ÿWPCï Ir_ ­Õ9äÑø*2jƒ .¦„ÉÁ‰cH úå«*Òpõ¼Ýh +§^0+È “R2·ò5_o3®¸„YV­ÙÊÖÞËwbÆ\édð Ùž Ž’éV”¿I ÈgÁIis¥ÅQù ÀbÂò·‡z«9û|œ½U4Î íÿ=ß|xÌ$ÛTd´³áìkáZÐw;r"if§Ÿ¶_>ÒtC¡»ÚràÆ»‰wë:hùT'}ÉiIJ ²‹j ¸€ª¼‚7øhúí‘b“wÛgÍ…ºˆ¼W õÀ7Aû<ˆ®#sYÍ?KX ~rƒzÕ?^µ¦l÷‡ûí¡@‚V‡×˜(¤zÜû·/Ä^‘ø‡u¥ÏÛ $?­“h³# @jŽì:eE?3~ö ù9*Ó»'B¤êƒz¼¼êº.ó’E@%žó6+zq·€ŠÀ«­t&âŸyŠxƒ]ä~1z41ò×K6Aú)0½!MÒ°b#É\ %% 0D+ 0ˆo UN÷ UNE Ä“ zW ÒÑ Ñ Ñ N£Ï¥ÆtÆ:ÆÆÆÆNŒŒ^ ŽEšwœ4 ´Ã mÅÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜbääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääää 0ëìììì B×× 0¤ô D3˜ D-Ë 0Køø ASCÆ– 0¤\ 0D A«D˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ºÝ ƒRA9$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôçÙò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Our€disposition€obviates€the€arguable€need€to€consider€the€impact€of€òòBlakely€v.€Washingtonóó,€___€U.S.€___,Ð ° Ð124€S.€Ct.€2531€(2004),€on€Tennesseeððs€scheme€of€presuming€favorable€candidacy€for€alternative€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð tÄ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(2003). ˜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 ÅÝ ƒRA9$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôçÙò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€We€do€not€have€a€complete€transcript€of€the€plea„submission€hearing€in€the€record€before€us.€€The€transcriptÐ ° Ðreflects€the€courtððs€questioning€and€acceptance€of€the€defendantððs€plea,€but€the€factual€basis€for€the€plea,€whichÐ tÄ Ðcustomarily€precedes€the€actual€plea,€is€not€included.€€Nevertheless,€the€sentencing€hearing€transcript€affords€us€aÐ 8ˆý Ðmeaningful€view€of€the€underlying€facts,€thus€enabling€our€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€sentence.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð ° Ð35„401(d)€(2003).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚H1Þ óbï.ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ - ù-(|G2A9$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z1»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôçÙò»»Ô d(|3Ç|$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z1»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç|$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z1»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z1»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Z1»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îQLZ1ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Z1»îîQL #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€July€28,€2004Ð üL ÐÔ‡X X»¼Z1ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Z1»XX #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JONATHAN€B.€CUTSHAWòòóóÔ‡X X»¼Z1Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€à0 @ àCriminal€Court€for€Cocke€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€8873€€€€€€Ben€W.€Hooper,€II,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„02502„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€8,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Jonathan€B.€Cutshaw,€pleaded€guilty€in€the€Cocke€County€Criminal€Court€to€oneÐ xÈ  Ðcount€of€burglary,€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„14„402,€and€to€one€countÐ d´ Ðof€vandalism,€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„14„408.€€Pursuant€to€his€pleaÐ P  Ðagreement€with€the€state,€he€accepted€joint€and€several€liability€for€restitution,€along€with€othersÐ <Œ Ðinvolved€in€the€vandalism,€and€he€received€an€effective€sentence€of€three€years,€with€the€manner€ofÐ (x Ðservice€of€the€sentences€to€be€determined€by€the€trial€court.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ d Ðordered€the€defendant€to€serve€his€sentences€in€confinement€and€to€pay€restitution.€€It€is€from€thisÐ P Ðorder€that€the€defendant€appeals.€€We€modify€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€as€to€manner€of€serviceÐ ì< Ðof€the€sentences€and€remand€for€further€findings€regarding€the€appropriate€amount€of€restitution.Ô#†¼Z1»XX #ÔÔ‡X X»¼Z1ÔÐ Ø( ÐÓ§ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Modified€and€Remanded.ó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Z1»àX ò#ÔÔ‡X X.¼Z1ÔJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.,€óóJ.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€andÐ ˆØ ÐòòJerry€L.€Smith,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌSusanna€Laws€Thomas,€Newport,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Jonathan€B.€Cutshaw.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Brent€C.€Cherry,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€AlÐ $"t! ÐC.€Schmutzer,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€James€B.€Dunn,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ #`" ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÓ¢ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Z1»XX Ñ #ÔÔ‡X X»¼Z1ÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐòòóóÔ#†¼Z1»XX p #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X X»¼Z1Ôà0  àÔ‡X XXX ÔÐ (#(# Ðà  àà ` àWe€glean€the€facts€underlying€the€defendantððs€convictions€from€his€sentencing€hearingÐ ¬'ü"' Ðconducted€on€September€16,€2003.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ˜(è#(ý Їà  àà ` àDonald€W.€Ayers€is€the€District€Security€Manager€for€K„VAT€Foods,€Food€City,€andÐ ° Ðhe€testified€that€he€was€dispatched€to€Newport€on€September€27,€2002,€to€investigate€vandalism€atÐ œì Ðone€of€the€stores€located€on€West€Broadway.€€The€store€was€not€open€for€public€use€at€the€time,€andÐ ˆØ Ðit€was€locked.€€Inside€the€building€were€numerous€used,€upright€freezers.€€When€Ayers€went€insideÐ tÄ Ðthe€store,€he€discovered€extensive€damage,€including€glass€having€been€broken€out€of€all€the€freezers,Ð `° Ðmany€of€which€had€been€upended,€and€broken€windows€and€mirrors€in€the€bathroom.€€Ayers€hadÐ L œ Ðcalculated€the€amount€of€damage€to€be€$31,825,€and€since€K„VAT€was€self„insured,€the€companyÐ 8 ˆ Ðbore€the€full€cost.€€The€damage€estimate€for€the€freezers€was€based€on€repairing€the€existing€units,Ð $ t Ðnot€replacement€cost.€€Ayers€did€not€know€the€original€purchase€price€for€the€freezers€or€their€fairÐ  ` Ðmarket€value€prior€to€the€vandalism.€€Ayers€believed€that€the€freezers€were€ultimately€removed€asÐ ü L  Ðsalvage,€instead€of€being€repaired.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€was€sworn€and€testified€that€other€than€a€truancy€charge€when€he€wasÐ À  Ða€juvenile,€he€had€no€criminal€history.€€At€the€time€the€presentence€report€was€prepared,€he€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðtwenty€years€old€and€was€employed€performing€landscaping€services.€€Since€that€time,€he€hadÐ ˜è  Ðobtained€employment€at€the€local€Holiday€Inn€in€Newport,€working€in€food€service.€€The€defendantÐ „Ô  Ðwas€residing€with€his€best€friend€and€the€friendððs€mother.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àRegarding€his€involvement€in€the€offense,€the€defendant€testified€that€a€co„defendant,Ð H˜ ÐRichard€McMahan,€picked€him€and€others€up€and€drove€to€the€building.€€The€defendant€admittedÐ 4„ Ðgoing€inside€the€building,€and€he€testified€that€ð ðeverybody€that€was€there€broke€at€least€one€thing[,]Ð  p Ðand€then€we€left.ðð€€The€defendant€denied€any€drinking€was€involved,€at€least€in€his€presence.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€testified€that€since€his€arrest,€he€had€been€associating€with€ð ða€differentÐ ä4 Ðcrowdðð€and€had€been€working€hard€and€staying€at€home.€€The€defendant€acknowledged€responsibilityÐ Ð  Ðfor€what€had€happened€and€said€that€he€was€willing€to€make€payments€toward€restitution.€€If€admittedÐ ¼  Ðto€probation,€the€defendant€said€that€he€would€submit€to€any€conditions€concerning€employment,Ð ¨ø Ðdrug€testing,€and€payments.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€state€explored€on€cross„examination€the€topic€of€the€defendantððs€sobriety.€€AsÐ l¼ Ðreflected€in€the€presentence€report,€the€defendant€began€drinking€when€he€was€sixteen€years€old€butÐ X ¨ Ðclaimed€to€have€stopped€when€he€turned€nineteen€years€old.€€He€had€a€history€of€smoking€marijuanaÐ D!” Ðbut€said€that€he€had€ð ðnot€done€that€in€a€whileðð€and€that€he€quit€because€there€was€ð ðno€point€in€it.ððÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€his€statement€to€the€police,€the€defendant€said€that€he€stayed€inside€the€buildingÐ $X" Ðapproximately€30€minutes.€€According€to€the€defendant,€during€that€time€ð ð[e]veryone€that€was€thereÐ ô$D # Ðbroke€a€couple€of€things[,]€and€then€we€left.ðð€€Some€of€the€time€inside€the€building,€the€defendantÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âand€others€walked€around€looking€at€what€was€there.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€went€inside€theÐ Ì&"% Ðbuilding€with€three€other€people.€€The€defendant€explained€that€he€entered€the€building€only€once€butÐ ° Ðthat€he€had€heard€that€others€had€perhaps€returned€at€another€time.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àDuring€the€sentencing€hearing,€a€factual€dispute€arose€between€the€defendant€andÐ tÄ ÐMcMahan,€who€also€was€present€in€the€courtroom.€€McMahan€insisted€that€eight€people€wereÐ `° Ðpresent:€€Joe€Parton,€the€defendant,€and€McMahan€in€one€vehicle,€and€Randy€Steven,€Jason€Gunter,Ð L œ ÐAndrew€Kirk,€and€two€unknown€males€in€a€second€vehicle.€€The€defendant€told€the€court€that€he€andÐ 8 ˆ ÐKirk€rode€in€the€backseat€of€McMahanððs€vehicle€and€that€McMahan€and€Parton€were€in€the€front.€Ð $ t ÐThe€defendant€said€that€he€did€not€know€what€happened€after€the€four€of€them€left€the€building€andÐ  ` Ðwent€home.€€A€law€enforcement€incident€report,€which€was€filed€with€the€court,€indicated€that€theÐ ü L  Ðdamage€to€the€vacant€building€occurred€sometime€between€the€6th€and€27th€of€September,€andÐ è 8  Ðaccording€to€a€police€statement€given€by€one€of€the€vandals,€all€of€the€damage€did€not€occur€at€oneÐ Ô$  Ðtime,€because€the€building€was€entered€on€more€than€one€occasion.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€courtððs€sentencing€remarks€were€brief.€€It€ruled,Ð ˜è  ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓThe€Court€does€sentence€[the€defendant]€to€three€years€on€theÐ pÀ Ðvandalism;€two€years€on€the€burglary.€€And€at€this,€at€least€up€to€thisÐ \¬ Ðpoint€the€figure€thatððs€been€used€thus€far€of€$31,825.00€is€ordered€toÐ H˜ Ðbe€paid€jointly€and€severally€and€he€cannot€go€to€Food€City.Ð 4„ ÐÌà ¸ àThe€Court€finds€that€this€.€.€.€You€know,€thereððs€a€certainÐ  \ Ðamount€of€compassion€that€you€can€have€for€a€young€fellow€that€justÐ øH Ðreally,€really€gets€into€some€deep€trouble€but€then,€on€the€other€hand,Ð ä4 Ðthis€act€cannot€be€overlooked.€€Itððs€deterrence€is€something€to€beÐ Ð  Ðconsidered.Ð ¼  ÐÌà ¸ àHe€is€awfully€close€to€being€entitled€to€probation€but€the€CourtÐ ”ä Ðjust€cannot€do€that,€Mr.€Cutshaw.Ð €Ð ÐÌà ¸ àI€would€assume€that€this€sentence€could€be€built€in€the€CockeÐ X ¨ ÐCounty€Jail.€€Youððve€already€got€some€time€on€it€and,€of€course,€youÐ D!” Ðcan€apply€for€work€release€which€may€let€you€continue,€at€least,€toÐ 0"€  Ðearn€something€while€youððre€building€this€sentence.Ð #l! ÐÌÓ °#ÓÓ °#Óà  àà ` àAggrieved€by€the€manner€of€service€of€his€sentence€and€the€restitution€ordered,€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendant€has€appealed.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€law€is€well€settled€that€before€a€trial€court€imposes€a€sentence€upon€a€convictedÐ ¸'#& Ðcriminal€defendant,€it€must€consider€(a)€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;Ð ¤(ô#' Ð(b)€the€presentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÐ )à$( Ðalternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€evidence€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðinformation€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€set€forth€in€TennesseeÐ h+¸&* ÐCode€Annotated€sections€40-35-113€and€40-35-114;€and€(f)€any€statement€the€defendant€wishes€toÐ ° Ðmake€in€the€defendantððs€own€behalf€about€sentencing.€€See€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(b)€(2003);Ð œì ÐòòState€v.€Imfeldóó,€70€S.W.3d€698,€704€(Tenn.€2002).€€To€facilitate€appellate€review,€the€trial€court€isÐ ˆØ Ðrequired€to€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€for€imposing€the€specific€sentence,€including€theÐ tÄ Ðidentification€of€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€the€specific€facts€supporting€eachÐ `° Ðenhancement€factor€found,€and€the€method€by€which€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€haveÐ L œ Ðbeen€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€the€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Samuelsóó,€44€S.W.3d€489,€492Ð 8 ˆ Ð(Tenn.€2001).Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àUpon€a€challenge€to€the€sentence€imposed,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóóÐ ü L  Ðreview€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€Ð è 8  ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d)€(2003).€€However,€this€presumption€ð ðis€conditioned€upon€theÐ Ô$  Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ À  Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€our€reviewÐ ¬ü  Ðreflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€that€the€court€imposed€aÐ ˜è  Ðlawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principlesÐ „Ô  Ðset€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supportedÐ pÀ Ðby€the€record,€then€the€presumption€is€applicable,€and€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€weÐ \¬ Ðwould€have€preferred€a€different€result.€€òòSee€State€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904€(Tenn.€1998).€€We€willÐ H˜ Ðuphold€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€if€(1)€the€sentence€complies€with€the€purposes€andÐ 4„ Ðprinciples€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€and€(2)€the€trial€courtððs€findings€are€adequately€supported€byÐ  p Ðthe€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Arnettóó,€49€S.W.3d€250,€257€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€aÐ  \ Ðsentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401€(2003)Ð øH ÐSentencing€Commission€Cmts.;€òòArnettóó,€49€S.W.3d€at€257.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€our€estimation,€the€trial€courtððs€brief€remarks€in€imposing€sentence€in€this€case€doÐ ¼  Ðnot€constitute€the€type€of€affirmative€showing€required€to€invoke€ouròò€de€novoóó€review€with€aÐ ¨ø Ðpresumption€of€correctness.€€Furthermore,€the€courtððs€passing€reference€to€deterrence€does€not€satisfyÐ ”ä Ðthe€dictates€of€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.€2000),€ð ðthat€the€record€must€contain€some€proofÐ €Ð Ðof€the€need€for€deterrence€before€a€defendant,€who€is€otherwise€eligible€for€probation€or€otherÐ l¼ Ðalternative€sentence,€may€be€incarcerated.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€9.€€Accordingly,€we€review€this€matter€òòde€novoóóÐ X ¨ Ðwithout€a€presumption€of€correctness.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àA€defendant,€such€as€the€defendant€in€this€case,€who€does€not€possess€a€criminalÐ #l! Ðhistory€showing€a€clear€disregard€for€societyððs€laws€and€morals,€who€has€not€failed€past€rehabilitationÐ $X" Ðefforts,€and€who€ð ðis€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€EÐ ô$D # Ðfelony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðevidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-102(6)€(2003).€€òòSee€also€State€v.€Fieldsóó,€40Ð Ì&"% ÐS.W.3d€435,€440€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€following€considerations€provide€guidance€regarding€whatÐ ¸'#& Ðconstitutes€ð ðevidence€to€the€contraryðð€which€would€rebut€the€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing:Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °Óà ¸ à(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restrainingÐ |*Ì%) Ða€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;Ð h+¸&* Їà ¸ à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÐ ° Ðseriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€toÐ œì Ðprovide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similarÐ ˆØ Ðoffenses;€orÐ tÄ ÐÌà ¸ à(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequentlyÐ L œ Ðor€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant[.]Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓ °X<ÓÓ °J<ÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-103(1)€(2003);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€at€5.€€Additionally,€theÐ  ` Ðprinciples€of€sentencing€reflect€that€the€sentence€should€be€no€greater€than€that€deserved€for€theÐ ü L  Ðoffense€committed€and€should€be€the€least€severe€measure€necessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€forÐ è 8  Ðwhich€the€sentence€is€imposed.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-103(2),€(4)€(2003).€€The€court€shouldÐ Ô$  Ðalso€consider€the€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment€in€determining€the€appropriateÐ À  Ðsentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€ðð€40-35-103(5)€(2003).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€addition,€because€the€defendant€received€a€sentence€of€eight€years€of€less,€he€wasÐ „Ô  Ðeligible€for€probation,€and€the€trial€court€was€required€to€consider€probation€as€a€sentencing€option.€Ð pÀ ÐòòSee€idóó.€ðð€40-35-303(a),€(b)€(2003).€€ð ðThe€trial€courtððs€determination€of€whether€the€defendant€isÐ \¬ Ðentitled€to€an€alternative€sentence€and€whether€the€defendant€is€a€suitable€candidate€for€full€probationÐ H˜ Ðare€different€inquiries€with€different€burdens€of€proof.ðð€€òòState€v.€Kenneth€Jordanóó,€No.Ð 4„ ÐM2002-01010-CCA-R3-CD,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€8,€2003)€(citing€€òòStateÐ  p Ðv.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,€477€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)).€€The€burden€is€upon€the€defendant€toÐ  \ Ðshow€he€is€a€suitable€candidate€for€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-303(b)€(2003);€òòState€v.Ð øH ÐGoodeóó,€956€S.W.2d€521,€527€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòBoggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€at€477.€€To€sustain€thisÐ ä4 Ðburden,€the€defendant€must€show€that€the€sentence€imposed€was€improper€and€that€full€probationÐ Ð  Ðwould€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€defendant€and€the€public.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€966€S.W.2d€429,Ð ¼  Ð434€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€are€not€troubled€by€the€trial€courtððs€rejection€of€full€probation€for€the€defendantÐ €Ð Ðinasmuch€as€he€did€not€shoulder€his€affirmative€burden€of€demonstrating€why€such€sentence€wouldÐ l¼ Ðð ðsubserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð X ¨ ÐBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€by€State€v.Ð D!” ÐHooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€9€(Tenn.€2000).€€We€are,€nevertheless,€concerned€that€no€obviousÐ 0"€  Ðconsideration€was€given€to€the€defendantððs€statutory€presumption€of€favorable€candidacy€Ô#†X XXX  #ÔforÐ #l! Ðalternative€sentencing€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contraryÔ‡X XXX Ô.€€The€state,€in€our€opinion,€did€notÐ $X" Ðoffset€the€presumption€with€any€of€the€factual€premises€listed€in€Code€section€40-35-103(1),€suchÐ ô$D # Ðas,€the€need€to€protect€society€from€an€offender€with€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct€or€theÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âineffectiveness€of€prior€non-confinement€measures.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-103(1)(A)(C)Ð Ì&"% Ð(2003).€€Accordingly,€we€modify€the€defendantððs€sentence€to€a€term€of€split€confinement,€with€sixÐ ° Ðmonths€to€be€served€in€the€local€jail€or€workhouse€and€the€balance€to€be€served€on€probation.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àAs€for€restitution,€the€record€is€clear€that€the€defendant€agreed€to€payment€ofÐ tÄ Ðrestitution€as€part€of€his€plea€agreement€with€the€state.€€Moreover,€in€our€view,€restitution€is€entirelyÐ `° Ðappropriate€in€this€case.€€Even€so,€the€amount€of€restitution€a€defendant€is€ordered€to€pay€must€beÐ L œ Ðbased€upon€the€victimððs€pecuniary€loss€and€the€financial€condition€and€obligations€of€the€defendant.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòSee€State€v.€Bottomsóó,€87€S.W.3d€95,€108€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€No€testimony€or€evidenceÐ $ t Ðappears€of€record€establishing€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€vandalized€or€its€replacementÐ  ` Ðcost.€€The€only€evidence€was€Ayersðð€damage€calculation€of€$31,825€based€on€repairing€the€existingÐ ü L  Ðunits,€not€replacement€cost.€€Ayers€did€not€know€the€original€purchase€price€for€the€freezers€or€theirÐ è 8  Ðfair€market€value€prior€to€the€vandalism,€and€he€understood€that€the€freezers€were€ultimately€removedÐ Ô$  Ðas€salvage€in€return€for€the€cleanup€of€the€building,€instead€of€being€repaired.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àFrom€the€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€expressed€concerns€aboutÐ ˜è  Ðcalculating€the€victimððs€losses.€€Indeed,€the€court€directed€Ayers,€ð ðCheck€with€those€folks€and€seeÐ „Ô  Ðif€they€can€come€up€with€.€.€.€I€need€to€know€the€value€of€these€freezers,€where€they€came€from,€whatÐ pÀ Ðhappened€to€them.ðð€€The€court€added,€ð ðSomebody€needs€to€tell€that€and€.€.€.€Itððs€kind€of€shootingÐ \¬ Ðfrom€the€hip,€just€to€take€that€figure€and€Iððm€not€satisfied.ðð€€The€record€is€silent€whether€theÐ H˜ Ðrequested€information€was€forthcoming,€and€like€the€trial€court,€this€court€is€not€satisfied€with€theÐ 4„ Ðloss€calculation€as€it€presently€stands.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€believe€a€remand€is€requiredÐ  p Ðfor€the€trial€court€to€inquire€further€into€the€calculation€of€restitution€in€this€cause.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€this€cause€is€remanded€for€the€imposition€of€the€altered€sentence€andÐ ä4 Ðthe€recalculation€of€restitution.Ð Ð  ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ X ¨ ÐÌÔ#†X XXX zJ#ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à