ÿWPC~ Û»‰µÖ\–qÀ† bYgAçU‰]XÕ!+Á~ä,çu­rˆ>ÙD•Õ—0²?o0¸8š¹×½mÚ>ã½ÛæŽ0Ü~ìÆÐÏ;ÿÕ6W3:ßoóÈ1ÏûÖ~¥´£–LÑ“h™i¹Ñ/ÇrðAbÍÇ$ƒpõ9å6èã»õ/wŸnwv¤©|ü!ö/M·¨øßvQò&Œ¾û-%?é/‰RЏnMiùîT:dÏXŸ Xø®å&zt\þÇ]'x鲓çOÅëBˆa ;2F90åäãÕ³?T®’ ·É ö,e‡ÏFöë[J¾{˜ý\vi;r¬1XÕ$×óæÞ粡ؤç€ãÉ"ÿ2çp9ç²ãõóœÙ¸WúzÍ¥Ñ{"†’ålWç;aG·Ç#ÅbÇ*jÿíªÀF¢\tÝÕsÝÇÅkÍFq7б³>žEBÒX Ÿ¥]rÖúùû €Šx‹ÿå’ÞÍ{¹ŽºqLmÃF þýÔ´øw¸€~ç±Rk ²:TcTôƒ)~lc­·B£IO Üå>e–Ûa5.ÄGª8KZ SQÌ”O›öŒÄö–Ö<.?Mû¿à±gÙÐùòì uÇH+êÍ¿u×ì­6»9j¢Ñªä¨b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Ƨ Æm Æ3 Æù UN¿N U@EOO"QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQbssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss 0ë{{{{ Bff 0¤ƒ D3' D-Z 0K‡‡ ASÒÆ% 0¤ë 0D A«Ó»ÍŠ+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*'•m  3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 Ñ F ÑLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman  Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ- ù-(|G2¢ü$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§•ò»»Ô d(|3?]$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?]$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ »»»ÔÑ8€CAXXdì»»d8ÑÑ€ TÑÑ€* Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î¼î»¼ ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ »îî¼.#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMay€22,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XCAX»¼ ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ »XXCA4#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€DARLENE€RENEE€Ô_ÔBLACKHURSTÔ_Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌÔ€XCAX»¼ Ôò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ  p ÐNo.€S42,421€€€€€€R.€Jerry€Beck,€Judgeó óÐ  \ Ðò òÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ï` AßÐ Ð  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„01864„CCA„R3„CDÐ Ë  ÐAugust€30,€2001Ð ·  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¢` AßÐ £ó  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Darlene€Renee€Ô_ÔBlackhurstÔ_Ô,€pled€guilty€to€second€offense€driving€under€the€influenceÐ žî  Ðof€an€intoxicant€(ð ðÔ_ÔDUIÔ_Ôðð),€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident€involving€injury,€and€three€counts€ofÐ ŠÚ Ðreckless€aggravated€assault.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€an€effectiveÐ vÆ Ðsentence€of€three€years,€eleven€months,€and€twenty„nine€days,€to€be€served€on€intensive€probationÐ b² Ðfollowing€a€mandatory€period€of€45€days€in€confinement€for€the€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô€second€offense.€€In€this€appeal,Ð Nž Ðthe€State€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€placed€Defendant€on€full€probation€because€theÐ :Š Ðtrial€court€failed€to€properly€consider€the€victimððs€testimony€during€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Our€òòdeóóÐ &v Ðòònovoóó€review€reveals€that€the€trial€court€did€err€in€its€application€of€the€law€concerning€victimsððÐ b Ðstatements€and€in€granting€probation€for€the€full€time€remaining€in€Defendantððs€sentence€followingÐ þN Ðconfinement.€€However,€our€conclusion€regarding€the€impropriety€of€probation€is€based€onÐ ê: Ðsentencing€considerations€other€than€the€testimony€of€the€victim.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€trialÐ Ö& Ðcourtððs€judgment€regarding€the€manner€of€service€of€Defendantððs€sentence€and€remand€this€matterÐ Â Ðto€the€trial€court€to€determine€whether€Defendant€should€be€incarcerated€for€the€full€term€of€herÐ ®þ Ðsentence€or,€in€the€alternative,€serve€the€balance€of€her€sentence€in€split€confinement.Ð šê ÐÓºÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed.ó óÐ r  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ‡XCAXàXCAÔThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,€andÐ J"š! ÐòòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ôóó,€J.,€joined.Ð 6#†" ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Peter€M.€Ô_ÔCoughlanÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð %^ $ ÐÔ#†XCAXXXCAA #ÔÔ‡XCAXXXCAÔH.€Greeley€Wells,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€Ô#†XCAXXXCA+#ÔÔ‡XCAXXXCAÔand€James€Goodwin,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ú%J!% ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð æ&6"& ÐÌRichard€A.€Ô_ÔSpiveyÔ_Ô,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Darlene€Renee€Ô_ÔBlackhurstÔ_Ô.Ð ¾($( ÐÔ#†XCAXXXCAŸ#ÔÔ‡XCAXXXCAÔÌÔ#†XCAXXXCA#ÔòòóóÓ5 ÓÌÌÌÐ Z-ª(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà@@OO&ìàò òòòOPINIONóóó óÐ ° ÐòòóóÓ  Óò òÌà@!ìàFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àAt€11:50€p.m.€on€December€5,€1998,€Defendant€was€traveling€in€her€car€down€the€exit€rampÐ `° Ðof€Interstate€181€toward€Lynn€Garden€Drive€when€she€struck€a€Honda€Passport€that€was€stopped€atÐ L œ Ðthe€traffic€light.€€The€Honda€contained€the€driver,€Brenda€Gardner;€her€ten„year„old€son,€BlakeÐ 8 ˆ ÐEricson;€and€her€sonððs€twelve„year„old€friend,€Brooke€Shaffer.€€All€three€victims€suffered€ð ðsevereÐ $ t Ðbodily€injuryðð€as€a€result€of€the€impact.€€After€colliding€with€the€victimsðð€car,€Defendant€immediatelyÐ  ` Ðleft€the€scene.€€She€was€subsequently€discovered€by€Kingsport€Police€Department€Officer€SamplesÐ ü L  Ðafter€she€struck€a€guard€rail€and€mailbox€on€Hawkins€Avenue€in€Sullivan€County€later€that€evening.€Ð è 8  ÐWhen€Officer€Samples€arrived€at€the€scene€of€the€second€collision,€Defendant€had€a€strong€odor€ofÐ Ô$  Ðalcohol€about€her€person,€was€unable€to€stand€without€support,€and€did€not€cooperate€with€SamplesÐ À  Ðwhen€he€attempted€to€conduct€field€sobriety€tests.€€Later,€Defendantððs€blood€alcohol€was€determinedÐ ¬ü  Ðto€be€0.23.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àDefendant€pled€guilty€to€second€offense€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€(ð ðDUIðð),Ð pÀ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor;€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident€involvingÐ \¬ Ðinjury,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„103,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor;€and€three€counts€of€recklessÐ H˜ Ðaggravated€assault,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102,€a€Class€D€felony.€€Pursuant€to€the€negotiated€pleaÐ 4„ Ðagreement,€the€trial€court€imposed€concurrent€sentences€of€three€years€for€each€of€her€felonyÐ  p Ðconvictions,€and€concurrent€terms€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€her€two€misdemeanorÐ  \ Ðconvictions.€€The€felony€sentences€were€then€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€misdemeanorÐ øH Ðsentences€for€an€effective€sentence€of€three€years,€eleven€months,€and€twenty„nine€days,€with€aÐ ä4 Ðminimum€of€forty„five€days€mandatory€confinement€on€the€DUI,€second€offense.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€April€10,€2000,€a€sentencing€hearing€was€held€to€determine€the€manner€of€service€forÐ ¨ø ÐDefendantððs€sentence,€less€the€forty„five€days€for€mandatory€confinement€which€Defendant€hadÐ ”ä Ðalready€served€at€the€time€of€sentencing.€€The€trial€court€heard€oral€testimony€from€Brenda€Gardner,Ð €Ð Ðthe€victim€who€was€driving€the€Honda€Passport€struck€by€Defendant.€€Regarding€the€collision,Ð l¼ ÐGardner€testified€that€she€was€stopped€at€the€traffic€light€when€she€noticed€the€headlights€of€a€vehicleÐ X ¨ Ðrapidly€approaching€from€behind€her.€€Gardnerððs€ten„year„old€son€and€his€twelve„year„old€friendÐ D!” Ðwere€riding€in€the€back€seat€at€the€time.€€When€the€vehicle€reached€the€victims,€it€swerved€and€hitÐ 0"€  Ðthem,€knocking€the€Honda€fifteen€to€twenty€feet€into€the€intersection€and€oncoming€traffic.€€TheÐ #l! Ðchildren€started€screaming.€€Gardner€called€911€and€got€out€to€check€on€the€driver,€later€identifiedÐ $X" Ðas€Defendant.€€As€she€approached,€Defendant€put€her€vehicle€in€reverse,€backed€out€from€underÐ ô$D # ÐGardnerððs€rear€bumper,€looked€at€the€screaming€children,€and€then€drove€off.€€A€man€who€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðstopped€to€help€volunteered€to€follow€Defendant€and€report€her€whereabouts€with€his€cell€phone€untilÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€police€could€locate€and€arrest€her.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àGardner€further€testified€that€her€injuries€included€a€concussion,€bruises,€and€torn€ligamentsÐ )à$( Ðand€tendons.€€In€addition,€she€was€attending€therapy€sessions.€€Psychological€therapy€had€initiallyÐ |*Ì%) Ðbeen€prescribed€for€her€following€her€fatherððs€death€in€an€accident€involving€a€drunk€driver€eighteenÐ h+¸&* Ðmonths€prior€to€her€testimony.€€She€had€completed€those€sessions€before€Defendant€struck€her€car,Ð ° Ðbut€had€been€forced€to€resume€therapy€treatment€after€the€accident.€€Injuries€to€her€son€includedÐ œì Ðbruises€and€recurring€nightmares;€her€sonððs€friend€suffered€cuts€and€bruises€on€her€face.€€GardnerÐ ˆØ Ðclaimed€she€was€amazed€when€Defendant€drove€away€without€checking€to€see€if€anyone€had€beenÐ tÄ Ðhurt€or€killed€in€the€collision.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àGardner€also€testified€that€Defendant€telephoned€her€the€Monday€following€the€accident€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðapologize.€€Defendant€told€Gardner€that€ð ðthis€is€not€like€herðð€and€€ð ðshe€doesnððt€do€this€kind€of€thing.ðð€Ð $ t ÐHowever,€Gardner€subsequently€learned€from€the€police€that€this€incident€gave€rise€to€DefendantððsÐ  ` Ðthird€DUI€conviction€and€her€second€conviction€for€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident.€€Gardner€feltÐ ü L  Ðthat€incarcerating€Defendant€for€the€next€three€years,€eleven€months,€and€twenty„nine€days€wouldÐ è 8  Ðcertainly€enhance€public€safety.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€presentence€report€revealed€that€at€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€Defendant€was€aÐ ¬ü  Ðforty„year„old€woman€who€had€graduated€from€high€school€and€also€earned€an€associate€of€artsÐ ˜è  Ðdegree€in€Nuclear€Medicine€Technology€from€West€Virginia€State€College.€€Defendant€wasÐ „Ô  Ðemployed€and€reported€herself€to€be€in€excellent€health,€with€no€problems€or€limitations€except€forÐ pÀ Ðoccasional€bouts€of€depression.€€Defendantððs€criminal€record€contains€a€prior€conviction€for€leavingÐ \¬ Ðthe€scene€of€an€accident€in€1986€and€two€prior€convictions€for€DUI:€one€occurred€in€Moore€County,Ð H˜ ÐNorth€Carolina,€in€September€1990,€and€the€other€occurred€in€Sullivan€County,€Tennessee,€inÐ 4„ ÐFebruary€1993.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€Defendant€to€serve€theÐ øH Ðremainder€of€her€sentence€on€intensive€probation,€in€house„arrest€circumstances,€subject€to€theÐ ä4 Ðfollowing€conditions:€(1)€payment€of€full€restitution€to€the€victims,€(2)€counseling,€if€necessary,€afterÐ Ð  Ðevaluation€for€substance€and€alcohol€abuse,€(3)€adherence€to€a€curfew,€(4)€zero€use€of€alcohol€or€anyÐ ¼  Ðillegal€substance,€(5)€performance€of€200€hours€of€community€service€at€a€rate€of€ten€hours€perÐ ¨ø Ðmonth,€and€(6)€written€letters€of€apology€to€the€victims.€€€The€record€reveals€that€the€trial€court€basedÐ ”ä Ðits€decision€on€the€following€facts:€Defendant€was€employed,€reasonably€healthy,€a€home€owner,€andÐ €Ð Ðhad€expressed€some€remorse€for€the€accident.€€€The€trial€court€stated€that,€in€determining€whetherÐ l¼ Ðprobation€was€proper,€it€was€required€by€law€to€consider€treatment€in€lieu€of€incarceration€whenÐ X ¨ Ðappropriate€and€that€the€nature/circumstance€of€an€offense€is€notòòóó€sufficient,€by€itself,€to€denyÐ D!” Ðprobation€unless€the€offense€was€ð ðespecially€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive€orÐ 0"€  Ðotherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree,ðð€citing€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448€(Tenn.Ð #l! ÐCrim.€App.€1995).€€The€trial€court€also€issued€a€thirty„three„page€order€articulating€the€specificÐ $X" Ðfindings€of€fact€and€law€which€served€as€a€basis€for€its€sentencing€determination,€including€anÐ ô$D # Ðextensive€analysis€of€the€problems€and€implications€of€Article€I,€section€35€of€the€TennesseeÐ à%0!$ ÐConstitution.€€(This€section,€ratified€in€November€1998,€provides€the€victims€of€crimes€eight€ð ðbasicÐ Ì&"% Ðrightsðð€as€enumerated€in€the€amendment.€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„38„301.)Ð ¸'#& ÐÌò òÌÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà@òò&ìàANALYSISó óˆÐ ° ÐÌò òó óà  àThe€State€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€probation€to€Defendant€because€theÐ ˆØ Ðtrial€court€misapplied€the€applicable€law€governing€the€testimony€of€a€victim€at€DefendantððsÐ tÄ Ðsentencing€hearing.€€Specifically,€the€State€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€determined€thatÐ `° Ðthe€victimððs€oral€testimony€was€governed€by€the€Victim€Impact€Statement€Act,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð L œ Ððððð€40„38„201€to€„208,€and€when€it€concluded€that€the€Act€limits€a€victimððs€oral€testimony€to€a€mereÐ 8 ˆ Ðreiteration€of€those€statements€previously€given€in€the€written€victim€impact€statement€where€one€isÐ $ t Ðincluded€in€the€presentence€report.€€The€State€contends€that€the€trial€court€also€erred€when€it€ruledÐ  ` Ðthat€victim€impact€evidence€is€only€relevant€in€determining€applicability€of€statutory€enhancementÐ ü L  Ðand€mitigating€factors.€€The€State€argues€that,€in€light€of€the€trial€courtððs€abuse€of€discretion€andÐ è 8  Ðfailure€to€consider€relevant€evidence,€Defendantððs€probation€must€be€reversed€and€the€case€remandedÐ Ô$  Ðfor€proper€consideration€of€the€victimððs€testimony€as€contemplated€by€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ À  Ðsection€40„35„209.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAfter€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€record€and€applicable€law,€we€agree€with€the€State€that€the€trialÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€erred€in€applying€the€law€concerning€a€victimððs€testimony€for€purposes€of€sentencing.€Ð pÀ ÐAlthough€we€also€conclude€that€granting€intensive€probation€for€the€full€period€of€time€followingÐ \¬ ÐDefendantððs€forty„five€days€of€mandatory€confinement€was€improper,€we€base€this€conclusion€onÐ H˜ Ðconsiderations€unrelated€to€the€victimððs€statement.€€For€the€reasons€which€follow,€we€reverse€the€trialÐ 4„ Ðcourtððs€judgment€granting€Defendant€full€probation€and€remand€this€matter€to€the€trial€court€forÐ  p Ðfurther€findings,€namely,€to€determine€whether€Defendant€should€serve€her€sentence€in€splitÐ  \ Ðconfinement€or€whether€incarceration€for€the€full€sentence€term€would€be€more€appropriate€underÐ øH Ðthe€circumstances.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àò òI.€€The€Victimððs€Testimonyó óÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€its€argument€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€the€law€concerning€a€victimððs€testimony€forÐ ”ä Ðpurposes€of€sentencing,€the€State€relies,€in€part,€upon€the€recent€case€of€òòState€v.€Robert€D.€Ringóó,€No.Ð €Ð ÐE1999„02088„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€201819,€Sullivan€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,Ð l¼ ÐMarch€1,€2001)€€òòno€perm.€to€app.€filedóó.€€After€reviewing€the€facts€of€both€cases,€we€agree€that€theÐ X ¨ Ðanalysis€ofòòóó€òòRingóó€is€applicable€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€question€in€òòRingóó€was€whether€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€consider€the€victimððs€impactÐ #l! Ðtestimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing€and€its€subsequent€grant€of€probation€were€erroneous.€€We€foundÐ $X" Ðthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€characterizing€the€victimððs€testimony€as€a€ð ðvictim€impact€statementððÐ ô$D # Ðwhich€should€be€analyzed€under€the€Victim€Impact€Statement€Act,€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ à%0!$ Ðsections€40„38„201€to€„208.€€òòId.óó€at€*4.€€We€also€concluded€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€limitedÐ Ì&"% Ðits€consideration€of€the€victimððs€testimony€to€statutory€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors€only,€findingÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€ð ðwhenever€victim€impact€information€contains€relevant€and€reliable€evidence€relating€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðenhancing€or€mitigating€factors€and/or€any€other€sentencing€consideration,€the€trial€court€shouldÐ )à$( Ðconsider€it€and€determine€what€weight,€if€any,€should€be€given€to€that€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Further,€weÐ |*Ì%) Ðfound€the€victimððs€testimony€showing€the€financial,€emotional,€psychological,€and/or€physical€effectsÐ h+¸&* Ðof€the€victimððs€death€on€the€victimððs€immediate€family€could€be€considered€evidence€regarding€theÐ ° Ðnature€and€circumstances€of€the€crime€when€determining€appropriate€punishment.€€òòId.óó€at€*5;€òòseeóóÐ œì ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(4).€€Notwithstanding€the€trial€courtððs€error€regarding€the€lawÐ ˆØ Ðconcerning€victim€impact€testimony,€we€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€on€other€grounds.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAs€observed€in€òòRingóó,€Tennessee€law€provides€three€legal€avenues€by€which€a€victim€mayÐ L œ Ðparticipate€in€the€sentencing€process:€the€ð ðVictimsðð€Bill€of€Rights,ðð€codified€in€Tennessee€CodeÐ 8 ˆ ÐAnnotated€sections€40„38„101€to€„108;€the€ð ðVictim€Impact€Statement€Act,ðð€codified€in€TennesseeÐ $ t ÐCode€Annotated€sections€40„38„201€to€„208;€and€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„209(b)Ð  ` Ð(which€affords€the€victim€of€the€offense€an€opportunity€to€be€heard€and€present€evidence€relevant€toÐ ü L  Ða€defendantððs€sentencing).€€Our€discussion€of€the€issues€concerning€victim€testimony€will€be€limitedÐ è 8  Ðto€those€sections€directly€related€to€the€specific€error€in€issue.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àWe€first€address€the€Stateððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€determined€that€theÐ ¬ü  ÐVictim€Impact€Statement€Act€(ð ðActðð)€governed€the€victimððs€testimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€Ð ˜è  ÐOur€review€of€the€record€suggests€that€the€trial€court€relied€heavily€on€the€Act€in€its€conclusions€ofÐ „Ô  Ðlaw€regarding€the€proper€consideration€and€weight€due€a€victimððs€testimony€for€purposes€ofÐ pÀ Ðsentencing.€€However,€the€language€of€the€Act€indicates€that€it€applies€to€written€victim€impactÐ \¬ Ðstatements€prepared€by€the€Department€of€Correction€as€part€of€the€presentence€report€on€aÐ H˜ Ðdefendant,€and€not€live€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„38„205.€€In€fact,€none€of€the€statuteÐ 4„ Ðsections€contained€in€the€Act€make€any€reference€to€oral€testimony,€express€or€implied.€€Rather,€asÐ  p Ðwe€observed€in€òòRingóó,€the€live€testimony€of€this€particular€victim€should€have€been€considered€underÐ  \ Ðthe€provisions€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€40„35„209(b)€and€40„38„103(a)(2).€€BecauseÐ øH Ðthe€victimððs€testimony€was€not€governed€by€the€Act,€to€the€extent€the€trial€court€made€decisionsÐ ä4 Ðbased€on€this€determination,€they€are€erroneous.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€also€agree€with€the€Stateððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€concluding€that€the€ActÐ ¨ø Ðlimits€a€victimððs€oral€testimony€to€a€mere€reiteration€of€those€statements€previously€given€in€theÐ ”ä Ðwritten€victim€impact€statement,€if€one€is€included€in€the€presentence€report,€and€that€any€informationÐ €Ð Ðwhich€exceeds€the€facts€therein€may€not€be€considered€by€the€trial€court€for€purposes€of€sentencing.€Ð l¼ ÐAccording€to€the€record,€the€trial€court€apparently€relied€on€either€the€ten„day€notice€provision€inÐ X ¨ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„38„206€or€on€section€40„35„209(b).€€However,€reliance€on€theÐ D!” Ðformer€is€misplaced€because€section€40„38„206€is€contained€in€the€Act€which,€as€previouslyÐ 0"€  Ðobserved,€does€not€apply€to€a€victimððs€oral€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„38„206.€€SectionÐ #l! Ð40„35„209(b)€also€fails€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€determination.€€This€section€provides€that€reliableÐ $X" Ðhearsay€may€be€admitted€at€the€sentencing€hearing€so€long€as€the€opposing€party€is€accorded€a€fairÐ ô$D # Ðopportunity€to€rebut€such€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„209(b).€€A€written€copy€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðsubstance€of€Gardnerððs€testimony€was€submitted€with€the€Stateððs€ð ðMotion€to€Allow€VictimÐ Ì&"% ÐTestimony€at€Sentencing€Hearing,ðð€and€filed€ten€days€prior€to€that€hearing.€€Since€Defendant€hadÐ ¸'#& Ðaccess€to€the€substance€of€Gardnerððs€testimony€ten€days€prior€to€sentencing,€and€Gardner€was€alsoÐ ¤(ô#' Ðavailable€for€cross„examination€at€that€time,€Defendant€had€sufficient€notice€and€a€fair€opportunityÐ )à$( Ðto€rebut€any€evidence€that€she€found€objectionable.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€State€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€determined€that,€according€toÐ ° ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„38„207,€the€victimððs€statement€may€be€considered€only€inÐ œì Ðdetermining€the€applicability€of€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€Tennessee€CodeÐ ˆØ ÐAnnotated€sections€40„35„113€and€„114.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„38„207€states€thatÐ tÄ Ðð ð[a]ny€victim€impact€statement€submitted€to€the€court€under€section€40„38„205€shall€be€consideredÐ `° Ðas€evidence€in€determining€whether€the€factors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114€apply.ðð€€The€trialÐ L œ Ðcourt€found€that€this€section€ð ðspecifically€and€narrowly€limits€the€purposes€for€which€a€trial€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðmay€consider€victim€impact€evidenceðð€to€determining€whether€statutory€enhancement€and€mitigatingÐ $ t Ðfactors€apply.€€We€disagree.€€As€noted€above,€the€Act€does€not€apply€to€a€victimððs€oral€testimony€andÐ  ` Ðsection€40„38„207€is€contained€therein.€€Moreover,€the€plain€language€of€the€statute€merely€directsÐ ü L  Ðthe€trial€court€to€consider€the€evidence€presented€in€the€victimððs€statement€when€determining€issuesÐ è 8  Ðwhere€statutory€enhancement€and/or€mitigating€factors€apply€in€sentencing€procedures.€€The€statuteÐ Ô$  Ðcontains€no€limiting€or€restrictive€language€that€would€support€the€trial€courtððs€interpretation€asÐ À  Ðstated€òòsupraóó.€€As€we€determined€in€òòRingóó,€victim€impact€information€which€contains€relevant€andÐ ¬ü  Ðreliable€evidence€relating€to€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors,€the€nature€and€circumstancesÐ ˜è  Ðsurrounding€the€offense,€sentencing€principles€or€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€and/or€anyÐ „Ô  Ðother€sentencing€consideration,€should€be€considered€by€the€trial€court€and€then€given€appropriateÐ pÀ Ðweight,€if€any.€€òòSeeóó€òòRingóó,€2001€WL€201819€at€*4„6.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€summation,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€at€least€three€respects:€(1)€characterizingÐ 4„ Ðthe€victimððs€oral€testimony€as€a€statement€governed€by€the€Victim€Impact€Statement€Act;€(2)Ð  p Ðconcluding€that€a€victimððs€oral€testimony€must€be€limited€to€information€contained€in€the€writtenÐ  \ Ðvictim€impact€statement;€and€(3)€concluding€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„38„207€directed€a€trial€courtÐ øH Ðto€consider€the€victimððs€statement€only€when€determining€applicability€of€statutory€enhancement€andÐ ä4 Ðmitigating€factors.€€Under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„209(b)€and€section€40„38„Ð Ð  Ð103(a)(2),€the€victim,€Gardner,€had€a€right€to€testify€and€provide€impact€information€forÐ ¼  Ðconsideration€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Afterward,€the€trial€court€should€have€determined€whetherÐ ¨ø Ðthe€victimððs€impact€testimony€contained€any€relevant€and€reliable€evidence€relating€to€enhancing€orÐ ”ä Ðmitigating€factors€òòand/or€any€other€sentencing€considerationóó,€and€then€decided€what€weight,€if€any,Ð €Ð Ðshould€be€given€to€that€evidence€in€fashioning€an€appropriate€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòRingóó,€2001€WL€201819Ð l¼ Ðat€*4.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€the€law€concerning€a€victimððs€testimony€forÐ 0"€  Ðpurposes€of€sentencing,€we€note€that€the€State€failed€to€point€to€any€relevant€or€reliable€evidence€inÐ #l! Ðthe€statement€that€pertains€to€any€enhancing€or€mitigating€factors€and/or€tends€to€prove€any€otherÐ $X" Ðsentencing€consideration.€€After€carefully€reviewing€this€victimððs€testimony,€however,€we€concludeÐ ô$D # Ðthat€it€offers€a€glimpse€into€the€emotional,€psychological,€or€physical€effects€of€the€accident€on€theÐ à%0!$ Ðvictimððs€life€and€that€of€her€son.€€The€trial€court€should€have€considered€this€evidence€of€the€natureÐ Ì&"% Ðand€circumstances€of€this€crime,€òòsee€id.óó,€in€addition€to€any€other€evidence€presented€in€the€victimððsÐ ¸'#& Ðtestimony€which€it€deemed€relevant€when€determining€the€appropriate€punishment.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àWe€further€note€that€our€conclusions€regarding€the€above€issues€are,€as€a€practical€matter,Ð |*Ì%) Ðunchallenged€by€Defendant.€€In€her€brief,€Defendant€contends€that€the€limitations€on€victim€impactÐ h+¸&* Ðstatements€apply€to€Gardnerððs€testimony,€and,€even€if€the€trial€court€were€to€consider€the€testimony,Ð ° Ðthe€victim€impact€evidence€is€not€relevant€to€any€legitimate€sentencing€issue.€€Defendant€does€notÐ œì Ðspecify€which€limitations€she€is€referring€to,€however.€€Nor€does€she€explain€why€the€impact€onÐ ˆØ ÐGardner€is€not€relevant€to€any€sentencing€consideration.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àò òB.€€Sentencingó óÐ L œ ÐÌà  àThe€State€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€Defendant€intensive€probation€for€theÐ $ t Ðtime€that€remained€in€her€sentence€following€mandatory€confinement.€€In€response,€DefendantÐ  ` Ðcontends€that€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€State€failed€to€rebut€theÐ ü L  Ðstatutory€presumption€favoring€probation€in€her€case.€€After€a€careful€review€of€the€record€andÐ è 8  Ðapplicable€law,€we€agree€with€the€State€that€granting€intensive€probation€for€the€full€period€of€timeÐ Ô$  Ðfollowing€Defendantððs€forty„five€days€of€mandatory€confinement€was€improper.€€However,€ourÐ À  Ðconclusion€is€based€on€sentencing€considerations€other€than€the€victimððs€statement€and€testimony.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àÔ‡XCAXXXCAÔWhen€either€a€defendant€or€the€State€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÐ „Ô  Ðsentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ pÀ Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€sentencing€court€are€correct.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„401(d),€40„Ð \¬ Ð35„402(d)€(1997).€€If€our€review€ð ðreflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÐ H˜ Ðprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€theÐ 4„ Ðfactors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€areÐ  p Ðadequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€haveÐ  \ Ðpreferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904,€926„27€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,Ð øH Ð805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Ô#†XCAXXXCA l#ÔOn€the€other€hand,€if€the€trial€court€failed€to€complyÐ ä4 Ðwith€the€statutory€guidelines,€our€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòState€v.Ð Ð  ÐPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).€€Having€concluded€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properlyÐ ¼  Ðconsider€the€victimððs€impact€testimony€in€fashioning€an€appropriate€sentencing€alternative,€ourÐ ¨ø Ðreview€of€Defendantððs€sentencing€determination€in€this€case€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€without€a€presumption€ofÐ ”ä Ðcorrectness.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€appellant,€in€this€case,€the€State,€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€sentence€isÐ X ¨ Ðimproper.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d),€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€InÐ D!” Ðdetermining€whether€the€appellant€has€carried€this€burden,€this€Court€must€consider:€€(a)€the€evidenceÐ 0"€  Ðadduced€at€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€the€presentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€ofÐ #l! Ðsentencing;€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel;€(e)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€and€(f)€theÐ $X" Ðappellantððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðððð€40„35„Ð ô$D # Ð103(5),€„210(b)€(1997).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àBecause€Defendant€is€a€standard€Range€I€offender€convicted€of€two€misdemeanors€and€threeÐ ¸'#& ÐClass€D€felonies,€she€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€that€she€is€a€favorable€candidate€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ðalternative€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106(6)€(1997).€€However,€ð ðthe€determinationÐ )à$( Ðof€whether€the€[Defendant]€is€entitled€to€an€alternative€sentence€and€whether€the€[Defendant]€isÐ |*Ì%) Ðentitled€to€full€probation€are€different€inquiries.ðð€€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,€477€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð h+¸&* ÐÑ TÑâ  âÑF°Ñâ  âÑ  ÑApp.€1996).€€Where€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€favoring€alternativeÐ ° Ðsentencing,€the€State€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€the€presumption€with€evidence€to€the€contrary.€Ð œì ÐòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.Ð ˆØ ÐCrim.€App.€1995),€òòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó,€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.€2000);€òòseeóó€Tenn.Ð tÄ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(1997).€€ð ðConversely,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishingÐ `° Ðsuitability€for€total€probation,€even€if€the€[defendant]€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€ofÐ L œ Ðalternative€sentencing.ðð€€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€455;€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€(1997).€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThus,€Defendantððs€argument€that€ð ðthe€State€failed€to€rebut€the€[statutory]€presumption€in€favor€ofÐ $ t Ðgranting€probationðð€has€no€merit,€for,€no€such€ð ðpresumptionðð€favoring€probation€exists.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àTo€meet€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€full€probation,€the€defendant€mustÐ è 8  Ðdemonstrate€that€probation€will€ð ðsubserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€publicÐ Ô$  Ðand€the€defendant.ðð€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€456€(quoting€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259Ð À  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)).€€The€following€criteria,€while€not€controlling€the€discretion€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðsentencing€court,€shall€be€accorded€weight€when€deciding€the€defendantððs€suitability€for€probation:€Ð ˜è  Ð(1)€the€nature€and€[circumstances]€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð „Ô  Ð210(b)(4);€(2)€the€defendantððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation,€including€the€risk€thatÐ pÀ Ðduring€the€period€of€probation€the€defendant€will€commit€another€crime,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð \¬ Ð103(5);€(3)€whether€a€sentence€of€full€probation€would€unduly€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€theÐ H˜ Ðoffense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B);€and€(4)€whether€a€sentence€other€than€full€probationÐ 4„ Ðwould€provide€an€effective€deterrent€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€crimes,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ  p Ð40„35„103(1)(B).€€òòId.óó€€Denial€of€full€probation€may€be€based€solely€upon€the€circumstances€of€theÐ  \ Ðoffense€when€they€are€of€such€a€nature€as€to€outweigh€all€other€factors€favoring€probation.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ øH Ðv.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€or€deny€full€probation,€additional€considerations€include€theÐ ¼  Ðdefendantððs€criminal€record;€social€history€and€present€condition€of€the€defendant,€including€his€orÐ ¨ø Ðher€mental€and€physical€conditions€where€appropriate;€defendant's€amenability€to€correction€andÐ ”ä Ðgeneral€attitude,€including€behavior€since€arrest,€home€environment,€current€drug€usage,€emotionalÐ €Ð Ðstability,€past€employment,€general€reputation,€marital€stability,€family€responsibility,€and€the€bestÐ l¼ Ðinterests€of€both€the€defendant€and€the€public.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950,€951€(Tenn.Ð X ¨ Ð1993);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€925€S.W.2d€237,€244€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citing€òòState€v.Ð D!” ÐGennoeóó,€851€S.W.2d€833,€837€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)).€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àA€defendant€is€eligible€for€full€probation€where€the€sentence€received€by€the€defendant€isÐ $X" Ðeight€years€or€less,€subject€to€some€statutory€exclusions€not€applicable€here.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ô$D # Ððð€40„35„303(a).€€Although€full€probation€must€be€automatically€considered€by€the€trial€court€as€aÐ à%0!$ Ðsentencing€alternative€whenever€the€defendant€is€eligible,€ð ðthe€defendant€is€not€automatically€entitledÐ Ì&"% Ðto€probation€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b),€Sentencing€CommissionÐ ¸'#& ÐComments;€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€On€appeal,€a€defendantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðseeking€full€probation€usually€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€imposed€is€improperÐ )à$( Ðâ âand€that€probation€will€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€defendant€and€the€public.€€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€966Ð |*Ì%) ÐS.W.2d€429,€434€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Here,€the€State,€as€the€appellant,€bears€the€burden€ofÐ ° Ðshowing€the€opposite.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àUpon€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€find€the€facts€and€circumstances€in€this€case€indicate€that€fullÐ tÄ Ðprobation€is€inappropriate€for€Defendant.€€Generally,€this€court€will€not€set€aside€findings€of€factÐ `° Ðmade€by€the€trial€court€after€an€evidentiary€hearing€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÐ L œ Ðpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòState€v.€Dickóó,€872€S.W.2d€938,€943€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 8 ˆ ÐApp.€1993);€òòState€v.€Youngóó,€866€S.W.2d€194,€197€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€This€deference€appliesÐ $ t Ðto€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€the€context€of€sentencing€hearings.€€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2dÐ  ` Ð376,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àHowever,€in€this€case€we€do€not€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€becauseÐ Ô$  ÐDefendant€is€employed,€has€accepted€responsibility€for€the€accident,€and€appears€remorseful,€she€hasÐ À  Ðsufficiently€established€suitability€for€full€probation€in€light€of€the€other€factors€in€the€record.€€ForÐ ¬ü  Ðinstance,€the€record€reveals€that€Defendant€has€a€history€of€problems€with€alcohol€abuse€asÐ ˜è  Ðdemonstrated€by€her€prior€convictions€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€Yet€we€findÐ „Ô  Ðno€indication€of€an€attempt€by€Defendant€to€initiate€treatment€through€Alcoholics€Anonymous€or€anyÐ pÀ Ðother€organization€designed€to€provide€counseling€or€assistance€with€problems€of€this€nature.€Ð \¬ ÐDefendant€also€exhibited€a€lack€of€candor€when€she€declined€to€report€her€prior€DUI€conviction€inÐ H˜ ÐNorth€Carolina€during€her€interview€with€the€officer€who€prepared€the€presentence€report.€€Ô‡XCAXXXCAÔLack€ofÐ 4„ Ðcandor€and€credibility€reflect€negatively€on€a€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòState€v.€Bunchóó,Ð  p Ð646€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Nunleyóó,€22€S.W.3d€282,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€Ô#†XCAXXXCAä’#ÔÐ  \ ÐIn€addition,€Defendantððs€record€shows€two€prior€convictions€for€DUI€and€one€conviction€for€leavingÐ øH Ðthe€scene.€€However,€she€was€required€to€spend€a€total€of€only€forty„eight€hours€in€confinement€forÐ ä4 Ðall€three€offenses.€€Apparently,€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€been€unsuccessfulÐ Ð  Ðin€altering€Defendantððs€pattern€of€criminal€behavior.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€in€this€case€a€sentence€involving€at€least€some€confinement€would€be€proper€toÐ ”ä Ðavoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€(1997).€Ð €Ð ÐIn€order€to€deny€any€alternative€sentence€based€upon€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€theÐ l¼ Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€as€committed€must€be€especially€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,Ð X ¨ Ðoffensive€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree,€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€mustÐ D!” Ðoutweigh€all€other€factors€favoring€a€sentence€other€than€confinement.€€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€454Ð 0"€  Ð(quoting€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€374„75€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)).€€We€believe€the€recordÐ #l! Ðcontains€ample€evidence€that€Defendantððs€actions€were€sufficiently€reprehensible€and€offensive€toÐ $X" Ðdeny€full€probation.€€Defendant€left€the€accident€scene€with€the€knowledge€that€children€were€presentÐ ô$D # Ðin€the€vehicle€she€hit€but€without€any€regard€for€the€fact€that€she€may€have€injured€them€seriously.€Ð à%0!$ ÐFortunately,€it€appears€that€no€one€in€the€vehicle€was€physically€damaged€permanently.€€However,Ð Ì&"% ÐDefendant€could€not€be€sure€of€this€because€she€did€not€pause€to€check,€but€proceeded€down€the€roadÐ ¸'#& Ðand€caused€yet€another€accident.€€Defendantððs€actions€showed€terrible€and€unforgivable€judgmentÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€driving€while€intoxicated€and€in€deserting€the€victims.€€She€further€evinced€a€complete€disregardÐ )à$( Ðfor€the€gravity€of€her€wrongful€conduct€when€she€repeated€her€mistake.€€Consequently,€a€sentenceÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€full€probation€would€certainly€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€her€offenses.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àIn€sum,€we€cannot€find€that€full€probation€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€defendant€or€the€public.Ð ° ÐWhether€the€factors€favoring€a€sentence€involving€split€confinement€generally€outweigh€the€factorsÐ œì Ðfavoring€continuous€confinement€in€this€case€have€not€been€fully€analyzed.€€Accordingly,€we€remandÐ ˆØ Ðthis€matter€to€the€trial€court€to€order€either€split€confinement€for€the€balance€of€the€sentence€or€totalÐ tÄ Ðincarceration.€€The€trial€court€should€make€this€determination€in€light€of€our€conclusions€above,€allÐ `° Ðof€the€testimony€previously€heard€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€and€the€sentencing€considerations€inÐ L œ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€should€be€based€upon€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcurrent€record.€€No€further€evidentiary€hearings€are€necessary.Ð $ t ÐÌò òà@MM"ìàIII.€€Conclusionó óˆÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€reaffirm€our€holding€in€òòRingóó€that€a€trial€court€must€allow€a€victim€to€provide€the€courtÐ Ô$  Ðwith€victim€impact€testimony€pursuant€to€the€law€provided€for€such€evidence€as€discussed€in€thisÐ À  Ðopinion.€€We€further€hold€that€victim€impact€testimony€must€be€considered€in€determining€the€lengthÐ ¬ü  Ðand€manner€of€service€of€a€defendantððs€sentence€where€such€testimony€contains€relevant€and€reliableÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€establishing€enhancing€or€mitigating€factors€and/or€any€other€sentencing€considerations.€Ð „Ô  ÐÔ‡XCAXXXCAÔAfter€our€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€without€a€presumption€of€correctness,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€thatÐ pÀ ÐDefendant€met€her€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€full€probation.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€theÐ \¬ Ðtrial€courtððs€judgment€regarding€manner€of€service€of€Defendantððs€sentence€and€Ô#†XCAXXXCA·£#Ôremand€this€matterÐ H˜ Ðto€the€trial€court€to€make€appropriate€findings€and€order€either€split€confinement€for€the€balance€ofÐ 4„ Ðthe€sentence€or€total€incarceration.Ô‡XCAXXXCAÔÐ  p ÐÌÌÔ#†XCAXXXCA ¦#Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð ä4 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE