ÿWPC€ á¼7“äDûÿŠc¬þÖêìÉâßã¾ ©øÇ!¸#ÃTLKöú'Û •SP€ *)’—uþU3ÎÛéí.l…ìèwLJnåÃü?o¯ÈnX/lðמٷ®ù1‚ž -ªRh¡—WýKØú(r›€FÅ¡¸<Q¼Suò¿EÍ\ß-íð‹C Z@ËÙl Ž<9q`@jíJRÄÐÛº³Uß§øÖnGYVq à#éòj[-£ Jù¯ýMšÑýKÛ°‘$ ­}èy½ù¹§ØcŽvzÜSn;|I"•ž•q9öõ'‘f¢À„À׺¥ºôD»T-E’(1 c{7Ÿ¸4DF™RÓÖ\ /UûîcÂI^#Œµïѹ¶CÒ@åi`« ß«AJi™šbóŽrK&˜üàlÑZ‚ßçhi4÷'í5òwtGIB$#À·[˜y`‚Lb{²T¾Ud¿öVz]ŽõW÷‘Kšƒ‡Ð„¢C.ïTxô4{iSçWý»VR‹„p/ 2ôüqüC1òqÉÆj뤼üDìU‡³ØûæTÎe”"†y“,=^óÞ,ÚÊQèd0˜MÊ»ær(*“C›ÐP§m*=Êhâ̾}_' ý4XA©;+áÿst`b %\U@b 0ˆ¢UN*«xK# UNn z¼ Ò6 ^  w 4 , Æ; ÆÆÇÆSNU mW#ÁnE////////////////////// 0D11buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 0ë}}}} Bhh 0¤… D3) D-\ 0K‰‰ ASÔÆ' 0¤í 0D‘ A«Õ»(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ¡Ý ƒR²ð$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Ô_ÔHagermeyerÔ_Ô€did€not€testify€as€to€any€specific€dates€on€which€he€entrusted€coins€to€the€Defendant.€Ð ° ÐHowever,€the€record€supports€the€inference€that€this€course€of€conduct€began€after€Mrs.€Ô_ÔHagermeyerÔ_Ô€died. AÝ ƒR²ð$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ‡ô§5òòô§5ÔThe€Range€I€sentencing€range€for€a€Class€B€theft€is€eight€to€twelve€years.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„45„Ð ° Ð112(a)(2).€Ô#†ô§5òòô§5n#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ˜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.wptƒœ–,â yG*@ ¨¼¥¡3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2²ð$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§5ò»»Ô d(|3?}$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?}$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼í»»»ÔÑ8€[‘XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îÜíÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼í»îîÜ#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€March€19,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡X[‘X»¼íÔÌò òÔ#†¼í»XX[‘/#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€JACOB€DYCKÔ‡X[‘X»¼íÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Monroe€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„045€€€€€€Carroll€Ross,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„00476„CCA„R3„CD€€€€€Filed€April€22,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant,€Jacob€Dyck,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€theft€of€property€valued€over€$10,000€butÐ xÈ  Ðless€than€$60,000,€a€Class€C€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„105(4).€€The€trial€court€sentencedÐ d´ Ðhim€to€six€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€appeal€the€Defendant€raises€five€issues:€Ð P  Ð1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€him€his€right€to€self„representation;€2)€whether€the€StateÐ <Œ Ðfailed€to€elect€the€offense€for€which€it€was€seeking€a€conviction;€3)€whether€a€material€variance€existsÐ (x Ðbetween€the€indictment€and€the€proof€at€trial;€4)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€hisÐ d Ðconviction;€and€5)€whether€the€Defendantððs€sentence€€is€excessive.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÐ P Ðtrial€court.€Ð ì< ÐÓ±ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼í»àX[‘•#ÔÔ‡X[‘X.¼íÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€óó€and€òòRobertÐ œì ÐW.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌSteve€Ô_ÔMcEwenÔ_Ô,€Mountain€City,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jacob€Dyck.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Ô_ÔAngeleÔ_Ô€M.€Gregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 8!ˆ  ÐJerry€N.€Ô_ÔEstesÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Ô_ÔChalÔ_Ô€Thompson,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð $"t! Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð #`" ÐÓµÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼í»XX[‘ä#ÔòòóóÔ‡X[‘X»¼íÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†¼í»XX[‘P #ÔÔ€X[‘X»¼íÔòòÔ‡X[‘XXX[‘ÔóóÌà  àJames€Ô_ÔHagermeyerÔ_Ô,€the€victim€in€this€case,€testified€that€he€and€his€wife€had€known€theÐ À&"& ÐDefendant€approximately€fourteen€years.€€The€Defendant€had€been€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ô_ÔHagermeyerÔ_ÔððsÐ ¬'ü"' Ðdentist€and€a€close,€family„like€relationship€had€developed.€€As€a€result€of€this€relationship,€Mr.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÔ_ÔHagermeyerÔ_Ô€gave€the€Defendant€a€key€to€his€house.€€Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àOn€June€3,€1998,€Mrs.€Ô_ÔHagermeyerÔ_Ô€died.€€ð ðShortly€afterðð€her€death,€Mr.€Ô_ÔHagermeyerÔ_Ô€loanedÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âthe€Defendant€his€1987€Lincoln€Ô_ÔTowncarÔ_Ô,€bearing€the€ð ðvanityðð€licence€plate€ð ðÔ_ÔBPOLLENÔ_Ô.ðð€€TheÐ H,˜',ý ÐÔ_ÔDefendant€was€supposed€to€return€this€car€to€the€victim€by€October€15,€1998.€€Mr.€HagermeyerÐ ° Ðtestified€that€this€car€was€worth€$6,000.Ð œì Ðâ âÔ#†X[‘XXX[‘Õ #ÔÌà  àThe€Hagermeyers€had€invested€in€gold€and€silver€coins€over€the€course€of€many€years.€€AfterÐ tÄ ÐMrs.€Hagermeyerððs€death,€Mr.€Hagermeyer€turned€several€sacks€of€these€coins€over€to€theÐ `° ÐDefendant.׃×Ý ƒ,#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Defendant€was€to€sell€the€coins€to€a€dealer€and€turn€the€proceeds€over€to€Mr.Ð L œ ÐHagermeyer.€€Mr.€Hagermeyer€testified€that€these€coins€were€worth€approximately€$10,000.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àMr.€Hagermeyer€testified€that€the€Defendant€never€returned€the€Lincoln€to€him,€and€neverÐ  ` Ðdelivered€any€proceeds€from€the€coins;€nor€did€the€Defendant€ever€return€the€coins€themselves.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àMr.€Hagermeyer€also€testified€that€he€had€placed€coins€costing€$21,000€under€a€false€floorÐ Ô$  Ðin€his€bathroom.€€When€he€returned€from€a€trip€out€of€town€in€August€of€1998,€he€discovered€thatÐ À  Ðthese€coins€were€missing.€€When€asked€about€this€episode,€Mr.€Hagermeyer€testified€that€theÐ ¬ü  ÐDefendant€knew€when€he€would€be€out€of€town,€that€the€Defendant€had€access€to€his€house,€and€thatÐ ˜è  Ðthe€Defendant€had€access€to€a€metal€detector.€€He€further€testified€that€he€had€not€given€theÐ „Ô  ÐDefendant€permission€to€remove€any€items€from€his€house,€and€that€he€had€never€gotten€back€anyÐ pÀ Ðof€the€items€removed€from€his€house.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àJames€Grant,€a€Tennessee€State€Trooper,€testified€that€he€stopped€the€Defendant€onÐ 4„ ÐSeptember€7,€1998,€for€driving€with€an€inoperative€headlight.€€The€Defendant€was€driving€a€Lincoln,Ð  p Ðlicense€plate€ð ðBPOLLEN.ðð€€In€the€car€was€a€sack€of€silver€coins.€€Trooper€Grant€arrested€theÐ  \ ÐDefendant€after€discovering€that€the€Defendantððs€driverððs€license€had€been€suspended.€€TheÐ øH ÐDefendant€was€allowed€to€ð ðcheckðð€the€sack€of€coins€at€the€jail€upon€his€arrival,€and€allowed€to€checkÐ ä4 Ðit€back€out€when€he€posted€bail.€€The€sack€of€coins€was€never€recovered.€€At€the€time€Trooper€GrantÐ Ð  Ðarrested€the€Defendant,€the€Lincoln€had€not€been€reported€stolen.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€his€first€issue,€the€Defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€violated€his€constitutional€rightÐ ”ä Ðto€represent€himself€at€trial.€€At€the€commencement€of€the€trial,€the€trial€court€explained€during€juryÐ €Ð Ðselection€that€the€Defendant€was€represented€by€Mr.€William€Donaldson.€€At€that€point,€theÐ l¼ ÐDefendant€stated,€ð ðI€object.€€I€do€not€have€a€lawyer.€€I€object€to€these€proceedings.€€I€do€not€consentÐ X ¨ Ðto€this.€€I€do€not€assent€to€this.€€I€do€not€acknowledge,€I€do€not€appear,€and€I€do€not€understand.ðð€€AÐ D!” Ðshort€time€later,€the€Defendant€stated€that€he€had€the€right€to€represent€himself.€€The€trial€court€thenÐ 0"€  Ðacknowledged€that€the€Defendant€had€previously€requested€to€represent€himself,€but€had€ð ðsteadfastlyÐ #l! Ðand€repeatedly€refused€to€answerðð€the€questions€necessary€to€establish€that€the€Defendant€wasÐ $X" Ðwaiving€his€right€to€legal€counsel.€€Some€further€conversation€ensued€during€which€the€DefendantÐ ô$D # Ðclaimed€that€he€was€ð ðnot€the€corporate€entity€that€you€are€trying€to€try.ðð€€Defense€counsel€then€askedÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€Defendant€if€he€would€answer€the€courtððs€questions,€and€the€Defendant€stated,€ð ðNo.ðð€Ð Ì&"% ÐAccordingly,€the€trial€court€refused€to€grant€defense€counselððs€motion€to€withdraw,€and€the€trialÐ ¸'#& Ðproceeded€with€Mr.€Donaldson€serving€as€defense€counsel.Ð ¤(ô#' Їà  àWe€acknowledge€that€an€accused€has€the€constitutional€right€to€represent€him€or€herself€atÐ ° Ðtrial.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amend€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€9;€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422€U.S.€806,€818„20Ð œì Ð(1975).€€An€accused€may€exercise€his€or€her€right€to€self„representation€upon€the€satisfaction€of€threeÐ ˆØ Ðprerequisites:Ð tÄ Ðà  à(1)€The€accused€must€timely€assert€the€right€to€self„representation;Ð `° Ðà  à(2)€the€exercise€of€the€right€must€be€clear€and€unequivocal;€andÐ L œ Ðà  à(3)€the€accused€must€knowingly€and€intelligently€waive€the€right€to€assistance€of€counsel.Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòState€v.€Herrodóó,€754€S.W.2d€627,€629„30€(Tenn.€Crim,€App.€1988).€€Here,€the€State€concedes€thatÐ $ t Ðthe€Defendant€timely€asserted€his€right€to€self„representation,€and€the€record€makes€clear€that€theÐ  ` Ðexercise€was€clear€and€unequivocal.€€Resolution€of€this€issue€depends,€then,€on€whether€theÐ ü L  ÐDefendant€knowingly€and€intelligently€waived€his€right€to€counsel.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAs€this€Court€has€previously€noted,€ð ð[w]hen€an€accused€desires€to€proceed€òòproóó€òòseóó,€the€trialÐ À  Ðjudge€must€conduct€an€intensive€inquiry€as€to€his€ability€to€represent€himself.ðð€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€987Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.2d€871,€875€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€This€inquiry€should€be€based€on€the€guidelines€containedÐ ˜è  Ðin€òò1€Bench€Book€for€United€Stated€District€Judgesóó€1.02„2€to€„5€(3d€ed.€1986).€€òòSee€id.óó€€TheseÐ „Ô  Ðguidelines€are€set€forth€in€appendices€to€both€the€òòSmithóó€case€and€òòUnited€States€v.€McDowellóó,€814Ð pÀ ÐF.2d€245,€251„52€(6th€Cir.€1987).€€Our€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€also€require€that,€Ð \¬ Ðà  àà8 ` à[b]efore€accepting€such€waiver€[of€the€right€to€counsel]€the€court€shallÐ H˜ Ðfirst€advise€the€accused€in€open€court€of€the€right€to€the€aid€of€counselÐ 4„ Ðin€every€stage€of€the€proceedings.€€The€court€shall,€at€the€same€time,Ð  p Ðdetermine€whether€there€has€been€a€competent€and€intelligent€waiverÐ  \ Ðof€such€right€by€inquiring€into€the€background,€experience€andÐ øH Ðconduct€of€the€accused€and€such€other€matters€as€the€court€may€deemÐ ä4 Ðappropriate.€€Any€waiver€accepted€shall€be€spread€upon€the€minutesÐ Ð  Ðof€the€court€and€made€a€part€of€the€record€of€the€cause.м ` x` x ÐÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€44(a).€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€record€in€this€case€demonstrates€clearly€that€the€trial€court€attempted€to€conduct€theÐ l¼ Ðappropriate€inquiry,€and€the€Defendant€refused€to€cooperate.€€Given€that€the€Defendant€deliberatelyÐ X ¨ Ðstymied€the€trial€court€in€its€attempt€to€establish€the€Defendantððs€knowing€and€intelligent€waiver,€theÐ D!” ÐDefendant€will€not€now€be€heard€to€complain€about€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€grant€his€request.€€òòCf.óóÐ 0"€  ÐòòState€v.€Carruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€516,€549€(Tenn.€2000)€(holding€that€a€defendant€ð ðmay€implicitlyÐ #l! Ðwaive€or€forfeit€the€right€to€counsel€by€utilizing€that€right€to€manipulate,€delay,€or€disrupt€trialÐ $X" Ðproceedings.ðð)€€òòóóThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€next€contends€that€his€conviction€must€be€reversed€and€this€matter€remandedÐ Ì&"% Ðfor€a€new€trial€because€the€State€introduced€evidence€of€two€separate€offenses,€but€was€not€requiredÐ ¸'#& Ðto€elect€upon€which€offense€it€was€relying€for€a€conviction.€€As€our€supreme€court€has€recentlyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðreiterated,€Ð )à$( Ðà  àà8 ` àthe€prosecution€must€elect€the€facts€upon€which€it€is€relying€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðestablish€the€charged€offense€if€evidence€is€introduced€at€trialÐ h+¸&* Ðindicating€that€the€defendant€has€committed€multiple€offenses€againstÐ ° Ðthe€victim.€€The€election€requirement€safeguards€the€defendantððs€stateÐ œì Ðconstitutional€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict€by€ensuring€that€jurorsÐ ˆØ Ðdeliberate€and€render€a€verdict€based€on€the€same€evidence.ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌòòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€53€S.W.3d€628,€630„31€(Tenn.€2001)€(citations€omitted).€€In€addition€to€protectingÐ L œ Ðan€accusedððs€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict,€the€election€requirement€also€enables€the€accused€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðprepare€for€and€make€his€or€her€defense€to€the€specific€offense€charged,€and€protects€the€accusedÐ $ t Ðfrom€double€jeopardy€by€individualization€of€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€762€S.W.2d€135,€137Ð  ` Ð(Tenn.€1988).€€While€our€supreme€court€has€recognized€that€ð ðthe€election€requirement€has€beenÐ ü L  Ðapplied€almost€exclusively€in€the€sex€crimes€context,ðð€òòJohnsonóó,€53€S.W.3d€at€631,€the€court€has€notÐ è 8  Ðlimited€application€of€the€election€requirement€to€sex€crimes.€€Obviously,€the€concerns€addressed€byÐ Ô$  Ðthe€election€requirement€are€not€limited€to€prosecutions€for€sex€offenses.€€Indeed,€this€Court€hasÐ À  Ðpreviously€recognized€the€necessity€of€an€election€in€a€case€involving€reckless€endangerment.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¬ü  ÐòòState€v.€Terry€Lee€Johnsonóó,€No.€W2000„00749„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€956,Ð ˜è  Ðat€**9„10€(Jackson,€Dec.€14,€2000).€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that,€where€a€defendant€is€chargedÐ „Ô  Ðwith€a€single€theft€offense,€but€the€State€introduces€proof€of€more€than€one€distinct€theft€offense,€theÐ pÀ ÐState€is€required€to€elect€upon€which€proved€offense€it€is€relying€for€a€conviction.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àHowever,€òòóó€separate€theft€offenses€may€be€aggregated€into€a€single€charge.€€ð ð[A]ggregationÐ 4„ Ðof€value€of€stolen€property€taken€in€separate€thefts€is€permitted€when€separate€acts€of€theft€are:€€(1)Ð  p Ðfrom€the€same€owner;€(2)€from€the€same€location;€òòandóó€(3)€are€pursuant€to€[a]€continuing€criminalÐ  \ Ðimpulse€or€a€single€sustained€larcenous€scheme.ðð€€òòState€v.€Cattoneóó,€968€S.W.2d€277,€279€(Tenn.Ð øH Ð1998)€(emphasis€in€original).€€The€issue€in€this€case,€then,€is€whether€the€State€charged€and€provedÐ ä4 Ðtwo€theft€offenses€that€were€aggregated€into€a€single€count,€or€whether€the€State€charged€a€singleÐ Ð  Ðoffense€but€proved€two€separate€offenses.€€If€the€State€engaged€in€the€former€course€of€conduct,€noÐ ¼  Ðelection€was€necessary;€if,€however,€the€State€engaged€in€the€latter€course€of€conduct,€an€election€wasÐ ¨ø Ðrequired.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€single€count€indictment€in€this€case€provides€that€the€Defendant€Ð l¼ Ðà  àà8 ` àon€or€about€the€15th€day€of€October,€1998,€in€Monroe€County,Ð X ¨ ÐTennessee,€and€before€the€finding€of€this€indictment,€did€unlawfullyÐ D!” Ðand€intentionally€or€knowingly€obtain€or€exercise€control€over€certainÐ 0"€  Ðproperty,€to„wit:€€One€(1)€1987€Lincoln€and€approximately€twenty„Ð #l! Ðfive€thousand€($25,000)€dollars€in€silver€and€gold,€over€$10,000€butÐ $X" Ðless€than€$60,000€in€value,€of€James€Hage[r]meyer€without€hisÐ ô$D # Ðeffective€consent,€with€intent€to€deprive€the€said€James€Hage[r]meyerÐ à%0!$ Ðthereof,€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€39„14„103€.€.€.€.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌThe€proof€at€trial€established€that€the€victimððs€wife€died€on€June€3,€1998.€€ð ðShortly€afterðð€this€time,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthe€victim€loaned€his€1987€Lincoln€to€the€Defendant.€€The€Defendant€was€to€return€the€car€byÐ )à$( Ðâ âOctober€15,€1998.€€At€different€times,€the€victim€also€entrusted€three€to€four€bags€of€silver€coins€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€Defendant,€totaling€approximately€$10,000€in€value.€€The€Defendant€was€to€negotiate€aÐ ° Ðtransaction€€with€a€coin€dealer€for€these€coins,€and€deliver€the€proceeds€to€the€victim.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€August€of€1998,€the€victim€went€out€of€town€for€a€few€days.€€While€he€was€gone,€someoneÐ tÄ Ðentered€his€house€and€removed€the€coins€hidden€under€the€false€floor.€€Mr.€Hagermeyer€implicatedÐ `° Ðthe€Defendant€in€the€theft€by€testifying€that€the€Defendant€knew€when€he€was€out€of€town;€had€a€keyÐ L œ Ðto€his€house;€and€had€access€to€a€metal€detector€which€would€reveal€where€gold€and€silver€coins€wereÐ 8 ˆ Ðhidden.€€Upon€discovering€the€theft,€Mr.€Hagermeyer€spoke€with€TBI€agent€Larry€Brakebill,€but€noÐ $ t Ðcharges€were€filed€at€that€time.€€Charges€were€not€filed€until€November€of€1998,€when€the€DefendantÐ  ` Ðhad€failed€to€return€the€car€or€to€deliver€to€Mr.€Hagermeyer€any€coins€or€proceeds€from€the€sale€ofÐ ü L  Ðcoins.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€October€15€date€specified€in€the€indictment€refers€to€the€theftÐ À  Ðof€the€car€and€the€coins€entrusted€to€the€Defendant,€and€that€the€August€theft€of€coins€from€theÐ ¬ü  Ðvictimððs€house€constitutes€a€separate€and€distinct€crime€not€encompassed€by€the€indictment.€€WeÐ ˜è  Ðmust€respectfully€disagree.€€The€October€15€date€does€not€refer€to€the€date€the€Defendant€actuallyÐ „Ô  Ðcommitted€any€particular€theft€of€coins;€rather€it€refers€to€the€date€by€which€the€Defendant€wasÐ pÀ Ðsupposed€to€have€returned€the€victimððs€car.€€A€theft€of€property€is€committed€when€ð ðwith€intent€toÐ \¬ Ðdeprive€the€owner€of€property,€the€[accused]€knowingly€obtains€or€exercises€control€over€the€propertyÐ H˜ Ðwithout€the€ownerððs€effective€consent.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103.€€Although€the€Defendant€hadÐ 4„ ÐMr.€Hagermeyerððs€consent€to€exercise€control€over€the€coins€which€Mr.€Hagermeyer€delivered€toÐ  p Ðhim,€that€consent€was€conditional€upon€the€Defendantððs€negotiating€the€coins€and€delivering€theÐ  \ Ðproceeds€to€Mr.€Hagermeyer.€€The€Defendant€never€acted€within€the€scope€of€Mr.€HagermeyerððsÐ øH Ðconsent.€€Therefore,€the€Defendantððs€exercise€of€control€over€the€coins€entrusted€to€him€was€òònotóó€withÐ ä4 Ðthe€ownerððs€òòeffectiveóó€consent,€and€the€theft€was€committed€upon€delivery€of€the€coins€to€theÐ Ð  ÐDefendant.€€With€respect€to€the€coins€taken€from€beneath€the€false€floor€in€Mr.€Hagermeyerððs€house,Ð ¼  Ðno€consent€was€ever€given€for€that€taking,€and€that€theft€was€therefore€complete€upon€removal€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðcoins€from€the€house.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThus,€the€thefts€of€the€coins€occurred€at€different€times€over€the€course€of€the€summer€ofÐ l¼ Ð1998.€€The€State€chose€to€aggregate€these€thefts€into€a€single€count,€as€it€had€the€right€to€do.€€All€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€thefts€of€the€coins€were€from€the€same€owner,€from€the€same€location,€and€pursuant€to€a€singleÐ D!” Ðsustained€larcenous€scheme.€€The€several€thefts€of€coins€were€encompassed€by€the€indictment,€andÐ 0"€  Ðno€election€was€therefore€required.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€next€contends€that€the€proof€of€the€theft€of€coins€from€beneath€the€false€floorÐ ô$D # Ðð ðpresents€a€material€variance€from€the€allegations€in€the€indictment,€given€the€date€and€value€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðproperty€as€alleged€in€the€indictment.ðð€€The€Defendant€points€to€proof€that€the€theft€from€beneath€theÐ Ì&"% Ðfloor€occurred€in€August€of€1998,€while€the€indictment€refers€to€an€October€15,€1998€theft,€and€thatÐ ¸'#& ÐMr.€Hagermeyer€testified€at€one€point€that€the€value€of€the€coins€taken€from€his€house€was€$90,000,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðwhile€the€indictment€alleges€coins€worth€$25,000.€€€Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àÐ  h+¸&* Ðà  àOur€supreme€court€has€held€thatÐ ° Ðà  àà8 ` àa€variance€does€not€prejudice€the€defendantððs€substantial€rights€(1)€ifÐ œì Ðthe€indictment€sufficiently€informs€the€defendant€of€the€chargesÐ ˆØ Ðagainst€him€so€that€he€may€prepare€his€defense€and€not€be€misled€orÐ tÄ Ðsurprised€at€trial,€and€(2)€if€the€variance€is€not€such€that€it€will€presentÐ `° Ða€danger€that€the€defendant€may€be€prosecuted€a€second€time€for€theÐ L œ Ðsame€offense;€all€other€variances€must€be€considered€to€be€harmlessÐ 8 ˆ Ðerror.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌòòState€v.€Mossóó,€662€S.W.2d€590,€592€(Tenn.€1984).€€As€set€forth€above,€the€indictment€in€this€caseÐ ü L  Ðaggregated€the€Defendantððs€thefts€of€Mr.€Hagermeyerððs€property.€€Although€there€was€someÐ è 8  Ðinconsistent€testimony€about€the€value€of€the€coins€taken€from€beneath€the€bathroom€floor,€we€doÐ Ô$  Ðnot€believe€that€the€valuation€of€the€coins€set€forth€in€the€indictment€would€have€misled€theÐ À  ÐDefendant€as€to€what€thefts€he€was€charged€with.€€Because€Mr.€Hagermeyer€testified€that€the€coinsÐ ¬ü  Ðhe€entrusted€to€the€Defendant€were€worth€$10,000,€the€Defendant€had€to€know€from€the€indictmentÐ ˜è  Ðthat€he€was€being€charged€with€the€theft€of€more€than€the€entrusted€coins.€€Furthermore,€because€weÐ „Ô  Ðfind€that€the€indictment€encompassed€the€Defendantððs€theft€of€more€than€the€entrusted€coins€„„€thatÐ pÀ Ðis,€the€indictment€encompasses€both€that€theft€and€the€theft€from€the€victimððs€house€in€August€„„€weÐ \¬ Ðfind€that€the€indictment€protects€the€Defendant€from€a€second€prosecution€for€the€August€theft.€Ð H˜ ÐAccordingly,€any€alleged€variance€neither€misled€the€Defendant€in€his€preparation€for€trial,€norÐ 4„ Ðpresented€a€danger€that€the€Defendant€could€be€prosecuted€a€second€time€for€the€same€offense.€€AnyÐ  p Ðalleged€variance€is€therefore€harmless€error,€and€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€his€next€issue€the€Defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€in€support€of€hisÐ ä4 Ðconviction.€€Ô‡X[‘XXX[‘ÔTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(e)€prescribes€that€ð ð[f]indings€of€guilt€inÐ Ð  Ðcriminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÐ ¼  Ðsupport€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€Evidence€is€sufficientÐ ¨ø Ðif,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€ofÐ ”ä Ðfact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòJacksonÐ €Ð Ðv.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€24€S.W.3d€274,€278€(Tenn.€2000).€€In€addition,Ð l¼ Ðbecause€conviction€by€a€trier€of€fact€destroys€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€imposes€aÐ X ¨ Ðpresumption€of€guilt,€a€convicted€criminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€evidenceÐ D!” Ðwas€insufficient.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€372€S.W.2d€173,€176€(Tenn.€1963);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Buggsóó,Ð 0"€  Ð995€S.W.2d€102,€105„06€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992);òòóó€òòState€v.Ð #l! ÐTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).òòóóÐ $X" ÐÌà  àIn€its€review€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court€must€afford€the€State€ð ðthe€strongest€legitimateÐ à%0!$ Ðview€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawnÐ Ì&"% Ðtherefrom.ðð€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914;òòóó€òòsee€alsoóó€òòSmithóó,€24€S.W.3d€at€279.€€The€court€may€not€ð ðre„Ð ¸'#& Ðweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidenceðð€in€the€record€below.€€òòEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€at€191;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBuggsóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð995€S.W.2d€at€105.òòóó€€Likewise,€should€the€reviewing€court€find€particular€conflicts€in€the€trialÐ )à$( Ðtestimony,€the€court€must€resolve€them€in€favor€of€the€jury€verdict€or€trial€court€judgment.€€òòSeeóó€Ð |*Ì%) ÐòòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.€€All€questions€involving€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€andÐ h+¸&* Ðvalue€to€be€given€the€evidence,€and€all€factual€issues€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€the€appellateÐ ° Ðcourts.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Morrisóó,€24€S.W.3d€788,€795€(Tenn.€2000);€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,Ð œì Ð623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ð ˆØ ÐÔ#†X[‘XXX[‘¾Z#Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÌà  àAs€set€forth€above,€a€person€commits€the€offense€of€theft€ð ðif,€with€intent€to€deprive€the€ownerÐ `° Ðof€property,€the€person€knowingly€obtains€or€exercises€control€over€the€property€without€the€ownerððsÐ L œ Ðeffective€consent.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103.€€The€Defendant€in€this€case€was€charged€with,Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€convicted€of,€theft€of€property€valued€at€$10,000€or€more€but€less€than€$60,000.€€òòSee€id.óó€ðð€39„14„Ð $ t Ð105(4).€€Thus,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€of€a€Class€C€felony.€€òòId.óó€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àMr.€Hagermeyer€testified€that€he€loaned€a€car€to€the€Defendant€valued€at€$6,000,€which€theÐ è 8  ÐDefendant€never€returned.€€Mr.€Hagermeyer€also€testified€that€he€entrusted€$10,000€worth€of€coinsÐ Ô$  Ðto€the€Defendant€for€the€Defendant€to€negotiate€with€a€coin€dealer,€and€the€Defendant€never€deliveredÐ À  Ðthe€proceeds€of€the€transaction€to€Mr.€Hagermeyer,€nor€did€the€Defendant€return€the€coins€to€Mr.Ð ¬ü  ÐHagermeyer.€€This€evidence€alone€is€sufficient€to€support€the€Defendantððs€conviction.€€€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€his€final€issue,€the€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€him€to€theÐ pÀ Ðmaximum€term€of€six€years,€and€in€denying€his€request€for€probation.€€Ô‡X[‘XXX[‘ÔWhen€an€accused€challengesÐ \¬ Ðthe€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóóÐ H˜ Ðreview€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€Ð 4„ ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÐ  p Ðshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€factsÐ  \ Ðand€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ð øH ÐÌà  àWhen€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,Ð Ð  Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€the€presentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€ofÐ ¼  Ðsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðcriminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÐ ”ä Ðmade€by€the€defendant€regarding€sentencing;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÐ €Ð Ðrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210Ô#†X[‘XXX[‘æj#ÔÔ‡X[‘XXX[‘Ô;€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€875Ð l¼ ÐS.W.2d€298,€302€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€844€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð X ¨ ÐApp.€1988).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€that€theÐ #l! Ðcourt€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€theÐ $X" Ðfactors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€areÐ ô$D # Ðadequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€haveÐ à%0!$ Ðpreferred€a€different€result.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904,€926„27€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.Ð Ì&"% ÐFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender.€€The€Range€I€sentence€for€aÐ )à$( ÐClass€C€felony€is€three€to€six€years.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3).€€The€presumptiveÐ |*Ì%) Ðsentence€for€a€Class€C€felony€is€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range,€increased€as€appropriate€forÐ h+¸&* Ðenhancement€factors,€and€decreased€as€appropriate€for€mitigating€factors.€€òòSee€id.óó€ðð€40„35„210(c),Ð ° Ð(e).€€In€sentencing€the€Defendant€to€the€maximum€term€of€six€years,€the€trial€court€relied€on€threeÐ œì Ðenhancement€factors:€€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable€because€of€age€or€physical€or€mentalÐ ˆØ Ðdisability;€the€amount€of€property€taken€from€the€victim€was€particularly€great;€and€the€DefendantÐ tÄ Ðabused€a€position€of€private€trust.€€òòSee€id.óó€ðð€40„35„114(4),€(6),€(15).€€The€trial€court€found€that€noÐ `° Ðmitigating€factors€applied.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€contests€application€of€each€of€the€enhancement€factors.€€He€contends€thatÐ $ t Ðthere€is€not€sufficient€proof€on€the€record€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€victim€wasÐ  ` Ðparticularly€vulnerable€due€to€age€or€physical€or€mental€disability.€€We€respectfully€disagree.€€DannyÐ ü L  ÐIsbill,€the€probation€officer€who€prepared€the€Defendantððs€presentence€report,€testified€that€Mr.Ð è 8  ÐHagermeyer€was€in€his€eighties.€€Additionally,€Mr.€Hagermeyer€testified€at€trial€that€he€signed€aÐ Ô$  Ðdocument€dictated€to€him€by€the€Defendant€that€he€ð ðknowed€[sic]€damn€well€.€.€.€€wasnððt€right.ðð€€Mr.Ð À  ÐHagermeyer€explained€his€acquiescence€to€this€writing€as€follows:€€Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àà8 ` àI€did€it€because€it€just€seemed€like€I€had€a€spell€and€I€wanted€to€pleaseÐ ˜è  Ðhim.€€.€.€.€I€donððt€know€whether,€whether€he€had€me€hypnotized€orÐ „Ô  Ðwhat.€€.€.€.€The€only€thing€is,€I€donððt€know€what€power€he€had.€€HeððsÐ pÀ Ða€con€man,€I€know€now,€but€at€that€time€I€believed€every€damn€thingÐ \¬ Ðhe€said.ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€our€supreme€court€provided€a€framework€for€application€of€theÐ  p Ðenhancement€factor€for€particular€vulnerability:Ð  \ Ðà  àà8 ` à[T]he€vulnerability€enhancement€relates€more€to€the€natural€physicalÐ øH Ðand€mental€limitations€of€the€victim€than€merely€to€the€victimððs€age.€Ð ä4 Ð.€.€.€The€factor€can€be€used€.€.€.€if€the€circumstances€show€that€theÐ Ð  Ðvictim,€because€of€his€age€or€physical€or€mental€condition,€was€in€fact€Ð ¼  Ðððparticularly€vulnerable,ðð€i.e.,€òòincapable€of€resistingóó,€summoning€help,Ð ¨ø Ðor€testifying€against€the€perpetrator.Дä` x` x ÐÌ864€S.W.2d€31,€35€(Tenn.€1993)€(emphasis€added).€€We€conclude€that€the€proof€in€this€case€isÐ l¼ Ðsufficient,€although€perhaps€marginally€so,€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Mr.€HagermeyerÐ X ¨ Ðwas€particularly€vulnerable.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€97€(Tenn.€1997)€(ð ðThe€evidenceÐ D!” Ðneed€not€be€extensive€and€additional€weight€may€be€given€to€the€age€of€the€victim€in€those€casesÐ 0"€  Ðwhere€a€victim€is€extremely€young€or€old.ðð)€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€inÐ #l! Ðapplying€this€enhancement€factor.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€factor€(6),€that€the€amount€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðproperty€taken€from€the€victim€was€particularly€great.€€The€Defendant€asserts€that,€because€the€felonyÐ Ì&"% Ðclass€of€theft€offenses€is€based€upon€the€amount€of€property€taken,€use€of€this€factor€would€be€aÐ ¸'#& Ðprohibited€double€enhancement.€€As€a€general€rule,€the€Defendant€is€correct.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Grissomóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð956€S.W.2d€514,€518€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€However,€this€Court€has€also€recognized€that,€whereÐ )à$( Ðthe€amount€stolen€is€over€four€times€the€amount€necessary€to€qualify€for€the€conviction€class€of€theft,Ð |*Ì%) Ðenhancement€on€this€basis€is€proper.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brenda€Kay€Keeferóó,€No.€03C01„9709„CC„00413,Ð h+¸&* Ð1999€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€124,€at€*7€(Knoxville,€Feb.€10,€1999).€€Here,€the€Defendant€wasÐ ° Ðconvicted€of€Class€C€theft,€requiring€a€theft€of€at€least€$10,000€but€less€than€$60,000.€€The€proof€atÐ œì Ðtrial€established€a€theft€of€òòat€leastóó€$37,000:€€a€$6,000€car,€$10,000€of€coins€entrusted€to€theÐ ˆØ ÐDefendant,€and€coins€taken€from€the€house€costing€$21,000.€€However,€there€was€also€proof€that€theÐ tÄ Ðcoins€taken€from€the€house€had€a€present€value€of€$90,000:€€establishing€a€theft€totaling€$106,000,Ð `° Ðsufficient€to€support€a€Class€B€theft€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„105(5).׃×Ý ƒ,#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð L œ ÐAccordingly,€we€hold€that€application€of€this€factor€was€proper€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€factor€(15),€that€the€Defendant€abusedÐ  ` Ða€position€of€private€trust.€€The€Defendant€contends€that€his€sentence€cannot€be€enhanced€on€thisÐ ü L  Ðbasis€because€proof€of€his€position€of€trust€was€also€used€to€prove€his€commission€of€the€crime.€€TheÐ è 8  ÐDefendant€cites€no€authority€for€this€proposition,€and€it€is€therefore€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.Ð Ô$  ÐApp.€R.€10(b).€€Moreover,€it€is€without€merit.€€The€Defendantððs€abuse€of€his€position€of€private€trustÐ À  Ðis€not€an€element€of€the€offense€of€theft,€and€application€of€this€factor€was€proper.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€further€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€as€mitigating€factorsÐ „Ô  Ðthat€his€criminal€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury,€and€that€he€does€notÐ pÀ Ðhave€a€prior€criminal€record.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1),€(13).€€We€agree€that€the€proofÐ \¬ Ðsupports€application€of€these€mitigating€factors.€€We€conclude,€however,€that€they€are€entitled€toÐ H˜ Ðnegligible€weight€when€compared€to€the€applicable€enhancement€factors.€€We€affirm€the€length€of€Ð 4„ Ðthe€sentence€set€by€the€trial€court.Ð  p ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€him€probation.Ô#†X[‘XXX[‘ep#ÔÔ‡X[‘XXX[‘Ô€€AÐ øH Ðdefendant€who€ð ðis€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felonyÐ ä4 Ðis€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidenceÐ Ð  Ðto€the€contrary.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6);€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€3€S.W.3d€456,€462€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð ¼  ÐGuidance€regarding€what€constitutes€ð ðevidence€to€the€contraryðð€which€would€rebut€the€presumptionÐ ¨ø Ðof€alternative€sentencing€can€be€found€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103(1),€which€setsÐ ”ä Ðforth€the€following€considerations:Ð €Ð Ðà8  à(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€hasÐ l¼ Ða€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;ÐX ¨Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€orÐ D!” Ðconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likelyÐ 0"€  Ðto€commit€similar€offenses;€or€Ð#l!Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€beenÐ $X" Ðapplied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant[.]Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€5€(Tenn.€2000);€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€170€(Tenn.Ð Ì&"% Ð1991).òòóó€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àAdditionally,€the€principles€of€sentencing€reflect€that€the€sentence€should€be€no€greater€thanÐ ° Ðthat€deserved€for€the€offense€committed€and€should€be€the€least€severe€measure€necessary€to€achieveÐ œì Ðthe€purposes€for€which€the€sentence€is€imposed.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2),€(4).€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðcourt€should€also€consider€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment€of€the€defendant€inÐ tÄ Ðdetermining€the€appropriate€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„103(5).Ô#†X[‘XXX[‘o#ÔÔ‡X[‘XXX[‘ԀР`° ÐÌà  àA€defendant€is€eligible€for€probation€if€the€actual€sentence€imposed€upon€the€defendant€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðeight€years€or€less€and€the€offense€for€which€the€defendant€is€sentenced€is€not€specifically€excludedÐ $ t Ðby€statute.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a).€€Probation€is€to€be€automatically€considered€as€aÐ  ` Ðsentence€alternative€for€eligible€defendants;€however,€the€burden€of€proving€suitability€for€probationÐ ü L  Ðrests€with€the€defendant.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„303(b).Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€probation,€the€court€must€consider€the€nature€andÐ À  Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense;€the€defendantððs€criminal€record;€his€or€her€background€and€socialÐ ¬ü  Ðhistory;€his€or€her€present€condition,€including€physical€and€mental€condition;€the€deterrent€effectÐ ˜è  Ðon€the€defendant;€and€the€likelihood€that€probation€is€in€the€best€interests€of€both€the€public€and€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòStiller€v.€Stateóó,€516€S.W.2d€617,€620€(Tenn.€1974);€òòState€v.€Kendrickóó,€10€S.W.3dÐ pÀ Ð650,€656€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).òòóó€€If€the€court€determines€that€a€period€of€probation€is€appropriate,Ð \¬ Ðit€shall€sentence€the€defendant€to€a€specific€sentence€but€then€suspend€that€sentence€and€place€theÐ H˜ Ðdefendant€on€supervised€or€unsupervised€probation€either€immediately€or€after€the€service€of€a€periodÐ 4„ Ðof€confinement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„303(c),€„306(a).€€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€denied€probation€on€the€basis€that€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoidÐ øH Ðdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€anÐ ä4 Ðeffective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses.€€òòSee€id.óó€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B).€Ð Ð  ÐAdditionally,€the€trial€court€noted€the€Defendantððs€repeated€refusal€to€work€with€ð ðany€attorneyðð€theÐ ¼  Ðtrial€court€had€provided;€his€refusal€to€provide€information€to€probation€officers€relative€to€hisÐ ¨ø Ðpresentence€report;€and€the€Defendantððs€behavior€in€court€which€the€trial€judge€characterized€asÐ ”ä Ðaimed€at€ð ðsubvert[ing]€the€process.ðð€€€€The€trial€court€specifically€found€that€the€Defendant€hadÐ €Ð Ðð ðshown€[him]self€not€to€be€amenable€to€any€alternative€program€that€we€have.ðð€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions.€€The€Defendant€did€not€carry€his€burdenÐ D!” Ðof€proving€that€he€should€receive€probation,€and€the€trial€court€did€not€err€or€abuse€his€discretion€inÐ 0"€  Ðdenying€the€Defendantððs€request.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€accordingly€affirmed.Ð ô$D # ÐÔ#†X[‘XXX[‘ä—#ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð )à$( Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE