ÿWPCÊ ŸHMšdÀ(DŸ/AÚ¼¾R¼Åx~‚PLÃEÍÕ}±Q†,ûEŸ/FÜg:)Á$2ÎàîCÊ7êŠy±\XäÁ^|ÜÇ~žœE¶P%û²¯­>‰·XØyÿ×P¡¾At7•…´ƒxe,úÂm!вÃêZEÅG¨ÚÓ›”Í…èO€{1cG`q7ÂÈáÇ5,j{*A‹ò)qÚ’/,$%üŽW ÿoŬYQA¬Mñ þ]'âd~JüåìÜ·[L>güQ¯¶´®—w³%xÛ ³æEèœ6wò¯µ5¶gb|ïo±@ fd¿‚ÝÌ0£˜A@Ôöð1ð Æß¿»é×HÍøÃÛà€&70 hbð¤X"} Þ/µ÷yÞ2Ï-t°(1»VÚr=Žõ†yO v4z°ú\€•u›Œúê%å÷#S¾!>;üDäÅf˜Ï½€ŸLîí½js¬qR„fÉ0A_È =èEsCôd¦´/6®ýQ ì†ç2$•Ì(Z5ú£«uU YD­5­N¤d]Ì™èƒ`›ÉÀs´[2pã¥åŸb±‘c˜eþ`‹ÚGËrÚzmòŠ:Ö'®† }=btG­á r-.8©ëYb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ N™ Æ› Æa Æ'Æí³N»»»E½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½b¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 0ëÇÇÇÇ B²² 0¤Ï D3s D-¦ 0KÓÓ ASÆq 0¤7 0DÛ A«˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»ª~1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularóbï.˜Cê:i¢×+00 ˜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‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - ù-(|G2K$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€O¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôçÙò»»Ô d(|3‡ˆ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€O¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡ˆ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€O¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€O¥»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼O¥»»»ÔÑ8€UXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îCdO¥ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼O¥»îîCd #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€August€18,€2004Ð üL ÐÔ‡XUX»¼O¥ÔÌò òÔ#†¼O¥»XXU#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JIMMY€RAY€DOCKERYòòóóÔ‡XUX»¼O¥Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€S45,847€€€€€€Phyllis€H.€Miller,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2004„00696„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€30,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Jimmy€Ray€Dockery,€appeals€the€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Courtððs€decision€to€denyÐ xÈ  Ðprobation€on€his€two„year€sentence€for€attempt€to€fraudulently€obtain€a€controlled€substance.€€BasedÐ d´ Ðon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment.Ð P  ÐÓ¥ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ (x ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼O¥»àXU#ÔÔ‡XUX.¼O¥ÔJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.,€óóJ.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€andÐ P ÐòòAlan€E.€Glenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ì< ÐÌJohn€D.€Parker,€Jr.,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Jimmy€Ray€Dockery.Ð Ä ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Kathy€D.€Asligner,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€H.Ð œì ÐGreeley€Wells,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Barry€P.€Staubus€and€Carey€Taylor,€AssistantÐ ˆØ ÐDistrict€Attorneys€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð tÄ ÐÓYÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼O¥»XXUˆ#ÔÔ‡XUX»¼O¥ÔÐ L œ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼O¥»XXU= #ÔÔ€XUX»¼O¥ÔÓ  Óà0  àà0` (#(#àThe€defendant€pleaded€guilty€to€an€attempt€to€fraudulently€obtain€a€controlled€sub„Ð$"t!` (#` (# Ðstance,€a€Class€D€felony.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„402(a)(3),€(b)(1)€(Supp.€2003).€€Based€uponÐ #`" Ðthe€allegations€set€forth€in€the€indictment,€the€offense€emanated€from€the€defendantððs€attempt€toÐ ü#L# Ðobtain€Lortab€via€the€use€of€a€bogus€prescription.€€The€defendant€agreed€to€a€$2,000€fine€and€a€two„Ð è$8 $ Ðyear€sentence.€€The€defendant€and€the€state€agreed€to€submit€the€determination€of€the€manner€ofÐ Ô%$!% Ðservice€of€the€sentence€to€the€trial€court.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€theÐ À&"& Ðsentence€to€be€served€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trialÐ ¬'ü"' Ðcourt€erred€in€failing€to€grant€probation.€€We€disagree€and€affirm€the€judgment.Ð ˜(è#( Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌà  àà ` àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€thisÐ p*À%* Ðcourt€to€conduct€a€òòde€novo€óóreview€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€byÐ \+¬&+ Ðthe€trial€court€are€correct.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d)€(2003).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðcon„Ð H,˜', ÐÔ_ÔditionedÔ_Ô€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÐ 4-„(-ý Ðprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð ° Ð1991).€€ð ðThe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appellant.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€theÐ œì Ðevent€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€the€required€consideration€by€the€trial€court,€review€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðsentence€is€purely€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€òòId.€óó€If€appellate€review,€however,€reflects€that€the€trial€court€properlyÐ tÄ Ðconsidered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€thisÐ `° Ðcourt€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð L œ ÐFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€mechanics€of€arriving€at€an€appropriate€sentence€are€spelled€out€in€the€CriminalÐ  ` ÐSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€In€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€accepted€the€range€classificationÐ ü L  Ðand€length€of€sentence€negotiated€by€the€parties,€and€the€court€merely€determined€the€manner€ofÐ è 8  Ðservice€of€the€two„year€sentence.€€In€making€this€determination,€the€court€is€required€to€consider€(1)Ð Ô$  Ðthe€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)Ð À  Ðthe€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€nature€andÐ ¬ü  Ðcharacteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved,€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€partiesÐ ˜è  Ðon€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€(6)€any€statements€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefendantððs€behalf€about€sentencing,€and€(7)€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ð pÀ ÐAnn.€ðððð€òòóó40„35„210(a),€(b);€„35„103(5)€(2003).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€is€a€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€D€felony.€€As€such,€he€€isÐ 4„ Ðpresumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidenceÐ  p Ðto€the€contrary.€€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€ðð€40-35-102(6)€(2003).€€However,€this€presumption€does€not€entitle€allÐ  \ Ðoffenders€to€an€alternative€sentence;€rather,€it€requires€that€sentencing€issues€be€determined€by€theÐ øH Ðfacts€and€circumstances€presented€in€each€case.€€òòSee€State€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.Ð ä4 ÐCrim.€App.€1987).€€The€presumption€of€favorable€candidacy€for€alternative€sentencing€may€beÐ Ð  Ðrebutted,€for€instance,€by€a€showing€that€confinement€may€be€necessary€to€ð ðprotect€society€byÐ ¼  Ðrestraining€a€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conductðð€or€that€ð ðmeasures€less€restrictiveÐ ¨ø Ðthan€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.ðð€€òòSeeÐ ”ä ÐóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-103(1)(A),€(C)€(2003).à  àÐ €Ð ÐÌà  à€à ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€claims€that€he€should€have€been€granted€fullÐ X ¨ Ðprobation.€€To€be€sure,€he€was€eligible€for€probation.€€òòSee€idóó.€ðð€40-35-306(2)€(2003).€€However,€theÐ D!” Ðdetermination€of€entitlement€to€full€probation€necessarily€requires€a€separate€inquiry€from€that€ofÐ 0"€  Ðdetermining€whether€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€less€beneficent€alternative€sentence.€€òòSee€State€v.Ð #l! ÐBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€by€State€v.Ð $X" ÐHooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.€2000).€€A€defendant€is€required€to€establish€his€ð ðsuitability€for€fullÐ ô$D # Ðprobation€as€distinguished€from€his€favorable€candidacy€for€alternative€sentencing€in€general.ððòò€€StateÐ à%0!$ Ðv.€Moungeróó,€7€S.W.3d€70,€78€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€€Ann.€ðð€40-35-303(b)Ð Ì&"% Ð(2003);€òòBinghamóó,òò€óó910€S.W.2d€at€455-56.€€A€defendant€seeking€full€probation€bears€the€burden€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðshowing€that€probation€will€ð ðsubserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€defendant.ðð€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1990),€òòoverruled€on€otherÐ )à$( Ðgrounds€by€State€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.€2000).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àòòóóà ` àIn€the€present€case,€we€are€hampered€in€conducting€our€prescribed€òòde€novoóó€review€ofÐ ° Ðthe€sentencing€determination€because€the€defendant€failed€to€include€in€the€appellate€record€theÐ œì Ðtranscript€of€the€plea€submission€hearing.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.€Linda€Gail€Ô_ÔPhilpotÔ_Ôóó,€No.€M2000„01999„Ð ˆØ ÐCCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€2€n.2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€2,€2001);€òòState€v.€Gibsonóó,€973Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€231,€244€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€737€S.W.2d€556,€558€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð `° Ð1987).€€This€transcript€would€have€been€instructive€because€during€the€plea€colloquy€the€court€Ð L œ Ðreceives€a€statement€of€the€facts€supporting€the€proposed€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€11(f).€Ð 8 ˆ ÐA€statement€of€facts€rendered€pursuant€to€Rule€11(f)€would€be€helpful€in€understanding€the€natureÐ $ t Ðand€circumstances€of€the€offense,€and€as€noted€above,€information€about€the€nature€andÐ  ` Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€is€typically€essential€in€adjudicating€a€manner„of„service€sentencingÐ ü L  Ðissue.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„210(b)(4);€òòóó„35„103(1)(B)€(2003).€€Thus,€in€the€absence€of€aÐ è 8  Ðfull€and€fair€record€revealing€the€bases€for€the€appeal,€we€must€presume€the€correctness€of€the€trialÐ Ô$  Ðcourtððs€determination.€€òòState€v.€Ivyóó,€868€S.W.2d€724,€728€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€rule€is€aptÐ À  Ðhere,€where€no€testimony€was€presented€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€state€relied€upon€aÐ ¬ü  Ðpresentence€report,€but€the€trial€judge€apparently€also€relied€upon€personal,€historical€experience€withÐ ˜è  Ðthe€case.€€We€surmise€that€some€of€that€experience€was€gained€during€the€plea€submission€hearing,Ð „Ô  Ðthe€transcript€of€which€we€do€not€have.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àThat€said,€we€observe€that€the€trial€court€duly€referred€to,€and€relied€upon,€theÐ H˜ Ðsentencing€principles€and€guidelines.€€As€such,€the€defendantððs€appeal€is€also€hampered€by€theÐ 4„ Ðstatutory€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€sentencing€determination.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð  p Ð401(d)€(2003).€€The€denial€of€probation€was,€in€part,€based€upon€the€defendantððs€prior€criminalÐ  \ Ðrecord€and€a€previous€revocation€of€his€probation€on€a€felony€conviction.€€The€defendant€receivedÐ øH Ð1997€convictions€of€possession€of€a€firearm€by€an€intoxicated€person,€public€intoxication,€threeÐ ä4 Ðcounts€of€theft,€and€five€counts€of€attempt€to€commit€theft.€€Significantly,€the€defendant€was€alsoÐ Ð  Ðconvicted€in€1997€of€an€attempt€to€fraudulently€obtain€a€controlled€substance,€the€same€type€ofÐ ¼  Ðoffense€that€is€the€basis€of€the€sentence€now€under€review.€€In€that€1997€conviction,€the€defendantÐ ¨ø Ðreceived€a€probated€two„year€sentence.€€The€resulting€five„year€probation€was€revoked€on€NovemberÐ ”ä Ð11,€2002,€based€upon€the€2001€filing€of€drug€charges€and€failure€to€notify€the€probation€officer€ofÐ €Ð Ðthe€defendantððs€change€of€address.Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àAlthough€the€defendant€enjoyed€the€presumption€of€favorable€candidacy€forÐ D!” Ðalternative€sentencing,€the€record€reveals€two€solid€bases€for€overcoming€the€presumption:€(1)€thatÐ 0"€  Ðconfinement€is€necessary€to€restrain€a€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct€and€(2)Ð #l! Ðthat€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€theÐ $X" Ðdefendant.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A),€(B)€(2003).€€Thus,€based€on€the€record€that€isÐ ô$D # Ðbefore€us,€we€fail€to€see€any€basis€that€overcomes€the€statutory€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdenial€of€an€alternative€sentence.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE