ÿWPC@ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ U*Ç B)ñ DC AM]ªv~ºvÓ8 B  D3( 0@[ AO›Æê 0D° D/ô B#˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- NOEPQRSTUDVWÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x`2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌOctober€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€–rXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€!" A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9508„CC„00277Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àFRANKLIN€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€J.€CURTIS€SMITHó óÌò òPATSY€O.€BAKER,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal„Simple€PossessionÏof€à àà àà àà àà à)à àControlled€Substance)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌPHILIP€A.€CONDRAà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ12th€Judicial€DistirctÌP.€O.€Box€220à àà àà àà àKAREN€YACUZZOÌJasper,€TN€€37347à àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJ.€MICHAEL€TAYLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSTEVEN€M.€BLOUNTÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à1€South€Jefferson€St.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWinchester,€TN€€37398ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àAppellant€Patsy€O.€Baker€appeals€from€a€jury€verdict€rendered€in€theÏFranklin€County€Circuit€Court€finding€her€guilty€of€(1)€simple€possession€of€aÏSchedule€VI€controlled€substance,€(2)€evading€arrest,€and€(3)€failure€to€stop€at€aÏstop€sign.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€Appellant€received€the€followingÏrespective€sentences€for€the€offenses€listed€above:€€(1)€eleven€months€andÏnineteen€days€of€probation€to€be€effective€after€service€of€ten€days€in€theÏFranklin€County€Jail,€$250€fine,€and€100€hours€of€community€service€on€theÏconviction€for€simple€possession;€(2)€a€concurrent€term€of€eleven€months€andÏtwenty„nine€days€of€probation€on€the€conviction€for€evading€arrest;€and€(3)€thirtyÏdays€of€probation€on€the€conviction€for€failure€to€stop€at€a€stop€sign.€€AppellantÏpresents€three€issues€for€consideration€on€this€direct€appeal:€€(1)€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€overruling€Appellant's€motion€to€dismiss€based€on€allegationsÏof€illegal€seizure€of€Appellant€without€probable€cause;€(2)€whether€the€trial€courtÏproperly€allowed€a€police€officer€to€testify€regarding€the€purposes€of€an€affidavitÏof€complaint;€and€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€sentenced€Appellant€inÏcompliance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„101€òòet€seq.óó€€After€aÏreview€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€conviction.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌà àThe€proof€shows€that€on€February€28,€1994,€Appellant€arrived€at€theÏFranklin€County€Jail€for€the€purpose€of€visiting€an€inmate.€€A€corrections€officerÏthen€informed€€Appellant€that€she€would€be€required€to€submit€to€a€strip€searchÏbefore€being€allowed€visitation.€€After€Appellant€requested€an€explanation,€theÏcorrections€officer€stated€that€she€had€received€information€that€Appellant€wouldÏbe€bringing€drugs€to€the€jail.€€Appellant€declined€to€be€searched€and€walkedÏbriskly€from€the€jail.€€Appellant€then€got€into€her€van€and€began€driving€away.€ÏAt€this€time,€Officers€Gregory€Branch€and€Ron€Gattis,€Winchester€police€officers,Ïarrived€at€the€Franklin€County€Jail€and€were€told€that€Appellant€had€declined€toÏsubmit€to€a€strip€search.€€The€two€officers€immediately€returned€to€their€patrol€carÏto€pursue€Appellant.Ìà àAfter€Appellant€had€failed€to€come€to€a€complete€stop€at€a€stop€sign,€theÏofficers€began€to€use€the€blue€lights€and€siren€in€an€attempt€to€cause€AppellantÏto€pull€over.€€Appellant€then€failed€to€stop€at€a€second€stop€sign,€made€aÏrighthand€turn,€and€threw€a€ball„like€object€out€of€her€passenger€window€as€sheÏmade€the€turn.€€The€officers€finally€stopped€Appellant€a€block€and€a€half€afterÏthe€second€stop€sign.€€Appellant€was€immediately€placed€under€arrest.€€TheÏball„like€object€thrown€from€Appellant's€window,€and€retrieved€by€Officer€Gattis,Ïwas€a€condom€containing€a€plastic€bag€with€green€plant€material€inside.€ÏAnalysis€of€the€contents€of€the€plastic€bag€by€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÍInvestigation€(TBI)€crime€lab€in€Chattanooga€tested€positive€for€marijuana€with€aÏtotal€weight€of€4.5€grams.Ìà àOn€July€6,€1994,€a€Franklin€County€grand€jury€issued€a€four„countÏindictment€against€Appellant€for€simple€possession€of€a€Schedule€VI€controlledÏsubstance€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„17„418,Ïpossession€of€drug€paraphernalia€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏSection€39„17„425,€failure€to€stop€at€a€stop€sign€in€violation€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€55„8„149,€and€evading€arrest€in€violation€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€39„16„603.€€On€February€27,€1995,€a€Franklin€County€CircuitÏCourt€jury€convicted€Appellant€of€simple€possession€of€a€Schedule€VI€controlledÏsubstance,€failure€to€stop€at€a€stop€sign,€and€evading€arrest.€€The€trial€court€heldÏa€sentencing€hearing€immediately€following€the€rendition€of€the€verdict.€€AppellantÏwas€sentenced€to€eleven€months€and€nineteen€days€of€probation€to€beÏeffective€after€service€of€ten€days€in€the€Franklin€County€Jail,€$250€fine,€and€100Ïhours€of€community€service€on€the€conviction€for€simple€possession;€a€concurrentÏterm€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€of€probation€on€the€conviction€forÏevading€arrest;€and€thirty€days€of€probation€on€the€conviction€for€failure€to€stop€atÏa€stop€sign.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€ILLEGAL€ARREST:€€MOTION€TO€DISMISSó óÌà àAppellant's€first€contention€on€this€direct€appeal€is€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€overruling€her€motion€to€dismiss,€which€was€based€on€Appellant's€assertionÏthat€her€arrest€was€pretextual€and,€therefore,€illegal.€€This€contention€is€withoutÏmerit.Ìà àAppellant€incorrectly€asserts€that€because€she€was€unlawfully€arrested,Ïthen€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€her€motion€to€dismiss€the€indictment.€ÏHowever,€dismissal€of€the€indictment€is€not,€under€these€circumstances,€theÏproper€remedy€for€an€allegedly€unlawful€arrest.€€òòSee€State€v.€Smithóó,€787€S.W.2dÏ34,€35€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€this€Court€held€that€theÏremedy€for€an€illegal€arrest€typically€is€not€dismissal€of€the€indictment€but€thatÏevidence€seized€as€the€result€of€an€illegal€arrest€should€be€suppressed.€€787ÏS.W.2d€35.Ìà àThus,€the€proper€inquiry€is€whether€the€marijuana€thrown€from€Appellant'sÏvan€should€be€suppressed€as€the€product€of€an€illegal€stop€or€arrest.€€AppellantÏasserts€that€Officers€Branch€and€Gattis€possessed€an€"illegitimate€motivation"€toÏstop€her€in€that€the€officers€had€made€the€decision€to€arrest€Appellant€while€stillÏat€the€Franklin€County€Jail.€€We€must€therefore€address€whether€a€pretextualÏstop€by€police€mandates€suppression€of€contraband€discovered€as€a€result€ofÏthe€stop.Ìà àThe€Fourth€Amendment€guarantees€that€the€people€have€the€right€"to€beÏsecure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers,€and€effects,€against€unreasonableÍsearches€and€seizures.€.€.€."€€The€Fourth€Amendment€further€requires€that€allÏwarrants€must€issue€based€upon€probable€cause.€€U.S.€Const.€Amend.€4.€ÏHowever,€the€courts€have€recognized€certain€exceptions€to€the€warrantÏrequirement.€€Though€no€warrant€is€required€in€order€for€officers€to€stop€anÏautomobile,€"An€automobile€stop€is.€.€.€subject€to€the€constitutional€imperativeÏthat€it€not€be€`unreasonable'€under€the€circumstances.€€As€a€general€matter,€theÏdecision€to€stop€an€automobile€is€reasonable€where€the€police€have€probableÏcause€to€believe€that€a€traffic€violation€has€occurred."€€òòWhren€v.€United€Statesóó,Ï___€U.S.€___,€116€S.Ct.€1769,€1772,€135€L.Ed.€2d€89€(1996).€€In€òòWhrenóó,€JusticeÏScalia,€writing€for€the€Court,€explained€that€the€Constitution€strictly€forbidsÏselective€enforcement€of€any€of€its€provisions€based€upon€impermissibleÏconsiderations,€such€as€race.€€òòId.óó€at€1774.€€However,€the€Court€further€statedÏthat€the€subjective€motivations€of€the€individual€officer€do€not€invalidate€theÏofficer's€conduct€so€long€as€that€conduct€is€objectively€justified.€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòScott€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€436€U.S.€128,€138,€98€S.Ct.€1717,€1723,€56€L.Ed.2d€168€(1978)).€Ï"Subjective€intentions€play€no€role€in€ordinary,€probable„cause€FourthÏAmendment€analysis."€€òòWhrenóó,€116€S.€Ct.€at€1774.Ìà àUnder€the€federal€Constitution€and€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏdecisions€construing€the€Fourth€Amendment,€the€subjective€motivations€ofÏOfficers€Branch€and€Gattis€did€not€invalidate€the€arrest€of€Appellant.€€OfficersÏBranch€and€Gattis€followed€Appellant€and€plainly€saw€her€fail€to€stop€at€twoÍstop€signs.€€Thus,€the€officers€had€probable€cause€to€believe€that€aÏmisdemeanor€had€been€committed„„failing€to€stop€at€two€stop€signs„„and€thatÏAppellant€had€committed€it.€Ìà àWe€next€address€the€issue€of€whether€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏaffords€any€greater€protection€in€the€context€of€a€pretextual€stop€to€an€individualÏunder€arrest€than€does€the€federal€Constitution.€€Article€I€Section€7€provides:ÓÓÌÌà8 àà0 àThat€the€people€shall€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,Ïpapers€and€possessions,€from€unreasonable€searches€andÏseizures;€and€that€general€warrants,€whereby€an€officer€mayÏbe€commanded€to€search€suspected€places,€withoutÏevidence€of€the€fact€committed,€or€to€seize€any€person€orÏpersons€not€named,€whose€offenses€are€not€particularlyÏdescribed€and€supported€by€evidence,€are€dangerous€toÏliberty€and€ought€not€to€be€granted.ÓÓÌUnder€prior€Tennessee€case€law,€the€inquiry€into€whether€or€not€a€particular€stopÏwas€pretextual€focused€upon€the€individual€state€of€mind€and€motivations€of€theÏpolice€officer€and€required€the€Court€to€decide€whether€the€officer€òòwouldóó€haveÏmade€the€seizure€even€absent€the€illegitimate€motivation.€€òòState€of€Tennessee€v.ÏSidney€Williams,€Ivory€D.€Jones,€and€Roy€Kittlesóó,€C.C.A.€No.€173€1,€8€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€April€30,€1991).€€However,€this€line€of€cases€wasÏpredicated€upon€an€apparent€misinterpretation€of€federal€constitutional€law.€ÏMore€recent€cases€of€this€Court€have€concluded€that€the€analysis€enunciated€inÏòòWhrenóó€is€the€appropriate€framework€for€considering€pretextual€stops€under€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.€Davey€Joe€Vineyard€and€JimmyÍLee€Cockburnóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9502„CR„00052€&€No.€03C01„9502„CR„00053€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€July€18,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó,€03SO1„9612„CR„00120€(December€9,€1996).€€In€òòVineyardóó,€we€abandoned€the€subjectiveÏinquiry€into€the€police€officer's€individual€state€of€mind€and,€instead,€adoptedÏòòWhrenóó's€objective€analysis€as€the€appropriate€framework€under€which€toÏevaluate€allegations€of€pretextual€stops.€€òòId.óó€at€5.€€Although€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€has€granted€permission€to€appeal€in€the€òòVineyardóó€case,€to€date,Ïit€is€this€Court's€belief€that€the€state€constitution€affords€no€more€extensiveÏprotection€in€the€context€of€a€pretextual€stop€than€does€the€federal€Constitution.Ìà àFinally,€it€appears€that€suppression€of€evidence€is€not€warranted€sinceÏAppellant€abandoned€the€condom€containing€marijuana€when€she€threw€it€outÏher€passenger€window.€€In€òòCalifornia€v.€Hodari€D.óó,€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€addressed€the€question€of€"whether,€at€the€time€he€dropped€the€drugs,ÏHodari€had€been€`seized'€within€the€meaning€of€the€Fourth€Amendment."€€499ÏU.S.€621,€111€S.Ct.€1547,€1549,€113€L.Ed.2d€690€(1991).€€Justice€Scalia,Ïspeaking€for€the€Court,€concluded€that€the€cocaine€abandoned€by€the€accusedÏwhile€running€from€police€officers€"was€not€the€fruit€of€a€seizure"€and€that€theÏaccused's€motion€to€suppress€the€cocaine€was,€therefore,€properly€denied.€€111ÏS.Ct.€at€1552€(1991).Ìà àThe€facts€of€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó€are€analogous€to€those€of€òòHodarióó.€ÏAppellant€had€not€yet€been€seized€within€the€meaning€of€the€Fourth€AmendmentÍat€the€time€that€she€cast€the€marijuana€out€the€window€of€her€van.€€Rather,€sheÏhad€abandoned€the€property€and,€therefore,€had€no€reasonable€expectation€ofÏprivacy€with€respect€to€it.€€òòSee€Bolen€v.€Stateóó,€544€S.W.2d€918,€920€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1976)€(indicating€that€an€individual€does€not€have€a€reasonableÏexpectation€of€privacy€in€abandoned€property).We,€therefore,€conclude€that€theÏtrial€court€properly€denied€Appellant's€motion€to€dismiss€the€indictment€andÏcorrectly€admitted€the€marijuana€into€evidence€against€Appellant.Çà@ àò òIII.€€OFFICER'S€TESTIMONY€REGARDING€AFFIDAVIT€OF€COMPLAINTó óÌà àAppellant's€second€contention€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€permittingÏOfficer€Branch€to€testify€on€redirect€concerning€the€limited€purposes€for€which€anÏaffidavit€of€complaint€is€prepared.€€We€disagree.Ìà àThough€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€are€wholly€silent€as€to€theÏscope€of€redirect€examination€of€a€witness,€Tennessee€law€is€well„settled€thatÏredirect€examination€can€broach€topics€raised€on€cross„examination€evenÏthough€those€matters€were€not€inquired€into€on€direct€examination.€€òòNeil€P.ÏCohen,€et€al.,€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€611.5€2nd€ed.€(1990).€€Indeed,€inÏòòAustin€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€€the€court€explained,€"One€of€the€legitimate€purposesÏof€redirect€examination€is€to€clear€up€confusion€of€the€witness,€and€redirectÏexamination€rests€largely€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge."€€684€S.W.2d€624Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App€1984)€(citing€òòYellow€Bus€Line€v.€Brenneróó,€213€S.W.2d€626,€632Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1948)).Ìà àDuring€cross„examination,€Appellant's€attorney€propounded€a€series€ofÏquestions€to€Officer€Branch€regarding€the€officer's€sworn€affidavit€of€complaint.€ÏOne€such€question€posed€to€Officer€Branch€by€Appellant's€counsel€was€whyÏOfficer€Branch€would€not€have€desired€to€include€as€many€details€as€possible€inÏthe€affidavit.€€The€Assistant€District€Attorney€General€then€objected€to€this€line€ofÏquestioning€and€correctly€contended€that€an€affidavit€of€complaint€need€onlyÏestablish€probable€cause€to€justify€the€issuance€of€the€arrest€warrant€and€is€notÍrequired€to€include€every€detail€of€information€in€the€possession€of€the€police.ÏAppellant's€counsel€then€questioned€the€accuracy€of€Officer€Branch's€use€of€theÏword€"patrol"€in€the€affidavit€to€describe€the€officer's€actions€at€the€time€when€theÏofficer€first€saw€Appellant.€€On€redirect€examination,€the€court€permitted€OfficerÏBranch€to€respond€to€the€State's€questions€regarding€his€understanding€of€theÏlimited€purpose€of€an€affidavit€of€complaint.€Ìà àThis€line€of€questioning€was€proper€to€afford€Officer€Branch€an€opportunityÏto€explain€the€reason€for€his€brevity€in€the€affidavit,€to€which€Appellant's€counselÏreferred€during€cross„examination.€€The€trial€court,€therefore,€did€not€err€inÏpermitting€the€State€to€engage€in€this€line€of€questioning.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€SENTENCINGó óÌà àAppellant's€final€contention€on€this€direct€appeal€is€that€the€trial€court€failedÏto€comply€with€the€provisions€of€Tennessee€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„101€òòet€seqóó.€ÏSpecifically,€Appellant€asserts€that€because€the€trial€court€neglected€to€makeÏany€of€the€findings€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103,€the€imposition€ofÏten€days€of€incarceration€did€not€comply€with€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€ActÏof€1989.€€In€support€of€this€assertion,€Appellant€argues€that€she€is€a€favorableÏcandidate€for€probation€because€she€was€convicted€of€three€misdemeanorsÏand€because€she€is€a€first„time€offender.€€€When€an€appeal€challenges€theÏlength,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóóÍreview€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€However,€this€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€that€the€trial€court€in€theÏrecord€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€theÏevent€that€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€such€consideration,€review€of€theÏsentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòId.óó€€If€appellate€review€reflects€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequatelyÏsupported€by€the€record,€this€Court€must€affirm€the€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,Ï805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€conducting€a€review,€thisÏCourt€must€consider€the€evidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencingÏprinciples,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,Ïmitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant,Ïand€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,Ï60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€theÏimpropriety€of€the€sentence€imposed.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àA€misdemeanant€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€a€minimumÏsentence.€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Further,Ïmisdemeanor€sentences€do€not€contain€ranges€of€punishments,€and€aÍmisdemeanor€defendant€may€be€sentenced€to€the€maximum€term€provided€forÏthe€offense€as€long€as€the€sentence€imposed€is€consistent€with€the€purposes€ofÏthe€sentencing€act.€€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1995).€€OurÏstatutory€system€pertaining€to€misdemeanor€sentencing€is€designed€to€provideÏtrial€courts€with€continuing€jurisdiction€and€a€great€deal€of€flexibility.€€òòState€v.ÏBoydóó,€925€S.W.2d€237,€244€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àA€criminal€defendant€seeking€full€probation€bears€the€burden€on€appeal€ofÏshowing€the€sentence€actually€imposed€is€improper,€and€that€full€probation€willÏbe€in€both€the€best€interest€of€the€defendant€and€the€public.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,Ï910€S.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Although€not€controlling€of€theÏdiscretion€of€the€sentencing€court,€the€following€factors€should€be€considered€inÏdetermining€the€appropriateness€of€probation:ÌÌà8 à(1)€€The€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€crime,€under€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(4)€(Supp.€1996);Ìà8 à(2)€€the€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation,€under€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„103(5)€(1990);Ìà8 à(3)€€whether€full€probation€would€ð ðunduly€depreciate€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense,ðð€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€(1990);€and€Ìà8 à(4)€€whether€a€sentence€of€full€probation€would€ð ðprovide€anÏeffective€deterrent,ðð€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)Ï(1990).ÌÌà àAlthough,€the€trial€judge€in€the€instant€case€failed€to€state€on€the€record€hisÏreasons€for€ordering€incarceration€for€ten€(10)€days€as€the€result€of€the€drugÏpossession€charge,€we€find€such€a€short€incarcerative€period€to€be€reasonableÏgiven€the€fact€that€Appellant€apparently€possessed€marijuana€in€an€abortedÏattempt€to€smuggle€it€into€the€Franklin€County€Jail.€€Given€the€seriousness€of€theÏproblem€of€drugs€in€correctional€facilities,€we€find€a€denial€of€full€probation€to€beÏappropriate.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€Ìà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGE