ÿWPCØ Àn}±„op™ò);º¶ ÀÔ!ŽŸˆTª£˜ò)Ïs4v«ÀöXýG’[2(àý\ÔÃñ7Éÿ¯Å…lN2 Hœ¢Å½‹çQùm·­Î‡.Òé^Ó‡_¡íZ?æ¾ØfÒ’ÏšøXšœ—‡ÞßúÍl½\d: `{ÃÍßW°!B¯MýLš{äÒríŒmJ8æ4Ó•Â)¯Ód€òùöŠ z_º}°íÁÇRš,žFP¡ÙÑຶ…§ë•+µ+‹0¾ÛœRíÒ £“²c<<ƒ Yúc±ø°Ö†ÇtÒIÃd¯2¯¥éüoX,'ÊJJ¯ Œ™žé*äf/ÆÇ Ðkúomne>NOaà†»ÎÜîîé¤0Ñþ³1>ü{ º$Þ»×;üñBèjÌ~ÆZ/Ãü‚±ßÆŒªP)ôòÔŸÒíÔ~æÕæR|ØÀÃÝæyLõ™¢þÐ:““œ9>&µW»äC¿Q^ê£ÄÖ˜Ûº©ñ!qnÆâíÌâF-Z¢Ú±NÔ×éŠÅ¨Ë«éÌi{΋ efj÷ÕAæ-οøÅÒœö¶ L˜ U^„Z@ûA™¿0µ^” …ñ–4]Ð>>ñÖGš³7!Ø;&- ¢ëÁÕcÎXï®EJ»¡·”¶ìÎcb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ UN™ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ9 0DÿNCU>E†ƒE                        bÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ 0ëÕÕÕÕ BÀÀ 0¤Ý D3 D-´ 0Káá AS,Æ 0¤E 0Dé A«-»©ž]1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularóbï.TWin103|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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(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$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóô\  `‹&Times New Roman |Ý ƒR€m$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¤!ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Originally€this€appeal€included€the€Appellantððs€appeal€of€the€Knox€County€Criminal€Courtððs€Ô_ÔaffirmanceÔ_Ô€ofÐ ° Ðthe€revocation€of€his€suspended€sentences.€€In€his€brief,€he€concedes€that,€as€a€result€of€the€modification€of€his€sentencesÐ tÄ Ðto€concurrent€service,€the€sentences€have€now€been€served,€and€no€further€review€is€necessary.€€Ð 8ˆ Ðà  àAdditionally,€we€would€note€that€the€Appellant€filed€a€motion€for€reconsideration€of€the€trial€courtððs€decisionÐ üL Ðon€October€27,€2003,€asserting€ð ðthat€additional€information€is€now€at€hand€that€when€taken€together€with€the€informationÐ À Ðoffered€to€the€Court€at€the€sentencing€hearing€and€justifies€a€sentence€of€probation.€.€.€.ðð€€A€hearing€was€held€on€theÐ „Ô Ðmotion€on€January€23,€2004,€with€ð ðreconsiderationðð€taken€under€advisement.€€However,€no€ruling€on€this€motion€isÐ H ˜ Ðincluded€in€the€record. NicholsLortabAshbyWinfield t]oaccord[ed Crim DUI LINCCurwood Witt- ù-(|G2€m$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¤!ò»»Ô d(|3?t$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?t$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Á»»»ÔÑ8€FµXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î ÁÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Á»îî #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€17,€2004Ð üL ÐÔ‡XFµX»¼ÁÔÌò òÔ#†¼Á»XXFµ #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€LINC€SEBASTIAN€BAIRDòòóóÔ‡XFµX»¼ÁÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€75360,€76867,€72235,€72236€€€€€€Ray€Jenkins,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„02506„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€29,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XFµXXXFµÔThe€Appellant,€Linc€Sebastian€Baird,€appeals€the€sentencing€decision€of€the€Knox€County€CriminalÐ xÈ  ÐCourt.€€Baird€pled€guilty€to€the€crimes€of€robbery€and€attempt€to€obtain€a€controlled€substance€byÐ d´ Ðfraud€and€was€sentenced€€to€consecutive€sentences€of€five€years€for€robbery€and€three€years€for€theÐ P  Ðcriminal€attempt.€€On€appeal,€Baird€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by:€(1)€imposing€excessiveÐ <Œ Ðsentences€and€(2)€denying€him€an€alternative€sentence.€€After€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€errorÐ (x Ðand€affirm€the€sentences.Ô#†XFµXX XFµÕ#ÔÔ#†¼Á»XXFµœ#ÔÔ‡XFµX»¼ÁÔÐ d ÐÓÉÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Á»àXFµ¦#ÔÔ‡XFµX.¼ÁÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.óó€andÐ Ä ÐòòAlan€E.€Glenn,€JóóJ.,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌMark€E.€Stephens,€District€Public€Defender;€Robert€C.€Edwards,€Assistant€Public€Defender,Ð ˆØ ÐKnoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Linc€Sebastian€Baird.Ð tÄ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Renee€W.Ð L œ ÐTurner,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Randall€E.€Nichols,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Leon€Franks,Ð 8!ˆ  ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð $"t! ÐÔ#†¼Á»XXFµt#ÔÔ‡XFµX»¼ÁÔÌÓEÓà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Á»XXFµo #ÔÔ‡XFµX»¼ÁÔÐ ü#L# ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ Ô%$!% ÐòòóóÔ#†¼Á»XXFµá #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XFµX»¼ÁÔÌò òÔ‡ XFµXXXFµÔà  àó óIn€February€2001,€the€Appellant€entered€the€Favorite€Market€in€Knoxville€and,€after€makingÐ ¬'ü"' Ðthreats€to€the€cashier,€robbed€the€market€of€the€money€in€the€cash€drawer.€€The€Appellant€wasÐ ˜(è#( Ðindicted€for€this€crime€in€August€2002.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àIn€November€2002,€the€Appellant€attempted€to€obtain€a€prescription€for€Lortab€from€aÐ \+¬&+ ÐKnoxville€Kroger€Pharmacy€with€an€invalid€prescription.€€€The€appellant€was€indicted€for€this€crimeÐ H,˜', Ðin€March€2003.Ð 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àIn€addition€to€these€indicted€offenses,€in€August€2002,€the€Appellant€stole€$15.52€of€gasolineÐ ° Ðfrom€a€gas€station€and€then€attempted€to€run€over€the€manager€of€the€station€as€she€was€obtainingÐ œì Ðlicense€tag€information€from€his€car.€€Based€upon€this€conduct,€the€Appellant€pled€guilty€to€theft€andÐ ˆØ Ðassault€in€October€2002€in€the€Knox€County€General€Sessions€Court€and€received€consecutive€elevenÐ tÄ Ðmonth€and€twenty„nine€day€sentences,€which€were€suspended.€€In€May€2003,€the€Knox€CountyÐ `° ÐGeneral€Sessions€court€revoked€the€Appellantððs€suspended€sentences€and€ordered€service€of€the€twoÐ L œ Ðeleven€month€and€twenty„nine€day€sentences.€€The€order€of€revocation€was€appealed€to€the€KnoxÐ 8 ˆ ÐCounty€Criminal€Court€on€May€9,€2003.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àOn€July€30,€2003,€the€Appellant€pled€guilty€to€the€indicted€charges€of€robbery€and€criminalÐ ü L  Ðattempt€to€obtain€a€controlled€substance€by€fraud.€€A€sentencing€hearing€was€scheduled€forÐ è 8  ÐSeptember€12,€2003,€for€determination€of€the€manner€and€service€of€these€sentences,€in€addition€toÐ Ô$  Ðhearing€the€Appellantððs€appeal€of€the€revocation€by€the€general€sessions€court.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€scheduled€hearing,€the€Knox€County€Criminal€Court€affirmed€the€generalÐ ˜è  Ðsessions€courtððs€revocation€order€but€modified€the€Appellantððs€consecutive€sentences€to€reflectÐ „Ô  Ðconcurrent€sentences€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days.€€With€respect€to€the€robbery€andÐ pÀ Ðcriminal€attempt€convictions,€ò òó óthe€trial€court€found€two€applicable€enhancement€factors,€that€theÐ \¬ ÐAppellant€had€a€previous€criminal€history€and€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€withÐ H˜ Ðthe€conditions€involving€release€in€the€community.€€The€trial€court€considered€the€evidence€presentedÐ 4„ Ðthat€the€Appellant€suffered€from€depression€and€substance€abuse€but€assigned€no€mitigating€valueÐ  p Ðto€this€proof€for€sentencing€purposes.€€The€court€then€imposed€sentences€of€five€years€for€the€robberyÐ  \ Ðconviction€and€three€years€for€the€attempt€to€obtain€a€controlled€substance€by€fraud€conviction.€€TheÐ øH Ðsentences€were€mandatorily€consecutive,€as€the€second€offense€occurred€while€the€Appellant€was€onÐ ä4 Ðbond€for€the€first.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€32(c)(3)(C).€€Further,€the€Appellantððs€request€for€probationÐ Ð  Ðwas€denied.€€This€appeal€followed.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¼  ÐÌà@‚‚&ìàò òAnalysisˆÐ ”ä ÐÌó óà  àOn€appeal,€the€Appellant€raises€two€issues€for€our€review.€€First,€he€asserts€that€the€trial€courtÐ l¼ Ðerred€by€imposing€excessive€sentences.€€Specifically,€he€asserts€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properlyÐ X ¨ Ðweigh€the€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors€and€that€the€sentences€imposed€are€excessive€under€theÐ D!” Ðsentencing€considerations€set€out€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103.€€Ð 0"€  Ðâ âÐ #l! Ðà  àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€thisÐ ° Ðâ âcourt€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòde€novo€óóreview€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ œì Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(2003);€òòStateÐ ˆØ Ðv.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÐ tÄ Ðshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€factsÐ `° Ðand€circumstances."€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€When€conducting€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€a€sentence,Ð L œ Ðthis€court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€pre„sentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;Ð $ t Ð(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€orÐ  ` Ðenhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statement€that€the€Appellant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€theÐ ü L  Ðpotential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,Ð è 8  Є210€(2003);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.€€Furthermore,€we€emphasize€that€facts€relevant€to€sentencingÐ Ô$  Ðmust€be€established€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€and€not€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòStateÐ À  Ðv.€Winfieldóó,€23€S.W.3d€279,€283€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.Ð ¬ü  Ð1997)).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€was€convicted€as€a€Range€1€standard€offender€of€robbery,€a€class€C€felony,Ð pÀ Ðwhich€carries€a€sentence€range€of€three€to€six€years.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3)€(2003).€HeÐ \¬ Ðwas€also€convicted€of€the€attempt€to€obtain€a€controlled€substance€through€fraud,€a€class€D€felony,Ð H˜ Ðwhich€carries€a€range€of€two€to€four€years.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(4).€€The€presumptiveÐ 4„ Ðsentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€for€a€class€C€or€D€felony€is€the€minimum€sentence€withinÐ  p Ðthe€applicable€range€unless€there€are€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€present.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð  \ Ððð€40„35„210(c).€When€there€are€enhancement€factors€and€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€mayÐ øH Ðsentence€above€the€minimum€in€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d).€€If€both€enhancementÐ ä4 Ðand€mitigating€factors€are€present,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€asÐ Ð  Ðappropriate€for€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€applicableÐ ¼  Ðmitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àFirst,€the€appellant€disputes€the€weight€given€to€the€two€enhancement€factors€found€by€theÐ €Ð Ðtrial€court,€that€the€Appellant€had€a€previous€history€of€both€criminal€convictions€or€behavior€and€anÐ l¼ Ðunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€Ð X ¨ ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(2),€(9)€(2003).€€As€to€enhancement€factor€(2),€the€Appellant,Ð D!” Ðwhile€admitting€that€prior€misdemeanor€convictions€were€present,€asserts€that€ð ð[t]o€the€extent€all€ofÐ 0"€  Ðthese€prior€convictions€comprise€evidence€of€the€enhancing€factors€they€should€be€accord[ed]€veryÐ #l! Ðlittle€weight€given€the€nature€of€the€offenses€involved.ðð€€However,€the€weight€to€be€assigned€to€theÐ $X" Ðappropriate€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€falls€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€courtÐ ô$D # Ðso€long€as€that€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€itsÐ à%0!$ Ðfindings€are€supported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Ð Ì&"% ÐIt€is€clear€from€the€record€that€the€trial€court,€despite€the€Appellantððs€assertion€to€the€contrary,€didÐ ¸'#& Ðconsider€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€Act.€€Additionally,€with€regard€to€factor€(2),€the€trialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcourtððs€finding€is€supported€by€the€record.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€pre„sentence€report€admitted€into€evidence€established€that€the€Appellant€had€priorÐ ° Ðâ âconvictions€for€forgery,€casual€exchange,€DUI,€and€public€intoxication€dating€back€to€1991.€€TheÐ œì ÐAppellant,€who€is€now€thirty„three,€was€first€arrested€at€age€nineteen€and€€has€progressed€from€simpleÐ ˆØ Ðmisdemeanors€to€the€more€serious€felonies€before€us€in€the€present€case.€€Additionally,€the€AppellantÐ tÄ Ðadmitted€a€history€of€abuse€of€prescription€drugs,€alcohol,€and€marijuana.€€In€our€view,€the€recordÐ `° Ðsupports€the€trial€court's€application€of€this€factor.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€also€asserts€that€enhancement€factor€(9),€a€previous€unwillingness€to€complyÐ $ t Ðwith€the€terms€of€release€into€the€community,€was€improperly€applied.€€The€Appellant€does€notÐ  ` Ðdispute€the€fact€that€he€was€placed€on€probation€for€the€assault€and€theft€convictions€and€that€bothÐ ü L  Ðof€those€sentences€were€revoked€after€he€committed€additional€crimes.€€The€record€indicates€that€theÐ è 8  ÐKnox€County€General€Sessions€Court€revoked€the€Appellantððs€two€probationary€sentences€on€MayÐ Ô$  Ð7,€2003,€ð ðfor€violating€the€laws€of€the€State.ðð€€In€the€absence€of€other€criminal€convictions€in€the€pre„Ð À  Ðsentence€report,€we€must€assume€that€the€€revocation€occurred€as€a€result€of€€the€criminal€attempt€toÐ ¬ü  Ðobtain€a€controlled€substance€by€fraud€conviction.€€Thus,€the€holding€of€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2dÐ ˜è  Ð175€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€precludes€application€of€factor€(9)€to€the€criminal€attempt€conviction,Ð „Ô  Ðas€no€previous€history€was€shown€to€exist€other€than€his€being€on€probation€when€the€offense€wasÐ pÀ Ðcommitted.€òò€Hayesóó€clearly€states€that€the€commission€of€the€offense€for€which€a€defendant€is€beingÐ \¬ Ðsentenced€may€not€serve€as€the€trigger€for€application€of€factor€(9),€as€there€must€be€a€previousÐ H˜ Ðhistory€of€unwillingness€to€comply.€€òòIdóó.€at€186.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€application€of€factorÐ 4„ Ð(9)€to€the€Appellantððs€sentence€for€criminal€attempt€was€error.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àHowever,€there€is€no€such€preclusion€with€regard€to€the€robbery€conviction,€as€the€revocationÐ øH Ðof€the€theft€and€assault€sentences€were€not€based€upon€the€commission€of€the€robbery.€€€Nor€isÐ ä4 Ðapplication€of€the€factor€precluded€because€the€robbery€occurred€prior€to€the€Appellantððs€beingÐ Ð  Ðplaced€on€probation.€€This€court€has€previously€held€that€a€sentencing€court€ð ðcan€consider€criminalÐ ¼  Ðconvictions€or€any€other€criminal€behavior€òòwhich€occurred€prior€to€the€sentencing€hearingóó€asÐ ¨ø Ðconstituting€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior,€regardless€of€whetherÐ ”ä Ðthe€convictions€or€behavior€occurred€before€or€after€the€criminal€conduct€under€consideration.ðð€€òòStateÐ €Ð Ðv.€John€Allen€Chapmanóó,€No.€01C01„9604„CC„00137€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Sept.€30,€1997)Ð l¼ Ð(citing€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€No.€02C01„9506„CC„00178€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Jan.€31,€1996)).€Ð X ¨ ÐSimilarly,€we€conclude€that€because€the€revocation€occurred€before€sentencing€in€the€robbery€case,Ð D!” Ðit€may€be€properly€utilized€to€support€enhancement€factor€(9).€€It€is€clearly€a€part€of€the€AppellantððsÐ 0"€  Ðprior€criminal€history€and€probative€of€his€ability,€or€in€this€case,€inability€to€follow€rules€ofÐ #l! Ðprobation.€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€mitigating€his€sentences€underÐ à%0!$ Ðmitigating€factor€(13)€due€to€the€Appellantððs€problems€with€depression€and€substance€abuse.€€TheÐ Ì&"% ÐAppellant€contends€that€it€was€because€of€his€depression€over€a€broken€marriage€that€he€committedÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€present€robbery.€€He€presented€proof€that€his€mental€health€had€improved€while€incarcerated€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€he€had€made€attempts€to€deal€with€his€problems€by€voluntarily€seeking€treatment€for€alcohol€andÐ )à$( Ðsubstance€abuse.€€The€court€noted€that€it€considered€the€evidence€but€found€that€this€information€didÐ |*Ì%) Ðnot€carry€sufficient€weight€to€reduce€the€sentences.€€Again,€it€is€the€trial€court€who€hears€the€evidenceÐ h+¸&* Ðfirst„hand,€and€the€weight€given€to€a€particular€factor€is€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€WeÐ ° Ðcannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€Ð œì ÐÌà  àThus,€having€determined€that€the€trial€court€properly€applied€all€enhancing€and€mitigatingÐ tÄ Ðfactors€to€the€robbery€conviction,€we€conclude€that€his€sentence€of€five€years€is€justified.€€Moreover,Ð `° Ðwe€conclude€that€the€Appellantððs€sentence€of€three€years€for€attempt€to€obtain€a€controlled€substanceÐ L œ Ðby€fraud€is€supported€by€the€record,€despite€the€trial€courtððs€erroneous€application€of€enhancementÐ 8 ˆ Ðfactor€(9).€€The€application€of€enhancement€factor€(2),€prior€criminal€convictions,€is€sufficient€toÐ $ t Ðincrease€the€Appellantððs€sentence€one€year€beyond€the€statutory€minimum.€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ  ` Ðmerit.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àSecond,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€him€an€alternative€sentence.€Ð Ô$  ÐA€defendant€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony€and€sentenced€as€a€mitigated€or€standard€offenderÐ À  Ðis€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€"for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðevidence€to€the€contrary."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€Guidance€regarding€what€constitutesÐ ˜è  Ð"evidence€to€the€contrary"€to€rebut€the€presumption€can€be€found€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ „Ô  Ðsection€40„35„103(1),€which€sets€forth€the€following€considerations:€Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  à(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€hasÐ H˜ Ða€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;€Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÐ Ðà8  à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€orÐ  \ Ðconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likelyÐ øH Ðto€commit€similar€offenses;€or€Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÐ Ðà8  à(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€beenÐ ¼  Ðapplied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant[.]ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing,€the€Appellant€presented€evidence€from€a€probation€officer€who€testified€thatÐ €Ð Ðhe€was€a€suitable€candidate€for€full€probation€because€he€had€sought€help€for€his€problems€andÐ l¼ Ðsincerely€seemed€to€have€a€plan€for€his€life.€€The€Appellant€also€presented€letters€from€family€andÐ X ¨ Ðfriends€underscoring€the€support€of€his€family,€his€educational€achievements€and€abilities,€and€hisÐ D!” Ðprospects€for€rehabilitation.€€The€State,€in€response,€argued€the€Appellantððs€inability€to€successfullyÐ 0"€  Ðutilize€rehabilitative€opportunities€and€the€Appellantððs€recent€drug€relapse.€€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€presumption€of€an€alternative€sentence€was€available€to€the€Appellant,€as€heÐ ô$D # Ðwas€convicted€of€only€C€and€D€felonies,€the€trial€court€denied€any€form€of€alternative€sentencingÐ à%0!$ Ðfinding€that:€(1)€confinement€was€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses€andÐ Ì&"% Ð(2)€that€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€had€frequently€or€recently€been€appliedÐ ¸'#& Ðunsuccessfully€to€the€Appellant.€Additionally,€it€is€noted€on€the€judgment€forms€that€probation€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdenied€because€it€was€necessary€to€imprison€the€Appellant€ð ðfor€his€own€best€interest€and€especiallyÐ )à$( Ðfor€the€protection€of€the€public.ðð€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€record€supports€the€finding€that€non„incarcerative€programs€have€proven€futile€inÐ ° Ðdeterring€the€Appellant€from€criminal€conduct.€€As€noted€in€this€appeal,€the€Appellant€was€revokedÐ œì Ðtwice€for€violating€probation€and€was€on€probation€at€the€time€the€attempted€drug€offense€occurred.€Ð ˆØ ÐAccordingly,€the€trial€court€was€justified€in€ordering€sentences€of€total€confinement€in€view€of€theseÐ tÄ Ðfacts.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àÔ#†XFµXX XFµ› #ÔÔ‡XFµXXXFµÔà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€affirm€the€sentencing€decision€of€the€Knox€County€CriminalÐ  ` ÐCourt.€€Ð ü L  ÐÔ#†XFµXXXFµßQ#ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE