ÿWPCÿ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ ø 0D e D 0JN 0T˜ 0^ì 0hJ 0r² 0|$ 0†  0& 1u¶ 0d+U>U *Í¿÷B)¶ D3ß BDC/ 0@r AM²ÿðv~ vÓ‡ AOZÆ© 0Do D/³ Bâ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- QRSETUDVWXYÓ€ZÓ€Úƒç"3|xe((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý 2 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 µÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÔ.(ƒFITHIAMT.OPN(ÔFITHIAMT.OPNÔ/  Ô% Line 7 d++++'ÿÿdxd d))))7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òOctober€28,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó æÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔ€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€55„10„401,€„414.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ŠÔÔ€'ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ìÔXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÖ€(֜ـ€ÙßR€./,A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9610„CC„00381Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àCOCKE€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€WILLIAM€R.€HOLT,€JR.ó óÌò òTERESA€FITHIAM,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(DUI€&€Child€Endangerment)ò òÌó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCIRCUIT€COURT€OF€COCKE€COUNTYó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌSUSANNA€L.€THOMASà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ102€Mims€AvenueÌNewport,€TN€37821à àà àà àMARVIN€E.€CLEMENTS,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAL€SCHUMTZER,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJAMES€B.€DUNNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à339A€East€Main€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNewport,€TN€37821ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAPPEAL€DISMISSED;€JUDGMENT›€œAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€'°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€'ŠÔÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àThis€is€a€direct€appeal€from€a€guilty€plea€pursuant€to€Rule€37(b)(2)(ii)€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€Pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement,€theÏDefendant€pleaded€guilty€to€one€count€of€DUI€and€one€count€of€childÏendangerment.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Both€offenses€are€Class€A€misdemeanors.€€As€part€of€theÏagreement,€she€was€sentenced€to€a€forty„eight€(48)€hour€mandatoryÏincarceration€plus€eleven€(11)€months€and€twenty„seven€(27)€days€of€probationÏfor€the€DUI€conviction€and€a€mandatory€thirty€(30)€day€incarceration€plus€ten€(10)Ïmonths€and€twenty„nine€(29)€days€of€probation€for€the€child€endangermentÏconviction.€€Also,€the€Defendant€reserved€the€right€to€appeal€the€ð ðlegalityðð€of€herÏsentence.€€In€this€appeal,€she€argues€that€the€statute€imposing€a€mandatoryÏthirty„day€incarceration€period€for€child€endangerment€is€unconstitutional€as€cruelÏand€unusual€punishment€violative€of€the€Eighth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€toÏthe€United€States€Constitution.€€We€dismiss€the€appeal€and€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àOn€October€13,€1995,€the€Defendant,€Teresa€Fithiam,€was€arrested€after€Ïshe€lost€control€of€the€vehicle€she€was€driving€northbound€on€Highway€321€inÏCocke€County.€€The€car€left€the€roadway€and€overturned.€€Two€of€her€fourÏchildren,€ages€23€months€and€11€months,€€were€in€the€vehicle€and€receivedÏminor€injuries.€€Only€the€younger€child€was€restrained.€€The€Defendant€sufferedÏhead€injuries€for€which€she€was€hospitalized€for€three€days.€€A€blood€alcoholÏtest€measured€the€Defendantððs€blood€alcohol€level€at€.13%.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing€that€she€came€homeÏfrom€work,€had€two€or€three€beers,€cooked€dinner€and€bathed€the€children.€€HerÏhusband,€who€had€been€drinking€all€day,€became€abusive€and€she€left€with€theÏchildren.€€It€is€unclear€whether€her€husband€was€chasing€her€in€the€car,€but€heÏwas€present€after€the€accident€and€transported€the€children€to€the€hospital.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€indicted€on€one€count€of€DUI€and€two€counts€of€childÏendangerment.€€She€entered€into€a€plea€agreement€with€the€district€attorney€forÏthe€minimum€mandatory€sentence€for€DUI€of€forty„eight€hours€in€confinement€andÏthe€minimum€mandatory€sentence€for€child€endangerment€of€thirty€daysÏincarceration.€€The€remainder€of€each€sentence€was€to€be€suspended€and€theÏDefendant€placed€on€probation.€€The€Defendant€was€also€required€to€pay€theÏminimum€$350€fine€for€the€DUI€conviction€and€the€minimum€$1000€imposed€forÍthe€child€endangerment€conviction.€€The€plea€agreement€and€the€transcript€of€theÏguilty€plea€hearing€reflect€that€the€State€agreed€that€the€Defendant€ð ðreservesÏright€to€appeal€legality€of€sentence€and€merger€of€counts€of€child€endangerment.ðð€ÏThe€judgment€forms€do€not€mention€a€reservation€of€a€review€of€the€sentence€inÏan€appeal,€however,€in€an€order€on€May€16,€1996,€the€trial€court€approved€theÏplea€agreement€reached€by€the€parties.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€guilty€plea,€theÏtrial€court€dismissed€the€second€count€of€child€endangerment,€finding€that€itÏmerged€into€the€first€count€as€one€offense€for€both€children.€€The€DefendantÏrequested€work€release,€which€the€trial€court€denied€because€of€the€mandatoryÏincarceration.€€The€trial€court€did€not€rule€on€the€legality€or€constitutionality€of€theÏthirty„day€incarceration€mandated€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„414.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€mandatory€incarceration€required€byÏsection€55„10„414€unconstitutionally€denied€her€the€granting€of€work€release.€€WeÏnote€initially€that€the€Defendant€has€not€properly€reserved€the€issue€for€theÏpurposes€of€this€appeal.€€The€notice€of€appeal€reflects€that€the€issue€is€beingÏappealed€pursuant€to€Rule€37(b)(2)(ii)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure€which€states€in€pertinent€part€that:€ð ðAn€appeal€lies€.€.€.€from€anyÏjudgment€of€conviction:€(2)€upon€a€plea€of€guilty€or€nolo€contendere€if:€(ii)Ïdefendant€seeks€review€of€the€sentence€set€and€òòthere€was€no€plea€agreementóóÍòòunder€Rule€11(e)óó.ðð€(emphasis€added).€€A€guilty€plea€constitutes€a€waiver€of€allÏnonjurisdictional€and€procedural€defects€or€constitutional€infirmities,€òòState€v.ÏBilbreyóó,€816€S.W.2d€71,€75€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€and€Rule€37€providesÏlimited€exceptions€for€an€appeal€following€a€guilty€plea.€€€òòState€v.€Pendergrassóó,Ï937€S.W.2d€834,€837€(Tenn.€1996).€€€ÌÌà àHere,€although€the€Defendant€purported€to€reserve€review€of€her€sentenceÏas€reflected€in€the€plea€agreement€and€the€hearing€transcript,€the€record€reflectsÏthat€the€Defendant€entered€into€a€negotiated€plea€agreement€that€comports€withÏRule€11(e).€€The€particular€posture€in€which€this€case€has€been€presented€doesÏnot€fit€squarely€within€any€of€the€enumerated€exceptions€under€Rule€37.€€TheÏrecord€reflects€that€a€plea€agreement€was€reached€and€thus,€the€Defendant€hasÏwaived€appellate€review€of€her€sentence€because€she€has€not€met€theÏrequirements€of€Rule€37(b)(2)(ii).€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McKissackóó,€917€S.W.2d€714,Ï716€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€order€to€obtain€appellate€review€of€herÏsentence,€the€Defendant€could€have€chosen€to€plead€guilty€without€a€negotiatedÏagreement€and€left€sentencing€to€the€trial€court€and€pursued€the€issue€in€a€directÏappeal€under€€Rule€3.€€€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€entered€reflects€that€the€trial€judge€accepted€and€approvedÏthe€recommended€sentence.€€The€trial€court€did€not€rule€on€the€constitutionality€ofÍthe€mandatory€sentence€because€the€issue€was€not€œpresented.€€There›€is€noÏprocedural€vehicle€under€Rule€37€for€a€hybrid€plea€agreement€that€reserves€aÏportion€of€the€sentence€purportedly€not€agreed€to€for€appellate€review.€€€There€isÏno€right€to€appeal€from€an€agreed€sentence.€€òòMcKissackóó,€òòIdóó.€€Therefore,Ïbecause€it€is€not€properly€before€us,€we€believe€this€appeal€should€beÏdismissed.ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€even€if€the€Defendant€had€properlyÏreserved€the€issue€for€appeal,€we€would€conclude€that€it€is€without€merit.€€TheÏDefendant€contends€that€the€mandatory€thirty„day€sentence€unconstitutionallyÏdeprives€her€of€probation€or€the€possibility€of€work€release€in€her€case.€€€SheÏargues€that€it€is€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€violative€of€the€Eighth€andÏFourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€The€EighthÏAmendment€applied€to€the€states€through€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€€prohibitsÏcruel€and€unusual€punishment€and€requires€that€the€punishment€imposed€mustÏbe€proportioned€to€the€severity€of€the€offense€in€the€capital€case€context.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Harrisóó,€844€S.W.2d€601,€602€(Tenn.€1992)(citing€òòWeems€v.€UnitedÏStatesóó,€217€U.S.€349,€367,€30€S.Ct.€544,€549,€54€L.Ed.€836€œ(1910)).›€€Yet,Ïð ð[r]eviewing€courts€should€grant€substantial€deference€to€the€broad€authorityÏlegislatures€possess€in€determining€punishments€for€particular€crimes,€ðð[o]utsideÏthe€context€of€capital€punishment,€òòsuccessfulóó€challenges€to€the€proportionality€ofÍparticular€sentences€[will€be]€exceedingly€rare.ðððð€òòHarrisóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€602Ï(quoting€òòSolem€v.€Helm,óó€463€U.S.€277,€289„90,€103€S.Ct.€3001,€3009,€77ÏL.Ed.2d€637,€649€œ(1983))€(emphasis›€in€original).€€The€mandatory€nature€of€aÏsentence,€even€if€it€appears€to€be€cruel,€€is€not€otherwise€unusual€and€does€notÏrender€it€violative€of€the€Eighth€Amendment.€€òòHarmelin€v.€Michiganóó,€501€U.S.€991,Ï996,€111€S.€Ct.€2680,€2701,€115€L.Ed.2d€836€(1991)(life€without€parole€forÏconviction€for€possessing€672€grams€of€cocaine€constitutional);€òòState€v.€Hinsleyóó,Ï627€S.W.2d€351,€355€(Tenn.€1982)(€sentencing€provisions€of€the€habitual€drugÏoffender€act€constitutional);€òòState€v.€Danny€Lee€Holderóó,€C.C.A.€01C01„9501„CC„00015,€Lincoln€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Mar.€22,€1996)€(mandatoryÏservice€of€the€entire€sentence€for€defendants€convicted€of€rape€of€a€childÏconstitutional).ÌÌà àNor€does€the€mandatory€sentence€violate€the€more€expansive€applicationÏto€non„capital€sentencing€by€our€supreme€court€of€Article€I,€Section€16€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€If€we€consider€the€mandatory€sentence€under€the€stateÏconstitution,€this€requires€that€the€sentence€initially€be€compared€to€the€crimeÏcommitted.€€òòHarrisóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€603.€€ð ðUnless€this€threshold€comparison€leadsÏto€an€inference€of€gross€disproportionality,€the€inquiry€ends„„the€sentence€isÏconstitutional.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€However,€in€the€few€cases€when€the€inference€arises,€weÏmust€compare€the€sentence€as€applied€to€other€criminals€in€the€jurisdiction,€andÍsentences€for€the€same€crime€in€other€jurisdictions.€€òòId.óó€€Here,€we€cannotÏconclude€that€the€imposition€of€a€mandatory€thirty„day€sentence€isÏdisproportionate€to€the€crime€on€its€face.€€Obviously,€the€general€assembly€hasÏdetermined€that€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€of€driving€while€under€theÏinfluence€with€children€in€the€vehicle€warrants€a€more€severe€punishment.€€TheÏlegislature€has€also€graded€the€offense€with€reference€to€more€seriousÏconsequences€to€a€child,€i.e.€serious€bodily€injury€and€death.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€55„10„414(2),€(3).€€€The€legislature€has€broad€power€to€determine€the€natureÏand€length€of€punishments€for€crimes€and€we€should€generally€defer€to€itsÏauthority.€ÌÌà àThe€appeal€is€dismissed€and€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGE