ÿWPCI …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U *Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÃv~àvÓ^ D31 0@d AO¤Æó 0D¹ D/ý B,˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- @ADBCEDE,eFDGDHÓ€RÔ¡¨ 3|xT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌDecember€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€UJXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òœÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌSEPTEMBER€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9610„CC„00429Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àMAURY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JAMES€L.€WEATHERFORD,€ÌAARON€ECKARD,à àà à)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(ARSON)Ìó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òSHARA€A.€FLACY€Ô€ XÔòòà àà àÔ€ ŠÔóóà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òJOHN€R.€WINGOó óà àà à€à àà àò òLISA€A.€NAYLORó óÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ128€North€Second€Streetà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌP.O.€Box€1208€à àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€ÌPulaski,€TN38478à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òT.€MICHAEL€BOTTOMSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJESSE€DURHAMó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à10€Public€SquareÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1619Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àColumbia,€TN€38402„1619ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEò ò€ÌÓ  Óó óÔ€ °Ôò òòòœ›OPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant,€Aaron€Eckard,€appeals€as€of€right.€€Pursuant€to€aÏnegotiated€plea€agreement,€the€Defendant€pled€guilty€to€arson€in€the€CircuitÏCourt€of€Maury€County€and€was€sentenced€to€six€years€in€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€In€his€sole€issue€on€appeal,€the€Defendant€arguesÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€alternative€sentencing€and€ordering€him€toÏserve€the€six€years€in€confinement.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àTestimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing€revealed€that€on€February€6,€1994,Ïat€approximately€2:00€a.m.,€Jana€Duncan€was€awakened€in€her€home€by€theÏbarking€of€the€family€dog.€€After€opening€her€bedroom€door,€she€discovered€thatÏthe€house€was€on€fire.€€Ms.€Duncan,€her€daughter€Cayce,€and€three€otherÏguests€managed€to€escape€by€jumping€out€of€the€windows.€€Ms.€DuncanÏjumped€just€before€the€roof€fell€in€on€the€house.€€One€family€pet€died€in€the€fire.ÌÌà àCayce€Duncan€had€been€in€a€dating€relationship€with€the€18„year„oldÏDefendant€prior€to€the€night€of€the€fire,€but€they€had€recently€broken„up.€€CayceÏstated€that€the€relationship€did€not€end€on€good€terms.€€On€the€night€of€theÏoffense,€the€Defendant€entered€the€Duncanððs€attached€garage€and€set€fire€to€aÏnote€he€found€in€Cayceððs€car.€€The€Defendant€left€the€premises€without€seeingÏthe€house€engulfed€in€flames.€€The€fire€that€the€Defendant€started€rapidly€spreadÏand€eventually€burned€down€the€Duncanððs€home,€destroying€everything€thatÏthey€owned.€Ìà àÌà àAs€a€result€of€the€fire,€Jana€Duncan€had€to€walk€with€the€use€of€crutchesÏand€a€cane€for€several€weeks.€€Both€Jana€and€Cayce€required€treatment€forÏð ðpost„trauma€syndrome.ðð€€Ms.€Duncan€was€still€being€treated€at€the€time€of€theÏhearing€and€indicated€that€she€continues€to€take€€antidepressants.€€Cayce€stillÏsuffers€from€nightmares€and€insomnia.€€After€the€fire,€they€took€turns€sleepingÏbecause€of€the€fear€that€the€Defendant€ð ðmight€have€found€out€where€we€were,Ïand€be€outside,€again.ððÌÌà àOne€month€after€the€incident,€the€Defendant€was€questioned€by€policeÏand€admitted€responsibility€for€the€fire.€Prior€to€being€indicted,€he€went€toÏPennsylvania€to€visit€friends€and€family,€where€he€was€arrested€for€burglary€andÏspent€two€(2)€years€in€the€Pennsylvania€Department€of€Correction.€€AfterÍcompleting€the€sentence€in€Pennsylvania,€the€Defendant€was€extradited€toÏTennessee€on€the€charge€of€aggravated€arson.€€He€pled€guilty€one€month€laterÏto€the€lesser€offense€of€arson.€€Ìà àÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€Court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€€This€presumption€of€correctness,Ïhowever,€only€applies€if€it€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€theÏrecord€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevantÏfacts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€ÏThe€Defendant€has€the€burden€of€showing€that€his€sentence€is€improper.€€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€including€the€manner€inÏwhich€the€sentence€is€to€be€served,€this€Court€must€consider€the€evidenceÏadduced€at€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€presentence€report,€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing,€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencingÏalternatives,€the€nature€of€the€offense,€any€mitigating€or€statutory€enhancementÏfactors,€and€the€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210;€òòState€v.€Parkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€945,€955„56€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1996).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€made€findings€of€fact€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€notÏmodify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.ÏFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Defendant€argues€thatÏthe€sentence€should€not€be€afforded€the€presumption€of€correctness€becauseÏthe€trial€court€disregarded€the€factors€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€40„35„103(1)(A)„(C).€€While€the€trial€judge€did€not€specifically€mention€thatÏstatute€in€its€ruling,€it€is€clear€from€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€factsÏpertaining€to€that€statute,€and€therefore,€review€by€this€court€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.Ìà àÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„102€outlines€when€alternativeÏsentencing€is€appropriate.€€A€defendant€ð ðwho€is€an€especially€mitigated€orÏstandard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€aÏfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€ofÏevidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€ XÔððÔ€ ŠÔ€40„35„102(6).€€Our€sentencingÏlaw€also€provides€that€ð ðconvicted€felons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,Ïpossessing€criminal€histories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€moralsÏof€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation€shall€be€given€firstÍpriority€regarding€sentencing€involving€incarceration.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5).€€Thus,€a€defendant€sentenced€to€eight€years€or€less€who€is€not€anÏoffender€for€whom€incarceration€is€a€priority€is€presumed€eligible€for€alternativeÏsentencing€unless€sufficient€evidence€rebuts€the€presumption.€€However,€the€actÏdoes€not€provide€that€all€offenders€who€meet€the€criteria€are€entitled€to€such€relief;Ïrather,€it€requires€that€sentencing€issues€be€determined€by€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€presented€in€each€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,Ï922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€ÌÌà àAdditionally,€the€principles€of€sentencing€reflect€that€the€sentence€shouldÏbe€no€greater€than€that€deserved€for€the€offense€committed€and€should€be€theÏleast€severe€measure€necessary€to€achieve€€the€purposes€for€which€theÏsentence€is€imposed.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2)€and€(4).€€The€courtÏshould€also€consider€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment€of€the€defendantÏin€determining€the€sentence€alternative.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).€€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àThe€Defendant€in€the€instant€case€is€statutorily€entitled€to€the€presumptionÏas€he€was€sentenced€to€six€(6)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€for€aÏClass€C€€felony.€€However,€this€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing€isÏsufficiently€overcome€here,€as€discussed€below,€€by€ð ðevidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€40„35„102(6).€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€DefendantÍshould€not€be€afforded€a€presumption€favoring€the€imposition€of€an€alternativeÏsentence.ÌÌà àWhen€imposing€a€sentence€of€total€confinement,€our€Criminal€SentencingÏReform€Act€mandates€the€trial€court€to€base€its€decision€on€the€considerationsÏset€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103.€€TheseÏconsiderations€which€militate€against€alternative€sentencing€include:€the€need€toÏprotect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€having€a€long€history€of€criminalÏconduct,€whether€confinement€is€particularly€appropriate€to€effectively€deterÏothers€likely€to€commit€a€similar€offense,€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense,€and€the€need€to€order€confinement€in€cases€in€whichÏless€restrictive€measures€have€often€or€recently€been€unsuccessfully€applied€toÏthe€defendant.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A)€„€(C).€€€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€did€notÏmeet€the€appropriate€criteria€to€be€eligible€for€alternative€sentencing.€€TheÏDefendant€has€a€felony€adult€criminal€history€in€the€State€of€Pennsylvania€forÏcrimes€he€committed€while€the€present€offense€was€under€investigation.€€HeÏserved€two€(2)€years€in€Pennsylvania€for€the€offenses€of€attempted€burglary,Ïcriminal€conspiracy€to€commit€burglary,€criminal€mischief,€and€fleeing€or€attemptingÏto€elude€police.€The€Defendant€also€has€a€juvenile€criminal€record€consisting€ofÍthreatening€bodily€harm€and€vandalism.€€The€Defendant€was€expelled€from€highÏschool€for€disruptive€behavior€and€sent€to€alternative€school€where€he€was€alsoÏlater€dismissed€for€disciplinary€problems.€€The€Defendant€has€indicated€that€heÏwas€a€heavy€drug€user,€with€daily€use€of€cocaine€and€marijuana.€€Although€heÏstated€that€he€does€not€currently€use€drugs,€he€admits€that€he€continues€to€drinkÏalcohol,€despite€the€fact€that€he€is€underage.€€Because€of€these€facts,€we€findÏthat€the€Defendant€has€a€lengthy€criminal€history,€especially€for€a€person€ofÏsuch€a€young€age,€and€a€total€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€also€concluded€that€ð ð[n]ot€complying€with€rules€andÏregulations€is€not€new€to€[Defendant].ðð€€The€Defendant€had€been€placed€onÏprobation€by€€the€Juvenile€Court€of€Maury€County€prior€to€the€present€offense.€€ItÏis€not€clear€when€this€probationary€term€began€or€ended,€but€it€is€obvious€that€itÏdid€not€deter€the€Defendant€from€committing€the€present€offense€or€the€offensesÏin€Pennsylvania.€€This€Court€has€held€that€where€a€defendantððs€historyÏindicates€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society€and€a€failure€ofÏpast€efforts€to€rehabilitate,€the€trial€judge€does€not€abuse€his€discretion€inÏdenying€probation.€€òòState€v.€Chrismanóó,€885€S.W.2d€834,€840€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994).€€ÌÌà àStatutory€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€are€also€applicable€as€theyÏare€relevant€to€the€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103Ïconsiderations.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(5);€€òòState€v.€Zeoliaóó,€928ÏS.W.2d€457,€461€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€trial€court€in€the€instant€caseÏfound€the€following€four€enhancement€factors€to€be€applicable:€(1)€the€offenseÏinvolved€more€than€one€(1)€victim;€(2)€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€or€theÏamount€of€damage€to€property€sustained€by€or€taken€from€the€victim€wasÏparticularly€great;€(3)€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crimeÏwhen€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high;€and€(4)€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€aÏvictim€was€great.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3),€(6),€(10)€and€(16).€Ì€Ìà àð ðVictim,ðð€as€used€in€enhancement€factor€(3),€is€limited€in€scope€to€a€personÏor€entity€that€is€injured,€killed,€had€property€stolen,€or€had€property€destroyed€byÏthe€perpetrator€of€the€crime.€€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€384€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1994).€€Obviously,€the€victim€of€this€crime,€as€evidenced€by€the€indictment,Ïis€Jana€Duncan,€as€it€was€her€house€that€the€Defendant€burned€to€the€ground.€ÏHowever,€it€is€logical€to€infer€that€her€daughter,€Cayce,€is€also€a€victim,€as€all€ofÏher€personal€property€was€destroyed€by€the€fire€as€well.€€The€presentenceÏreport€also€indicates€that€the€vehicles€of€Ms.€Duncanððs€boyfriend€and€CayceððsÏfriend€€were€damaged€as€well.€€Clearly,€there€was€more€than€one€(1)€victim€inÏthis€case,€thus,€making€factor€(3)€applicable.ÌÌà àThe€amount€of€property€damage,€as€well€as€the€personal€injuries€sufferedÏby€the€victims€in€this€case€was€particularly€great.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114Ï(6).€€The€Defendantððs€conduct€in€this€case€resulted€in€property€damages€to€Ms.ÏDuncan€amounting€to€a€quarter€of€a€million€dollars.€€Furthermore,€evidence€thatÏJana€and€Cayce€required€counseling€as€a€result€of€Defendantððs€actionsÏsupports€the€application€of€this€enhancement€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,Ï900€S.W.2d€36,€54€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Testimony€revealed€that€CayceÏreceived€professional€treatment€for€ð ðpost„trauma€syndromeðð€for€one€(1)€year€afterÏthe€fire,€and€that€Jana€was€still€being€treated€with€antidepressants€at€the€time€ofÏthe€hearing.€€€As€Cayce€Duncan€stated,€ð ð[i]tððs€now€a€struggle,€financially€andÏmentally,€to€get€through€it€.€.€.€.€Because€it€was€the€worse€time€we€have€everÏhad,€and€itððs€something€we€still€suffer€from€every€day.€€I€mean,€we€haveÏflashbacks.€€Nightmares.ðð€€We€find€this€enhancement€factor€to€apply.ÌÌà àEnhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16),€pertaining€to€risk€to€life€and€potentialÏfor€bodily€injury,€may€be€applied€in€situations€where€persons€other€than€theÏvictim€are€in€the€area€and€are€subject€to€injury.€€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€909€S.W.2d€46,Ï50€€€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€Defendant€set€the€fireÏwhile€Jana€Duncan€and€four€other€people€were€asleep€in€her€home.€€€Clearly,Ïhe€had€no€hesitation€about€placing€the€lives€of€four€(4)€innocent€people,€otherÍthan€the€victim,€in€great€danger.€€The€trial€judge€stated€that€he€ð ðprobably€wouldÏnot€have€accepted€the€plea€to€arson,ðð€if€he€had€been€aware€of€the€factsÏsurrounding€this€offense.€€He€further€stated€that€this€case€ð ðcould€be€five€murderÏcases,ðð€instead€of€the€negotiated€plea€of€one€count€of€arson.€€Furthermore,€thisÏCourt€has€specifically€found€factor€(10)€applicable€in€arson€cases€because€ofÏthe€danger€to€firefighters,€law€enforcement,€and€other€people€at€the€scene.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Blairóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9406„CR„00191,€Wilson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Nashville,€opinion€filed€June€3,€1994)€(no€Rule€11€application€filed).€€€€€ÌÌà àSome€of€the€above„mentioned€enhancement€factors€would€not€beÏapplicable€to€aggravated€arson,€of€which€the€Defendant€was€originally€charged,Ïbecause€they€are€elements€of€that€offense.€€However,€we€find€that€the€four€(4)Ïenhancement€factors€are€not€elements€of€the€offense€of€arson,€and€therefore,Ïwere€correctly€applied€by€the€trial€court€in€this€case.Ìà à€Ìà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€his€time€spent€in€prison€in€PennsylvaniaÏserved€as€a€ð ðwake„up€callðð€to€him,€and€therefore€incarceration€is€now,€two€yearsÏafter€the€offense,€unwarranted.€€However,€it€must€be€noted€again€that€theÏDefendant€burned€a€house€down,€admitted€responsibility€for€the€act,€then€wentÏto€Pennsylvania€where€he€committed€and€was€convicted€of€burglary€and€otherÏoffenses.€€While€serving€time€in€Pennsylvania,€he€did€obtain€his€GED€andÍreceived€some€treatment€for€his€drug€addictions.€€The€Defendant€is€nowÏemployed,€but€has€only€been€so€for€a€short€period€of€time.€€The€trial€courtÏobviously€did€not€place€great€weight€on€these€factors€and€found€that€theÏcircumstances€of€the€offense€and€the€circumstances€of€this€Defendant€called€forÏconfinement€in€the€Department€of€Correction.ÌÌà àBased€upon€the€evidence€presented€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€theÏpresentence€report,€the€principles€of€sentencing€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ìðð€40„35„102,€„103,€„104,€„114,€the€arguments€made€by€counsel,€the€nature€ofÏthe€offense,€and€the€Defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation,€we€find€that€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€err€in€denying€the€Defendant€alternative€sentencing.€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓ  Óœ›ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJ.€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€Judge