ÿWPC† uvM nðÈ ³**<_…9ñÔ,GÏ5^Ó3S-G‚uÎ!a ̬6®ÜTb!ŽiˆFT¬Ü4¹—Þ!q ›8/ª¸ZF €³w½¢ur¬ÚœåÇ»pì4Ývuw$Ó[×áÞŽž-6N'W™06gU ÷fTn0lŒÙÚû½ßò¡‰³*Øw%\œÏ-•O;B¬ÿû!à#[V7°‹FMŸÁº4Ö™”É '¿™?¼5` Dõw;è(¢7—8\exËáƒ#Z%$ä‘P ŠíSŸ&‚ñžóÄšgòn<ú(x7猸Q+ôOÊF=ÐOѼmç…¹m‡×Ñ>ô–]*Àt{üJ« ÿQ –UŸÉRè]¸ÑZÇ}–,ð©°˜×GÍlžº0$Šc›®V˜Ûµ5w`Ç¡b¦! ÿsÂK­*¸SyÑå8ËVnp49ûñ\rÛ§‡4C ~À°wHe"h‡KhB¿¸“•Qµº6Ž7t€xŸKü–}è4sy)Ç[èÔ2 ¥Ò¸Dp-DX*¤ ‡Ö%K–ãíóÎ=Oaš]ûO(Üò_ï­{¤=¹NX@yÄ08tå‘p·xp§ Ž^î»Æš£pkÆ2«%'lí"æ#ãÄb %\U@b 0Ÿ¢UNA^ w›4Ÿ z³Ò- ÿ  m #Á' Æè Æ® Æt Æ:îNî 0DððE444444444444444444444444b666666666666666666666666666666666666 0>>>> B@@ 0»] D3 D-K 0Kxx ASÃÆ 0»Ü 0D— A«Û»(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman (wØ$¡¡Ô  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€..ÑÑ8€µ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ýý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular$¤) ÖJ~'¼—  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 äÝ ƒRYf$ÝÔ  ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô{„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOn€appeal,€the€Defendant€does€not€challenge€the€trial€judge's€denial€of€judicial€diversion.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(“G2Yf$¤¤Ý ƒØ!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€`»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô{„ò»»Ô d(“3t$££Ý ƒØ!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€`»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(“3t$¢¢Ý ƒØ!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€`»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒØ!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€`»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼`»»»ÔÑ8€ÌXXdæ»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î)ƒî»¼`ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼`»îî)ƒ#ԈРР ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€2000€SessionÐ ð@ ÐÔ‡XÌX»¼`ÔÌò òÔ#†¼`»XXÌ#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€ROGER€M.€Ô_ÔDEMASSÔ_ÔÔ‡XÌX»¼`Ôó óÐ ä4 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ Ø ( Ðà@@øøìàNo.€I„1298„399€€€€€€Donald€P.€Harris,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<o` AßÐ pÀ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„0344„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€August€31,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ eµ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<0` AßÐ 1  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant€pleaded€guilty€in€the€Williamson€County€Circuit€Court€to€aggravated€burglary,Ð &v  Ðwithout€a€sentence€recommendation.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€he€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€IÐ  \ Ðstandard€offender€to€four€years€incarceration,€suspended€after€service€of€one€year€at€seventy„fiveÐ òB Ðpercent€in€the€Williamson€County€Jail.€€He€was€also€placed€on€six€years€supervised€probation.€€InÐ Ø( Ðthis€appeal€as€of€right,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€suspend€his€entireÐ ¾ Ðsentence,€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€the€Defendant€to€serve€an€amount€of€time€greater€thanÐ ¤ô Ðthe€percentage€allowed€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„314,€and€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ ŠÚ Ðby€ordering€the€Defendant€to€pay€restitution€to€the€victim.€€We€find€no€error.€€Accordingly,€we€affirmÐ pÀ Ðthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð V¦ ÐÓÌÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ "r ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼`»àX̧#ÔÔ‡XÌX.¼`ÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.,óó€and€òòRobertÐ î> ÐW.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ô$ ÐÌGene€Ô_ÔHoneaÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Roger€M.€Ô_ÔDemassÔ_Ô.Ð  ð ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€David€H.€Ô_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð l!¼! ÐRon€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Lee€Driver,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€theÐ R"¢" Ðappellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8#ˆ# ÐÓG ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼`»XXÌv #ÔÔ‡XÌX»¼`ÔÐ %T % ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼`»XXÌÍ #ÔÔ‡XÌX»¼`ÔÓ  Óà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€statement€that€the€Defendant€gave€to€the€police€when€he€wasÐ Ð& "' Ðarrested€for€this€offense€was€introduced€as€a€exhibit.€€That€statement€set€forth€the€facts€giving€riseÐ ¶'#( Ðto€this€conviction€as€follows:Ð œ(ì#) ÐÌà8  àà ` àOct.€19,€I€Roger€DeMass,€called€in€to€work€sick,€my€back€was€very€sore,€andÐ h*¸%+ ÐI€was€not€able€to€lift€big€things,€and€the€job€requires€this.€€When€everyone€was€goneÐ N+ž&, Ðat€my€house,€I€went€for€a€walk,€feeling€aroused.€€I€walked€past€a€ladies€[sic]€houseÐ 4,„'- Ðand€thought€she€wasn't€there,€I€turned€the€door€nob€[sic]€of€the€side€door€and€it€wasÐ -j(.ý Ðopen.€€I€entered€the€house€with€the€thought€of€getting€a€pare€[sic]€of€panties€andÐ ° Ðleaving,€but€as€I€walked€and€turned€on€a€light,€I€saw€that€the€lady€was€there.€€I€gotÐ –æ Ðscared€and€ran€out€of€the€house,€and€went€back€to€my€house.Ð|ÌÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àTonight,€Oct.€24th,€I€went€for€a€walk,€and€was€walking€behind€some€housesÐ b² Ðlooking€for€lights€on€to€try€to€look€in€to€windows.€€At€that€point€two€officers€spottedÐ H˜ Ðme€and€started€asked€[sic]€what€I€was€doing.€€After€some€delay,€the€Holy€SpiritÐ . ~ Ðconvicted€[sic]€me€to€tell€the€truth,€though€I€was€deeply€ashamed€to€tell.€€I€was€ableÐ  d Ðto€get€it€out.Ðú JÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àSide€Note:€€I€praise€God€those€two€officers€saw€me,€this€òòisóó€the€begin,€[sic]Ð à 0 Ðfinally,€of€a€òòperfectóó€relationship€with€God,€instead€of€a€half€hearted€relationship!ÐÆ  Ð Ð  ÐÌ(emphasis€in€original).€€The€Defendant€had€signed€the€statement,€and€he€admitted€that€he€made€it.Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€Defendant€testified€that€he€entered€the€victim's€apartment€toÐ ^®  Ðsteal€a€pair€of€panties.€€He€said€that€he€did€this€because€of€"sexual€arousal."€€He€also€said€that€he€hadÐ D”  Ð"peeked"€through€the€victim's€window€to€observe€her€four€or€five€times€in€the€three€months€prior€toÐ *z  Ðhis€entry€into€her€apartment.€€He€had€looked€in€windows€of€various€women's€residencesÐ ` Ðapproximately€112€times€"for€enjoyment."€€He€did€this€so€he€could€watch€the€women€when€they€wereÐ öF Ðpartially€undressed.Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€that€he€lacked€seven€credits€to€complete€his€bachelor's€degree€inÐ ¨ø Ð"youth€ministry."€€He€said€that€he€attended€church€on€a€regular€basis€while€growing€up€and€that€heÐ ŽÞ Ðintended€to€pursue€a€vocation€in€ministry.€€At€the€time€of€the€hearing,€both€the€Defendant€and€hisÐ tÄ Ðwife€were€working€at€a€Sonic€restaurant.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€he€is€very€sorry€that€he€hurtÐ Zª Ðthe€victim€and€that€he€has€prayed€for€her.€€He€said€he€has€sought€counseling€with€the€pastor€of€hisÐ @ Ðchurch,€and€he€has€joined€an€ð ðaccountability€groupðð€made€up€of€other€men€from€the€church.€€He€gotÐ &v Ðmarried€three€or€four€months€prior€to€the€hearing,€and€his€wife€supports€him.€€He€was€dating€his€wifeÐ  \ Ðwhen€the€offense€occurred.Ð òB ÐÌà  àThe€victim,€Violet€Conley,€testified€that€she€was€in€her€apartment€sleeping€when€she€wasÐ ¾ Ðawakened€by€her€closet€door€being€opened.€€She€sat€up€in€bed€and€saw€the€Defendant,€but€was€tooÐ ¤ô Ð"stunned"€to€say€anything.€€She€then€grabbed€the€telephone€and€called€911.€€The€Defendant€fled€herÐ Š Ú Ðapartment.Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àMs.€Conley€testified€about€the€impact€this€offense€has€made€on€her€life.€€She€said€that€she€noÐ <#Œ" Ðlonger€feels€safe,€and€she€is€always€looking€over€her€shoulder€to€see€if€someone€is€"stalking"€her.€Ð "$r# ÐBecause€she€no€longer€felt€safe€in€her€apartment,€Ms.€Conley€said€she€was€"forced"€to€move.€€SheÐ %X $ Ðlost€three€days€of€pay€because€she€had€to€look€for€another€place€to€live,€she€incurred€movingÐ î%>!% Ðexpenses,€and€she€lost€her€security€deposit€because€she€had€to€break€her€lease.€€In€her€victim€impactÐ Ô&$"& Ðstatement,€which€was€made€part€of€the€presentence€report,€Ms.€Conley€indicated€that€she€incurredÐ º' #' Ðmoving€expenses€of€$479.21,€a€loss€of€$100€for€the€security€deposit,€and€a€loss€of€three€days€workÐ  (ð#( Ðat€$250€per€day,€for€a€total€of€$750.00€€This€aggregates€a€total€of€$1,329.21,€which€is€the€amount€ofÐ †)Ö$) Ðrestitution€ordered€by€the€trial€court.Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âÐ R+¢&+ Ðà  àBoth€the€Defendant's€wife€and€his€pastor€testified€on€his€behalf€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€Ð ° Ðâ âThey€both€testified€that€the€Defendant€has€sought€help€through€the€church€and€that€he€is€workingÐ –æ Ðthrough€his€"problem."€€When€asked€what€the€"problem"€was,€the€pastor€replied€that€it€wasÐ |Ì Ð"pornography."Ð b² ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€sought€judicial€diversion.€€In€sentencing€the€Defendant,€the€trial€judgeÐ . ~ Ðspecifically€stated€that€he€had€considered€the€presentence€report,€the€other€exhibits€entered,€theÐ  d Ðtestimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€and€the€principles€and€purposes€ofÐ ú J Ðthe€Sentencing€Act.€€Although€the€Defendant€pleaded€guilty€to€aggravated€burglary,€the€trial€judgeÐ à 0 Ðfound€that€the€offense€was€"in€the€nature€of€sex€offenses."€€Noting€the€provisions€set€forth€by€theÐ Æ   Ðlegislature€regarding€the€seriousness€of€sex€crimes,€the€judge€determined€that€this€was€not€a€properÐ ¬ ü  Ðcase€for€judicial€diversion.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€applied€the€following€two€enhancement€factors:€€(1)€that€theÐ ’â  ÐDefendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€behavior€(numerous€incidents€of€peeping€at€partially„Ð xÈ  Ðdressed€women€through€windows€of€their€homes)€in€addition€to€that€necessary€to€establish€theÐ ^®  Ðappropriate€range;€and€(2)€that€the€offense€was€committed€to€gratify€the€Defendant's€desire€forÐ D”  Ðpleasure€or€excitement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(7).€€He€further€applied€one€mitigatingÐ *z  Ðfactor:€€that€the€Defendant's€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ððÐ ` Ð40„35„113(1).€€Ð öF ÐÌà  àThe€judge€recognized€that€the€Defendant€was€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€forÐ Â Ðalternative€sentencing,€but€he€found€that€some€confinement€was€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÐ ¨ø Ðseriousness€of€the€offense.€€He€stated€that€confinement€in€this€case€would€serve€as€deterrence€toÐ ŽÞ Ðothers.€€He€then€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€a€term€of€four€years€and€ordered€split€confinement,€withÐ tÄ Ðthe€Defendant€to€serve€one€year€at€seventy„five€percent€in€the€Williamson€County€Jail€prior€to€beingÐ Zª Ðplaced€on€supervised€probation.€€As€a€condition€of€probation,€the€Defendant€was€ordered€to€payÐ @ Ðrestitution€to€the€victim€for€her€losses.€€The€Defendant€now€challenges€the€sentence€imposed€by€theÐ &v Ðtrial€court,€arguing€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€him€full€probation.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àÔ‡XÌXXXÌÔWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€CourtÐ Ø( Ðhas€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÐ ¾ Ðmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÐ ¤ô Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ Š Ú Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àWhen€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,Ð <#Œ" Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€the€presentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€ofÐ "$r# Ðsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€theÐ %X $ Ðcriminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÐ î%>!% Ðmade€by€the€defendant€regarding€sentencing;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÐ Ô&$"& Ðrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€844€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€Tenn.Ð º' #' ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210.Ð  (ð#( ÐÐ †)Ö$) Ðà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€that€theÐ ° Ðcourt€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€theÐ –æ Ðfactors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€areÐ |Ì Ðadequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€haveÐ b² Ðpreferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ô#†XÌXXX̨+#ÔÔ#†¼`»XXÌ+ #ÔÔ‡XÌX»¼`Ô€Ô#†¼`»XXÌé3#ÔÔ€XÌX»¼`ÔÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àA€defendant€who€"is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,Ð  d Ðor€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absenceÐ ú J Ðof€evidence€to€the€contrary."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€Because€the€Defendant€wasÐ à 0 Ðconvicted€of€a€Class€C€felony,€he€was€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternativeÐ Æ   Ðsentencing.€€The€Defendant€does€not€dispute€that€he€was€afforded€this€presumption€when€granted€aÐ ¬ ü  Ðsentence€of€split€confinement,€but€he€argues€that€he€should€have€been€granted€full€probation€instead.Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àProbation€is€to€be€automatically€considered€as€a€sentence€alternative€for€eligible€defendants;Ð ^®  Ðhowever,€"'the€defendant€is€not€automatically€entitled€to€probation€as€a€matter€of€law.'"€€òòState€v.Ð D”  ÐHartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€(quoting€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303Ð *z  ÐSentencing€Commission€Comments);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b).€€The€burden€ofÐ ` Ðproving€suitability€for€probation€rests€with€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b).€€Ð öF ÐÌà  àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€probation,€the€judge€must€consider€the€nature€andÐ Â Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendant's€criminal€record,€his€background€and€social€history,€hisÐ ¨ø Ðpresent€condition,€including€his€physical€and€mental€condition,€the€deterrent€effect€on€other€criminalÐ ŽÞ Ðactivity,€and€the€likelihood€that€probation€is€in€the€bests€interests€of€both€the€public€and€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòStiller€v.€Stateóó,€516€S.W.2d€617,€620„21€(Tenn.€1974);€òòState€v.€Michaelóó,€629€S.W.2dÐ Zª Ð13,€15€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBonestelÔ_Ôóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€169€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Denial€ofÐ @ Ðprobation€may€be€based€entirely€on€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€when€they€are€of€such€a€natureÐ &v Ðas€to€outweigh€all€other€factors€favoring€probation.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.Ð  \ ÐCrim.€App.€1995).€€Ð òB ÐÌà  àHere,€the€trial€judge€denied€full€probation€based€on€his€finding€that€a€period€of€confinementÐ ¾ Ðwas€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€to€act€as€a€deterrent.€€WeÐ ¤ô Ðagree€with€the€Defendant€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€general€deterrence€as€a€factor€inÐ Š Ú Ðdenying€probation€in€this€case.€€Because€deterrence€is€a€consideration€in€òòeveryóó€sentencingÐ p!À  Ðdetermination,€we€have€repeatedly€held€that€before€a€trial€court€may€deny€probation€on€the€generalÐ V"¦! Ðground€of€deterrence,€there€must€be€some€evidence€in€the€record€that€confinement€will€have€aÐ <#Œ" Ðdeterrent€effect€within€the€particular€jurisdiction;€the€finding€of€deterrence€cannot€be€Ô_ÔconclusoryÔ_Ô.€Ð "$r# ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€940€S.W.2d€558,€560€(Tenn.€1997);€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€455;€òòState€v.Ð %X $ ÐDowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€However,€we€do€believe€that€the€nature€andÐ î%>!% Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€justify€a€period€of€confinement€in€this€case.€€The€Defendant€observedÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€victim€in€her€home€four€or€five€times€during€the€Ô_Ôthree„monthÔ_Ô€period€prior€to€the€offense.€€He€alsoÐ º' #' Ðtestified€that€he€had€"peeked"€in€the€windows€of€women€about€112€times€for€enjoyment.€€HisÐ  (ð#( Ð"peeking"€culminated€in€his€entering€the€victim's€apartment€in€order€to€take€a€pair€of€panties€becauseÐ †)Ö$) Ðof€his€"sexual€arousal."€€Even€after€encountering€the€victim€in€her€apartment,€the€DefendantÐ l*¼%* Ðcontinued€"peeking"€in€windows.€€He€was€"peeking"€in€windows€when€he€was€apprehended€by€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðpolice.€€While€the€Defendant€admitted€that€he€had€a€"problem,"€he€did€not€seek€counseling€until€afterÐ 8,ˆ', Ðbeing€arrested.€€Requiring€him€to€serve€some€jail€time€is€justified€in€order€to€help€make€him€realizeÐ ° Ðthat€his€continuing€"sexual"€conduct€is€not€acceptable.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€trial€court's€denialÐ –æ Ðof€full€probation.Ð |Ì ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€next€asserts€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€ordering€him€to€serve€one€year€ofÐ H˜ Ðconfinement€in€the€local€jail€with€a€seventy„five€percent€release€eligibility.€€He€relies€on€TennesseeÐ . ~ ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€40„35„314(b)(1),€which€provides,€"When€imposing€the€sentence€to€the€local€jailÐ  d Ðor€workhouse,€the€defendant€is€eligible€for€release€classification€status€as€provided€in€this€chapter."€Ð ú J ÐHe€then€argues€that€because€he€is€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€he€should€be€eligible€for€release€afterÐ à 0 Ðserving€thirty€percent€of€the€ð ðone„yearðð€sentence.€€Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àWe€believe€that€the€Defendant€has€misinterpreted€the€statutory€provisions.€€The€releaseÐ ’â  Ðeligibility€classifications€in€the€Code€determine€when€an€inmate€is€eligible€for€parole.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð xÈ  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501(a)(1).€€The€Code€provides:€€"Release€eligibility€for€each€defendant€sentencedÐ ^®  Ðas€a€Range€I€standard€offender€shall€occur€after€service€of€thirty€percent€(30%)€of€the€actual€sentenceÐ D”  Ðimposed€less€sentence€credits€earned€and€retained€by€the€defendant."€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„501(c).€€The€actualÐ *z  Ðsentence€imposed€upon€the€Defendant€was€four€years,€not€one€year.€€If€the€Defendant€had€beenÐ ` Ðordered€to€serve€his€entire€sentence€in€incarceration,€he€would€have€been€eligible€for€parole€in€€1.2Ð öF Ðyears,€or€14.4€months.Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€Defendant€was€ordered€to€serve€his€four€year€sentence€on€probation€followingÐ ¨ø Ðpartial€service€of€the€sentence€in€confinement.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„306(a)€provides:€Ð ŽÞ Ð"A€defendant€receiving€probation€may€be€required€to€serve€a€portion€of€the€sentence€in€continuousÐ tÄ Ðconfinement€for€up€to€one€(1)€year€in€the€local€jail€or€workhouse,€with€probation€for€a€period€of€timeÐ Zª Ðup€to€and€including€the€statutory€maximum€time€for€the€class€of€the€conviction€offense."€€InÐ @ Ðaccordance€with€this€provision,€the€trial€judge€ordered€the€Defendant€to€serve€one€year€of€his€four„Ð &v Ðyear€sentence€in€confinement.€€He€further€ordered€that€the€Defendant€would€be€eligible€for€releaseÐ  \ Ðafter€serving€seventy„five€percent€of€that€year,€or€nine€months.€€Thus,€the€Defendant€was€given€aÐ òB Ðlawful€sentence.Ð Ø( ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€him€to€pay€restitution€inÐ ¤ô Ðthe€amount€of€$1,329.21€because€of€failure€to€comply€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„Ð Š Ú Ð304(b),€which€provides:€€"Whenever€the€court€believes€that€restitution€may€be€proper€or€the€victimÐ p!À  Ðof€the€offense€or€the€district€attorney€general€requests,€the€court€shall€order€the€presentence€serviceÐ V"¦! Ðofficer€to€include€in€the€presentence€report€documentation€regarding€the€nature€and€amount€of€theÐ <#Œ" Ðvictim's€pecuniary€loss."€€Although€this€provision€contains€mandatory€language,€we€have€heldÐ "$r# Ðpreviously€that€"any€technical€lack€of€compliance"€with€the€statute€is€harmless€if€the€pecuniary€lossÐ %X $ Ðis€proven.€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€814€S.W.2d€381,€384€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,Ð î%>!% Ð917€S.W.2d€251,€256€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€We€have€previously€upheld€the€amount€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðrestitution€ordered€when€the€victim€was€able€to€testify€as€to€the€amount€of€pecuniary€loss.€€òòSeeóóÐ º' #' ÐòòLewisóó,€917€S.W.2d€at€456;€òòMooreóó,€814€S.W.2d€at€383„84;€òòState€v.€Ralph€Dewayne€Mooreóó,€No.Ð  (ð#( ÐE199„00804„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€204547,€at€*1„2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Feb.€23,€2000);Ð †)Ö$) ÐòòState€v.€Gabriel€Blackmanóó,€No.€02C01„9704„CC„00135,€1998€WL€79874,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð l*¼%* ÐJackson,€Feb.€26,€1998)€(remanding€for€hearing€to€determine€amount€of€restitution,€to€be€establishedÐ R+¢&+ Ðby€appropriate€documentation€or€testimony).€€This€Court€reviews€the€amount€of€restitution€awardedÐ 8,ˆ', Ðand€its€manner€of€computation€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€made€by€the€trialÐ ° Ðcourt€is€correct.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€883,€884€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).Ð –æ ÐÌà  àHere,€the€presentence€report€indicated€that€Ms.€Conley€lost€three€days€of€work€at€$250.00€perÐ b² Ðday€for€a€total€of€$750.00,€that€she€lost€her€security€deposit€of€$100.00€when€she€was€forced€to€breakÐ H˜ Ðher€lease,€and€that€she€incurred€moving€expenses€of€$479.21.€€The€only€documentation€in€theÐ . ~ Ðpresentence€report€was€a€receipt€for€moving€expenses€reflecting€payment€of€$479.21.€€At€theÐ  d Ðsentencing€hearing,€Ms.€Conley€testified€that€her€loss€was€approximately€$1,500.00,€but€she€did€notÐ ú J Ðdetail€the€amounts.€€She€did€testify€that€she€lost€three€days€of€work,€that€she€lost€her€security€deposit,Ð à 0 Ðand€that€she€incurred€moving€expenses.€€The€Defendant€attempted€to€challenge€her€testimonyÐ Æ   Ðregarding€whether€the€expenses€were€necessary,€but€he€did€not€challenge€the€amount€of€loss.€€WeÐ ¬ ü  Ðconclude€that€Ms.€Conley's€testimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€combined€with€the€more€specificÐ ’â  Ðlist€of€pecuniary€loss€included€in€the€presentence€report,€was€sufficient€to€establish€the€amount€of€herÐ xÈ  Ðpecuniary€loss.€€Moreover,€the€Defendant€failed€to€object€to€the€lack€of€technical€compliance€withÐ ^®  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„304(b)€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Ô‡XÌXXXÌÔFailure€to€make€aÐ D”  Ðcontemporaneous€objection€waives€consideration€by€this€court€of€the€issue€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð *z  ÐApp.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)òòóó.€€Accordingly,€weÐ ` Ðconclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€ordered€restitution.Ð öF ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ô#†XÌXXXÌï]#Ô€€Ð  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Zª Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE