ÿWPC] ;# JUNU %£ 0(©w@Ñ4% 0l4 0J  0Tê 0D> 0^‚bà 0hèP 0rX 0|ÊbF 0†N 0Ô 1ud bÙ 0dá bE BM U>j U*¨ B)Ò DCû AQ> Æ 0DU 0@™ 0DÙ D/ BL AMi D3¶ é >ìâ*v~ vÓŠ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ sDtDuPv£ewDxÈeyzÓ€†‰n~<$3|x‰((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)- ù-P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ- ù- d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d))))7Border 1dd,-./0Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó11'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd,.*Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd ùÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ-"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òJuly€21,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó 4Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  Ýà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€'ôÔ€The€indictment€spells€the€victimððs€name€Donny,€but€the€transcript€spells€the€name€Donnie›.€€œWeÌà à›€€€€€€will€use€the€spelling€in€the€transcript.Ì ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÓ ` Ü‚Xä ˜X Óà àà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€'ôÔ€In€1988,€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€driving€under€the€influence€in€California.€€He€served€48Ïà àà àhours€in€jail€and€was€fined€$1,000.€€Also,€the€appellant€received€a€general€discharge€from€the€UnitedÏà àà àStates€Navy€for€unauthorized€absences.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€(Ôò òÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€œÃXXdðXXdð7ќـ,ÙßR€24*A1-j|›ÿÚ` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE€ÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌMAY€1998€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€œ02C01›„9708„CC„00333Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€œHardin›€CountyÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€Honorable€C.€Creed€œMcGinley›,€JudgeÌò òMICHAEL€BENSON,ó óà àà àà à)€Ìò òà àà à€à àó óà àà àà à)€(ProbationÏDenial)à àà àà àà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌGuy€T.€œWilkinson›à àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌRichard€œDeBerry›à àà àà àà àDouglas€D.€œHimes›ÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ605€Court€Street,€Suite€3à àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌSavannah,€TN€38372à àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€ð ðGusðð€œRadford›à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€œOverton›à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€484Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSavannah,€TN€38372ÌÌà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òÌÌÔ  ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ7€œÃXXdðXXdð7ÑØØÑ€ÑÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant,€Michael€Benson,€appeals€his€sentence€of€six€years€for€theÏkilling€of€his€brother„in„law,€œDonnie›€Ray€œQualls›.œ× ƒ7 ××  ×›€€On€June€4,€1997,€the€appellantÏpled€guilty€to€voluntary€manslaughter€pursuant€to€a€negotiated€plea€agreementÏand€received€a€six„year€sentence€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender.€€AÏsentencing€hearing€was€held€on€August€4,€1997,€and€the€trial€court€denied€theÏappellantððs€request€for€an€alternative€sentence.€€He€was€ordered€to€serve€hisÏsentence€in€confinement.ÌÌà àThe€appellantððs€sole€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÍdenying€him€probation.€€We€affirm€the€appellantððs€sentence.ÌÌà àOn€November€6,€1996,€œDonnie›€Ray€œQualls›,€the€victim€and€brother„in„lawÏof€the€appellant,€went€to€the€appellantððs€house.€€He€had€gone€there€to€pick€upÏhis€child.€€An€altercation€apparently€ensued,€and€the€appellant€shot€his€brother„in„law€with€a€shotgun.€€According€to€the€appellant,€œQualls›€had€threatened€himÏearlier€during€a€telephone€conversation,€and€while€at€the€appellantððs€house,ÏœQualls›€approached€the€appellant.€€The€appellant€told€œQualls›€to€stop,€and€whenÏhe€did€not,€the€appellant€shot€him.ÌÌà àThe€victimððs€wife€and€the€appellantððs€sister,€Kimberly€œQualls›,€testified€atÏthe€sentencing€hearing.€€She€stated€that€the€appellant€had€shown€no€remorseÏfor€the€killing€and€that€he€laughs€about€it.€€She€also€testified€that€the€appellantÏwill€not€leave€her€alone,€stating€that€he€has€been€near€her€house€and€has€calledÏher€on€the€telephone.Ìà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€testified€that€he€had€not€laughedÏabout€the€killing.€€Furthermore,€he€stated€that€he€had€called€his€sisterððs€house€toÏÑ€ÑÑ  Ñcontact€their€younger€sister€about€employment,€not€to€harass€his€sister€as€sheÏhad€testified.ÌÌà àIn€denying€the€appellantððs€request€for€probation,€the€trial€court€found€thatÍconfinement€was€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÏoffense€and€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€granting€his€requestÏfor€an€alternative€sentence.€€He€asserts€that€the€trial€court€relied€primarily€ð ðon€theÏfact€of€a€death€and€deterrence€in€not€granting€probation.ðð€€He€contends€thatÏalthough€a€death€occurred,€that€alone€does€not€justify€a€denial€of€probation.€ÏFurthermore,€the€appellant€notes€that€the€trial€court€found€that€he€was€aÏstandard€offender€of€a€Class€C€felony,€and€the€appellant€asserts€that€based€onÏthat€determination,€he€was€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€that€he€is€aÏfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€deterrence,€the€appellant€contends€ð ðthat€before€the€TrialÏCourt€can€deny€alternative€sentencing€on€the€ground€of€deterrence,€there€mustÏbe€some€evidence€contained€in€the€record€that€the€sentence€imposed€will€haveÏa€deterrent€effect€within€the€jurisdiction.ðð€€€He€insists€that€there€is€nothing€in€theÏrecord€to€indicate€that€denying€him€probation€would€have€a€deterrent€effect.ÌÌ€€à àThe€state€insists€that€the€trial€court€properly€ordered€the€appellant€toÏserve€his€sentence€in€confinement.€€The€state€argues€that€it€successfullyÏrebutted€the€presumption€for€alternative€sentencing.€€Although€the€stateÍacknowledges€that€a€ÌÑ€Ñdeath€alone€does€not€overcome€the€presumption€in€favor€of€alternativeÏsentencing,€it€maintains€that€a€death€is€a€factor€that€can€be€considered.€€Ìà àÌà àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€ofÏa€sentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€However,€this€presumption€is€conditioned€on€an€affirmativeÏindication€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÏand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€œAshby›óó,€823€œS.W.2d›€166,€169Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€wasÏimproper.€€òòId.óó€€€In€determining€whether€the€appellant€has€met€this€burden,€thisÏCourt€must€consider€(a)€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€and€the€sentencingÏhearing;€(b)€the€presentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing;€(d)€theÏarguments€of€counsel;€(e)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€and€(f)Ïthe€appellantððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„103(5),€„210(b)€(1997).ÌÌà àAs€the€trial€court€observed€during€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€first€step€isÍto€determine€whether€the€appellant€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€thatÏhe€is€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€€For€a€defendant€to€beÏentitled€to€this€presumption,€three€criteria€must€be€met€under€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ðððð€40„35„102(5)€and€„102(6)€(1997):€the€defendant€must€be€anÏespecially€mitigated€or€standard€offender;€he€or€she€must€be€convicted€of€aÏClass€C,€D,€or€E€felony;€and€he€or€she€must€not€fall€within€the€parameters€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„102(5),€which€states€that€a€defendantÏcannot€have€a€criminal€history€that€shows€a€ð ðclear€disregard€for€the€laws€andÏmorals€of€societyðð€or€ð ðfailure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation.ðð€€The€trial€courtÏfound€the€appellant€to€be€a€standard€offender€of€a€Class€C€felony€and€found€thatÏhe€does€not€have€a€significant€criminal€history.œ× ƒ8 ××  ×›ÌÌà àBy€providing€evidence€to€the€contrary,€the€state€may€rebut€theÏpresumption€that€the€defendant€is€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternativeÏsentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(1997).€€Insight€regarding€whatÏconstitutes€ð ðevidence€to€the€contraryðð€is€provided€at€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏðð€40„35„103:ÌÓÓà à(1)€Sentences€involving€confinement€should€be€based€on€the€followingÌà àconsiderations:Ìà àà à(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restrainingÌà àa€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;Ìà àà à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÌà àseriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€toÌà àprovide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similarÌà àoffenses;€orÌà àà à(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequentlyÌà àor€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€œS.W.2d›€448,€454€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1995)€(citing€òòState€v.óóÏòòœAshby›óó,€823€œS.W.2d›€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991)).€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÏappellant€did€not€have€a€significant€prior€record.€€Thus,€subsections€(A)€and€(C)Ïwere€not€applicable.€€However,€the€court€did€find€that€confinement€wasÏnecessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€to€provideÏan€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€(1997).€€ÌÌà àFor€a€trial€court€to€deny€an€alternative€sentence€based€on€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense,€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€ð ðððmust€beÏespecially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€ofÏan€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree,ðð€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€mustÏoutweigh€all€factors€favoring€a€sentence€other€than€confinement.ðð€€òòBinghamóó,€910ÏœS.W.2d›€at€454€(quoting€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€œS.W.2d›€370,€374„75€(Tenn.€œCrim›.ÏœApp›.€1991)).€€The€occurrence€of€a€death€cannot€alone€constitute€sufficientÏevidence€to€the€contrary€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€òòId.óóÏat€455.€€The€trial€courtððs€denial€of€an€alternative€sentence€based€on€theÍseriousness€of€the€offense€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€(1997)€can€only€be€upheld€if€the€òòHartleyóó€conditions€are€in€the€record.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€denied€alternative€sentencing€based€on€deterrence.€ÏHowever,€the€record€must€contain€some€evidence€that€the€sentence€imposedÏwill€have€a€deterrent€effect€within€the€jurisdiction€before€a€trial€court€can€denyÏalternative€sentencing€based€on€this€ground.€€òòState€v.€œBonestel›óó,€871€œS.W.2d›Ï163,€169€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1993).€€Furthermore,€€œconclusory›€statements€areÏinsufficient,€and€only€when€there€is€proof€of€the€deterrent€effect€within€theÏjurisdiction€will€denial€be€upheld.€€òòœAshby›óó,€823€œS.W.2d›€at€170.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€insists€that€he€should€have€received€full€probation.€ÏHowever,€we€note€that€although€the€appellant€is€entitled€to€the€presumption€ofÏalternative€sentencing,€he,€not€the€state,€has€the€burden€of€establishingÏsuitability€for€full€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„303(b)€(1997).€€To€meetÏthis€burden,€the€appellant€must€illustrate€how€probation€will€ð ðsubserve€the€endsÏof€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.ðð€€òòBinghamóó,Ï910€œS.W.2d›€at€456€(quoting€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€œS.W.2d›€250,€259€(Tenn.€œCrim›.ÏœApp›.€1990)).ÌÌà àIn€determining€the€appropriate€sentence,€the€trial€court€may€not€considerÍany€factor€that€is€an€element€of€the€offense.€€òòId.óó€€Thus,€the€occurrence€of€a€death,Ïwhich€the€trial€court€emphasized€in€denying€probation,€is€not€relevant€in€theÏdetermination€of€whether€the€appellant€is€entitled€to€full€probation.ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103(5)€(1997)€provides€theÏð ðpotential€or€lack€of€potential€for€the€rehabilitation€or€treatment€of€the€defendantÏshould€be€considered€in€determining€the€sentence€alternative€or€length€of€aÏterm€to€be€imposed.ðð€€€€Furthermore,€a€defendantððs€failure€to€acceptÏresponsibility€for€his€crimes€is€relevant€to€his€rehabilitation€potential.€€òòState€v.ÏœZeolia›óó,€928€œS.W.2d›€457€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1996).ÌÌà àThe€victimððs€wife€and€the€appellantððs€sister,€Kimberly€œQualls›,€in€her€impactÏstatement€and€in€her€testimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing€stated€that€theÏappellant€had€not€shown€any€remorse€for€what€he€had€done.€€At€his€sentencingÏhearing,€the€appellantððs€response€to€this€statement€by€his€sister€was€ð ðI€hate€it€forÏeveryone€concerned€with€this.€€Iððm€very€sorry€for€everyone€thatððs€dealing€withÏthis.€€But€I€had€no€other€choice.ðð€€€Also,€when€asked€about€his€difficulty€in€findingÏsteady€employment,€the€appellant€responded:€ð ðMy€nerves€and€stuff,€you€know,Ïis€bothering€me.€€Other€than€that,€itððs€just€òòwaiting€on€this€situation€to€ease€onÏaway€so€I€can€get€re„establishedóó.ðð€€(emphasis€added).€ÌÌà àWe€recognize€that€the€appellant€was€in€his€own€home€at€the€time€of€theÏshooting€and€that€he€contends€he€had€no€other€choice€but€to€shoot€œDonnie›€RayÏœQualls›.€€€However,€we€must€agree€with€the€victimððs€wife€that€the€appellant€hasÏoffered€little€proof€of€genuine€remorse€for€his€actions.€€€€At€his€sentencingÏhearing,€the€appellant€appeared€more€concerned€with€getting€ð ðthis€situation€toÏease€on€awayðð€and€with€re„establishing€himself€than€he€was€in€acceptingÏresponsibility€and€showing€genuine€remorse€for€his€actions.€€When€given€anÏopportunity€to€make€a€statement€to€be€included€in€his€œpresentencing›€report,€heÏdeclined.€€As€we€noted€earlier,€the€appellant€has€the€burden€to€establish€hisÏsuitability€for€probation.€€In€this€case,€we€find€that€he€has€failed€to€meet€thisÏburden.ÌÌà àOn€appellate€review,€we€always€appreciate€detailed€findings€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€When€they€exist,€the€presumption€of€correctness€on€sentencing€issuesÏtakes€effect.€€On€the€issue€of€overcoming€the€presumption€of€some€alternativeÏsentencing,€we€exercise€our€òòde€novoóó€sentencing€authority€in€this€case.€€We€find,Ïbased€upon€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€that€the€appellantððs€crime€isÏreprehensible€and€offensive.€€We€are€also€concerned€that€he€expresses€noÏgenuine€remorse.€€If€he€is€to€benefit€from€probation€and€the€stateððs€largesse,€heÏneeds€to€act€like€he€is€a€proper€and€suitable€candidate.ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€sentence€in€its€entirety.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJOHN€H.€œPEAY›,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€œWOODALL›,€Judge