ÿWPC UkÀÓà¶ZrÁjdåÚSPrÃj«÷æ<~ë²ßMذͻpæîÓâ¶§†t¹~EЪÝ#d)Š!¥5áѩ׿¥á¢^±O¯ÁE6Ž*m£p_èÎ¥4ÈGMðѹr•🻊c0 £¢ÈãÛ¾WÚÊéŽ2Ž’¢Oùfò&š ûWÁ–†Åû,Í6‹ /æ¶, ÚÀ/ƒ´AŒ«dPµ8ê 3q°y{í—’Qt mЪ±„)rÌz»ˆ©b׫aÍ ìWÅÔ?\ô÷QIÕ@g¼'Ðíÿ0ðå§>„ :Gua›Ø´Ê")ˆãß©oMS‰n莓»zPéÈŠ ’!2½YOÕÂ9;½&:¥ñ³špŠåXAíøLÄ’r°!q–÷ÉǼ¯`|ïR—Nˆ1—°¡h7ŠeÖNÿæy «=·ÉfˆpÔà59A¹xÄúc8iž̓‰ËF+lý°, háÛ"w¸£’×Ö‹EŒ-æm5ßϬ֊yŸs,C 7åõ-è° y ˆ/ñô>%ûW¬Ãìçâ~~Õ:kº0ƒÙØ3æ|˜ëÖK ÂBœ¤‡¬Æ!à™q‘åwûg]øï±ƒ+àÚ£ï‹ëI¸Þã· ¸gj@Nªé. ¤ª†¥b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ U@™ ÆÙ ÆŸ ÆeÆ+ñNÿÿÿEb 0ë     Böö 0¤ D5· D-ì 0K ASdÆ· 0¤} 0D! A«e»8¸t/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularlk.ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 TRACIGuffeecodefendantspresentencePettus t]hee]vidence a]nyArnettImfeldrebuttableGrissomKeefer- ù-(|G2:Ò$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Äé»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæäò»»Ô d(|37($££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Äé»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|37($¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Äé»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Äé»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Äé»»»ÔÑ8€ƒ?XXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î%nÄéÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Äé»îî%n #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àà @ àJune€17,€2003€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡Xƒ?X»¼ÄéÔÌò òÔ#†¼Äé»XXƒ?#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€TRACI€L.€CREWSòòóóÔ‡Xƒ?X»¼ÄéÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€I„502„189„A€€€€€€Donald€P.€Harris,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„02908„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€20,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€entered€a€best€interest€plea€to€theft€over€$10,000,€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender.€€SheÐ V¦  Ðwas€sentenced€to€six€years,€with€eight€months€of€confinement€and€the€remainder€suspended€with€tenÐ ? Ðyears€of€intensive€probation.€€Restitution€was€included.€€On€appeal€of€her€sentence,€the€sentence€wasÐ (x Ðmodified€to€three€years€and€the€remaining€terms€of€the€sentence€affirmed€in€all€respects.Ð a ÐÓÂÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Ð ã3 ÐAffirmed€as€Modifiedó óÐ Í ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Äé»àXƒ?“#ÔÔ‡Xƒ?X.¼ÄéÔJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€andÐ  ð ÐòòRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ‰Ù ÐÌEdward€J.€Gross,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Traci€L.€Crews.Ð [« ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€P.€Robin€Dixon,€Jr.,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð -} ÐRonald€L.€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Sharon€E.€Guffee,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ f ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ÿO ÐÓFÓÌÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Äé»XXƒ?u#ÔÔ‡Xƒ?X»¼ÄéÔÐ º" " ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Äé»XXƒ?' #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xƒ?X»¼ÄéÔÓ XÓThe€defendant,€Traci€L.€Crews,€entered€a€best€interest€plea€to€theft€over€$10,000,€a€violationÐ $Ý$ Ðof€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„14„103,€a€Class€C€felony,€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender.€Ð v%Æ % ÐAfter€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€six€years,€with€eight€monthsÐ _&¯!& Ðincarceration€followed€by€the€balance€of€ten€years€on€intensive€probation.€€The€defendant€appealsÐ H'˜"' Ðfrom€the€sentence€she€received.Ð 1(#( ÐÐ )j$) Ðò òÓ XÓÓ  ÓFactsó óÐ *S%* ÐÓë ÓÓ XÝ ÓÐ í*=&+ ÐThe€defendant€was€involved€with€codefendants€Michelle€Vance€and€Patti€Wade€in€anÐ Ö+&', Ðenterprise€intended€to€obtain€money€by€theft€from€the€victim,€E.€J.€Footwear.€€Vance€was€accountsÐ ¿,(- Ðpayable€and€payroll€manager€at€Durango,€a€subsidiary€of€E.€J.€Footwear.€€Vance€issued€checks€toÐ ¨-ø(.ý ÐÔ_Ôthe€defendant,€which€she€cashed€at€a€check€cashing€business.€€The€defendant€claimed€she€receivedÐ ° Ðnothing€from€the€proceeds,€but€said€Vance€bought€her€child€items€with€a€combined€estimated€valueÐ ™é Ðof€approximately€three€to€four€thousand€dollars.€€Wade,€the€defendantððs€sister,€was€later€involvedÐ ‚Ò Ðand€her€name€used€on€three€checks€issued€by€Vance.€€According€to€Wade€and€the€defendant,€WadeÐ k» Ðwas€paid€$600€for€the€fee€normally€paid€at€check€cashing€businesses.Ð T¤ ÐÐ =  ÐMichelle€Vance€testified€that€the€defendant€received€one„half€of€all€proceeds€from€the€checksÐ & v Ðmade€to€her,€and€the€checks€made€to€Wade€were€divided€equally€between€the€three€participants.Ð  _ ÐÐ ø H ÐThe€presentence€report€revealed€that€the€defendant€was€forty„one€years€old€and€separatedÐ á 1  Ðfrom€her€current€husband.€€She€had€custody€of€her€two€children,€ages€twelve€and€one,€as€well€as€aÐ Ê   Ðminor€cousin.€€The€defendant€had€no€prior€criminal€history.€€Although€unemployed€at€the€time€ofÐ ³  Ðthe€offenses,€the€defendant€had€a€significant€employment€history.€€She€had€recently€relocated€toÐ œì  ÐHuntsville,€Alabama,€and€had€an€offer€of€employment€at€a€medical€clinic€there.Ð …Õ  ÐÐ n¾  ÐThe€defendant,€in€her€direct€appeal,€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€application€of€theÐ W§  Ðenhancement€factor,€the€sentence€requiring€confinement,€and€the€amount€of€restitution.€€Ð @ ÐÐ )y ÐÔ‡ X¯Õ XXXƒ?Ôò òÓ XÓÓ  ÓAnalysisÐ b Ðó óÓOÓÓ XAÓÐ üL ÐThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumptionÐ ã3 Ðof€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€conditioned€upon€anÐ Ì Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ µ Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Pettusóó,€986€S.W.2d€540,€543€(Tenn.€1999).€€If€the€trialÐ žî Ðcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€and€ourÐ ‡× Ðreview€is€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).Ð pÀ ÐÐ Y© ÐThe€burden€is€upon€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ B’ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d),€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€In€conducting€our€review,€we€areÐ +{ Ðrequired,€pursuant€to€TÔ_ÔennesseeÔ_Ô€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„210,€to€consider€the€followingÐ d Ðfactors€in€sentencing:Ð ýM ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓ(1)€[t]he€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€[t]heÐ æ 6 Ðpresentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÐ Ï!  Ðalternatives;€(4)€[t]he€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)Ð ¸"! Ð[e]vidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÐ ¡#ñ" Ðfactors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]ny€statement€the€defendant€wishesÐ Š$Ú# Ðto€make€in€the€defendantððs€own€behalf€about€sentencing.€€Ð s%à $ ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ XÓÓ X)ÓÓ X7ÓÐ \&¬!% ÐIf€no€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors€for€sentencing€are€present,€Tennessee€CodeÐ E'•"& ÐAnnotated€section€40„35„210(c)€provides€that€the€presumptive€sentence€for€most€offenses€shall€beÐ .(~#' ÐÔ_Ôthe€minimum€sentence€within€the€applicable€range.€€òòóóòòState€v.€Lavenderóó,€967€S.W.2d€803,€806€(Tenn.Ð )g$( Ð1998);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€if€such€Ô_ÔfactorsÐ *P%) Ðdo€exist,€a€trial€court€should€enhance€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€for€enhancementÐ é*9&* Ðfactors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð Ò+"'+ Ððð€40„35„210(e);€òòState€v.€Arnettóó,€49€S.W.3d€250,€257€(Tenn.€2001).€€No€particular€weight€for€eachÐ ° Ðfactor€is€prescribed€by€the€statute,€as€the€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€theÐ ™é Ðtrial€court€as€long€as€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€sentencing€actÐ ‚Ò Ðand€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Maddenóó,€99€S.W.3d€127,€138€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð k» ÐApp.€2002)òòóó;€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€Nevertheless,Ð T¤ Ðshould€there€be€no€mitigating€factors,€but€enhancement€factors€are€present,€a€trial€court€may€set€theÐ =  Ðsentence€above€the€minimum€within€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d);€òòState€v.€Imfeldóó,Ð & v Ð70€S.W.3d€698,€704€(Tenn.€2002).€€Ð  _ ÐÐ ø H ÐThe€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€recognizes€the€limited€capacity€ofÐ á 1  Ðstate€prisons€and€mandates€that€convicted€felons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessingÐ Ê   Ðcriminal€histories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€failureÐ ³  Ðof€past€efforts€of€rehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priority€regarding€sentencing€involvingÐ œì  Ðincarceration.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5).€€A€defendant€who€does€not€qualify€as€such€and€whoÐ …Õ  Ðis€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony,€is€presumed€to€be€aÐ n¾  Ðfavorable€candidate€for€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ W§  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€This€simply€means€that€the€trial€judge€must€presume€such€a€defendant€to€beÐ @ Ða€favorable€candidate€for€sentencing€which€does€not€involve€incarceration.Ð )y ÐÐ b ÐThe€presumption€that€a€defendant€is€a€favorable€candidate€for€sentencing€which€does€notÐ ûK Ðinvolve€incarceration€is€rebuttable,€and€incarceration€may€be€ordered€if€the€court€is€presented€withÐ ä4 Ðevidence€of€the€following:€€(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€aÐ Í Ðdefendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;€(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoidÐ ¶ Ðdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€anÐ Ÿï Ðeffective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€or€(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€thanÐ ˆØ Ðconfinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ qÁ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„103(1)€(1990).€€In€determining€the€appropriate€sentencing€alternative,€a€court€may€alsoÐ Zª Ðlook€to€evidence€or€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€statutory€enhancement€and€mitigatingÐ C“ Ðfactors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(5)€(Supp.€1995);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„113,€„114Ð ,| Ð(Supp.€1995).€€Lastly,€a€court€should€take€into€account€the€potential,€or€lack€of€potential,€for€aÐ e Ðdefendantððs€rehabilitation€or€treatment€when€considering€the€appropriate€sentencing€alternative.€Ð þN ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5)€(1990).Ð ç 7 ÐÐ Ð!   ÐòòòòóóóóÓ*°,XXa&Ø'‹X°œX*ÓIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure€andÐ ¹" ! Ðimposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€giving€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€andÐ ¢#ò" Ðprinciples€set€out€under€sentencing€law€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€adequatelyÐ ‹$Û# Ðsupported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence,€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÐ t%Ä $ Ðdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€5€(Tenn.€2000).Ô#†Xƒ?X X X¯Õ#ԀР]&­!% ÐÐ F'–"& ÐThe€trial€judge€applied€enhancement€factor€(7);€that€the€amount€of€damage€to€propertyÐ /(#' Ðsustained€or€taken€from€the€victim€was€particularly€great.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.€Ð )h$( ÐMitigating€factor€(1)€was€also€found€applicable;€that€the€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatenedÐ *Q%) Ðserious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113.€€Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ ÐThe€defendant€was€sentenced€to€six€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€,€with€the€sentenceÐ ° Ðsuspended€after€serving€eight€months€at€100%.€€Probation€was€set€at€ten€years€and€specified€asÐ ™é Ðintensive.€€The€defendant€was€ordered€to€pay€restitution€of€$14,490.00€and€the€court€costs.Ð ‚Ò ÐÐ k» ÐThe€trial€judge€made€the€following€observation€prior€to€announcing€the€defendantððs€sentence:Ð T¤ ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓThis€is€one€of€those€cases€that€I€see€periodically€in€that€both€of€these€women€[theÐ =  Ðdefendant€and€her€sister,€Wade]€would€have€been€granted€full€probation€had€theyÐ & v Ðmerely€come€in€here€and€told€the€truth,€but€I€donððt€know€why€that€for€some€reasonÐ  _ Ðthey€have€elected€not€to€do€so.€€And€that€reflects,€of€course,€on€their€amenability€toÐ ø H Ðrehabilitation.Ð á 1  ÐÓ X!4ÓÓ X4ÓÓ X4ÓÐ Ê   ÐThe€trial€judge€in€this€case€properly€considered€the€relevant€sentencing€principles€togetherÐ ³  Ðwith€the€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€Therefore,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€ofÐ œì  Ðcorrectness.Ð …Õ  ÐÐ n¾  ÐInitially,€we€examine€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€enhancement€factor€that€the€amountÐ W§  Ðof€property€taken€from€the€defendant€was€particularly€great.€€The€defendant€was€found€guilty€of€theftÐ @ Ðof€property€in€excess€of€$10,000,€a€Class€C€felony.€Ð )y ÐÓ9°”,È…Xa&Ø'‹X°,XXa&Ø'‹X9ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓGrading€of€theft.€„„€Theft€of€property€or€services€is:Ð b Ðà0 4 àà  à(1)€A€Class€A€misdemeanor€if€the€theft€of€the€property€or€services€obtained€is€fiveÐ ûK Ðhundred€dollars€($500)€or€less;Ðä44Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(2)€A€Class€E€felony€if€the€value€of€the€property€or€services€obtained€is€more€thanÐ Í Ðfive€hundred€dollars€($500)€but€less€than€one€thousand€dollars€($1,000);ж4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(3)€A€Class€D€felony€if€the€value€of€the€property€or€services€obtained€is€one€thousandÐ Ÿï Ðdollars€($1,000)€or€more€but€less€than€ten€thousand€dollars€($10,000);ЈØ4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(4)€A€Class€C€felony€if€the€value€of€the€property€or€services€obtained€is€ten€thousandÐ qÁ Ðdollars€($10,000)€or€more€but€less€than€sixty€thousand€dollars€($60,000);€andÐZª4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(5)€A€Class€B€felony€if€the€value€of€the€property€or€services€obtained€is€sixtyÐ C“ Ðthousand€dollars€($60,000)€or€more.Ð,|4Ð 4Ð  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ Xá8ÓÓ XÓ8ÓÓ Xï8ÓÓ XÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„105(4)€(1991).Ð e ÐÌÓ XØ=ÓWe€reject€the€use€of€this€enhancement€factor€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€TheÐ ç 7 Ðgeneral€rule€is€that€since€the€punishment€for€theft€is€enhanced€based€upon€the€amount€taken€by€theÐ Ð!   Ðaccused,€the€use€of€this€factor€constitutes€double€enhancement€in€violation€of€the€statute.€€òòState€v.Ð ¹" ! ÐGrissomóó,€956€S.W.2d€514,€517€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€1997€Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¢#ò" ÐLEXIS€793,€No.€03C01„9110„CR„00327€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€15,€1992),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóóÐ ‹$Û# Ð(Tenn.€Mar.€8,€1993).Ð t%Ä $ ÐÐ ]&­!% ÐÔ_ÔWe€are€aware€that€there€have€been€several€exceptions€to€the€general€rule€that€allows€use€ofÐ F'–"& Ðthis€enhancement€under€certain€Ô_Ôcircumstances:Ð /(#' ÐÓ=°,XXa&Ø'‹X°”,È…Xa&Ø'‹Xš8=ÓÓ9°”,È…Xa&Ø'‹X°,XXa&Ø'‹X9ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓà0 4 àà  à(a)€€òòState€v.€Barbara€D.€Frankóó,€No.€03C01„9209„CR„00303,€1993€Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð )h$( ÐLEXIS€860€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Dec.€22,€1993),€when€the€amountÐ *Q%) Ðtaken€approached€the€next€classification€of€theft,€and€the€victim,€a€closely€heldÐ ê*:&* Ðcorporation€of€three€individuals,€was€particularly€damaged;€ÐÓ+#'+4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(b)€òòState€v.€Barbara€Kay€Keeferóó,€No.€03C01„9709„CC„00413€1999€Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ° ÐLEXIS€124€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Feb.€10,€1999),€when€the€amountÐ ™é Ðactually€taken€was€over€four€times€the€$60,000€necessary€to€constitute€a€Class€BÐ ‚Ò Ðfelony€theft€and€forced€the€victim€into€bankruptcy;Ðk»4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(c)€òòState€v.€Cynthia€Taylor€Mannóó,€No.€M1999„01390„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€Tenn.Ð T¤ ÐCrim.€App.€LEXIS€337€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€May€8,€2001),€theÐ =  Ðamount€stolen€was€about€six€times€the€$60,000€threshold€for€Class€B€felony€theftÐ & v Ðand€deprived€employees€of€the€partnership€of€year„end€bonuses€and€retirementÐ  _ Ðcontributions,€and€the€partners€of€the€victim€were€forced€to€sign€a€$400,000Ð ø H Ðpromissory€note€to€cover€losses;€andÐá 1 4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(d)€òòState€v.€Jacob€Dyckóó,€No.€E2001„00476„CCA„R3„CD,€2002€Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ê   ÐLEXIS€355€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€April€22,€2002),€the€amount€actuallyÐ ³  Ðstolen€qualified€for€the€next€highest€level€of€felony€theft,€and€the€victim€was€anÐ œì  Ðelderly€individual.Ð…Õ 4Ð 4Ð  ÐÓ X(BÓÓ XBÓÓ X BÓÓ=°,XXa&Ø'‹X°”,È…Xa&Ø'‹XÓA=ÓÓ=°”,È…Xa&Ø'‹XË8°,XXa&Ø'‹X=ÓÐ n¾  ÐIn€the€instant€case,€the€highest€total€figure€proposed€by€the€State€as€stolen€from€the€victimÐ W§  Ðwas€$38,000,€mid„range€of€Class€C€felony€theft.€€There€was€no€evidence€adduced€showing€particularÐ @ Ðgreat€damage€to€the€large€corporate€victim.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€this€enhancement€factorÐ )y Ðwas€misapplied.Ð b ÐÐ ûK ÐThe€Range€I€sentence€for€a€Class€C€felony€is€three€to€six€years.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð ä4 Ð35„112(a)(3).€€The€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€C€felony€is€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range,Ð Í Ðincreased€as€appropriate€for€enhancement€factors€and€decreased€as€appropriate€for€mitigating€factors.€Ð ¶ ÐòòSeeóó€òòid.óó,€40„35„210(c)(e).€€Absent€any€enhancement€factor,€we€conclude€that€the€sentence€should€beÐ Ÿï Ðmodified€to€three€years.Ð ˆØ ÐÐ qÁ ÐThe€defendant€also€complains€of€the€length€of€mandatory€incarceration€of€eight€months€andÐ Zª Ðthe€amount€of€restitution.€€The€sentencing€judge€clearly€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€accompliceÐ C“ ÐMichelle€Vance€as€to€the€sharing€of€the€check€proceeds,€which€directly€contradicted€the€defendantððsÐ ,| Ðcontentions.€€The€record€also€reveals€that€the€defendant€accepted€responsibility€only€with€strongÐ e Ðqualification.€€Falsification€and€responsibility„shifting€are€ill€omens€for€a€defendant€seeking€theÐ þN Ðlargesse€of€total€probation.Ð ç 7 ÐÐ Ð!   ÐWe€have€repeatedly€held€that€truthfulness€and€willingness€to€accept€responsibility€for€theÐ ¹" ! Ðoffenses€are€probative€of€the€prospects€for€rehabilitation.€€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€306Ð ¢#ò" Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€857€S.W.2d€571,€574€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€ByÐ ‹$Û# Ðevaluating€the€defendant€in€this€manner,€the€trial€court,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ t%Ä $ Ðsection€40„35„103(5),€determined€the€defendantððs€alternative€sentence.€€Having€concluded€that€theÐ ]&­!% Ðterm€of€incarceration€prior€to€probation€status€and€the€restitution€were€appropriate,€we€affirm€theÐ F'–"& Ðeight„month€term€of€incarceration€and€restitution€as€ordered€and€modify€the€sentence€to€three€years.Ó=°,XXa&Ø'‹X°”,È…Xa&Ø'‹X˜I=ÓÐ /(#' ÐÐ )h$( ÐÐ *Q%) ÐÐ ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ ЇÐ ° Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à___________________________________€Ð™é(#(# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€JOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE