ÿWPC+ …UNV %¤ 0(ªBÒw@4TU:h¢ 0ˆ± 0D9 } 0J… 0TÏ 0^# 0h 0ré 0|[ 0†× 0] 1uí 0db BÆ U>ã U*!B)KDCt AM· D3®Gv~õ 0@svÓ³ AO†ÆÕ 0D› D/ß B(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡c:\wpwin60\template\aopinion.wpt * + E, - [. H/ 0 D1 2 D3 Ó€Ô¡¨ ppppBd, øð AZ"Arial Regular3|x< (8(2§ã$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌNovember€4,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó'ÿÿdxd ¤Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔÔ€%ÔIt€is€the€policy€of€this€court€to€withhold€the€identity€of€children€involved€in€sexual€abuse.€òòStateÏv.€Schimpfóó,€782€S.W.2d€186,€188€n.1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).Ô€$ÔÔ€$XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÓÓòòÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ  ÔÑ7€ÞSXXdðXXdð7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€()'A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEóóÌà@ àAPRIL€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9608„CR„00349Ìà àà àà àà àà à*Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à*à àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à*ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Seth€W.€Norman,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà à*ÌSTEVEN€E.€BAKER,€à àà à*à à(Sexual€Battery;€Especially€Aggravated€à àà àà àà àà àà à*à àÏSexual€Exploitation€of€a€Minor)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà à*ÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:óóÌÌRichard€McGeeà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ601€Woodland€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌNashville,€TN€37206Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àPeter€M.€CoughlanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€General€and€ReporterÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLila€StatomÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€SquareÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌà àà àThe€defendant,€Steven€Eugene€Baker,€pled€guilty€to€one€count€ofÏespecially€aggravated€sexual€exploitation€of€a€minor€and€two€counts€of€sexualÏbattery.€€The€trial€court€imposed€concurrent,€Range€I€sentences€of€nine€years€andÏone€year,€respectively.€€In€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€challenges€the€lengthÏof€the€sentence€and€the€trial€court's€denial€of€alternative€sentencing.ÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àOn€the€night€before€Thanksgiving€in€1994,€the€defendant,€a€œstep„grandfather›€to€the€fourteen„year„old€€female€victim,× ƒ+ ××  ×€provided€her€with€medicationÏfor€a€headache.€€Afterward,€while€the€victim€was€asleep€in€her€grandmother's€livingÏroom,€the€defendant€videotaped€himself€touching€the€victim€on€her€breast€andÏdigitally€penetrating€her€vagina.€€The€victim€never€œawoke€and€had›€no€recollection€ofÏthe€occurrence.ÌÌà àà àJust€prior€to€the€Christmas€holidays€in€the€same€year,€the€defendantÏlooked€at€the€videotape€in€anticipation€of€a€visit€by€the€victim.€€Because€heÍneglected€to€remove€the€tape€from€his€VCR,€the€victim's€father€learned€of€its€contentÏon€the€next€day.€€There€were€a€number€of€pornographic€videotapes€and€magazinesÏfound€in€the€defendant's€bedroom.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€rape,€sexual€battery,€and€especiallyÏaggravated€sexual€exploitation€of€a€minor.€€In€accordance€with€a€plea€agreement,Ïthe€state€dropped€the€rape€charge€and€the€defendant€pled€guilty€to€the€remainingÏcharges.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€victim€testified€that€she€and€theÏdefendant€had€enjoyed€a€close€friendship.€€She€related€that€when€she€wasÏyounger,€she€had€often€confided€in€the€defendant€and€viewed€him€as€somewhat€ofÏa€father€figure.€€By€the€time€she€was€eleven,€however,€the€defendant€began€toÏverbally€abuse€her.€€She€claimed€that€the€defendant€"gave€[her]€guilt€trips"€andÏpleaded€to€have€sex€with€him€so€as€to€"help"€his€marriage€to€her€grandmother.€€AsÏtime€passed,€the€incidents€became€more€frequent€and€offensive€to€the€victim.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€was€afraid€to€sleep€at€night€and€experienced€nightmares.€ÏBecause€her€grandmother€refused€to€leave€the€defendant€after€the€sexual€assault,Ïthe€victim€described€her€relationship€with€her€grandmother€as€uncomfortable.€€TheÍvictim€testified€that€she€coped€with€her€knowledge€of€the€incident€with€counselingÏand€involvement€in€school€and€church€activities.ÌÌà àà àThe€victim's€father€and€mother,€Carl€and€Victoria€Shackleford,€testifiedÏthat€relationships€among€the€entire€family€had€deteriorated.€€Family€members€hadÏtaken€sides€in€the€matter€and€felt€stigmatized€by€the€incident.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defense€proof€included€testimony€by€the€defendant,€his€wife,€andÏhis€counselor,€psychological€evaluations,€and€eleven€letters€from€friends€and€co„workers€showing€support€for€and€confidence€in€the€defendant.€€Nancy€Baker,€theÏdefendant's€wife€and€the€victim's€grandmother,€was€fully€supportive€of€her€husband.€ÏShe€believed€that€the€defendant€had€adequately€acknowledged€responsibility€forÏhis€actions€by€expressing€remorse,€cooperating€with€the€police,€surrenderingÏhimself€into€custody,€and€seeking€counseling.€ÌÌà àà àThe€forty„three„year„old€defendant€has€no€prior€record€and€no€historyÏof€violent€behavior.€€He€has€a€bachelors€degree€in€engineering€and€has€workedÏfairly€steadily€as€an€engineer€and€real€estate€agent.€€He€has€consistently€paid€childÏsupport€payments€to€his€two€children€from€a€prior€marriage.€€The€defendant€testifiedÏthat€he€had€benefitted€by€intensive€counseling:€€"I€know€that€I've€created€a€greatÍdeal€of€pain€for€a€lot€of€people€that€I€love.€...€€My€actions€have€separated€theirÏfamily."€€€He€expressed€remorse€for€his€actions€and€accepted€full€responsibility€forÏthe€incident.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€he€had€tried€to€cooperate€fully€during€theÏpolice€investigation€and€had€agreed€to€the€state's€request€for€an€evaluation€at€theÏLuton€Mental€Health€Center€of€Nashville.€ÌÌà àà àWhen€asked€if€he€had€been€guilty€of€improperly€touching€the€victimÏprior€to€November€of€1994,€the€defendant€initially€said€no.€€He€then€explained€thatÏhe€had€inadvertently€touched,€then€continued€to€fondle,€the€victim's€breast€whileÏshe€slept€on€a€single€prior€occasion.€€When€asked€if€he€had€drugged€the€victim€inÏNovember€of€1994,€he€maintained€that€he€had€given€the€victim€nothing€strongerÏthan€Excedrin€P.M.€€œOn€further€cross€examination,€the›€defendant€admitted€that€heÏwas€not€receiving€sex„offender€specific€treatment,€as€recommended€by€LutonÏMental€Health€Center.€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Scott€Ericson,€a€Christian€counselor,€had€conducted€weeklyÏsessions€with€the€defendant€for€about€a€year€following€the€charges.€€Dr.€EricsonÏreported€that€the€defendant€had€worked€diligently€to€face€up€to€the€issue€and€thatÏhe€did€not€believe€that€the€defendant€would€reoffend.€€In€contrast,€the€Luton€MentalÏHealth€Center€described€the€defendant€at€"moderately€high€risk€for€future€sexualÍexploitation€of€other€persons"€and€characterized€the€defendant's€prognosis€as€fairÏwith€treatment€and€poor€without€treatment;€there€were€specializedÏrecommendations:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIt€is€recommended€that€Mr.€Baker€receive€sex€offender„specific€mental€health€treatment€for€his€compulsive€andÏaddictive€sexual€behaviors,€anxieties,€and€offenses.€ÏTreatment€should€include€both€individual€and€groupÏtherapy€services€that€are€sex„offender€specific€in€formatÏand€conducted€by€a€therapist(s)€competent€in€the€areasÏof€sexual€offender€and€sexual€addiction€issues.€€At€thisÏtime,€it€appears€that€Mr.€Baker€is€not€in€need€of€a€secure„type€facility€and€that€treatment€may€be€pursued€at€anÏoutpatient,€community„based€facility€which€offers€aÏspecialized€treatment€program€for€sexual€offenders€andÏpersons€with€significant€sexual€addiction€issues.Ìà@ à***Ìà8 àà8 àDue€to€his€present€level€of€insight€and€rationalization€ofÏhis€sexual€offense€against€an€adolescent€female€minor,Ïit€is€recommended€at€this€time€that€Mr.€Baker€have€noÏcontact€with€female€children€under€18€years€old€unlessÏthey€are€under€responsible€adult€supervision.Ìà@ à***Ìà8 àà8 àMr.€Baker€should€be€accountable...for€his€dailyÏwhereabouts.Ìà@ à***Ìà8 àà8 àMr.€Baker€should€not€purchase€or€use€pornographicÏmaterials€or€frequent€establishments€where€suchÏmaterials€are€displayed.Ìà@ à***Ìà8 àà8 àMr.€Baker€should€attend€at€least€weekly€a€community„based€self„help€group€for€persons€with€sexualÏcompulsions.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àDetective€Steve€Cleek,€who€questioned€the€defendant,€testified€thatÏthe€defendant€acknowledged€his€sexual€attraction€to€the€victim.€€Detective€CleekÏrecalled€that€the€defendant€admitted€to€fondling€the€victim's€breast€on€a€priorÏoccasion€while€hugging€her€on€the€front€porch.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€theÏdefendant€denied€that€the€incident€ever€occurred.ÌÌà àà àWhile€imposing€sentence,€the€trial€judge€stated€a€belief€that€the€abuseÏhad€been€ongoing€since€the€victim€was€eleven.€€The€trial€court€specifically€foundÏthat€the€medication€given€in€November€of€1994€had€an€incapacitating€effect€on€theÏvictim€and€that€the€crimes€had€been€committed€for€purposes€of€gratification.€€Thus,Ïtwo€enhancement€factors€were€deemed€applicable:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(4)€A€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularly€vulnerableÏbecause€of€age€or€physical€or€mental€disability€...;Ìà@ à***Ìà8 àà8 à(7)€The€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€toÏgratify€the€defendant's€desire€for€pleasure€orÏexcitement[.]ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„114€(4),€(7)€(Supp.€1995).€€The€trial€court€heard€butÏrejected€claims€of€mitigating€factors.€€While€rejecting€the€notion€of€consecutiveÏsentencing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€defendant's€request€for€alternativeÏsentencing.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€first€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÏapply€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€to€reduce€his€sentence€to€eight€years.€ÏHe€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€allowed€œhim›€to€serve€his€sentenceÏthrough€Community€Corrections€or€strict€probation.€ÌÌà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€SentencingÏCommission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€theÏimpropriety€of€the€sentence.€ÌÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;Ï(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÍdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€and€„210;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€this€offense,€the€presumptive€sentence€was€theÏminimum€in€the€range€if€there€were€no€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„210.€€Should€the€trial€court€find€mitigating€and€enhancementÏfactors,€it€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€theÏsentence€based€upon€any€applicable€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€theÏsentence€based€upon€any€appropriate€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€within€the€trial€court's€discretionÏprovided€that€the€record€supports€its€findings€and€it€complies€with€the€CriminalÏSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€òòSeeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€The€trial€courtÏshould,€however,€make€specific€findings€on€the€record€which€indicate€its€applicationÏof€the€sentencing€principles.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„209€and€„210.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€does€not€challenge€application€of€the€twoÏenhancement€factors.€€He€does€argue€that€the€trial€court€was€required€to€reduce€hisÏsentence€based€on€the€following€nonstatutory€mitigating€factors:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€€The€defendant€has€no€prior€criminal€history€of€anyÏkind€either€as€a€juvenile€or€an€adult.ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€€The€defendant€immediately€sought€intensiveÏpsychological€counseling€for€the€mental€illness€whichÏwas€the€predicate€for€the€commission€of€the€offense€inÏthis€case.ÌÌà8 àà8 à3.€€The€defendant€is€clearly€remorseful€for€the€harm€thatÏhe€caused€to€the€victim€and€both€her€family€and€hisÏfamily.ÌÌà8 àà8 à4.€€The€defendant€cooperated€with€police€officers€byÏgiving€a€confession€even€though€he€was€instructed€byÏthe€officers€that€any€statements€that€he€would€makeÏwould€be€used€against€him.ÌÌà8 àà8 à5.€€The€defendant€cooperated€with€the€District€Attorney'sÏOffice€by€voluntarily€participating€in€the€evaluation€at€theÏLuton€Mental€Health€Center€at€his€own€expense€whenÏhe€was€under€no€legal€obligation€to€do€so.ÌÌà8 àà8 à6.€€The€defendant€has€significant€family€and€communityÏsupport.ÌÌà8 àà8 à7.€€The€defendant's€prior€employment€history€isÏexcellent.ÌÌÓÓIn€our€view,€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€some€mitigation€by€virtue€of€each€of€theseÏcircumstances.€€Each€factor€serves€the€defendant€in€a€favorable€manner.€€Yet€twoÏenhancement€factors€specifically€apply.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€was€in€a€positionÏœto›€commit€the€crime€because€of€his€familial€relationship€with€the€victim.€€The€crimes,Ïin€our€view,€qualify€as€breaches€of€a€private€trust.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(15).€€Neither€enhancement€nor€mitigating€factors€have€any€particular€weight.€ÍThis€court€fully€approves€of€the€nine„year€sentence,€only€one€year€above€theÏminimum.€€Any€entitlement€to€mitigation€would€be€offset€by€the€additionalÏenhancement€factor.€€œÌÌà àà àFurther,›€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€denying€alternativeÏsentencing.€€The€defendant€argues€that€he€is€capable€of€rehabilitation,€requiresÏtreatment€for€the€mental€illness€that€prompted€this€offense,€and€would€have€a€muchÏgreater€probability€of€recovery€under€an€alternative€sentencing€scheme.€€He€alsoÏargues€for€imposition€of€a€one„year€incarceration€period€followed€by€especiallyÏrestricted€probation.€€The€state€contends€œthat›€continuous€confinement€is€requiredÏdue€to€the€seriousness€of€this€offense€and€that€there€is€a€"moderately€high€risk"€thatÏthe€defendant€will€reoffend.€ÌÌà àà àEspecially€mitigated€or€standard€offenders€convicted€of€Class€C,€D,€orÏE€felonies€are,€of€course,€presumed€to€be€favorable€candidates€"for€alternativeÏsentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„102(6).€€With€certain€statutory€exceptions,€none€of€which€apply€here,Ïprobation€must€be€automatically€considered€by€the€trial€court€if€the€sentenceÏimposed€is€eight€years€or€less.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b).€€Among€theÏfactors€applicable€to€probation€consideration€are€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,Íthe€defendant's€criminal€record,€social€œhistory›€and€present€condition,€and€theÏdeterrent€effect€upon€and€best€interest€of€the€defendant€and€the€public.€€òòState€v.ÏGrearóó,€568€S.W.2d€285€(Tenn.1978).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€because€we€have€upheld€the€nine„year€sentence,€theÏdefendant€simply€does€not€qualify€for€probation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„303(a).›€€Moreover,€had€he€qualified,€this€court€would€have€affirmed€the€denial.€€TheÏnature€and€circumstances€of€the€offenses€may€often€be€so€egregious€as€to€precludeÏthe€grant€of€probation.€œ€òòSeeóó›€òòState€v.€Poeóó,€614€S.W.2d€403€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€ÏA€lack€of€candor€may€also€militate€against€a€grant€of€probation.€€òòState€v.€Bunchóó,€646ÏS.W.2d€158€(Tenn.€1983).€€Here,€the€record€demonstrates€an€obvious€reluctanceÏon€the€part€of€the€defendant€to€acknowledge€a€prior€incident€of€improper€conductÏinvolving€this€victim.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€purpose€of€the€Community€Corrections€Act€of€1985€was€toÏprovide€an€alternative€means€of€punishment€for€"selected,€nonviolent€felonyÏoffenders€in€front„end€community€based€alternatives€to€incarceration."€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„36„103.€€The€Community€Corrections€sentence€provides€a€desiredÏdegree€of€flexibility€that€may€be€both€beneficial€to€the€defendant€yet€serve€legitimateÏsocietal€aims.€€òòState€v.€Griffithóó,€787€S.W.2d€340,€342€(Tenn.1990).€€Even€in€casesÍwhere€the€defendant€meets€the€minimum€requirements€of€the€CommunityÏCorrections€Act€of€1985,€the€defendant€is€not€necessarily€entitled€to€be€sentencedÏunder€the€Act€as€a€matter€of€law€or€right.€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.1987).€€The€following€offenders€are€eligible€for€Community€Corrections:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€Persons€who,€without€this€option,€would€beÏincarcerated€in€a€correctional€institution;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€Persons€who€are€convicted€of€property„related,€orÏdrug/alcohol„related€felony€offenses€or€other€felonyÏoffenses€òònot€involving€crimes€against€the€personóó€asÏprovided€in€title€39,€chapter€2€[repealed],€parts€1„3€andÏ5„7€or€title€39,€chapter€13,€parts€1„5;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€Persons€who€are€convicted€of€nonviolent€felonyÏoffenses;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€Persons€who€are€convicted€of€felony€offenses€inÏwhich€the€use€or€possession€of€a€weapon€was€notÏinvolved;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€Persons€who€do€not€demonstrate€a€present€or€pastÏpattern€of€behavior€indicating€violence;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€Persons€who€do€not€demonstrate€a€pattern€ofÏcommitting€violent€offenses;€€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)€Persons€who€are€sentenced€to€incarceration€or€onÏescape€at€the€time€of€consideration€will€not€be€eligible.€€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(a)€(emphasis€added).€€Subpart€(a)(2)€above€wouldÏinitially€exclude€the€œdefendant€because€sexual€battery€is€classified€as€an€ð ðoffenseÏagainst€the€person.ðð€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„505;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Bostonóó,€938ÍS.W.2d€435,€438€n.5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€€However,›€subpart€(c)€creates€aÏ"special€needs"€category€of€eligibility:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àFelony€offenders€not€otherwise€eligible€underÏsubsection€(a),€and€who€would€be€usually€consideredÏunfit€for€probation€due€to€histories€of€a€chronic€alcohol,Ïdrug€abuse,€or€òòmental€health€problems,€but€whoseÏspecial€needs€are€treatable€and€could€be€served€best€inÏthe€community€rather€than€in€a€correctional€institutionóó,Ïmay€be€considered€eligible€for€punishment€in€theÏcommunity€under€the€provisions€of€this€chapter.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(c)€œ(emphasis›€added).€€Thus,€the€defendant€wouldÏarguably€be€eligible€for€œCommunity›€œCorrections€under€this€"special€needs"Ïcategory.€€However,€to€be€eligible€for€Community€Corrections€under€subpart(c),€theÏdefendant€must€first€be€eligible€for€probation€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303.€ÏòòState€v.€Statenóó,€787€S.W.2d€934,€936€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€in€òòAshbyóó,€our€supreme€court€encouraged€the€grant€ofÏconsiderable€discretionary€authority€to€our€trial€courts€in€matters€such€as€these.€Ï823€S.W.2d€at€171.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€235€(Tenn.1986).€€"[E]achÏcase€must€be€bottomed€upon€its€own€facts."€€òòTayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€at€922.€€"It€is€notÏthe€policy€or€purpose€of€this€court€to€place€trial€judges€in€a€judicial€straight„jacket€inÏthis€or€any€other€area,€and€we€are€always€reluctant€to€interfere€with€their€traditionalÏdiscretionary€powers."€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€171.€€Here,€the€trial€judge€consideredÍand€rejected€Community€Corrections,€"[a]s€a€result€of€his€sentence€under€[Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.]€ðð€40„35„303,€I€do€not€feel€that€the€defendant€is€eligible€for€any€type€ofÏalternative€sentencing.€...€That's€the€judgment€of€the€Court."€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant,€while€otherwise€described€as€a€candidate€for€out„patient€treatment,€was€diagnosed€as€a€"moderately€high€risk€for€future€sexualÏexploitation"€by€the€Luton€Mental€Health€Center.€€While€the€defendant€wasÏapparently€willing€to€undergo€sex„offender€specific€treatment,›€as€opposed€to€thatÏprovided€by€Dr.€Ericson,€he€had€not€done€so€during€the€period€of€time€between€theÏoffenses€and€the€sentencing€hearing.€€ÌÌà àà àThus,€the€trial€judge,€who€observed€the€witnesses€first„hand,€had€œanÏadditional€basis›€for€rejecting€a€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€Recognizing€that,Ïthis€court€must€defer€to€the€determination€made€by€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à______________________________________€Ìà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌCurwood€Witt,€Judge€