ÿWPCî' eÛbý¦.TÈŽ~ÔÁv&`ƒM‹|û7‚¡ÈƒÊWOWùÔtË WFüêñ1-Ä)5ØÝV¢ã$M‡ŠŠŽ¡Æç™k‡HÄÄ‹“½+.)ï£zpwXC¿:06ùìœÏG‰…a‚?dD BZH¥ª€\P&à˜xÈg´g¸O‰d«8¬š]¾ú¢°hfÁð"yÆiCø—Œ•”W®Á â^-¼âä5bЦÂÍA‰+±á¥q¹3¡Qa6IöЍD\ħ»InpÔùé'îÉžÉ2mk\6gC˜SÀeºF¯·Ø×ø×—J§°qããý©Y9x:çLƒÄjY«¸Ùœ ¨ÙÏKÝLEÂ8v¶øD= ó$¬Tç:¦t¢Y%\A^#paKƃY~ÝÌÌ‹3§¼=m{Ñà^Á¿ªÌa[´ÄŸ:,ÄÌ7mã·ä€õþ€åžfìlƒ¿•4„(ò à¡Âþ6)~c‘šï9$ZL‘!Ò,÷!ÿF+Èõ¬7ÇÔ¾àæ“äa9„¾t4¢–¡¹§¿ÀD•~DO®M_Èb¨È†‰´ÃTÇrhpûI±@m4Q€Š§†vàZ¡Ÿ•^2ݲƒðLÎghmÞ!õñS¡Ç™=¶ˆbU-N\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ Ð #ÁØ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë 0D±NõUN÷ 1EEÒ 0cÔ 17§Ä,km—ÀÄaÆÕ' U@ü! 1u<" 72±"±"±"±"±"±"±"±"±"±"±"±"bã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã"ã" 0ëë"ë"ë"ë" BÖ#Ö# 0¤ó# D3—$ D-Ê$ 0K÷$÷$ ASB%Æ•% 0¤[& 0Dÿ& A«C'(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ópq+ ÖJ~'„#§Ìw§3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ÆéCEMU]emu}AutoList2(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A) Ý ƒRÇ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô„ìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDuring€questioning€by€Trooper€Carter,€the€Appellant€stated€that€the€accident€took€place€during€daylight€hours,Ð ° Ðsometime€between€5:00€and€5:30€p.m.€and€that€it€was€not€yet€raining€or€ð ðhad€just€begun€to€rainðð€at€the€time€the€accidentÐ tÄ Ðoccurred. "Ý ƒRÇ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô„ìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Appellantððs€version€to€Trooper€Carter€was€slightly€different.€€He€told€Carter€that€he€was€driving€too€fastÐ ° Ðand€swerved€to€miss€some€deer. cÝ ƒRÇ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô„ìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€evidence€in€the€record€is€somewhat€contradictory€with€respect€to€whether€the€Appellantððs€prior€criminalÐ ° Ðhistory€was€considered€as€an€enhancement€factor€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€During€the€sentencingÐ tÄ Ðhearing,€the€trial€court€stated,€ð ðI€donððt€think€that€the€case€law€of€this€state€is€such€that€I€can€use€the€leaving€a€scene€of€anÐ 8ˆ Ðaccident€of€a€property€damage€accident€as€an€enhancing€factor.€€I€am€considering€that€because€it€shows€me€that€there€isÐ üL Ða€tendency€to€avoid€responsibility.ðð€€Later,€in€its€order€denying€bond,€the€trial€court€indicated€that€it€had,€in€fact,€appliedÐ À Ðthis€enhancement€factor.€€ ¶Ý ƒRÇ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô„ìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOn€October€24,€1997,€the€Appellant€hit€a€tile€culvert€and€mailbox€and€immediately€left€the€scene.€€The€propertyÐ ° Ðowner€found€the€Appellant€at€another€location€changing€the€tire€ð ðhe€had€bustedðð€when€he€hit€the€tile€culvert€and€mailbox.€Ð tÄ ÐThe€property€owner€brought€the€Appellant€back€to€the€property€where€the€mailbox€was€damaged€and€called€police.€Ð 8ˆ ÐOfficer€Dewel€Scruggs€testified€that€the€Appellant€had€been€drinking,€but€was€not€charged€with€DUI€ð ðbecause€he€wasÐ üL Ðnot€impaired.ðð øÝ ƒRÇ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô„ìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€only€mention€of€the€theory€that€the€victim€drowned€at€the€accident€site€was€presented€by€defense€counselÐ ° Ðin€a€hypothetical€question:Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àDefense€Counsel:€à8  àAnd€it€occurred€to€me,€Dr.€Harlan,€there€isÐ üL Ðanother€theory€you€and€I€had€not€discussed,Ð À Ðand€that€is€that€the€deceased,€as€a€result€of€theÐ „Ô Ðcar€accident,€was€unconscious€and€face€downÐ H ˜ Ðunder€the€truck.€€That€is€consistent€with€theÐ  \ Ðinjuries€that€you€saw,€true?ÐÐ ÈÈ Ðà  àDr.€Harlan:à8 ¸ àà8¸ ¸ à€Correct.Д ä ÈÈ ÐÌà  àDefense€Counsel:à8  à€And€that€a€rainstorm€deposited€water,€and€dueÐ  l  Ðto€the€manððs€unconsciousness€and€the€fact€thatÐ à 0  Ðhe€was€face€down,€he€drowned?Фô ÈÈ ÐÌà  àDr.€Harlan:€à8 ¸ àà8¸ ¸ àThat€is€possible€if€a€pool€of€water€was€there.Ð,| ÈÈ ÐÌNo€proof€was€ever€introduced€by€the€defense€to€support€this€hypothesis. WÝ ƒRÇ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô„ìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€terms€of€the€plea€agreement€further€provided€that€in€addition€to€reducing€the€homicide€from€a€class€AÐ ° Ðfelony€to€a€class€D€felony,€a€second€count€of€ð ðabuse€of€a€corpseðð€would€be€dismissed. ËÝ ƒRÇ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô„ìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTrooper€Carter€testified€that€during€his€initial€questioning€of€the€Appellant,€which€occurred€approximately€nineÐ ° Ðhours€after€the€wreck,€he€observed€nothing€which€would€have€led€him€to€believe€that€the€Appellant€had€been€consumingÐ tÄ Ðalcohol.€€Officers€did€find€empty€beer€containers€at€the€scene.(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman 3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)!i)- ù-(|G2Ç$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€,D»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô„ìò»»Ô d(|3‡a$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€,D»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡a$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€,D»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€,D»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼,D»»»ÔÑ8€ˆXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î=•,DÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼,D»îî=• #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€19,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XˆX»¼,DÔÌò òÔ#†¼,D»XXˆ#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€GALEN€DEAN€EIDSONòòóóÔ‡XˆX»¼,DÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sumner€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€965„1999€€€€€€Jane€Wheatcraft,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02390„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€August€16,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XˆXXXˆÔÌÌThe€Appellant,€Galen€Dean€Eidson,€was€indicted€by€a€Sumner€County€Grand€Jury€for€second€degreeÐ P  Ðmurder.€Pursuant€to€the€terms€of€a€plea€agreement,€Eidson€pled€guilty€to€the€reduced€offense€of€Ð <Œ Ðreckless€homicide.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€Eidson€to€four€yearsÐ (x Ðconfinement€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€On€appeal,€Eidson€raises€the€following€sentencingÐ d Ðissues€for€our€review:€(1)€Whether€the€length€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€wasÐ P Ðexcessive;€and€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€him€to€total€confinement€in€theÐ ì< ÐDepartment€of€Correction.€€Upon€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€find€that€a€total€confinement€sentence€of€fourÐ Ø( Ðyears€is€justified€in€this€case.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Sumner€County€Criminal€Court€isÐ Ä Ðaffirmed.Ô#†XˆXXXˆ¾#ÔÔ#†¼,D»XXˆŒ#ÔÔ‡XˆX»¼,DÔÐ ° ÐÌÓ²ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ tÄ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼,D»àXˆ+ #ÔÔ‡XˆX.¼,DÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€Woodall,€J.óó€and€òòL.Ð L œ ÐT.€Lafferty,€Sr.óó€J.,€joined.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌRichard€McGee€and€Wendy€S.€Tucker,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Galen€Dean€Eidson.Ð #`" ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Patricia€C.Ð è$8 $ ÐKussmann,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Lawrence€Ray€Whitley,€District€Attorney€General;€and€SallieÐ Ô%$!% ÐWade€Brown,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð À&"& ÐÔ#†¼,D»XXˆþ #ÔÔ‡XˆX»¼,DÔÌÌÓÏ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼,D»XXˆº #ÔÔ‡XˆX»¼,DÔÐ p*À%*ý Їò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ ° ÐòòóóÔ#†¼,D»XXˆ. #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XˆX»¼,DÔÌÔ‡XˆXXXˆÔà  àIn€1999,€the€twenty„six„year„old€Appellant€worked€on€the€family€farm€near€Portland€inÐ ˆØ ÐSumner€County.€€The€farm€is€owned€by€the€Appellantððs€parents;€however,€the€Appellant€is€a€partnerÐ tÄ Ðin€the€farming€operation.€€Tobacco€is€the€principle€agricultural€crop.€€Although€the€Appellant€workedÐ `° Ðin€the€fields,€he€also€supervised€the€farm€workers,€which€included€immigrant€laborers.€€AtÐ L œ Ðapproximately€5:30€p.m.€on€October€8,€1999,€the€Appellant€was€transporting€three€Hispanic€farmÐ 8 ˆ Ðworkers€in€his€truck€over€a€field€road€on€the€family€farm€when€the€truck€overturned.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€It€had€begunÐ $ t Ðto€rain€that€afternoon€and€continued€to€rain€throughout€the€night.€€The€site€at€which€the€accidentÐ  ` Ðoccurred€involved€an€up„hill€grade.€€The€Appellant€swerved€to€miss€some€deer,€overturning€the€truckÐ ü L  Ðand€pinning€the€victim,€Emilio€Almaraz€Monjaraz,€underneath€the€vehicle.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAll€three€passengers€were€illegal€immigrants.€€According€to€the€Appellant,€the€other€twoÐ À  Ðpassengers€told€him€ð ðno€police,€no€problemsðð€just€before€leaving€the€scene€on€foot.€€The€Appellant€Ð ¬ü  Ðused€his€cell€phone€to€call€his€best€friend,€Timmy€Jenkins.€€The€Appellant€told€Jenkins€that€ð ðhe€hadÐ ˜è  Ðsome€problems€out€on€the€farmðð€and€requested€that€he€bring€him€a€chain.€€Jenkins€agreed€and€laterÐ „Ô  Ðhe€and€his€wife,€Melissa€Jenkins,€met€the€Appellant€on€a€paved€road€at€the€bottom€of€a€hill€near€theÐ pÀ Ðfarm.€€Upon€arriving,€the€Appellant€told€Jenkins,€ð ðI€got€to€go€home€first.€€My€battery€is€going€deadÐ \¬ Ðon€my€phone.€€I€need€to€call€Nikki€[the€Appellantððs€wife]€and€tell€her€whatððs€going€on.ðð€€Jenkins€thenÐ H˜ Ðtook€the€Appellant€back€to€his€[Jenkins]€house€where€the€Appellant€phoned€his€wife.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àJenkins€and€the€Appellant€decided€to€go€back€to€the€truck.€€However,€Jenkinsððs€wife€choseÐ  \ Ðnot€to€go€because€it€was€too€cold.€€On€the€way€to€his€truck,€the€Appellant€first€explained€to€JenkinsÐ øH Ðthat€three€farm€workers€were€riding€with€him€when€he€swerved€to€miss€three€cows€and€overturnedÐ ä4 Ðthe€truck.׃Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€they€were€approaching€the€vehicle,€however,€the€Appellant€told€Jenkins,€ð ðI€have€aÐ Ð  Ðproblem,€and€I€have€totaled€the€truck.€€I€flipped€it€upside€down.€€I€have€a€dead€Mexican€on€myÐ ¼  Ðhands.ðð€€€Jenkins€first€thought€the€Appellant€was€joking.€€The€Appellant€then€told€Jenkins€to€turn€hisÐ ¨ø Ðheadlights€off€because€ð ðhe€didnððt€want€anybody€to€call€the€law.ðð€€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€asked€Jenkins€to€help€him€upright€the€truck€so€they€could€take€it€to€the€bottomÐ l¼ Ðof€the€hill€and€hide€it€in€the€shed.€€€Jenkins€refused€to€help.€€The€Appellant€then€grabbed€the€chainÐ X ¨ Ðfrom€the€back€of€Jenkinsððs€truck€and€ð ðattached€it€to€the€truck€and€the€tractor€that€was€already€backedÐ D!” Ðup€to€the€truck€before€[Jenkins]€got€there.ðð€€The€Appellant€got€on€the€tractor,€started€it,€and€pulledÐ 0"€  Ðthe€truck€upright.€€The€Appellant€told€Jenkins€to€shine€his€flashlight€toward€ð ðthe€Mexicanðð€so€heÐ #l! Ðcould€check€on€the€body.€€Jenkins€complied.€€The€Appellant€then€began€discussing€various€ideas€ofÐ $X" Ðâ âhow€to€get€rid€of€ð ðthe€bodyðð€and€decided€that€he€was€not€going€to€call€police€because€he€hadÐ ô$D # Ðpreviously€ð ðfiled€bankruptcy€.€.€.[and€didnððt€want]€to€lose€[his€truck].ðð€€The€Appellant€also€stated€thatÐ ° Ðhe€did€not€want€anyone€to€know€that€the€accident€had€occurred€on€his€parentsðð€land.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAfter€some€discussion€about€what€he€should€do€next,€the€Appellant€reached€down,€grabbedÐ tÄ Ðthe€victimððs€ankles€and€started€dragging€him.€€He€proceeded€to€drag€the€body€approximately€300Ð `° Ðyards€towards€a€hog€waste€lagoon€surrounded€by€dense€woods.€€During€the€dragging,€the€victimððsÐ L œ Ðshirt€was€torn€off€when€the€victim€became€ensnared€on€a€fence.€€The€Appellant€dislodged€the€victimÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€proceeded€into€the€wooden€area.€€Jenkins€heard€a€ð ðbig€splashðð€before€the€Appellant€yelled,€ð ðHeððsÐ $ t Ðfloating.€€What€should€I€do?ðð€€Because€the€body€was€still€floating,€the€Appellant€asked€Jenkins€forÐ  ` Ða€gun€so€he€could€shoot€holes€in€the€body€to€make€it€sink.€€Neither€the€Appellant€nor€Jenkins€had€aÐ ü L  Ðgun€and€Jenkins€ð ðdidnððt€think€[they]€should€shoot€it€so€it€would€sink€better.ðð€Jenkins€then€asked€theÐ è 8  ÐAppellant€if€he€saw€a€stick€anywhere.€€Jenkins€heard€the€Appellant€break€off€a€tree€branch,€whichÐ Ô$  Ðthe€Appellant€used€to€push€the€victimððs€body€under€the€water€so€that€it€would€not€float€to€the€surface.€Ð À  ÐSeveral€minutes€later€the€Appellant€emerged€from€the€woods.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€asked€Jenkins€if€he€would€help€him€clean€up€the€debris€from€the€truck.€Ð „Ô  ÐJenkins€refused,€telling€him€that€it€was€late€and€that€he€had€to€get€up€early€for€work.€€The€AppellantÐ pÀ Ðgave€up€and€said€that€he€would€come€back€to€clean€things€up€in€the€morning€before€his€father€arrivedÐ \¬ Ðto€hang€tobacco.€Jenkins€returned€the€Appellant€to€the€Appellantððs€house€around€9:15€p.m.€Ð H˜ ÐSometime€that€night,€the€Appellantððs€wife€left€a€message€with€the€insurance€company€about€theÐ 4„ Ðwrecked€truck.€€The€Appellantððs€wife€testified€that€the€Appellant€never€mentioned€anything€aboutÐ  p Ðthe€victim€or€his€death€that€night,€but€only€mentioned€that€he€had€wrecked€his€truck.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àBy€12:30€a.m.,€the€two€other€Hispanic€farm€workers,€who€spoke€no€English,€had€contactedÐ ä4 Ða€Spanish€interpreter€and€the€three€proceeded€to€the€Portland€City€Police€Department€to€report€theÐ Ð  Ðaccident.€€After€advising€Officer€Kevin€Williams€of€the€incident,€the€three€returned€with€the€officerÐ ¼  Ðto€the€scene€to€assist€in€locating€the€overturned€truck.€€Trooper€Robert€Carter€of€the€TennesseeÐ ¨ø ÐHighway€Patrol€also€overheard€the€call€and€followed€Officer€Williams€as€they€returned€to€search€forÐ ”ä Ðthe€truck.€€Approximately€an€hour€later,€at€approximately€1:30€a.m.,€the€ð ðheavily€damagedðð€truck€wasÐ €Ð Ðlocated€on€the€Eidson€farm€in€an€upright€position.€€Although€debris€from€the€truck€was€scattered€Ð l¼ Ðover€the€ground,€no€body€was€found€at€the€scene.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àOnce€the€dispatcher€identified€the€license€plate€as€belonging€to€the€Appellant,€the€Appellant,Ð 0"€  Ðhis€mother€and€brother€were€notified€and€asked€to€come€to€the€scene.€€After€being€òòMirandizedóó€byÐ #l! ÐTrooper€Carter,€the€Appellant€explained€that€he€had€been€driving,€had€wrecked€his€vehicle,€and€afterÐ $X" Ðbeing€knocked€unconscious,€awoke€to€find€that€the€three€men€riding€with€him€ð ðhad€done€gone.ðð€€TheÐ ô$D # ÐAppellant€stated€that€he€ð ðguess[ed]€they€hit€the€road€running.ðð€€He€related€that€he€used€his€cell€phoneÐ à%0!$ Ðto€call€Jenkins€who€came€and€picked€him€up€and€took€him€home.€The€Appellant€further€explainedÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€he€and€his€father„in„law€had€returned€to€the€scene€later€that€night€and€turned€the€truck€uprightÐ ¸'#& Ðso€that€he€[the€Appellant]€could€retrieve€some€important€papers.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€call€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpolice€because€it€was€on€private€property€and€thought€no€one€had€been€hurt.€€€The€Appellant€agreedÐ )à$( Ðto€accompany€the€officers€back€to€the€sheriffððs€department€for€further€questioning.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àAt€approximately€7:00€a.m.,€Detective€Carl€Edison,€of€the€Sumner€County€SheriffððsÐ ° ÐDepartment,€interviewed€the€Appellant€and€received€a€substantially€similar€story€to€the€one€theÐ œì ÐAppellant€gave€Trooper€Carter€at€the€scene.€€During€a€second€interview€later€that€morning,€theÐ ˆØ ÐAppellant€again€told€Detective€Edison€that€he€was€knocked€unconscious€and€awoke€to€find€no€oneÐ tÄ Ðpresent.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àAfter€the€interviews€with€the€Appellant,€Detective€Edison€interviewed€Jenkins€for€a€secondÐ 8 ˆ Ðtime.€€Although€Jenkins€initially€denied€any€knowledge€of€the€victimððs€death,€he€eventually€toldÐ $ t ÐDetective€Edison€about€the€events€of€the€previous€night€and€disclosed€the€location€of€the€body.€Ð  ` ÐDetective€Edison€then€interviewed€the€Appellant€a€third€time€and€told€him€ð ðhe€knew€there€was€a€deadÐ ü L  ÐMexican€on€his€property.ðð€€The€Appellant€started€crying€and€asked€for€a€lawyer.€€Detective€EdisonÐ è 8  Ðceased€the€interview.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAs€a€result€of€the€interview€with€Jenkins,€Emergency€Management€was€dispatched€at€noonÐ ¬ü  Ðto€the€lagoon€to€search€for€the€victimððs€body.€€After€two€attempts,€and€through€the€use€of€grapplingÐ ˜è  Ðhooks,€the€victimððs€body€was€retrieved€from€the€lagoon.€€The€victim€was€found€without€a€shirt.€€€AÐ „Ô  Ðsearch€of€the€area€immediately€surrounding€the€lagoon€revealed€ð ðquestionable€impressions€or€bentÐ pÀ Ðvegetation.ðð€Officers€believed€these€marks€suggested€the€particular€path€taken€by€the€Appellant€asÐ \¬ Ðhe€drug€the€victimððs€body€through€the€woods€to€the€lagoon.€€No€ð ðdrag€marks,ðð€however,€were€foundÐ H˜ Ðin€the€surrounding€fields.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àApproximately€nine€days€later,€the€Appellant€paged€Jenkins€and€asked€that€he€call€him.€Ð  \ ÐJenkins€first€called€Detective€Edison,€however,€and€told€him€about€the€Appellantððs€message.€Ð øH ÐDetective€Edison€placed€a€recording€device€on€Jenkinsððs€telephone€before€Jenkins€answered€theÐ ä4 ÐAppellantððs€page.€€When€Jenkins€called€the€Appellant,€the€Appellant€stated,€ð ðEverything€[is]€underÐ Ð  Ðcontrol€and€[donððt]€talk€to€the€police;€[I]€have€a€lawyer€and€everything€[is]€under€control;€[I]€haveÐ ¼  Ðit€taken€care€of,€just€stick€to€the€original€story.ðð€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àDr.€Charles€Harlan,€a€forensic€pathologist,€performed€an€autopsy€on€the€victim€andÐ €Ð Ðdetermined€that€ð ðthe€cause€of€death€was€drowning.ðð€€Dr.€Harlan€further€noted€that€the€victim€hadÐ l¼ Ðother€injuries€ð ðconsistent€with€trauma€such€as€you€might€see€in€a€motor€vehicle€accident.ðð€€However,Ð X ¨ ÐDr.€Harlan€testified€that€the€injuries€sustained€during€the€wreck€were€neither€ð ðlife€threatening€or€lifeÐ D!” Ðterminating€injuriesðð€and€that€ð ðthe€injuries€from€the€truck€accident€itself€were€insufficient€to€causeÐ 0"€  Ðdeath.ðð€€On€cross„examination,€defense€counsel€asked€Dr.€Harlan€if€it€was€possible€for€the€victim€toÐ #l! Ðhave€ð ðdrownedðð€while€pinned€under€the€truck€if€he€had€been€pinned€face€down.€€Dr.€Harlan€repliedÐ $X" Ðthat€it€ð ðis€possible€if€a€pool€of€water€was€there.ðð€ò òÐ ô$D # ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* ЇÓ  ÓANALYSISÐ ° ÐÌI.€€Whether€Sentence€Imposed€was€ExcessiveÐ ˆØ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€four„year€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€excessiveÐ `° Ðbased€upon€the€misapplication€of€enhancing€factors€and€the€failure€to€apply€relevant€mitigatingÐ L œ Ðfactors.€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€thisÐ 8 ˆ ÐCourt€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ $ t Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€ThisÐ  ` Ðpresumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÐ ü L  Ðconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð è 8  ÐS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Furthermore,€when€conducting€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€thisÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÐ À  Ðpre„sentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(d)Ð ¬ü  Ðthe€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€orÐ ˜è  Ðenhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statement€that€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€theÐ „Ô  Ðpotential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€103,Ð pÀ Ð210.Ð \¬ Ѐ€Ð H˜ Ðà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€imposedÐ 4„ Ða€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€andÐ  p Ðprinciples€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€made€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequately€supportedÐ  \ Ðby€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€differentÐ øH Ðresult.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€where€the€trialÐ ä4 Ðcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€provisions€of€sentencing,€appellate€review€is€òòde€novoóó€withoutÐ Ð  Ða€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòState€v.€Winfieldóó,€23€S.W.3d€279,€283€(Tenn.€2000)(citing€òòState€v.Ð ¼  ÐPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).€€Furthermore,€we€emphasize€that€facts€relevant€to€sentencingÐ ¨ø Ðmust€be€established€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€and€not€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòId.óó€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€Appellant€pled€guilty,€as€a€range€I€offender,€to€the€offense€of€recklessÐ l¼ Ðhomicide,€a€class€D€felonyòòóó.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„215.€€€The€sentencing€range€for€a€class€DÐ X ¨ Ðfelony€is€ð ðnot€less€than€two€(2)€nor€more€than€four€(4)€years.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(4).Ð D!” ÐThe€presumptive€sentence€for€a€class€D€felony€ð ðshall€be€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€if€thereÐ 0"€  Ðare€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€Where€enhancement€Ð #l! Ðfactors€are€present,€but€no€mitigating€factors,€ð ðthen€the€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€theÐ $X" Ðminimum€in€that€range€but€still€within€the€range.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d).€€Where€thereÐ ô$D # Ðare€both€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors€present,€ð ðthe€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€inÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€range,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors,€and€thenÐ Ì&"% Ðreduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ¸'#& Ð40„35„210(e).Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÌ€€Ð h+¸&* Ðò òÓ  ÓA.€€Enhancement€Factorsó óÐ ° ÐÌÓûLÓà  àUpon€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€first€address€the€Appellantððs€argument€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ ˆØ Ðapplying€three€enhancement€factors€during€sentencing.€€When€imposing€the€sentence,€the€trial€courtÐ tÄ Ðfound€no€applicable€mitigating€factors€and€apparently׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€applied€the€following€three€enhancementÐ `° Ðfactors€found€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114:Ð L œ ÐÌÓ€ (¦Ù83!ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ÐOÝÔ2¦ÙÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýò òó óThe€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminalÐ $ t Ðbehavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;݃3£ÐO P݌Р`` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà8  à(5)€à8` Ð Ð àò òó óThe€defendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€be€treated€withÐ è 8  Ðexceptional€cruelty€during€the€commission€of€the€offense;€and€ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà8  à(15)ò òó ó€à8` Ð Ð àThe€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust,€or€used€aÐ ¬ü  Ðspecial€skill€in€a€manner€that€significantly€facilitated€the€commissionÐ ˜è  Ðor€the€fulfillment€of€the€offense.Ð„Ô ` x` x Ðà  àÌà  àThe€Appellant€first€contends€that€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(1)€was€inappropriateÐ \¬ Ðto€establish€prior€criminal€conduct€and,€thus,€improperly€considered€by€the€trial€court.€€The€AppellantÐ H˜ Ðhad€previously€pled€guilty€to€reckless€driving€and€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident.׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Although€it€isÐ 4„ Ðnot€entirely€clear€from€the€record€that€the€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factor€(1),€we€find€theÐ  p ÐAppellantððs€previous€convictions€of€reckless€driving€and€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident€applicableÐ  \ Ðin€this€case.€€Additionally,€we€note€that€the€Appellant€was€arrested€for€assault€in€1997,€placed€onÐ øH Ðprobation,€with€his€record€later€being€expunged.€€€The€testimony€and€evidence€of€the€criminal€actsÐ ä4 Ðpreceding€the€arrest€are€admissible€as€evidence€of€prior€bad€acts€or€evidence€of€social€history€evenÐ Ð  Ðif€expungement€is€later€obtained.€€€òòState€v.€Schindleróó,€986€S.W.2d€209,€211€(Tenn.€1999).€€Thus,€allÐ ¼  Ðthree€criminal€convictions€may€properly€be€considered€as€applicable€under€enhancement€factor€(1).€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àSecond,€the€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€enhancement€factor€(5).€Ð €Ð ÐSpecifically,€he€argues€that€because€the€Appellant€thought€the€victim€was€dead€when€he€removed€hisÐ l¼ Ðbody€from€underneath€the€truck€and€placed€it€in€the€lagoon,€that€his€actions€did€not€constituteÐ X ¨ Ðexceptional€cruelty.€€We€disagree.€€Ð D!” Ðà  àWith€respect€to€enhancement€factor€(5),€we€initially€acknowledge€that€our€supreme€court€hasÐ ° Ðdetermined€that€proof€of€serious€bodily€injury€does€not€necessarily€establish€the€enhancement€factorÐ œì Ðof€"exceptional€cruelty."€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€98.€€Instead,€our€supreme€court€has€foundÐ ˆØ Ðthat€before€this€factor€may€be€applied,€the€facts€of€the€case€must€"support€a€finding€of€'exceptionalÐ tÄ Ðcruelty'€that€'demonstrates€a€culpability€distinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€than€that€incident€to'Ð `° Ð"€the€crime.€òòId.óó€€€Nonetheless,€our€courts€have€upheld€the€application€of€exceptional€cruelty€basedÐ L œ Ðupon€proof€of€extensive€physical€abuse.€€òòState€v.€Arnettóó,€No.€E1998„00051„SC„R11„CD€(Tenn.€atÐ 8 ˆ ÐKnoxville,€July€3,€2001),€òònot€yet€released€for€publication.óó€€When€the€trial€court€applies€enhancementÐ $ t Ðfactor€(5),€it€should€state€what€actions€of€the€defendant,€apart€from€the€elements€of€the€offense,Ð  ` Ðconstituted€exceptional€cruelty.€€òòState€v.€Goodwinóó,€909€S.W.2d€35,€45€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1995).€Ð ü L  ÐAlthough€the€trial€court€in€this€case€did€not€articulate€its€reasons€for€finding€exceptional€cruelty,€weÐ è 8  Ðnonetheless€conclude€that€the€record€is€more€than€adequate€to€show€that€this€enhancement€factorÐ Ô$  Ðapplies€to€the€Appellant.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€plain€language€of€the€statutory€enhancing€factor€requires€that€the€victim€ð ðbe€treated€withÐ ˜è  Ðexceptional€cruelty€òòduring€the€commission€of€the€offenseóó.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„15(5).€Ð „Ô  Ð(emphasis€added).€€Despite€the€Appellantððs€assertions€that€the€victim€drowned€while€under€the€truck,Ð pÀ Ðthe€guilty€plea€hearing€foreclosed€any€issue€as€to€when€the€victimððs€death€occurred.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ò òó ó€€During€theÐ \¬ Ðprosecutorððs€recital€of€the€facts€supporting€the€guilty€plea,€the€Appellant€agreed€to€the€statement€thatÐ H˜ Ðð ð.€.€.€€the€autopsy€by€Dr.€Harlan€ruled€that€[the€victim]€died€from€drowning€after€he€was€thrown€inÐ 4„ Ðthe€pig€pond.ðð€€Thus,€the€Appellantððs€ongoing€treatment€of€the€victim€from€the€time€the€victim€wasÐ  p Ðpinned€under€the€truck€to€the€time€the€victim€was€thrown€in€the€lagoon€occurred€ð ðduring€theÐ  \ Ðcommission€of€the€offense.ðð€Instead€of€seeking€medical€assistance,€the€Appellant€left€the€victimÐ øH Ðunder€the€truck€until€his€friend€arrived€with€a€chain.€€Once€he€uprighted€the€truck,€the€Appellant€drugÐ ä4 Ðthe€victimððs€unconscious€body€three€hundred€yards€across€tobacco€fields.€€The€victim€was€ensnaredÐ Ð  Ðon€a€fence€during€this€dragging€process.€He€then€proceeded€to€drag€the€victim€through€dense€woodsÐ ¼  Ðuntil€he€reached€the€ð ðpig€pondðð€or€lagoon.€€He€threw€the€victim€into€the€lagoon€and,€upon€realizingÐ ¨ø Ðthat€he€was€floating,€asked€for€a€gun€so€he€could€shoot€holes€in€the€body€to€make€it€sink.€€When€noÐ ° Ðgun€was€available,€he€broke€off€a€tree€branch€and€poked€the€body€repeatedly€until€it€stayed€underÐ œì Ðwater.€€Certainly,€the€facts€of€this€case€are€sufficient€to€be€considered€exceptionally€cruel€as€theyÐ ˆØ Ðrepresent€a€culpability€distinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€than€that€incident€to€the€offense.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Appellant€argues€that€enhancement€factor€(15)€was€also€improperly€applied€byÐ L œ Ðthe€trial€court.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€argues€that€no€trust€relationship€existed€that€made€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðvictim€particularly€vulnerable€to€him.€€He€further€asserts€that€even€if€there€was€a€trust€relationship,€Ð $ t Ðthe€victimððs€death€was€not€caused€through€an€abuse€of€that€trust.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIn€finding€that€enhancement€factor€(15)€was€applicable,€the€trial€court€reasoned€as€follows:Ð è 8  Ðà8  àThe€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust,€I€think€is€applicable.€€HeÐ Ô$  Ðwas€the€employer€of€these€people.€€They€came€to€work€on€his€farm,€and€I€think€thatÐ À  Ðthey€have€a€right€to€trust€him€and€to€trust€that,€having€had€an€accident,€that€he€wouldÐ ¬ü  Ðdo€something€to€care€for€them.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€application€of€enhancement€factor€(15),€that€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€or€privateÐ pÀ Ðtrust,€requires€a€finding,€first,€that€the€defendant€occupied€a€position€of€trust€vis-a-vis€the€victim€and,Ð \¬ Ðsecond,€that€the€defendant€abused€that€position€in€a€manner€that€significantly€facilitated€theÐ H˜ Ðcommission€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€488€(Tenn.1996).€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Gutierrezóó,€5€S.W.3d€641,€645€(Tenn.€1999),€our€supreme€court€discussed€theÐ  \ Ðapplication€of€the€private€trust€factor€as€follows:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àAs€stated€in€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€to€determine€the€application€of€the€private€trust€factor,Ð Ð  Ðthe€court€must€look€to€"the€nature€of€the€relationship,"€and€whether€that€relationshipÐ ¼  Ð"promoted€confidence,€reliability,€or€faith."€€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€at€488.€Ð ¨ø ÐIt€is€the€exploitation€of€this€vulnerability€to€achieve€criminal€purposes€which€isÐ ”ä Ðdeemed€more€blameworthy€and€thus€justifies€application€of€the€enhancement€factor.€Ð €Ð ÐAccordingly,€factor€(15)€is€construed€to€apply€only€where€there€is€evidence€that€theÐ l¼ Ðnature€of€the€relationship€between€the€perpetrator€and€the€adult€victim€caused€theÐ X ¨ Ðvictim€to€be€particularly€vulnerable.€€If€such€a€relationship€or€"private€trust"€is€shown,Ð D!” Ðthe€State€must€then€prove€that€the€perpetrator€abused€that€relationship€in€committingÐ 0"€  Ðthe€crime.€€As€with€all€determinations€regarding€the€application€of€an€enhancementÐ #l! Ðfactor,€the€utilization€of€this€analysis€"is€a€task€that€must€be€undertaken€on€aÐ $X" Ðcase-by-case€basis."€€òòPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€96.Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌÒe°Òà ½ àAlthough€a€private€trust€may€have€existed€between€the€Appellant€and€the€victim€by€virture€ofÐ Ì&"% Ða€supervisor/employee€relationship,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€Appellant€abused€this€positionÐ ¸'#& Ðof€trust€in€a€manner€that€significantly€facilitated€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€Accordingly,€we€findÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€trial€court€improperly€applied€enhancement€factor€(15).Ð )à$( ÐÌò òÓ  ÓB.€€Mitigating€FactorsÐ h+¸&* Їó óÓ  Óà ½ àThe€Appellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€applying€the€following€€mitigatingÐ ° Ðfactors,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113,€during€sentencing:Ð œì ÐÌà8 ½ à(3)€à8 ½Ð ½Ð àSubstantial€grounds€exist€tending€to€excuse€or€justify€the€defendantððsÐ tÄ Ðcriminal€conduct,€though€failing€to€establish€a€defense;Ð`° x x ÐÌà8 ½ à(11)€à8 ½Ð ½Ð àThe€defendant,€although€guilty€of€the€crime,€committed€the€offenseÐ 8 ˆ Ðunder€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustainedÐ $ t Ðintent€to€violate€the€law€motivated€the€criminal€conduct;€andÐ ` x x ÐÌà8 ½ à(13)€à8 ½Ð ½Ð àAny€other€factor€consistent€with€the€purposes€of€this€chapter,€[òòi.e.óó,€(1)Ð è 8  Ðno€prior€record,€(2)€model€citizen€and€(3)€remorse€for€his€conduct.].ÐÔ$  x x Ðà ½ à€Ð À  ÐWith€respect€to€mitigating€factors€(3)€and€(11),€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€overturning€of€his€truckÐ ¬ü  Ðwas€an€ð ðunintentional€actðð€and€that€the€Appellant€ð ðhad€no€intention€of€causing€the€death€of€[theÐ ˜è  Ðvictim].ðð€€We€first€note€that€the€Appellantððs€argument€is€misplaced€as€it€focuses€upon€the€vehicularÐ „Ô  Ðaccident€rather€than€the€Appellantððs€conduct€which€resulted€in€the€victimððs€death.€€Moreover,€theÐ pÀ Ðoffense€of€reckless€homicide€does€not€require€an€intentional€act.€€According,€we€find€that€no€groundsÐ \¬ Ðexist€to€excuse€or€justify€the€Appellantððs€conduct.€€Furthermore,€we€find€that€the€Appellantððs€criminalÐ H˜ Ðconduct,€which€resulted€in€the€drowning€of€the€victim,€was€motivated€by€monetary€reasons€andÐ 4„ Ðconcealment€of€the€factual€events€of€the€accident.Ð  p ÐÌà ½ àFinally,€the€Appellant€argues€that,€pursuant€to€mitigating€factor€(13),€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ øH Ðrefusing€to€consider€ð ðthat€he€has€no€prior€record,€and€that€he€has€been€a€model€member€of€his€family,Ð ä4 Ðhis€community€and€church.ðð€He€further€argues€that€his€ð ðremorseðð€should€have€also€been€consideredÐ Ð  Ðas€mitigating€evidence.€€As€discussed€previously,€the€Appellant€does,€in€fact,€have€a€criminal€record.€Ð ¼  ÐFurther,€despite€the€Appellantððs€claims€that€he€was€a€model€citizen,€the€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ¨ø Ðindicates€otherwise.€€At€the€time€of€the€accident,€the€Appellant€related€to€Jenkins€that€he€previouslyÐ ”ä Ðdrank€one€beer€and€was€splitting€a€twelve„pack€of€beer€with€the€three€passengers.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Further€testimonyÐ €Ð Ðrevealed€that€the€Appellant€had€a€severe€drinking€problem€during€the€past€two€to€three€years€andÐ l¼ ÐJenkins€testified€that€the€Appellant€had€a€ð ðviolent€history.ðð€€€We€find€the€trial€court€properly€declinedÐ X ¨ Ðto€consider€the€Appellantððs€alleged€status€as€a€ð ðmodel€citizenðð€in€the€community€as€mitigatingÐ D!” Ðevidence€under€factor€(13).€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà ½ àLastly,€with€respect€to€the€Appellant's€expressions€of€remorse,€"genuine,€sincere€remorse€isÐ $X" Ða€proper€mitigating€factor."€€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€69,€83€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)(citingÐ ô$D # ÐòòState€v.€Buttreyóó,€756€S.W.2d€718,€722€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€perm.€to€appeal€denied,€(Tenn.1988)).€Ð à%0!$ ÐHowever,€"the€mere€speaking€of€remorseful€words€or€a€genuflection€in€the€direction€of€remorse€willÐ Ì&"% Ðnot€earn€an€accused€a€sentence€reduction."€€òòWilliamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€83.€€The€finding€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðpresence€or€absence€of€remorse,€similar€to€assessing€the€credibility€of€a€witness,€is€best€left€forÐ ° Ðdetermination€by€the€trial€court.€€In€determining€whether€actual€remorse€is€present,€the€reviewing€courtÐ œì Ðmay€consider€the€Appellantððs€conduct€and€statements€immediately€following€the€unlawful€act,€anyÐ ˆØ Ðunderlying€motivation€for€the€expression€of€remorse€and€the€Appellantððs€statements€at€the€sentencingÐ tÄ Ðhearing.€€In€this€case,€the€Appellant€did€not€testify€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€trial€court€concludedÐ `° Ðthat€the€Appellantððs€expressions€of€remorse€for€his€conduct€were€not€genuine,€stating€that€it€ð ðdidnððtÐ L œ Ðsee€any€sign€of€remorse.ðð€€We€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€record€preponderates€against€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðfinding.Ð $ t ÐÌà ½ àIn€sum,€following€a€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€find€the€presence€of€two€enhancement€factors,€Tenn.Ð ü L  ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„114(1)&(5),€and€find€no€mitigating€factors€applicable.€€As€such,€we€concludeÐ è 8  Ðthat€the€sentence€of€four€years€is€justified€in€this€case.Ð Ô$  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Total€ConfinementÐ ¬ü  ÐÌó óÓ  Óà ½ àThe€Appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€him€to€serve€his€four„year€sentenceÐ „Ô  Ðin€total€confinement.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€placed€him€on€probation€or,€in€theÐ pÀ Ðalternative,€sentenced€him€to€a€term€of€split„confinement.€€ò òó óÔ#†XˆXXXˆé #ÔÔ‡ XˆXXXˆÔAt€the€time€of€his€arrest,€the€Appellant€wasÐ \¬ Ðmarried€with€three€young€children,€and€had€previously€attended€two€and€one„half€years€of€collegeÐ H˜ Ðbefore€quitting.Ð 4„ ÐÌà ½ àÔ#†XˆXX Xˆê‹#ÔÔ‡ XˆXXXˆÔBecause€the€Appellant€was€convicted€of€a€class€D€felony,€he€is€entitled€to€the€presumption€thatÐ  \ Ðhe€is€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„35„102(6).Ô#†XˆXX Xˆ#ÔÔ‡ XˆXXXˆÔ€€WeÐ øH Ðnote,€however,€that€Ô#†XˆXX Xˆ5Ž#ÔÔ‡ XˆXXXˆÔð ðthe€determination€of€whether€the€Appellant€is€entitled€to€an€alternative€sentenceÐ ä4 Ðand€whether€the€Appellant€is€entitled€to€full€probation€are€different€inquires.ðð€€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932Ð Ð  ÐS.W.2d€467,€477€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Where€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€the€statutoryÐ ¼  Ðpresumption€of€alternative€sentencing,€the€State€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€the€presumption€withÐ ¨ø Ðevidence€to€the€contrary.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€òòoverruledÐ ”ä Ðon€other€grounds.óó€€€ð ðConversely,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€[his]€suitability€for€totalÐ €Ð Ðprobation,€even€if€the€Appellant€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing.ðð€òòId.óó;€Ð l¼ ÐòòBoggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€at€477.€Ô#†XˆXX Xˆ¤Ž#ÔÔ‡ XˆXXXˆÔÐ X ¨ ÐÔ#†XˆXX Xˆe’#ÔÔ‡XˆXXXˆÔÌÓ  Óò òA.€€Total€Probationó óÐ 0"€  ÐÌÓÜ’Óà ½ àÔ#†XˆXXXˆ¼’#ÔÔ‡ XˆXXXˆÔTo€meet€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€total€probation,€the€defendant€mustÐ $X" Ðdemonstrate€that€probation€will€ð ðsubserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€publicÐ ô$D # Ðand€the€defendant.ðð€òòId.óó€at€456.Ô#†XˆXX XˆV“#ÔÔ‡XˆXXXˆÔ€The€following€criteria,€while€not€controlling€the€discretion€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðsentencing€court,€shall€be€accorded€weight€when€deciding€the€defendant's€suitability€for€probation:€Ð Ì&"% Ð(1)€"the€nature€and€[circumstances]€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved",€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ¸'#& Ð40-35-210(b)(4);€(2)€the€defendant's€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation,€including€the€riskÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€during€the€period€of€probation€the€defendant€will€commit€another€crime,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ )à$( Ð40-35-103(5);€(3)€whether€a€sentence€of€full€probation€would€unduly€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðoffense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40-35-103(1)(B);€€and€(4)€whether€a€sentence€other€than€full€probationÐ h+¸&* Ðwould€provide€an€effective€deterrent€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€crimes,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ððÐ ° Ð40-35-103(1)(B).€òòóó€€Denial€of€probation€may€be€based€solely€upon€the€circumstances€of€the€offenseÐ œì Ðwhen€they€are€of€such€a€nature€as€to€outweigh€all€other€factors€favoring€probation.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,Ð ˆØ ÐÔ#†XˆXXXˆ©”#ÔÔ‡ XˆXXXˆÔ910€S.W.2dÔ#†XˆXX XˆŒ™#ÔÔ‡XˆXXXˆÔ€at€456,€òòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó;€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€at€788-89.Ð tÄ ÐÌà ½ àUpon€òòde€novo€óóreview,€we€find€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€case€to€be€clearlyÐ L œ Ðaggravated.€€The€record€reveals€a€callous€indifference€by€the€Appellant€toward€the€victim€and€showsÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€calculated€nature€of€the€Appellantððs€actions.€€The€Appellant€further€sought€the€help€of€a€friend€toÐ $ t Ðcover€up€the€crime€and€continued€to€mislead€police€concerning€the€events€surrounding€the€incident.€Ð  ` ÐLack€of€candor€and€credibility€are€indications€of€a€defendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòState€v.Ð ü L  ÐBunchóó,€646€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.1983);€€€òòState€v.€Nunleyóó,€22€S.W.3d€282,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð è 8  Ð1999).€€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€Appellant€was€not€amenable€to€rehabilitation€because€he€ð ðhadÐ Ô$  Ðpersisted€in€the€cover„up€of€this€horrible€crime.ðð€€We€agree€and€find€that€the€circumstances€of€theÐ À  Ðoffense€are€of€such€a€nature€as€to€outweigh€all€factors€favoring€probation.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÔ#†XˆXXXˆØ™#ÔÔ‡ XˆXXXˆÔÓ  Óò òB.€€Alternative€Sentencingó óÐ „Ô  ÐÌÓæžÓà ½ à€The€Appellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€granting€him€a€sentence€of€split„Ð \¬ Ðconfinement.€€Ô#†XˆXX XˆÇž#ÔÔ‡XˆXXXˆÔWhen€imposing€a€sentence€of€total€confinement,€the€trial€court€should€base€its€decisionÐ H˜ Ðon€the€considerations€listed€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-103(1):Ð 4„ ÐÌà8 ½ à(A)€à8 ½Ð ½Ð àConfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendantÐ  \ Ðwho€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;ÐøH x x ÐÌÓ€ (Æé88ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8 ½ àÝ‚3£7¢ÝÔ2ÆéÔ(Ú  ÚBÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ½Ð ½Ð àÝ  Ý€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offenseÐ Ð  Ðor€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€toÐ ¼  Ðothers€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€or݃3£7¢p¢ÝŒÐ¨ø Ð  Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà8 ½ à(C)€à8 ½Ð ½Ð àMeasures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recentlyÐ €Ð Ðbeen€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.Ðl¼ x x ÐÌUpon€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€first€note€that€neither€(A)€nor€(C)€apply€in€the€present€case.€€The€AppellantÐ D!” Ðdoes€not€have€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct€nor€have€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinementÐ 0"€  Ðbeen€previously€applied€to€the€Appellant.€€We€further€acknowledge€that€confinement€would€notÐ #l! Ðprovide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29Ð $X" ÐS.W.3d€1,€9€(Tenn.€2000).€€Accordingly,€our€inquiry€must€be€whether€confinement€is€necessary€toÐ ô$D # Ðavoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà ½ àIn€order€to€deny€an€alternative€sentence€based€upon€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€theÐ ¸'#& Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€"as€committed,€must€be€'especially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðreprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree,'€and€the€nature€of€theÐ )à$( Ðoffense€must€outweigh€all€factors€favoring€probation."€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€454,Ð |*Ì%) Ðòòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó,€(citing€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€374-75€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð h+¸&* ÐApp.1991)).€€€After€review,€we€find€the€facts€of€this€case€to€be€particularly€reprehensible,€offensiveÐ ° Ðand€shocking.€€Despite€the€fact€that€the€Appellant€had€a€cell€phone€with€him,€he€made€no€effort€toÐ œì Ðseek€medical€attention€for€the€victim.€€Instead,€the€Appellant€used€the€phone€to€call€his€friend€to€assistÐ ˆØ Ðin€the€concealment€of€his€actions.€€The€Appellant€also€called€his€wife€to€inquire€about€insurance€onÐ tÄ Ðthe€truck.€€Several€hours€after€the€accident,€the€Appellant€proceeded€to€drag€the€unconscious€victimÐ `° Ð300€yards€to€a€nearby€lagoon.€€Because€the€body€was€floating,€the€Appellant€broke€off€a€tree€branchÐ L œ Ðand€ð ðpushedðð€the€body€under€the€surface€of€the€water€until€it€sank.€€Four€hours€later€the€AppellantÐ 8 ˆ Ðreturned€home.€€Despite€repeated€questioning€from€the€police€that€night€and€throughout€the€next€day,Ð $ t Ðthe€Appellant€denied€any€knowledge€of€the€victimððs€whereabouts€or€any€knowledge€that€anyone€hadÐ  ` Ðbeen€injured€at€the€scene€on€that€particular€night.€€Nine€days€later,€the€Appellant€was€still€attemptingÐ ü L  Ðto€interfere€with€the€investigation€by€admonishing€his€friend,€ð ð.€.€.€€donððt€talk€to€the€police€.€.€.€justÐ è 8  Ðstick€to€the€original€story.ððÐ Ô$  ÐÌà ½ àWe€find€that€the€facts€surrounding€this€case€are€so€reprehensible€and€offensive€that€the€natureÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€offense€outweighs€any€and€all€factors€favoring€a€sentence€other€than€confinement.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÐ pÀ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà ½ àAfter€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€find€the€four„year€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€to€beÐ H˜ Ðappropriate.€€We€also€find€that€total€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousnessÐ 4„ Ðof€the€offense.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Sumner€County€Criminal€Court€is€affirmed.Ð  p Ðà ½ àà  àà m àÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  à€Ð øH ÐÔ#†XˆXXXˆèŸ#ÔÌÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à___________________________________€Ð ¼  Ðà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE