ÿWPCã R/Ϥ*äÐf>,‰[žh®1ØVd9ïô»úÂEbUÙ;!¡rõð“!”ƒ‘lŒ7ÚßetSê?w†ÉÆ xíì2Ãî²bL¯Ð ØØñ•âvK¯!˜:c+ $-ZÙóg_¡°•a¡ Dñkçë_‰ß l èÿî\¬íÐ2}~Ô:·Ã°{X[ÓÅ&3-F¿¾œvm•:›‡ õŠÙýÃÒšY7Ø.ЉL¡cy"ÉQ“º¶¹~©†øur]»û:æôÆD.äDd¹ÁmõúîÏfÞ7ÐQëôWÑ >÷–¨þJõ>ƒà¹ËNX?^ãHÌï>µDN®>Pq?€â1DmZ1r•ôã«ø‡ý›öZá,A0"òŒy3†òq3Q<¶ïæ±r¹dËY0áLÎÛ-R½‹£ m:ÇÐIJœ¿'4.÷Ë|%¸,¾Y«µ |¨â~6CU¤ÈS(µë‰s¹1·¯T[m_éþmõ _#†5êÆŠùy„ÕÚi+Þd$8Åýµo~‰ã•±×vK6ãçñ½Êǃo-¯É¿)»ÔµâU¦+š¬»Zz哹Äðû×¢ïØîRnj/¹˜Vð^ï,# hUNs %Á 0(ÇU :ïb)w@14q… 0À”U :T 0ÔŽU:bôœ2 U: &ü U:" " \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Bd 0D D3Å Å Å Å AQø ÆI 0D 0DS D/— BƘHP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÜÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- †‡Dˆ‰UŠD‹ŒEŽÓ€V&{"|xš(D‹$Ô€XBXXXÔÔ€Š’ŠXXBÔÔ€ Š’ŠŠŠ’ÔÔ€ Š’ŠŠ Š’ÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular(‚*2À¨$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XTXXXÔÔ€ &Ü¿&X XTÔà ` àòò€€Ú  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular êÝ ƒ À¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XTXXXÔÔ€ &Ü¿&X XTÔà ` àòò€€Ú  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„102(a)(2),55„10„401,€55„8„129. (Ý ƒ À¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XTXXXÔÔ€ &Ü¿&X XTÔà ` àòò€€Ú  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€For€the€DUI€offense,€the€sentence€was€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days,Ð `  Ðsuspended€after€forty„five€days€and€a€six€hundred€dollar€fine.€€For€failure€to€yield€the€right„of„¼way,€the€sentence€was€thirty€days.€€These€sentences€were€ordered€served€concurrent€with€theÏfelony€sentences,€and€the€Defendant€does€not€contest€the€misdemeanor€sentences€in€thisÏappeal., øð AZ"Arial Regular Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÅ XXXÔÔ€Úq  XXÅÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÅ X ÚqÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€31,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô‰ô XXÅÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý 'ÿÿdxd'(!)*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýññ›ññÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠàŠXXÔÔ€ŠS,ŠŠŠàÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ü”XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òññßr€&"<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` ttx$,` ð Úrß›ññIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌOCTOBER€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9712„CR„00546Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àBLOUNT€COUNTYÐ `  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€PHYLLIS€H.€MILLERó óÐ `  Ðò òBILLY€G.€BARNETT,ó óà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àó ó(Sentencing)ò òÐ ` Ðó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÐ Pð ÐCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€œBLOUNT€›COUNTYó óÐ Pð ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð @ à ÐÌRICHARD€A.€SPIVEYà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ 0"Ð Ð142€Cherokee€Streetà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ (#È ÐKingsport,€TN€37660Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTODD€R.€KELLEYÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMIKE€FLYNNÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBARRY€STAUBUSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBlountville,€TN€37617ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ  ˆ6(-.S ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°úX°ŠŠS,Ôò òòòÑ7€ QÒ ˆ ˆdXXdð7ÑOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠS,а°úXÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àThe€Defendant,€Billy€Gene€Barnett,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3Ïof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€He€was€convicted,€upon€hisÏpleas€of€guilty,€of€two€counts€of€reckless€aggravated€assault,€Class€D€felonies,Ïone€count€of€œsecond„offense€DUIñ‰ñ›ñ‰ñ,€and€one€count€of€failure€to€yield€the€right„of„¼way.׃×Ý ƒ D‹ÝÔ€ŠJ× ŠŠŠS,ÔÔ€ŠJ× Š ŠŠJ×ÔÔ€ ŠJ× Š ŠŠJ×ÔÔ€ ŠJ× Š Š ŠJ×ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€Although€œthe€record€contains€neither›€a€œcopy€of›€the€plea€agreement€nor€aÐ Þ~  Ðtranscript€of€the€guilty€plea€œproceeding,€it›€appears€that€the€œDefendant€agreed›€œtoÏserve€two€concurrent€three„year€sentences›€œas€a€Range€I€standard€offender€for›Ïthe€two€Class€D€œfelonies.›×ƒj×Ý ƒ D‹ÝÔ€ŠJ× Š Š ŠJ×ÔÔ€ŠJ× Š ŠŠJ×ÔÔ€ ŠJ× Š ŠŠJ×ÔÔ€ ŠJ× Š Š ŠJ×ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€manner€of€service€of€the€sentences€was€left€to€theÐ þž Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€After€conducting€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judgeÏordered€that€the€Defendant€serve€œ325€days€in›€the€county€jail€in€conjunction€withÏfour€years€on€probation.€€The€Defendant€appeals€from€the€sentences€imposed,Ïarguing€primarily€that€the€œ325€days›€ordered€to€be€served€in€confinement€isÏexcessive.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÔ‡ŠS,Š Š ŠJ×Ôà ` àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÐ 6*Ö  Ðsentence,€this€œCourt›€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€withÐ &,Æ"" Ða€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€œð ðconditioned›€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÐ ö1–(( Ðall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà ` àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€(a)Ð 0Ð Ðthe€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€œmade;›€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitationÏor€treatment.€€œòòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)Ô#† ŠŠ— ŠŠŠb‘#ÔÔ‡ŠbŠ Š ŠŠ—Ô;Ð Ðp ÐTenn.›€Code€Ann.€Ô‡Xã@ XŠŠbÔððÔ#†ŠbŠ XXã@Û#ÔÔ‡Xã@ XŠŠbÔððÔ#†ŠbŠ XXã@!#Ô€40„35„102,€„103,€œ„210.›Ð À` ÐÌà ` àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€œthat€the€court€imposed›€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€dueÏconsideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principles€set€out€under€theÏsentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€œcourtððs›€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supportedÏby€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€haveÏpreferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð P*ð " ÐApp.€1991).ÌÔ#† ŠŠ— ŠŠŠb•#ÔÌà ` àThe€basic€facts€gleaned€from€this€record€are€that€the€Defendant€œplayed›€inÏa€golf€tournament€on€June€29,€1996.€€After€the€tournament,€he€attended€aÏluncheon€and€drank€some€beer.€€As€he€was€driving€home,€he€approached€a€carÏand€a€motorcycle€stopped€behind€a€farm€vehicle€œattempting›€to€make€a€left€turn.€ÏThe€Defendant€was€unable€to€stop€his€vehicle€and€struck€the€œmotorcycle,›Ð X8ø.0 Ðknocking€it€into€the€car€œbehind›€the€farm€vehicle.€€The€two€individuals€on€theÏmotorcycle€were€seriously€injured.€€The€Defendant€performed€unsatisfactorily€onÏthree€field€sobriety€tests.€€Approximately€four€hours€after€the€accident,€theÏDefendantððs€blood/alcohol€content€registered€œ.09€percent.›€€ÌÌà ` àAt€the€time€of€sentencing,€the€Defendant€was€fifty„one€years€old€andÏmarried€with€two€adult€children.€€The€Defendant€dropped€out€of€school€during€theÏeleventh€grade.€€He€apparently€is€a€skilled€œwelder,›€and€his€employment€historyÏis€œgood.€€The›€Defendantððs€record€includes€two€speeding€violations.€€In€addition,Ïœhe›€œhas›€two€prior€convictions€for€DUI:€one€in€1979€in€Carter€County€and€one€inÏ1994€in€Sullivan€County.€€In€the€presentence€report,€the€Defendant€reportedlyÏstated€that€at€the€time€of€the€accident€he€had€consumed€only€one„half€of€a€beer.€ÏHe€stated€that€he€had€spent€an€enjoyable€day€on€the€golf€course€but€drove€homeÏð ðwith€what€the€State€deems€too€much€alcohol€in€my€system.ðð€€He€also€stated,€ð ðIÏdonððt€feel€that€the€accident€was€entirely€my€fault€but€because€of€the€alcohol€allÏelse€was€forgotten.ðð€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€Defendant€testified€that€heÏdrank€two€or€three€beers€prior€to€driving€on€the€date€of€the€accident.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€did€not€believe€he€had€a€problem€with€alcohol.€€The€Defendant€asked€thatÏhe€be€placed€on€probation€so€that€he€could€continue€to€work€and€provide€supportÏfor€his€family.ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendantððs€wife€testified€that€the€Defendant€had€been€a€good€workerÏand€a€good€provider€and€that€alcohol€had€never€caused€any€problem€in€theirÏmarriage.€€The€Defendantððs€daughter€testified€that€the€Defendant€was€a€goodÏfather€and€that€alcohol€had€not€been€a€problem€in€their€household.Ð  :À00 Їà ` àThe€Defendant€argues€that€by€sentencing€œhim€to€serve›€œ325€days›€in€theÏcounty€jail,€the€trial€judge€effectively€denied€him€an€alternative€sentencing€optionÏeven€though€he€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€œsuch.€€A›€defendantÏwho€ð ðis€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€œD›€orÏE€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencingÏoptions€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„¼102(6).€€Our€sentencing€law€also€provides€that€ð ðconvicted€felons€committing€theÏmost€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminal€histories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€forÏthe€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€past€efforts€at€œrehabilitation›Ïshall€be€given€first€priority€regarding€œsentencing›€involving€œincarceration.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„Ð ¨H Ð35„102(5).€€Thus,€a€defendant€sentenced€to€eight€years€or€less€who€is€not€anÏoffender€for€whom€incarceration€is€a€priority€is€presumed€eligible€for€alternativeÏsentencing€unless€sufficient€evidence€rebuts€the€presumption.€€However,€the€actÏdoes€not€provide€that€all€offenders€who€meet€the€criteria€are€entitled€to€such€relief;Ïrather,€it€requires€that€sentencing€issues€be€determined€by€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€presented€in€each€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,Ð Ø'x Ð922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(citing€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€228,€235€(Tenn.Ð à)€  Ð1986)).€€ÌÌà ` àAdditionally,€the€principles€of€sentencing€reflect€that€the€sentence€shouldÏbe€no€greater€than€that€deserved€for€the€offense€committed€and€should€be€theÏleast€severe€measure€necessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€for€which€the€sentenceÏis€imposed.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(3)„(4).€€The€court€should€also€considerÏthe€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment€of€the€defendant€in€determining€theÏsentence€alternative.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„103(5).€€Ð  :À00 Їà ` àIn€sentencing€the€Defendant,€the€trial€court€acknowledged€that€theÏDefendant€was€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€ÏConcerning€enhancement€factors,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€had€aÏprevious€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€ÏThe€Defendant€argues€that€it€was€improper€for€the€trial€court€to€enhance€hisÏsentence€based€upon€his€ð ðrelatively€unremarkable€criminal€history.ðð€€We€rejectÏthis€argument.€€The€Defendantððs€two€prior€DUI€convictions€clearly€render€thisÏenhancement€factor€applicable.€€The€trial€judge€stated€that€she€gave€great€weightÏto€this€factorññ,ññ€and€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€this€regard.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€also€found€that€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€theÏvictims€were€particularly€great.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6).€€The€DefendantÏargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€this€factor€because€serious€bodilyÏinjury€is€an€element€of€the€crime€of€reckless€aggravated€assault.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€39„13„Ð Ð%p Ð102(a)(2).€€Reckless€aggravated€assault€may€be€committed€by€òòeitheróó€causingÐ Ø'x Ðbodily€injury€òòoróó€using€or€displaying€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòId.óó€€The€indictment€charged›Ð à)€  Ðthat€the€Defendant€caused€serious€bodily€injury€to€the€victims€by€use€of€hisÏautomobile€as€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€trial€judge€acknowledged€that€it€would€beÏimproper€to€enhance€the€Defendantððs€sentence€based€upon€both€the€personalÏinjuries€inflicted€upon€the€victims€and€œuse›€of€the€deadly€weapon.€€She€specificallyÏapplied€the€enhancement€factor€based€upon€the€infliction€of€the€personal€injuriesÏrather€than€œuse›€of€the€deadly€weapon.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€application€of€thisÏenhancement€factor.̜Р :À00 Лà ` àAs€an€additional€enhancement€factor,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏDefendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€humanÏlife€was€high.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10).€€Our€legislature€has€mandatedÏthat€œan€enhancement›€factor€may€not€be€applied€if€the€œfactor›€œis€an›€essentialÏœelement›€of€the€offense€as€charged€in€the€indictment.€€In€this€case,€the€indictmentÏcharges€the€Defendant€with€aggravated€assault€by€recklessly€using€a€deadlyÏweapon,€an€automobile,€to€cause€bodily€injury€to€the€victims.€€While€we€agree€thatÏthe€Defendantððs€actions€support€a€finding€that€he€had€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€we€œalso€believe›€that€thisÏenhancement€factor€is€incorporated€as€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€ofÏreckless€aggravated€assault€as€charged€in€the€indictment.€œ€Nevertheless,€theÏDefendantððs€actions€endangered€the€lives€of€other€motorists€on€the€road€that€dayñ‚ñ,ñ‚ñÏin€addition€to€the€victims.€€This€enhancement€factor€may€be€applied€in€situationsÏwhere€persons€other€than€the€victims€are€placed€in€danger€by€the€actions€of€theÏDefendant.€€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€909€S.W.2d€46,€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð Ð%p ÐÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors.€€The€Defendant€argued€that€theÏtrial€court€should€have€found€that€his€offense€was€committed€under€such€unusualÏcircumstances€that€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law€motivatedÏthe€criminal€conduct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(11).€€From€this€record,€weÏfind€no€error€on€the€part€of€the€trial€court€in€not€applying€this€mitigating€factor.€€TheÏDefendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€theÏDefendantððs€good€employment€record€and€role€as€a€devoted€husband,€father,€andÏâ âprovider€for€his€family€as€a›€œmitigating€factor.›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€Ð 8¸.. ÐThe€trial€judge€stated€on€the€record€that€she€was€taking€these€factors€intoÏaccount.Ìâ âÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€œlacked€credibility€and›€had€failed€toÏaccept€responsibility€for€his€actions.€€œShe€based€these€findings€upon€statementsÏthe€Defendant€made€as€reflected€in€the€presentence€report€and€statements€thatÏhe€made€at€the€sentencing€hearing€concerning€the€cause€of€this€accident.€€TheÏrecord€supports€these›€œfindings.›€€Based€on€œthese›€œfactors,›€in€conjunction€with€theÏDefendantððs€two€prior€DUI€convictions,€the€trial€judge€questioned€the€DefendantððsÏpotential€for€rehabilitation.ÌÌà ` àAs€our€supreme€court€recently€stated,€œð ðSociety›€demands€protection€fromÏthose€who€habitually€drink€and€drive€in€complete€disregard€for€the€welfare€ofÏothers€and€for€the€laws€of€this€state.ðð€€òòState€v.€œñƒñKenneth€Eugene€ñƒñTroutmanóó,€1998Ð È#h ÐWL€774677,€at€ñ„ñ#ñ„ññ…ñ*ñ…ñ2€(Tenn.ñ†ñ›ñ†ññ†ñ,€Knoxville,€Nov.€9,ñ†ñ›€œ1998)€(for€publication).›€€Based€on€ourÏreview€of€this€record,€œthe€Defendant€has€not€convinced€us€that›€the€trial€œñ‹ñjudgeñ‹ññ‹ñ›courtñ‹ñ›Ïerred€or€abused€œñŒñhñŒññññŒñisñŒññññŽñerñŽññŒñ›ñŒññ‡ñherñ‡ññŒññˆñitsñˆññŒñ›€discretion€in€ordering€that€a€significant€portion€of€thisÏsentence€be€served€in€confinement.€€œñ‰ñÌÌà ` àñ‰ñThe›€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€accordingly€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÐ  :À00 МñŠñÐ  `  ÐñŠñCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE