ÿWPCù …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ U>9U*wB)¡DCÊ B  AM*w ‡v~vÓ D3á 0@ AOTÆ£ 0Di D/­ BܘHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- JDKULUMUNDODPUQDRSÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x\((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 d""""7Border 1dd d€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌOctober€24,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÿÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà0 àÔ€!ÔÔ€!ôÔIt€should€be€noted€that€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€55„10„403(b)(1),€Appellant€is€required€to€serve€the€minimum€sentence€for€fourth€offense€DUI€inÏincarceration€before€being€eligible€for€probation.€€Thus,€Appellant€would€have€to€serveÏ120€days€in€jail€regardless€of€his€suitability€for€probation.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””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€æXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€%&#A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9512„CC„00433Ìà 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 àCOFFEE€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€GERALD€L.€EWELL,€SR.ó óÌò òCARL€E.€CAMPEN,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„Sentencing)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌCHRISTOPHER€VAN€RIPERà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌStuart€&€Van€Riperà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ300€Market€StreetÌClinton,€TN€€37716à àà àà àà àKAREN€M.€YACUZZOÌà àà àà 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 àMICKEY€LAYNEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSTEPHEN€E.€WEITZMANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€147Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àManchester,€TN€€37355ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€!„ÔOPINIONó óóóÔ€!ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓA€Coffee€County€Circuit€Court€jury€found€Appellant€Carl€E.€Campen€guilty€ofÏdriving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€(DUI),€fourth€offense,€and€driving€on€aÏrevoked€license.€€For€the€DUI€conviction,€Appellant€received€a€sentence€ofÏeleven€months€twenty„nine€days€in€the€county€jail€and€a€fine€of€seven€thousandÏdollars.€€For€the€driving€on€a€revoked€license€conviction,€he€received€a€sentenceÏof€one€hundred€eighty€days€in€the€county€jail€and€a€fine€of€five€hundred€dollars.€ÏThe€trial€court€ordered€the€sentences€served€consecutively.€€In€this€direct€appeal,ÏAppellant€presents€the€following€issue€for€review:€whether€his€sentence€isÏexcessive.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓ  Ó€ò òI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌÓ  Óà àOn€March€7,€1995,€the€Coffee€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€Appellant€forÏDUI,€fourth€offense,€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€55„10„401€and€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license€in€violation€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€55„50„504.ÌÌà àAppellant€originally€expressed€an€interest€in€pleading€guilty€to€the€chargesÏbut,€at€the€plea€acceptance€hearing€on€March€21,€1995,€inexplicably€pled€notÏguilty.€€The€trial€court€accepted€the€not€guilty€plea€but€found€Appellant€inÏcontempt€of€court€for€representing€to€the€court€that€he€would€plead€guilty.ÌÌ€à àIn€July€of€1995,€Appellant€was€tried€before€a€jury€in€the€Coffee€CountyÏCircuit€Court.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€jury€found€Appellant€guilty€of€theÏoffenses€as€set€out€in€the€indictment.€€The€trial€court€imposed€consecutiveÏsentences€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€the€DUI€offense€and€oneÏhundred€eighty€days€for€the€driving€on€a€revoked€license€offense.€€The€trial€courtÏordered€incarceration€for€seventy„five€percent€of€the€sentence.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€SENTENCINGó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€alleges€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€Specifically,€he€arguesÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€the€length€of€his€sentences,€in€failing€toÏimpose€some€form€of€alternative€sentence,€and€in€ordering€consecutiveÏsentencing.ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdetermination€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Í(1990).€€However,€this€presumption€of€correctness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€that€the€trial€court€in€the€record€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€the€event€that€the€record€fails€to€demonstrateÏsuch€consideration,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòId.óó€€If€appellateÏreview€reflects€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€itsÏfindings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€this€Court€must€affirmÏthe€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÏIn€conducting€a€review,€this€Court€must€consider€the€evidence,€the€presentenceÏreport,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€the€nature€andÏcharacter€of€the€offense,€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€any€statementsÏmade€by€the€defendant,€and€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.ÏHollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€defendant€bears€theÏburden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence€imposed.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,Ï862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àThe€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€aÏmisdemeanor€defendant€may€be€sentenced€to€the€maximum€term€provided€forÍthe€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).€Ìà àÌà àIn€determining€the€percentage€of€the€sentence€that€must€be€served,€theÏcourt€is€required€to€consider€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€as€well€as€theÏlegislative€purposes€and€principles€related€to€sentencing.€€òòPalmeróó,€902€S.W.2dÏat€393.€€Here€Appellant€does€not€challenge€the€percentage€of€service€of€hisÏsentences.€€Rather,€he€argues€only€that€the€imposition€of€the€maximumÏsentences€are€excessive.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court,€in€sentencing€Appellant,€specifically€set€out€the€facts,Ïcircumstances€and€applicable€portions€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€inÏthe€record.€€A€separate€sentencing€hearing€was€held€for€which€a€pre„sentenceÏreport€was€ordered.€€Appellantððs€criminal€record€consists€of€three€previous€DUI€Ìconvictions.€€In€determining€the€sentence,€the€court€considered€AppellantððsÏprevious€criminal€history€and€the€fact€that€this€conviction€involved€a€crime€inÏwhich€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€No€mitigating€factors€were€found€by€theÏcourt.ÌÌà àAppellant€contests€the€first€enhancement€factor€found€by€the€court€underÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€Section€40„35„114(10),€that€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€inÍcommitting€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€Specifically,€theÏdefendant€argues€that€since€he€was€not€ð ðdrivingðð€the€vehicle,€there€was€no€riskÏposed€to€othersðð€health€or€safety.€€The€affidavit€of€complaint€in€the€arrest€warrantÏdescribed€the€defendant€as€ð ðthe€subject€of€a€complaint€at€ParMart€on€Hwy.€55.ððÌÌà àA€transcript€of€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€not€contained€in€the€recordÏand€there€is€no€proof€showing€whether€the€trial€court€found€the€defendant€guiltyÏof€ð ðdrivingðð€of€being€in€ð ðphysical€controlðð€of€the€vehicle€at€the€time€of€his€arrest.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Sec.€55„10„401.€€When€the€record€does€not€contain€theÏproof€presented€on€an€issue,€this€Court€is€precluded€from€considering€it€and€weÏmust€presume€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€is€correct.€€òòState€v.€Bennettóó,€798€S.W.2d€783Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€500€U.S.€915,€111€S.Ct.€2009,€114ÏL.Ed.2d€98€(1991);€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€785€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1990).€€Since€Appellant€relies€on€alleged€facts€not€included€in€the€record,€he€hasÏwaived€this€issue.Ìà àÌà àThe€trial€court€also€applied€as€an€enhancement€factor€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€40„35„114(1),€that€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€ÌÌcriminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior.€€The€presentence€report€indicates€theÏdefendant€has€three€prior€convictions€for€driving€under€the€influence.€€UnderÍTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€55„10„404,€the€punishment€for€driving€underÏthe€influence€is€graded€according€to€three€categories;€first€conviction,€secondÏconviction€and€ð ðthird€or€subsequent€conviction.ðð€€Although€Appellant€wasÏcharged€with€DUI,€4th€offense,€only€two€previous€convictions€are€necessaryÏelements€to€qualify€for€the€maximum€possible€fine€and€punishment€under€theÏstatute.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Sec.€55„10„403.€€Two€of€Appellantððs€previousÏconvictions€were€used€to€establish€punishment€under€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€55„10„403(a)(1),€and€the€other€was€appropriately€consideredÏin€imposing€the€maximum€sentence.ÌÌà àAppellant€further€argues€that€because€these€convictions€span€a€period€ofÏten€years,€they€do€not€indicate€a€period€of€consistent€criminal€behavior.€ÏHowever,€the€record€shows€that€Appellant€has€a€history€of€repeatedlyÏcommitting€the€same€crime.€€Appellant€has€not€cited,€and€we€are€unaware€of,Ïany€authority€to€support€Appellantððs€position€that,€for€the€purposes€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„114(1),€all€previous€offenses€mustÏbe€within€a€specified€period€of€time.€€Therefore,€the€application€of€AppellantððsÏprior€criminal€history€in€determining€the€length€of€the€sentence€was€appropriate.ÌÌò òà àA.€Alternative€Sentencingó óÌÌà àThe€trial€court€did€not€grant€any€form€of€alternative€sentencing,€although€itÏrecognized€that€alternatives€to€incarceration€are€encouraged€under€Tennessee€ÌCode€Annotated€Section€40„35„103(1)(C)(6).€€Confinement€of€Appellant€wasÏbased,€in€part,€on€the€fact€that€less€restrictive€measures€had€been€usedÏunsuccessfully€in€the€past.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(C).€€For€each€ofÏAppellantððs€prior€DUI€convictions,€probation€had€been€imposed€with€only€48Ïhours€to€serve€and€a€fine€on€each.€€Yet€Appellant€continued€to€drink€andÏoperate€a€vehicle€while€intoxicated€even€after€his€license€had€been€revoked.€ÏApplication€of€this€enhancement€factor€was€appropriate.ÌÌà àAdditionally,€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€suspend€the€sentence€was€basedÏupon€Appellantððs€lack€of€amenability€to€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(C)(5).€€The€court€noted€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€during€the€trial,ÏAppellant€ð ðin€effect,€lied€to€the€jury€concerning€his€prior€record€.€.€.ðð€€Appellant€alsoÏexhibited€ð ðan€arrogant€uncooperative€attitudeðð€with€the€presentence€officer.€€HeÏshowed€no€remorse€for€his€crime€and€has,€in€the€past,€made€similar€promisesÏnot€to€drive€under€the€influence€which€he€has€been€unable€to€keep.€€AppellantÏhas€not€taken€responsibility€for€his€criminal€conduct€and€the€trial€court€properlyÍdenied€alternative€sentencing.× ƒ' ××  ×ÌÌà àPointing€to€the€number€of€DUI€cases€on€its€docket,€the€trial€court€also€citedÏthe€need€for€deterrence€in€denying€any€form€of€alternative€sentencing.€€In€view€ofÏthe€discussion€above,€whether€such€judicial€notice€of€the€ubiquity€of€a€particularÏcrime€is€sufficient€evidence€to€warrant€a€denial€of€alternative€sentencing€is€anÏissue€we€need€not€address.Ìà àà àIt€is€well„settled€that€whether€sentences€should€be€servedÏconcurrently€or€consecutively€is€a€matter€addressed€to€the€sound€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€520€S.W.2d€371€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„115,€provides€for€circumstancesÏunder€which€consecutive€sentences€may€be€imposed.€€In€pertinent€part€it€reads:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€€If€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€more€than€one€(1)Ïcriminal€offense,€the€court€shall€order€sentences€to€runÏconsecutively€or€concurrently€as€provided€by€theÏcriteria€in€this€section.Ìà8 àà8 à(b)€€The€court€may€order€sentences€to€runÏconsecutively€if€the€court€finds€by€a€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€that:ÌÌà@ à.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive.€.€.€.Ìà@ à.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„115.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€Appellant€ð ðis€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminalÏactivity€is€extensive.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2).€€When€a€defendantÏfalls€within€the€classification€of€an€ð ðoffender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€isÏextensive,ðð€the€only€remaining€considerations€are€whether€(1)€the€termsÏreasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€and€(2)€whether€the€terms€areÏnecessary€in€order€to€protect€the€public€from€further€misconduct€by€the€defendant.€ÏòòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938.€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àAppellant€has€over€a€period€of€nine€(9)€years€repeatedly€violated€theÏprohibition€concerning€drunk€driving.€€The€instant€case€is€his€fourth€DUI€convictionÏand€it€is€coupled€with€a€driving€on€a€revoked€license€conviction.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances€we€agree€that€Appellant€has€an€extensive€record€of€criminalÏactivity.€€In€addition,€Appellant€may€be€properly€classified€as€a€ð ðdangerousÏoffenderðð€for€whom€consecutive€sentencing€is€appropriate.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏAnthony€Raymond€Bellóó,€No.€03C01„9503„CR„00070€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€March€11,€1996)€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€LonasÏBritt€Dillardóó,€No.€03C01„9311„CR„00386€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€July€13,Í1994)€(classifying€DUI€offender€as€a€dangerous€offender).€€Further,€theÏconsecutive€sentences€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offense.€€TheÏcase€law€of€this€State€resounds€with€references€to€the€seriousness€of€drunkÏdriving.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Cleavoróó,€691€S.W.2d€541,€543€(Tenn.€1985).€ÏAppellant€is€an€individual€who€has€repeatedly€violated€this€criminal€statute.€ÏFinally,€we€believe€the€trial€judge€was€correct€in€his€finding€that€a€lengthy€termÏwas€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€misconduct€by€Appellant.€€PriorÏlenient€punishments€imposed€on€Appellant€have€failed€to€deter€his€continuedÏviolation€of€the€DUI€law.€€In€addition€Appellant€has€shown€no€remorse,€nor€hasÏhe€accepted€any€responsibility€for€his€actions.€€We€are€left€to€conclude€that€aÏlengthy€period€of€incarceration€is€the€only€way€to€protect€the€public€from€furtherÏinstances€of€drunken€driving€on€part€of€the€Appellant.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE