâ âsentence€of€community€corrections€or€split„confinement.€€When€imposing€a€sentence€of€totalÐ €*Ð%) Ðconfinement,€the€trial€court€should€base€its€decision€on€the€considerations€listed€in€Tennessee€CodeÐ ° ÐAnnotated€ðð€40-35-103(1):Ð œì Ðâ âÌà8  à(A)€à8` Ð Ð àConfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendantÐ tÄ Ðwho€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;Ð`°` x` x ÐÌÓ€ (Æå08ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£‚·ÝÔ2ÆåÔ(Ú  ÚBÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ý€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offenseÐ 8 ˆ Ðor€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€toÐ $ t Ðothers€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€or݃3£‚·»·ÝŒÐ `` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà8  à(C)€à8` Ð Ð àMeasures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recentlyÐ è 8  Ðbeen€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€total€confinement€was€necessary€to€provide€an€effectiveÐ ¬ü  Ðdeterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€a€similar€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€10„12€(Tenn.€2000),€our€supreme€court€specificallyÐ pÀ Ðenumerated€five€factors€to€be€considered€when€deciding€whether€a€need€for€deterrence€is€present€andÐ \¬ Ðwhether€incarceration€is€ð ðparticularly€suitedðð€to€achieve€that€goal:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  à(1)€à8` Ð Ð àWhether€other€incidents€of€the€charged€offense€are€increasinglyÐ  p Ðpresent€in€the€community€as€a€whole;Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  à(2)€à8` Ð Ð àWhether€the€defendantððs€crime€was€the€result€of€intentional,€knowing,Ð ä4 Ðor€reckless€conduct€or€was€otherwise€motivated€by€a€desire€to€profitÐ Ð  Ðor€gain€from€the€criminal€behavior;м ` x` x ÐÌÓ€ (öÙ80ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£Ú¾ÝÔ2öÙÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝWhether€the€defendantððs€crime€and€conviction€have€received€substantial€publicityÐ ”ä Ðbeyond€that€normally€expected€in€the€typical€case;݃3£Ú¾¿ÝŒÐ€Ð` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà8  à(4)€à8` Ð Ð àWhether€the€defendant€was€a€member€of€a€criminal€enterprise,€orÐ X ¨ Ðsubstantially€encouraged€or€assisted€others€in€achieving€the€criminalÐ D!” Ðobjective;Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  à(5)€à8` Ð Ð àWhether€the€defendant€has€previously€engaged€in€criminal€conduct€ofÐ $X" Ðthe€same€type€as€the€offense€in€question,€irrespective€of€whether€suchÐ ô$D # Ðconduct€resulted€in€previous€arrests€or€convictions.€€€€€€Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌIn€addition€to€these€factors,€the€court€emphasized€that€the€five€factors€are€neither€exhaustive€norÐ ¸'#& Ðconclusive.€€òòId.óó€at€12.€€òòóóIn€other€words,€the€sentencing€court€may€consider€additional€non„enumeratedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfactors€provided€that:€(1)€the€sentencing€court€specifically€recites€these€factors€on€the€record;€and€(2)€Ð )à$( Ðthese€additional€factors€are€supported€by€ð ðat€least€some€proof.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Additionally,€in€concluding€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðneed€for€deterrence€exists,€the€sentencing€court€need€not€find€that€all€five€factors€are€present.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àIn€this€case,€Officer€Williams€testified€that€alcohol„related€injuries€had€increased€7„8%€fromÐ ° Ðthe€previous€year.€€The€trial€court€accreditedò ò€ó óthis€testimony€by€stating,€ð ðThis€officer€has€worked€thoseÐ œì Ðtype€of€cases€for€as€long€as€this€court€can€remember.€€He€knows€[the]€consequences€or€the€results€.Ð ŒÜ Ð.€.€out€there.ðð€€Accordingly,€we€conclude,€based€on€Officer€Williamsðð€testimony€at€trial,€that€the€firstÐ xÈ Ðfactor€of€òòHooper€óóhas€been€met.€€Moreover,€we€note€that€the€Appellant€had€three€DUI€convictionsÐ d´ Ðprior€to€the€offenses€in€the€present€case.€€It€is€clear€from€the€record€that€the€Appellantððs€past€DUIÐ P   Ðconvictions€were€of€the€same€type€of€criminal€conduct€as€was€involved€in€this€case.€€Apparently,€theÐ < Œ ÐAppellant€gleaned€nothing€from€his€prior€punishments€and€continued€to€disregard€the€law.€€Thus,€theÐ ( x Ðfifth€factor€of€òòHooperóó€is€also€met.Ð  d ÐÌà  àAfter€affording€the€trial€court€the€presumption€of€correctness€upon€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€cannotÐ ì <  Ðconclude,€under€the€guidance€provided€by€the€supreme€court€in€òòHooperóó,€that€the€trial€court€actedÐ Ø(  Ðunreasonably€in€ordering€confinement€based€on€grounds€of€deterrence.€€Clearly,€the€recordÐ Ä  Ðdemonstrates€that€the€Appellantððs€conduct€has€resulted€in€tragic€consequences€to€two€innocentÐ °  Ðvictims.€€To€prevent€further€endangerment€to€the€public,€a€need€for€deterrence€exists€as€previousÐ œì  Ðefforts€to€rehabilitate€have€miserably€failed.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€totalÐ ˆØ  Ðconfinement.Ð tÄ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÐ Lœ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€find€no€reversible€error.€€Accordingly,€the€AppellantððsÐ $t Ðconsecutive€four„year€sentences€for€vehicular€assault€in€the€Washington€County€Criminal€Court€areÐ ` Ðaffirmed.ò òà ` àó óÔ#†XrhXX XrhÝ­#ÔÐ üL ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ˜è Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE