ÿWPC² ðt#ªe­o82cé:n°½†$0K*NT\š û/±žQ´”pï!ÐMüwyŠî7ûk~$º—jYŽ$Iw#5OËø-Ê}˜™Àw2aûz$]ˆœ‚!á8‡ff­i¢”Ïz2Ú]ùz0`þ<œAWûP tv‰=¢«å£òÇ8]e.”½ ·£½R$8ÿ€ádU7PŠ™ø•æ5op’¢Ö0àÈEœN’ìÀ/¹TÜ:çf™:¦›¸¶ ¾¿•‡ó·„Ö‘ÐrÿxYM*xïƒ,hk·‰»×鸀^%=Q ®Í(âý?Ë홄|%Ó–ðƒà ù­½€øðä<öJ §¹/y$#t8ʱ®bäA{dg0.ÀÏÍ>|Ñ×_­ˆæØkÎ’Åï «Õ]ÒY…# F U>Q % 0í• UB‚ 4Ä Ø n­ç U:” fÎ 4 "< w@^ ž U:¯U:é 0D#êgU:QQ‹U:’UBÌU: D3HHH 01{{{ 0D¬¬ Bððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððð AO Æ\\ 0D" D/f B•˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiuM%3|xà«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ ËPÌDÍÎÏÓÔDÕVÖD×Ó€ Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X™ XXXÔÔ€ôöãôXX™ ÔÝ ƒ-~šÿÝÑ @ ÑÑ7ÀªXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ @  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€question€whether€the€defendantððs€Statement€of€Evidence€sufficiently€notifies€theÐ  Ðstate€and€the€trial€judge€that€an€issue€to€be€raised€related€to€the€trial€courtððs€claimed€failure€to€makeÏfindings€of€facts€and€place€upon€the€record€the€sentencing€considerations€that€apply.€€The€defendant€wasÏobligated€to€serve€on€the€state€and€file€with€the€trial€court€clerk€a€ð ðshort€and€plain€declaration€of€the€issuesððÏthat€he€intended€to€present€on€appeal.€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€24(c).€€Ô€ôöãôôôöãÔThe€defendantððs€statement€provides,€inÐ (  Ðessence,€the€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€properly€applied€the€sentencing€considerations€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„¼35„102€and€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€sentencing.€€We€do€not€view€such€a€statementÏto€give€clear€notice€to€the€state€that€the€defendant€sought€to€attack€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€procedures.€€, øð AZ"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý àÔ€XŒXXXÔÔ€+iXXŒÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XŒX+iÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€18,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ýÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X™ XXXÔÔ€ôöãôXX™ ÔÝ ƒ-~šÿÝÑ @ ÑÑ7ÀªXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ @  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€question€whether€the€defendantððs€Statement€of€Evidence€sufficiently€notifies€theÐ  Ðstate€and€the€trial€judge€that€an€issue€to€be€raised€related€to€the€trial€courtððs€claimed€failure€to€makeÏfindings€of€facts€and€place€upon€the€record€the€sentencing€considerations€that€apply.€€The€defendant€wasÏobligated€to€serve€on€the€state€and€file€with€the€trial€court€clerk€a€ð ðshort€and€plain€declaration€of€the€issuesððÏthat€he€intended€to€present€on€appeal.€€T.R.A.P.€24(c).€€Ô€ôöãôôôöãÔThe€defendantððs€statement€provides,€in€essence,Ð (  Ðthe€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€properly€applied€the€sentencing€considerations€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102Ïand€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€sentencing.€€We€do€not€view€such€a€statement€to€giveÏclear€notice€to€the€state€that€the€defendant€sought€to€attack€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€procedures.€€, øð AZ"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi, øð AZ"Arial Regular2222'ÿÿdxd(á(3,D$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ËXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó d€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ËXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ݛѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XŒXXXÔÑ7€ Œ XXdæXXdÈ7Ññ×ñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rß›ñ×ñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ƒƒ%DàAT€NASHVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JUNE€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€01C01„9711„CC„00534Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Lincoln€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Charles€Lee,€Judge€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌJAMES€ALBERT€BULT,à h àà À à)à  à(Vandalism)Ð h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌRobert€S.€Petersà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€Knox€Walkup€Ð ²ª Ð100€First€Avenue,€S.W.à h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ ÐWinchester,€TN€37398à h àà À àà  àà p àandÐ ~v Ѐ€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àLisa€A.€NaylorÐ d\ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€€€€€à Ð àà (# àÐ 0 ( Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWilliam€Michael€McCowanÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJames€B.€CoxÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à215€E.€College€StreetÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.O.€Box€878Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFayetteville,€TN€37334„0878€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ >:639 ЇÓÓà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant,€James€Albert€Bult,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€LincolnÏCounty€Circuit€Court€of€the€offense€of€vandalism,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€He€wasÏsentenced€to€sixty€days€in€jail,€all€but€ten€consecutive€days€or€five€consecutiveÏweekends€to€be€suspended,€and€placed€on€probation€for€eleven€months€and€twenty„¼nine€days.€€œHe›€was€ordered€to€perform€one€hundred€hours€of€community€service.€€InÏthis€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€contends€that€(1)€he€was€entitled€to€juryÏinstructions€œregarding›€self„defense,€œdefense€of€another,›€and€necessity€and€(2)€hisÏconfinement€for€five€consecutive€weekends€is€excessive.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.€€œÌà ¸ àÌà ¸ àInitially,›€we€note€that€the€state€claims€that€the€defendantððs€notice€of€appealÏwas€untimely€filed.€€It€asserts€that€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€denied€onÏApril€8,€1997,€and€that€the€notice€of€appeal€was€filed€on€June€16,€1997.€€However,€in€ourÏview,€the€record€reflects€that€only€a€motion€to€continue€was€denied€on€April€8,€1997,€andÏthat€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€denied€on€May€23,€1997.€€Thus,€the€notice€of€appealÏwas€timely€œfiled,›€and€the€appeal€before€us€is€proper.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€assault€and€vandalism€but€was€found€notÏguilty€of€assault.€€The€events€relate€to€the€defendant€going€to€his€ex„in„lawsðð€house€toÏpick€up€his€young€daughter€pursuant€to€his€visitation€rights.€€The€Statement€of€EvidenceÏprovides,€in€pertinent€part,€the€following:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àThe€witnesses€for€the€state€were€Nancy€Bult,ÏEugene€Urban€and€Barbara€Urban.€€The€witness€NancyÏBult€was€the€ex„wife€of€the€defendant.€€The€witnessesÏEugene€Urban€and€Barbara€Urban€were€the€ex„father„¼in„law€and€the€ex„mother„in„law€of€the€defendant.€€TheÏwitnesses€for€the€state€stated€that€the€defendant€cameÏto€the€home€of€the€Urbans€approximately€8:45€p.m.€theÏevening€of€June€21,€1996.€€The€Urbans€live€on€GrayÏLane€in€Lincoln€County.€€The€defendant€had€come€toÏthe€residence€for€the€purpose€of€exercising€his€visitationÏrights€with€his€young€daughter.€€The€grandparents€wereÏkeeping€the€child€at€their€Lincoln€County€Home.€€TheÐ ~8v17 Ðdefendant€was€exercising€the€visitation€rights€that€hadÏbeen€decreed€by€a€divorce€court€of€proper€jurisdiction.€ÏThe€Urbans€testified€that€they€would€restrict€visitation€forÏthe€defendant€because€they€felt€the€defendant€hadÏconsumed€some€beer.€€The€young€child€wanted€to€goÏwith€her€father.€€An€altercation€developed,€and€Mr.ÏUrban€testified€that€he€was€assaulted.€€The€UrbansÏtestified€that€the€defendant€kicked€a€bedroom€door€asÏhe€attempted€to€enter€to€obtain€custody€of€his€child.€ÏThe€witness€Nancy€Bult€testified€as€to€conversationsÏthat€she€had€with€the€defendant€and€she€stated€sheÏthought€the€defendant€had€consumed€beer€and€shouldÏnot€be€allowed€to€leave€with€the€child.€€The€State€rested,Ïand€the€defendant€moved€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal.€ÏThis€motion€was€denied.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€defense€presented€its€case€by€calling€to€theÏstand€the€defendant€himself.€€He€testified€that€he€wasÏnot€intoxicated€on€June€21,€1996€and€that€he€did€come€Ïto€the€residence€of€the€Urbans€at€about€8:45€p.m.€thatÏevening.€€He€states€that€he€came€for€the€purpose€ofÏpicking€up€his€young€daughter€for€his€authorizedÏvisitation.€€He€stated€that€the€child€was€taken€forciblyÏfrom€the€kitchen€and€taken€to€a€bedroom.€€He€statedÏthat€the€child€was€crying€and€was€emotionally€upset.€€HeÏstated€that€he€acted€to€protect€the€welfare€and€safety€ofÏhis€child€and€that€he€acted€in€her€regard€andÏconsideration.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€did€kick€theÏdoor€attempting€to€gain€entry€into€the€bedroom€but€heÏsaid€he€did€so€for€the€purpose€of€obtaining€custody€ofÏhis€child.€€He€stated€his€intervention€was€necessary€forÏthe€protection€of€the€minor€child.€€The€defendantÏacknowledged€an€altercation€with€Mr.€Urban€but€statedÏthat€he€did€so€under€provocation€and€necessity€and€withÏregard€for€his€safety€and€defense.€€The€defense€rested,Ïand€the€defendant€renewed€his€motion€for€a€judgmentÏof€acquittal.€€This€motion€was€overruled.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€case€was€then€argued€to€the€jury,€and€theÏcourt€instructed€the€jury.€€This€instruction€has€beenÏmade€a€part€of€the€record,€and€it€contains€fifteen€pages.€ÏIt€also€contains€a€verdict€page€containing€two€pages.€ÏThe€court€instructed€the€jury€that,€as€to€the€crime€ofÏassault,€the€defendant€was€entitled€to€the€defense€ofÏself€defense,€and€of€the€defense€of€third€persons,€andÏthe€defense€of€necessity.€€The€court€did€not€instruct€theÏjury€that€these€defenses€would€apply€to€the€charge€ofÏœvandalism.Ð ¸ x¸ x ЛœÌ›œà@((/Dà›œò òIó ó›ˆÐ 3,1 ÐÌÓÓÓ  Óœ›œà ¸ à›œThe›€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€warranted€the€jury€beingÏinstructed€on€the€vandalism€charge€regarding€self„defense,€third„party€defense€andÏnecessity.€€He€asserts€that€the€evidence€fairly€raised€these€issues€when,€ð ðin€the€mind€ofÐ x8p17 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ñthe€defendant,ðð€he€had€to€protect€his€œdaughter›€by€kicking€the€bedroom€door.€€However,Ïwe€believe€that€the€defendant€misapprehends€the€requirements€for€the€defenses€in€thatÏhe€applies€only€a€subjective,€not€an€objective€test.ÌÌà ¸ àPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„11„611(a),ñÖñ€in€pertinent€part,ñÖñ›€a€person€is€justified€to€act€in€self„¼defense€under€the€following€circumstances:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àA€person€is€justified€in€threatening€or€using€forceÏagainst€another€person€when€and€to€the€degree€theÏperson€òòreasonablyóó€believes€the€force€is€immediatelyÐ œ”  Ðnecessary€to€protect€against€the€otherððs€use€orÏattempted€use€of€unlawful€force.€€The€person€must€haveÏa€òòreasonableóó€belief€that€there€is€an€imminent€danger€ofÐ NF Ðdeath€or€serious€bodily€injury.€€The€danger€creating€theÏbelief€of€imminent€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€must€be€Ïreal,€or€honestly€believed€to€be€real€at€the€time,€andÏmust€be€founded€upon€òòreasonableóó€grounds.€€ÐæÞ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  Ó(Emphasis€added).€€Pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„612,€a€person€is€justified€to€act€inÏdefense€of€another€when:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  à(1)€Under€the€circumstances€as€the€personÏòòreasonablyóó€believes€them€to€be,€the€person€would€beÐ 0 ( Ðjustified€under€ðð€39„11„611€in€threatening€or€using€forceÏto€protect€against€the€use€or€attempted€use€of€unlawfulÏforce€òòreasonablyóó€believed€to€be€threatening€the€thirdÐ â"Ú Ðperson€sought€to€be€protected;€and€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  à(2)€The€person€òòreasonablyóó€believes€that€theÐ ”%Œ" Ðintervention€is€immediately€necessary€to€protect€theÏthird€person.€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  Ó(Emphasis€added).€€Pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„609,€a€person€is€justified€to€act€throughÏnecessity€under€the€following€circumstances:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  à(1)€The€person€òòreasonablyóó€believes€the€conductÐ Ä,¼%* Ðis€immediately€necessary€to€avoid€imminent€harmà8@Öƒàà0@Ö(#(#à;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  à(2)€The€desirability€and€urgency€of€avoiding€harmÏclearly€outweigh,€according€to€ordinary€standards€ofÏòòreasonablenessóó,€the€harm€sought€to€be€prevented€byÐ B1:*/ Ðthe€law€proscribing€the€conduct.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  Ó(Emphasis€added).Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àAs€the€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€these€sections€provide,€theÏâ âdefenses€not€only€entail€what€a€defendant€actually€believes,€but€include,€as€well,€what€isÏa€reasonable€belief€under€the€circumstances.€€This€means€that€the€defendantððs€conductÏand€mental€state€must€meet€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€for€the€conduct€toÏbe€justified€under€these€statutory€defenses.€€Thus,€the€mere€fact€that€the€defendantÏbelieves€that€his€conduct€is€justified€would€not€suffice€to€justify€his€conduct.€€ÌÌà ¸ àWith€the€foregoing€in€mind,€we€consider€whether€the€defendant€wasÏentitled€to€the€jury€being€instructed€about€self„defense,€œdefense€of€another,›€and€theÏdefense€of€necessity.€€A€defendant€is€entitled€to€the€issue€of€the€existence€of€a€defenseÏbeing€submitted€to€the€jury€when€it€is€fairly€raised€by€the€proof.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„203Ð ø Ð(c)€and€(d).€€To€determine€if€it€is€fairly€raised€by€the€proof,€ð ða€court€must,€in€effect,Ïconsider€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€defendant,€including€drawing€allÏreasonable€inferences€flowing€from€that€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Shropshireóó,€874€S.W.2dÐ d\ Ð634,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€This€is€because€it€would€be€improper€for€a€court€toÏwithhold€a€defense€from€the€juryððs€consideration€because€of€judicial€questioning€of€anyÏwitness€credibility.€€òòIdóó.€€In€the€present€case,€the€defendantððs€claims€are€based€whollyÐ È#À  Ðupon€the€following€evidence:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à[The€defendant]€states€that€he€came€for€the€purpose€ofÏpicking€up€his€young€daughter€for€his€authorizedÏvisitation.€€He€stated€that€the€child€was€taken€forciblyÏfrom€the€kitchen€and€taken€to€a€bedroom.€€He€statedÏthat€the€child€was€crying€and€was€emotionally€upset.€€HeÏstated€that€he€acted€to€protect€the€welfare€and€safety€ofÏhis€child€and€that€he€acted€in€her€regard€andÏconsideration.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€did€kick€theÏdoor€attempting€to€gain€entry€into€the€bedroom€but€heÏsaid€he€did€so€for€the€purpose€of€obtaining€custody€ofÏhis€child.€€He€stated€his€intervention€was€necessary€forÏthe€protection€of€the€minor€child.€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà ¸ àFirst,€we€note€that€there€is€no€evidence€to€indicate€that€even€the€defendantÏbelieved€that€he€kicked€the€door€for€self„defense€purposes.€€An€instruction€as€to€it€wasÏunnecessary.€€Ð r8j17 Їà ¸ àAs€for€the€defendantððs€claim€of€defense€of€his€daughter,€the€main€questionÏis€whether€the€evidence€fairly€raises€the€issue€of€a€reasonable€belief€that€ð ðforce€isÏimmediately€necessary€to€protect€against€the€otherððs€use€or€attempted€use€of€unlawfulÏforceðð€and€that€there€was€an€ð ðimminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injuryðð€to€theÏdefendantððs€daughter.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„611(a).€œ€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„612(1)€and€(2).›Ð 80 ÐWe€hold€that€such€issue€is€not€fairly€raised€by€the€evidence€as€it€is€presented€to€us.€€œñÔñà0 ¸ àñÔñ›ÌÌà ¸ àIn€fact,€we€seriously€question€whether€the€limited€statement€that€theÏdefendant€acted€ð ðto€protect€the€welfare€and€safety€of€his€child€and€that€he€acted€in€herÏregard€and€considerationðð€and€for€her€protection€fairly€raises€the€issue€of€the€defense€ofÏanother€relative€to€the€defendantððs€subjective€beliefs.€€However,€what€is€certain€is€thatÏthe€facts€upon€which€the€defendantððs€conduct€is€based,€i.e.,€that€the€daughterððs€motherÏor€grandmother€took€her€ð ðforcibly€from€the€kitchen€.€.€.€to€a€bedroomðð€and€œshe›€ð ðwasÏcrying€and€emotionally€upset,ðð€do€not€fairly€raise€an€issue€regarding€there€being€aÏreasonable€belief€that€the€daughter€was€subjected€to€unlawful€force€and€was€inÏimminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.€€In€other€words,€we€believe€that€noÏrational€juror€could€have€a€reasonable€doubt€based€upon€the€claim€of€defense€ofÏanother.€€ÌÌà ¸ àSimilarly,€we€conclude€that€the€defense€of€necessity€was€not€fairly€raised.€ÏThe€defendantððs€testimony€does€not€lend€itself€to€a€belief€that€ð ðimminent€harmðð€to€hisÏdaughter€was€threatened.€€More€importantly,€though,€the€facts€presented€in€theÏStatement€of€Evidence€do€not€raise€any€issue€about€or€indication€of€there€beingÏimminent€harm€threatened€that€would€justify€a€rational€juror€having€a€reasonable€doubtÏbased€upon€the€defense€of€necessity.€€Thus,€the€defendant€was€not€entitled€toÏinstructions€for€the€vandalism€charge€regarding€the€defenses€he€raises.€€ÌÌñÔñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÔñœñÕñÐ  Œ7„06 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÕñà@  .DàñÔñ›ñÔññÉñò òñÉññÊñIIñÊññÉñó óñÉñ›ˆà p àœÐ  ÐñÕñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÕññËñà ¸ àñËñThe›€defendant€complains€that€his€sentence€of€ten€days€in€confinement€isÏexcessive.€€Particularly,€he€argues€that€the€trial€court€arbitrarily€required€confinementÏbecause€it€failed€to€make€a€record€of€any€findings€of€fact€that€would€justify€such€aÏsentence.€€We€believe€that€the€record€before€us€supports€the€imposition€of€a€period€ofÏconfinement.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€misdemeanor€sentencing,€a€separate€sentencing€hearing€œñÌñhñÌñis›€notÏmandatory,€but€the€trial€court€is€required€to€allow€the€œpartiesñÍñ€añÍñ›€reasonable€opportunity€toÏbe€heard€on€the€question€of€the€length€and€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence.€€òòSeeóóÐ @8 ÐT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„302(a).€€The€sentence€must€be€specific€and€consistent€with€theÏœpurposeñÎñsñÎñ›€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„302(b).€ÏAlso,€in€determining€the€percentage€of€the€sentence€to€be€served€in€actual€confinement,Ïthe€trial€court€must€consider€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€as€well.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„¼35„302(d).€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€Statement€of€Evidence€recites€the€following€regardingÏsentencing:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àA€sentencing€hearing€was€held€in€this€case€onÏMarch€7,€1997.€€The€defendant€was€sentenced€to€aÏterm€of€60€days€for€the€vandalism€charge.€€After€theÏservice€of€five€consecutive€weekends,€the€balance€ofÏthe€sentence€would€be€suspended,€after€which€theÏdefendant€would€be€placed€on€probation.€€No€formalÏpresentence€report€was€filed,€but€the€State€chose€toÏintroduce€an€out„of„state€record€of€past€criminalÏinvolvement.€€This€record,€to€the€extent€applicable€toÏsentencing,€was€submitted€to€the€Clerk€for€placement€inÏthe€record.€€The€court€incorporated€the€evidence€at€theÏtrial€in€the€sentencing€proceedings.€€The€defendant€hadÏbeen€gainfully€employed.€€He€had€performed€in€a€varietyÏof€responsible€positions,€and€he€held€a€securityÏclearance.€The€problems€that€had€arisen€in€LincolnÏCounty€arose€out€of€his€domestic[]€relations€difficulties.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€record€contains€a€certified€document€from€a€circuit€court€in€Florida€reflecting€that€inÏ1987,€the€defendant€entered€nolo€contendere€pleas€to€three€counts€of€aggravatedÐ ~8v17 Ðassault€and€one€count€of€attempt€to€elude€a€police€officer.€€He€was€placed€on€threeÏyears€probation€in€a€procedure€similar€to€Tennesseeððs€judicial€diversion.€€à0 Ð àÐÔÌÐ €%Ð €% ÐÌà ¸ àUnquestionably,€the€Statement€of€Evidence€filed€by€the€defendant€showsÏlittle€that€complies€with€the€sentencing€process€required€by€our€sentencing€laws.€€€ÏHowever,€we€are€mindful€of€the€fact€that€the€Statement€of€Evidence€does€not€purport€toÏbe€a€verbatim€account€of€what€occurred€at€the€sentencing€hearing.ñÏñœ×ƒ×ñÏññÏñ׃×ñÏñÝ ƒ0%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€Moreover,€theÐ ÐÈ  Ðdearth€of€information€in€the€record€relevant€to€sentencing€is€detrimental€to€theÏdefendantððs€cause,€not€the€stateððs.€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€appeal,€our€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€theÐ ø Ðpresumption€that€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€AsÏthe€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€this€section€note,€the€burden€is€now€on€theÏdefendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€to€confinement€is€improper.€€With€almost€noÏinformation€in€the€record€about€the€defendantððs€social€history,€mental€and€medicalÏhistory,€and€work€and€family€history,€we€have€little€information€upon€which€to€rely€inÏassessing€an€appropriate€sentence,€by€review€or€otherwise.ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€we€believe€that€the€record€before€us€can€support€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€to€impose€ten€days€confinement.€€This€is€because€of€œthe€defendantððs€criminal›Ïhistory€of€assaultive€conduct€œand€the›€violent€nature€of€the€vandalism.€€The€defendantÏstates€that€the€problems€ð ðarose€out€of€his€domestic€relations€difficulties,ðð€but€we€believeÏthat€this€circumstance€makes€the€offense€more€serious.€€The€defendant€kicked€andÏbroke€a€door€to€a€room€containing€his€young€daughter€in€her€grandparentsðð€andÐ \0T). Ðmotherððs€house.€€Although€the€passions€of€the€moment€may€be€understood,€the€violentÏactions€cannot€be€œcondoned.›€€In€this€respect,€the€sentence€to€confinement€is€particularlyÏsuited€to€deter€the€defendant€and€others€similarly€situated€from€such€conduct€in€theÏfuture.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€œ40„35„103(1)(ñÓñBñÓññÓñDñÓñ).›Ð l d ÐÌà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€the€judgment€of€conviction€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_____________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge€Ìà8 ¸ à