ÿWPC  … %Vw@\ 0ÜœU:x 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u© 0d B‚U*ŸB)ÉDCò AM5§‚U>)Ðgv~7 D3µvÓè 0@» AOûÆJ 0D D/T BƒX ¬D­D®¯°[±²£³D´UµÓ€(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular³†;$3|x¾(Ð(3Q˜$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€LªXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌJulyÏ16,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman ÆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€However,€his€friends,€Roger€Edwards€and€wife,ÏShelia€Edwards,€testified€that,€when€the€truck€drove€into€their€yard€followed€by€the€police,€thereÏwere€three€individuals€in€the€truck€and€that€Jerry€Majors,€not€the€appellant,€was€driving.€TheÏalleged€driver,€Majors,€the€nephew€of€Ms.€Edwards€and€a€resident€of€ð ðsomewhere€in€Georgia,ðð€didÏnot€testify.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  Óò òßR€%&$A1-j|`   `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àMAY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9708„CC„00332Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àFRANKLIN€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€THOMAS€W.€GRAHAM,€JudgeÌCHRIS€W.€FRAME,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Evading€Arrest)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)Ìó óÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òPhilip€A.€Condraó óà àà àò òà àà àJohn€Knox€Walkupó óÌDist.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.€O.€Box€220à àÌJasper,€TN€€37347à àà àà àà àò òJanis€L.€Turneró óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€JusticeÏDivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€Michael€Tayloró óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWilliam€Copelandó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à324€Dinah€Shore€Blvd.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWinchester,€TN€€37398ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓÔ€'Ôà@ àÔ€"Ôòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóó€ÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Chris€W.€Frame,€appeals€as€of€right€his€conviction€for€theÏclass€A€misdemeanor€of€evading€arrest.€€The€appellant€was€originally€charged€withÏdriving€under€the€influence,€third€offense,€and€evading€arrest.€€At€the€conclusion€ofÏthe€proof,€a€Franklin€County€jury€found€the€appellant€not€guilty€of€driving€under€theÏinfluence€but€guilty€of€œevading›€arrest.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€11Ïmonths€29€days€with€90€days€incarceration€in€the€county€jail€followed€by€probation.€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€first€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÏsupport€his€conviction€for€evading€arrest€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Second,€he€contendsÏthat€his€sentence€was€not€imposed€in€accordance€with€the€law€and€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€failing€to€grant€ð ðimmediate€and€outright€probationðð€for€the€entirety€ofÏhis€sentence.ÌÌà àAfter€review,€we€affirm.̛̜Ìà@ àò òBackgroundó óÌÌà àReviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€the€proofÏestablished€that,€on€the€evening€of€September€4,€1995,€Officer€Troy€Mann€of€theÍWinchester€Police€Department,€while€patrolling€Lynchburg€Highway,€ð ðobserved€aÏblue€truck€in€my€lane€of€travel€or€in€the€middle€of€the€road.ðð€€He€activated€his€blueÏlights€and€turned€around€to€follow€the€appellantððs€vehicle.€€After€following€the€truckÏto€the€residence€of€Roger€and€Sheila€Edwards,€he€saw€the€appellant€emerge€fromÏthe€driverððs€side€of€the€truck€and€ð ðtake€off€on€foot.ðð€€He€saw€no€one€else€in€or€nearÏthe€truck.€€Roger€Edwards€and€his€wife,€Sheila,€were€standing€at€the€front€of€theÏhouse.€€He€then€radioed€for€assistance.€€Sergeant€Mike€Doty,€Investigator€JohnÏStewart,€and€Sergeant€Mantooth€responded€to€Mannððs€call.€€Upon€arriving€at€theÏEdwardsðð€residence,€they€began€searching€for€the€appellant.€€Investigator€StewartÏlocated€the€appellant€under€the€house.€€After€receiving€no€response€from€hisÏinstruction€that€the€appellant€emerge€from€underneath€the€house,€InvestigatorÏStewart€threatened€to€ð ðgasðð€him€if€he€did€not€come€out.€€The€appellant€then€crawledÏout€from€underneath€the€house.€€Investigator€Stewart€ð ðgot€a€hold€of€his€arm€and€gotÏhim€to€his€feet.€€He€was€obviously€intoxicated€.€.€.€because€.€.€.€you€could€smell€theÏalcohol€.€.€.€all€over€him,€he€was€staggering.ðð€€Stewart€then€handcuffed€the€appellantÏand€Officer€Mann€placed€him€under€arrest.€€The€appellant€refused€to€submit€to€aÏblood€alcohol€test.ÌÌà àBased€upon€the€proof,€the€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€evading€arrest.ÌÌÌà@ àò òAnalysisó óÌÌà@ àòòI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceóóÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€against€him€is€insufficient€as€aÏmatter€of€law€to€support€his€conviction€of€evading€arrest.€€When€an€accusedÏchallenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€courtððs€standard€of€reviewÏis€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.Ct.Ï2781,€2791„92€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€œ1985,€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€475€U.S.€1031,€106€S.Ct.€1240€(1986));›€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).ÌÌà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€œdoes›€not€reweigh€orÏreevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€ÏNor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€fromÏthe€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€œ859,€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.€39€(1956);›€òòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51Ï(Tenn.Crim.App.€1978).€€On€the€contrary,€this€court€must€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÍevidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellantððs€insufficient€evidence€claim€is€based€upon€the€fact€that€theÏjury€acquitted€him€of€driving€under€the€influence.€€Our€law€provides€that€a€person€isÏguilty€of€evading€arrest€if€that€person:€€(1)€intentionally€flee[s]€from€anyone€theÏperson€knows€to€be€a€law€enforcement€officer€and€(2)€knows€the€officer€isÏattempting€to€arrest€the€person.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„16„603(a)(1)(A)€(1991).›€€AtÏtrial,€the€appellant€defended€against€the€DUI€charge€upon€grounds€that€he€was€notÏthe€driver€of€the€truck.œ× ƒ( ××  ×›€€Accordingly,€he€argues€that,€because€the€jury€accreditedÏthe€defense€witnesses€and€found€that€he€was€not€the€driver,€there€was€no€way€forÏhim€to€have€known€that€the€police€were€attempting€to€arrest€him.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellantððs€insufficiency€argument€that,€because€he€was€acquitted€ofÏDUI,€he€cannot,€as€a€matter€of€law,€be€guilty€of€evading€arrest€is€essentially€anÏð ðinconsistent€verdictsðð€argument€and€is€misplaced.€€Inconsistent€verdicts€areÏpermitted€as€long€as€there€is€sufficient€evidence€to€permit€a€rational€fact€finder€toÏfind€a€defendantððs€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€on€the€charges€on€which€theÏdefendant€was€convicted.€€In€òòWiggins€v.€Stateóó,€498€S.W.2d€92,€93€(Tenn.€1973),€ourÍSupreme€Court€adopted€the€analysis€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòDunnÏv.€United€Statesóó,€284€U.S.€390,€52€S.Ct.€189€(1932),€and€held€that€ð ðconsistencyÏbetween€verdicts€on€separate€counts€of€an€indictment€is€not€necessary,ðð€becauseÏð ðeach€count€of€an€indictment€is€to€be€regarded€as€a€separate€indictmentðð€and€mustÏbe€individually€supported€by€the€evidence.€€Thus,€our€analysis€returns€to€theÏquestion€of€whether€the€elements€of€the€offense€of€evading€arrest€have€beenÏproven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€jury€heard€œOfficer›€Mann€testify€that€he€saw€a€truck€being€driven€inÏan€erratic€manner€on€a€public€highway.€€The€proof€further€established€that€œOfficer›ÏMann€pursued€the€truck,€with€ð ðblue€lightsðð€on,€into€the€Edwardsðð€driveway.€€UponÏentering€the€Edwardsðð€property,€the€officer€testified€that€he€saw€the€appellant,€whoÏwas€driving,€open€the€door€and€flee€from€the€truck.€€These€facts€are€sufficient€for€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€evading€arrest€beyond€aÏreasonable€œdoubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€13(e).›€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àIn€a€somewhat€related€subissue€of€his€insufficiency€argument,€the€appellantÏcontends€that€the€officer,€upon€entering€the€Edwardsðð€property,€ð ðcertainly€did€notÏhave€sufficient€facts€upon€which€a€warrantless€arrest€would€have€been€proper.ðð€€InÏTennessee,€it€is€clear€that€an€officer€may€make€a€valid€warrantless€misdemeanorÏarrest€for€a€public€offense€committed€or€a€breach€of€the€peace€threatened€in€hisÏpresence.€€œòòSeeóó€Tenn.›€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„7„103(1)€(1995€Supp.);›€òòState€v.€Dueróó,€616ÍS.W.2d€614,€616€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€Again,€reviewing€the€testimony€in€theÏlight€most€favorable€to€the€State,€Officer€Mann€testified€that€he€personally€observedÏa€truck€driving€on€the€centerline€of€the€highway.€€After€activating€his€blue€lights,€theÏofficer€observed€the€appellant€get€out€of€the€truck€and€flee€on€foot.€€After€theÏappellant€emerged€from€underneath€the€house,€the€officer€concluded€that€theÏappellant€was€intoxicated.€€These€facts€and€circumstances,€as€observed€by€theÏofficer,€would€have€justified€an€arrest€for€both€DUI€and€evading€œarrest.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€13(e).›€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àÌà@ àòòII.€€SentencingóóÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessiveÏsentence.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€follow€theÏprinciples,€purpose€and€goals€of€the€Sentencing€Act,€when€it€imposed€a€sentenceÏof€11€months€29€days€with€90€days€to€be€served€in€the€county€jail,€followed€byÏprobation.€€œRather,›€the€appellant€asserts€that€he€should€have€received€ð ðimmediateÏand€outright€probation.ðð€€ÌÌà àWhen€an€appellant€complains€of€his€sentence€on€appeal,€this€court€conductsÏa€òòde€novoóó€review€coupled€with€a€presumption€that€the€trial€courtððs€sentencingÏdeterminations€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d)€œ(1995€Supp.).›€ÏHowever,€this€presumption€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€that€the€trialÍcourt€considered€the€relevant€sentencing€principles€and€all€pertinent€facts€andÏcircumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Regardless€ofÏwhether€the€presumption€of€correctness€is€applied,€the€burden€of€showing€theÏimpropriety€of€the€sentence€is€on€the€appealing€party.€€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401.ÌÌà àMisdemeanor€sentencing€is€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302Ï(1995€Supp.).€€Although€otherwise€entitled€to€the€same€considerations€under€theÏSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€unlike€a€felon,€a€misdemeanant€is€not€entitled€toÏthe€presumption€of€a€minimum€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Seatonóó,€914€S.W.2d€129,Ï133€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citation€omitted);€òòState€v.€Warrenóó,€No.€01C01„9605„CC„00218€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€May€21,€1997)€(citation€omitted).€ÏMoreover,€as€a€sentencing€hearing€is€not€mandatory,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„302,›€trial€courts€are€not€required€to€explicitly€place€their€findings€on€the€œrecord;›Ïalthough€such€practice€is€beneficial€for€appellate€review.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,ÏNo.€01C01„9509„CC„00313€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€June€11,€1996),€òòperm.Ïto€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Jan.€6,€œ1997).€›€Additionally,€while€we€acknowledge€thatÏthe€purpose€of€requiring€the€trial€court€to€consider€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€in€felony€sentencing€is€to€assure€the€determination€of€an€appropriateÏsentence€within€the€applicable€sentencing€range,€we€recognize€that,€aÏmisdemeanor€sentence,€as€opposed€to€a€felony€sentence,€contains€no€sentenceÏrange.€€òòSeeóó€œòòState€v.€Troutmanóó,€No.€03C01„9509„CC„00287€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÍKnoxville,€Nov.€6,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€May€5,€1997)€(Hayes,€J.,Ïdissenting).€€Thus,›€although€strict€compliance€with€formal€procedures€is€vital€inÏfelony€sentencing€in€part€to€avoid€disparity€in€the€sentencing€of€defendants,€suchÏrigid€compliance€is€not€necessary€in€misdemeanor€sentencing€where€the€relativeÏnarrow€sentencing€periods€encompassed€by€class€A,€B,€and€C€misdemeanorsÏœeliminates,›€òòper€œseóó,›€the€potential€for€disparity.€€òòIdóó.€€Accordingly,€in€misdemeanorÏcases,€the€trial€judge,€who€is€able€to€observe€first„hand€the€demeanor€andÏresponses€of€the€defendant€while€testifying,€must€be€granted€œbroad€discretion›€inÏarriving€at€the€appropriate€sentence.€€€€€œ›Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€90€day€period€of€incarceration€in€theÏcounty€jail€but€granted€work€release,€permitting€the€appellant€to€be€released€fromÏcustody€from€6:00€a.m.€to€6:00€p.m.€during€weekdays.€€€This€consideration€wasÏgranted€so€that€the€appellant€could€work€in€order€to€support€his€children€and€payÏthe€assessed€fine€and€court€cost.€€ÌÌà àUpon€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€followed€appropriateÏsentencing€principles€and€that€the€presumption€of€correctness€applies.€€TheÏappellant€is€a€self„employed€landscaper€and€maintenance€worker.€€A€pre„sentenceÏrecords€check,€ordered€by€the€court,€revealed€that€the€appellant€had€priorÏconvictions€for€larceny,€reckless€driving,€driving€under€the€influence€and€multipleÏpublic€intoxication€convictions.€€The€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏthe€appellantððs€ð ðprevious€history€of€intoxicationðð€and€the€nature€and€circumstancesÍof€the€present€offense.€€Moreover,€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation,€via€probation,€haveÏbeen€applied€unsuccessfully.€€For€these€reasons,€we€conclude€that€the€appellantÏhas€failed€to€establish€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€excessive.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌœÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judge›