ÿWPC­ ŸrÑW‹µ»o;¬D£KuÞÕå¶ií9+}¤Wʰz=¹aÈøH©W?gŽ: Ê‘Í5|yz2¶·[¦N‰×ÿîâ|NÚè:ÀØ™<_R.7ŒÞÇÛpɤÀûÓl¤Þ¯ul÷‰V‘Ç)g.½6ÌÓÏ?Ì$ØY(w=Ò_.:Æ‘޾æ½Tc/ësÈÉÓš2MPT ê>ðn‹I¯Íª±îyLÌØk@)О“ºŸ˜×¨–³E<¤^X‰DÄ™(Œ¿]3í{s2ÄK¿‡‘9>!Øm<‰W(Ó }&†“©VâM’ðµhØ”ºì9­GƒÇÙ¹H”˰¹Ã6¹¤ô+êÝÆÓÈðço»ÏbMìâ§ëìçóÅ p Š;ZŽŒÛk™Ê-g§uÔÜJpÇ CèCp|gÕè(‘_1äO¤.¤ä læœ0+¯>êj‚ŒS8!WzàCî>•2Ð÷Õ9ÿ±)—èõ(Ñ !ŽõuËêuëPÞ±D†>:åãd1ÅŸÖt²f-ÿªÀPÆ€OwhkMs§K‘±)ÖÚ3ë?kõa_Òêåú$ÀÓh З©ž¨‡¡ïÿ á“gpLÇÍuÂ1½æVÞ’éézÅ}ܽMÌ*# LU>W %• 0í›UBˆ4ÊÞn­íU:šfÔ:"Bw@dU:¤ 1mÞ 0cK U:® 01è 0D ½] U: ½T U>U:OUB‰)ËU:ôôôô B. AQKÆœ 0Db 0D¦ 0Dêê D/.. B] D3z˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiWc%3|xÏ «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ » E¼ ½ {¾ ¿ À Á D à DÄ Ó€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular#0e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³¼$´´Ô20eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à, øð AZ"Arial Regular(á(3áÄ$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€»ÞXXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ³Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôä5ôXXÔÔ€ô"ßôôôä5ÔÝ ƒ!½ÿÝÑ @ ÑÑ7À«ÀXXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€note€that€the€sentencing€judge€did€not€preside€over€the€defendantððs€trial.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ³Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôdiôXXÔÔ€ô"­ôôôdiÔÝ ƒ!½ÿÝÑ @ ÑÑ7À«ÀXXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€note€that€the€sentencing€judge€did€not€preside€over€the€defendantððs€trial.<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XœèXXXÔÔ€s^XXœèÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XœèXs^ÔÐ  ÐÌò òNovember€20,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô¼®ôXXœèÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€»ÞXXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ݛѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XœèXXXÔÑ7€ œè XXdæXXdÈ7ÑñÄ ñœßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` ttx$Xð Õrß›ñÄ ñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@~~%DàAT€KNOXVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€SEPTEMBER€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€03C01„9711„CR„00491Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àKnox€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Chester€R.€Mahood,€Judge€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à(by€designation)€(at€trial)Ð ‚z  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Richard€R.€Baumgartner,€JudgeÐ NF ÐJACK€FRANKLIN,à  àà h àà À à)à  à(Sentencing)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À à)à  à(Driving€while€under€the€influence€of€an€à (# àÐ ø Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àintoxicant,€second€offense;€driving€on€a€à (# àœÐ æÞ Ðà ¸ à›à  àà h àà À à)à  àrevoked€license)Ð ÌÄ ÐÌÌÌòòÌÌFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð 0 ( ÐÌMark€E.€Stephensà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€Knox€Walkupà  àà x àÐ ü!ô ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ â"Ú Ѐ€€€€and€€€€€€€€€€à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ È#À  ÐJohn€Halsteadà  àà h àà À àà  àElizabeth€B.€Marneyà x àà Ð à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ®$¦! ÐAssistant€Public€Defender€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Assistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÌ1209€Euclid€Avenue€€€€€€€€€€€€à À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ z&r# ÐKnoxville,€TN€37921€€€€€€€€€€€à À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ð `'X $ Ð(AT€TRIAL)Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRandall€E.€NicholsÌMark€E.€Stephensà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ * #' ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  à€à p àandÐ ø*ð#( Ѐ€€€€andà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMarsha€SelecmanÐ Þ+Ö$) ÐPaula€R.€Vossà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ Ä,¼%* ÐJohn€Halsteadà  àà h àà À àà  àCity„County€BuildingÐ ª-¢&+ Ð1209€Euclid€Avenueà h àà À àà  àKnoxville,€TN€37902Ð .ˆ', ÐKnoxville,€TN€37921Ì(ON€APPEAL)ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌCONVICTIONS€AFFIRMED;€REMANDED€FOR€NEW€SENTENCING€HEARINGÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÐ >:639@ ЇÓÓòòò òà@õõ)DàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóà@@DD/DàˆÐ  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Jack€Franklin,€appeals€as€of€right€following€his€convictionsÏby€a€jury€in€the€Criminal€Court€of€Knox€County€for€driving€while€under€the€influence€of€anÏintoxicant€(D.U.I.),€second€offense,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor,€and€driving€on€a€revokedÏlicense€(D.O.R.L.),€a€Class€B€misdemeanor.€€For€the€D.U.I.€conviction,€the€defendantÏwas€sentenced€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€confinement€to€be€served€in€theÏKnox€County€Jail,€with€all€but€ninety€days€suspended€followed€by€nine€months€ofÏsupervised€probation.€€He€was€also€fined€fifteen€hundred€dollars.€€For€the€D.O.R.L.Ïconviction,€he€was€sentenced€to€six€months€confinement,€with€all€but€ninety€daysÏsuspended,€the€remainder€to€be€served€on€supervised€probation,€and€he€was€fined€fiveÏhundred€dollars.€€The€jail€time€was€to€run€concurrently,€and€the€probation€was€to€runÏconsecutively.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÏsupport€his€conviction€for€D.U.I.,€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing,€and€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€denying€his€motion€for€a€court€reporter€to€be€provided€by€the€state.€€We€affirmÏthe€convictions€but€remand€the€case€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà ¸ àBecause€the€proceedings€at€trial€were€not€transcribed,€the€only€recordÏavailable€for€our€review€is€a€Statement€of€the€Evidence€that€was€prepared€by€theÏdefendant€and€approved€by€the€state€and€the€trial€court.€€T.R.A.P.€24(c).€€At€trial,€JerryÏChildress€testified€that€at€about€9:30€or€10:00€p.m.€on€December€31,€1993,€he€was€atÏthe€Wal„Mart€on€Maynardville€Highway€when€he€caught€a€glimpse€of€the€defendantððsÏcar€and€saw€it€hit€another€car.€€He€said€the€defendantððs€car€did€not€have€on€itsÏheadlights.€€He€said€he€put€on€his€emergency€flashers€and€went€to€check€on€theÏdefendant.€€He€testified€that€the€defendant€was€sitting€behind€the€steering€wheel,€andÏthere€was€no€one€else€present€in€the€car.€€He€said€there€was€not€enough€time€forÏsomeone€to€have€exited€the€car€and€left€the€scene.€€He€testified€that€when€he€told€theÏdefendant€to€turn€on€his€headlights,€the€defendant€became€irate€and€cursed€him.€Ð ˜706 ÐChildress€said€he€determined€that€the€defendant€was€not€injured,€and€he€moved€awayÏfrom€the€car.€€Childress€said€the€defendant€appeared€to€have€been€drinking,€and€heÏcould€smell€alcohol€coming€from€the€defendant.€€He€also€said€the€defendant€becameÏirate€when€a€police€officer€asked€for€the€defendantððs€driverððs€license,€and€the€defendantÏtried€to€pass€the€officer€his€Social€Security€card.€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Childress€admitted€that€two€of€his€sons€were€killedÏin€single€car€accidents.€€He€admitted€that€he€often€thought€about€the€accidents€in€whichÏhis€sons€were€killed,€and€this€is€probably€why€he€paid€close€attention€to€the€accident€inÏthe€present€case.€€He€said€the€police€did€not€interview€him€at€the€scene€but€took€hisÏname.ÌÌà ¸ àSandra€Massengill,€a€Tennessee€State€Trooper,€testified€that€she€arrivedÏon€the€scene€of€the€accident€and€saw€the€defendantððs€car€in€the€southbound€lane.€€SheÏsaid€the€defendant€was€agitated€when€she€spoke€with€him,€and€she€suspected€he€hadÏbeen€drinking.€€She€said€the€defendant€was€standing€at€the€driverððs€side€of€his€car,€andÏshe€immediately€smelled€alcohol.€€She€said€she€did€not€remember€asking€the€defendantÏif€he€was€the€driver,€although€she€said€she€probably€did,€and€her€paperwork€listed€theÏdefendant€as€the€driver.€€She€testified€that€the€defendant€was€belligerent€andÏuncooperative,€and€he€gave€her€his€Social€Security€card€instead€of€his€driverððs€license.€ÏShe€said€his€eyes€were€red€and€watery,€his€speech€was€slurred,€and€his€clothes€wereÏdisheveled.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Trooper€Massengill€said€that€she€was€not€presentÏat€the€time€of€the€accident€and€did€not€see€the€accident€occur.€€She€said€she€did€not€seeÏthe€defendant€driving€his€car.Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ¸ ñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ¸ ñà ¸ àTrooper€John€Woods€testified€that€the€defendant€was€heavily€intoxicated,Ïâ âand€he€could€smell€alcohol€coming€from€the€defendant.€€He€said€he€could€notÏunderstand€everything€the€defendant€was€saying.ÌÌà ¸ àTrooper€Vanessa€Boles€testified€that€when€she€arrived€at€the€scene,€thereÏwere€people€everywhere.€€She€said€the€defendant€was€unruly€and€tried€to€pass€hisÏSocial€Security€card€when€she€asked€for€his€driverððs€license.€€She€said€the€defendantÏtold€her€that€no€one€else€was€with€him,€and€he€did€not€deny€drinking.€€She€said€sheÏasked€the€defendant€to€perform€a€heel„to„toe€test,€but€he€could€not€do€it.€€A€certifiedÏcopy€of€the€defendantððs€driving€record€was€introduced€into€evidence,€and€the€recordÏshowed€that€the€defendantððs€license€was€revoked€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€TrooperÏBoles€stated€that€she€did€not€fill€out€a€D.U.I.€report.€€She€said€the€defendant€was€upsetÏbecause€the€other€car€failed€to€yield€and€caused€the€accident.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€presented€two€witnesses.€€Paul€Flatford€testified€that€heÏhad€known€the€defendant€for€about€ten€years€but€that€they€were€acquaintances,€notÏfriends.€€He€said€he€saw€the€defendant€on€the€night€of€the€accident.€€He€said€that€as€heÏwas€driving,€he€saw€the€defendant€in€the€passenger€side€of€a€car,€and€a€woman€withÏdark€hair€was€driving€the€car.€€He€said€the€carððs€headlights€were€on.€€He€said€theÏdefendant€waved€to€him€as€he€passed.€€He€said€the€accident€occurred€a€few€secondsÏlater€when€a€small€white€car€came€across€the€road€and€was€struck€by€the€defendantððsÏcar.€€He€said€that€because€traffic€was€backed€up,€he€went€around€the€accident€and€wentÏhome.€€He€admitted€that€he€had€talked€to€the€defendant€since€the€accident,€but€he€saidÏhe€did€not€ask€the€defendant€who€was€driving.€€Flatford€said€he€remembered€theÏdefendant€saying€that€there€was€a€woman€driving.ÌÌà ¸ àScott€Day€testified€that€he€was€driving€down€Maynardville€Highway€behindÏthe€defendant€before€the€accident€occurred.€€He€said€there€were€two€people€in€theÐ Œ7„06 Ðdefendantððs€car,€and€its€headlights€were€lit.€€He€said€the€driver€was€a€female€with€shortÏdark€hair.€€He€said€that€as€they€were€proceeding€down€the€road,€a€small€white€car€pulledÏout€from€the€intersection.€€Day€testified€that€the€defendant€was€the€passenger€in€the€car.€ÏHe€said€that€after€the€accident,€the€woman€driving€the€car€left€and€walked€to€anotherÏcar.€€He€said€he€left€after€determining€that€no€one€was€injured.€€He€said€he€learned€theÏnext€morning€that€the€defendant€was€looking€for€witnesses,€and€he€notified€theÏdefendant€through€a€friend€that€he€had€witnessed€the€accident.€€He€said€he€had€seenÏthe€defendant€a€couple€of€times€since€the€accident.€€He€also€said€he€did€not€see€theÏdefendant€at€the€scene€of€the€accident.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€rebuttal,€Trooper€Boles€testified€that€she€did€not€recall€seeing€eitherÏFlatford€or€Day€at€the€wreck.€€She€admitted€that€she€arrived€at€least€five€minutes€afterÏthe€wreck€occurred.€€Trooper€Massengill€testified€that€the€other€car€involved€in€theÏaccident€was€blue,€not€white.ÌÌÓ  Óà @¸ àò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÐ ü!ô Ðó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ Ô#Ì  Ðconviction€for€D.U.I.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€because€the€state€presented€only€oneÏeyewitness€to€the€accident€who€was€impeached,€and€the€defendant€presented€twoÏeyewitnesses,€the€weight€of€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€He€also€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€should€have€set€aside€the€verdict€in€its€capacity€as€a€thirteenth€juror.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction€for€D.U.I.ÌÌà ¸ àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questionedÏon€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÐ 4ø,2 Ðcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.Ð Ì5Ä.4 Ð2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€do€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€but€presume€thatÐ ˜706 Ðthe€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€all€reasonable€inferencesÏfrom€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547Ð ÔÌ Ð(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€Ð   ˜ ÐÌà ¸ àViewing€the€evidence€in€this€light,€we€conclude€that€it€is€sufficient.€€TheÏstate€presented€one€eyewitness€who€testified€that€the€defendant€was€driving€the€car€andÏthat€the€headlights€were€not€on.€€The€witness€also€testified€that€after€the€wreck,€thereÏwas€not€enough€time€for€someone€to€have€exited€the€defendantððs€car€and€left€theÏscene.€€Three€state€troopers€testified€that€the€defendant€was€intoxicated.€€One€trooperÏtestified€that€the€defendant€told€her€there€was€no€one€else€in€the€car.€€Although€theÏdefense€presented€two€witnesses€who€testified€that€a€dark€haired€woman€was€drivingÏthe€car,€the€jury€was€entitled€to€accredit€the€testimony€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€and€rejectÏthe€testimony€of€the€defense€witnesses.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€him€aÏnew€trial€in€its€capacity€as€a€thirteenth€juror.€€Rule€33(f),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€provides€thatÏthe€trial€court€may€grant€a€new€trial€if€it€views€the€verdict€to€be€contrary€to€the€weight€ofÏthe€evidence.€€When€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€is€overruled€without€comment,€approval€ofÏthe€verdict€is€presumed.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€750,€762€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð `'X $ Ð1993).€€Furthermore,€ð ðonce€the€trial€court€approves€the€verdict€as€the€thirteenth€jurorÏand€imposes€judgment,€the€review€of€the€evidence€on€appeal€is€quite€limited,€requiringÏthe€accrediting€of€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€state€and€the€resolution€ofÏevidentiary€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.ðð€€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€719Ð .ˆ', Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citation€omitted).€€When€viewed€in€this€light,€the€record€showsÏthat€the€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial,€finding€the€evidence€toÏbe€ð ðadequate,€if€not€overwhelming.ðð€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€byÏrefusing€to€set€aside€the€verdict€or€grant€the€defendant€a€new€trial.ÌÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òII.€€SENTENCINGÐ  ÐÓ  Óó óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€He€argues€thatÐ àØ Ðthe€trial€court€improperly€sentenced€him€to€more€than€the€mandatory€minimum€sentenceÏset€by€the€legislature.€€He€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€requiring€hisÏprobationary€periods€to€run€consecutively.€€The€state€argues€that€the€sentence€isÏproper.€ÌÌà ¸ àAppellate€review€of€misdemeanor€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€recordÐ ¨   Ðwith€a€presumption€that€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„¼401(d),€„402(d).€€The€ð ðpresumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trial€courtððsÏaction€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð ØÐ ÐAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€As€the€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÐ ¤œ Ðto€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€note,€the€burden€is€now€on€the€appealing€party€to€show€thatÏthe€sentencing€is€improper.€€We€note€that€there€is€no€presumptive€minimum€sentenceÏprovided€by€law€for€misdemeanor€sentencing.€€òòSee,óó€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€Ð " Ð829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€However,€in€misdemeanor€sentencing,€the€trial€courtÏmust€consider€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€ofÏ1989.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„302(d).ÌÌà ¸ àAlthough€the€defendant€argues€that€the€length€of€his€sentence€isÏexcessive,€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„403(c)€essentially€mandates€a€maximum€sentence€for€D.U.I.,Ïð ðwith€the€only€function€of€the€trial€court€being€to€determine€what€period€above€theÏminimum€period€of€incarceration€established€by€statute,€if€any,€is€to€be€suspended.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Combsóó,€945€S.W.2d€770,€774€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Therefore,€we€mustÐ 42,+0 Ðdetermine€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€concluding€that€alternatives€to€incarcerationÏwere€not€appropriate€in€this€case.€€ÌÔ€X¸XX X̼ԀР˜706 Їà ¸ àIn€sentencing€the€defendant€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€withÏall€but€ninety€days€suspended€for€the€D.U.I.€conviction,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€wasÏconsidering€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€for€felony€assault€and€simple€assault,€andÏthe€circumstances€of€the€offense,€believing€that€it€was€an€accident€involving€personalÏœinjury.€›€The€trial€court€also€considered€the€need€for€deterrence€and€the€fact€that€theÏdefendant€persisted€in€claiming€that€he€was€not€driving€the€car.Ô€X̼XXX¸ÔÐ h`  ÐÌà ¸ àWe€question€the€bases€for€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€determinations.ñÀ ñ׃×ñÀ ññÀ ñ׃×ñÀ ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р  ÐThere€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€before€us€that€the€accident€resulted€in€personalÏinjury.€€Nor€is€there€evidence€in€the€record€of€the€particularized€need€for€deterrenceÏwithin€the€jurisdiction.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B);€€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Horneóó,€612Ð xp ÐS.W.2d€186,€187€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980);Ô‡ X̼XXX̼Ô€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€864€(Tenn.€Ð D< ÐCrim.€App.€1987)Ô#†X̼XX X̼mH#Ô€œ(ñ¹ ñ[ñ¹ ñholding›€that€œtheñº ñ€ñº ññ» ññº ñytñº ññ» ññ½ ññ¼ ñtrsñ¼ ññ½ ññ½ ñtrial€courtððsñ½ ññ¼ ñ€ñ¼ ññ¾ ñfinding€that€theñ¾ ñ›€sentence€will€have€aÐ  Ðdeterrent€œeffectñÁ ñ]ñÁ ñ›€cannot€be€merely€conclusory€but€must€be€supported€by€proof).€€TheÏproblem,€though,€is€that€the€defendant€failed€to€include€the€presentence€report€as€partÏof€the€record€on€appeal.€€Thus,€we€are€in€no€position€to€conduct€a€proper€òòdeóó€òònovoóóÐ t"l Ðreview.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€any€event,€however,€Ô‡ X̼XXX̼Ôwe€agree€with€the€defendantððs€contention€that€theÐ Ø'Ð $ Ðtrial€court€did€not€have€the€authority€to€set€the€defendantððs€periods€of€confinement€forÏthe€D.U.I.€and€D.O.R.L.€to€run€concurrently€while€setting€his€periods€of€probation€to€runÏconsecutively.€€If€a€defendant€is€sentenced€to€both€confinement€and€probation,€theÏprobation€must€run€in€the€same€manner€as€the€confinement.€€ð ðThe€term€ððsentenceððÏincludes€both€the€period€of€incarceration€and€the€period€of€probation.€€Thus,€if€the€trialÏcourt€orders€the€defendantððs€sentences€to€run€consecutively,€then€each€portion€of€hisÏsentences€must€be€so€œservedñ ñ.ñ ñððñà ñ›€and›€vice›€versa.ñà ñ›€€òòState€v.€Connorsóó,€924€S.W.2d€362,€364€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð l4d-2 ÐApp.€1996).€€Thus,€the€case€should€be€remanded€for€resentencing.Ô#†X̼XX X̼ K#ÔÐ 860/4 ЇÓ  Óò òIII.€€MOTION€FOR€A€COURT€REPORTERÐ  ÐÓ  Óó óà ¸ àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€oral€motionÐ àØ Ðfor€a€court€reporter.€€He€contends€that€he€has€been€unduly€prejudiced€on€appealÏbecause€his€case€involves€complicated€factual€claims€of€witnesses€for€whichÏtranscription€was€necessary€to€convey€an€accurate€picture€of€the€trial.€€The€state€arguesÏthat€because€the€defendantððs€Statement€of€the€Evidence€is€sufficient€to€allow€adequateÏreview€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€any€potential€error€was€harmless,€and€theÏdefendant€was€not€prejudiced.ÌÌà ¸ àInitially,€we€note€that€indigent€defendants€have€due€process€and€equalÏprotection€rights€to€an€appellate€review€as€adequate€as€those€defendants€who€canÏafford€transcripts.€€òòSeeóó€òòMayer€v.€City€of€Chicagoóó,€404€U.S.€189,€193,€92€S.€Ct.€410,€413Ð ØÐ Ð(1971).€Ô‡ X̼XXX̼Ô€This€means€that€the€state€must€provide€an€indigent€defendant€with€ð ða€record€ofÐ ¤œ Ðsufficient€completeness€to€permit€proper€consideration€of€his€claims.ðð€€òòMayeróó,€404€U.S.Ð ph Ðat€194,€92€S.€Ct.€at€414€(citations€omitted).€€However,€a€trial€courtððs€denial€of€aÏdefendantððs€motion€for€a€court€reporter€does€not€automatically€create€reversible€error.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hammondóó,€638€S.W.2d€433,€434€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).Ô#†X̼XX X̼WR#ÔÔ‡ X̼XXX̼Ô€€Ô#†X̼XX X̼vT#ÔOther€methodsÐ Ô#Ì  Ðof€reporting€trial€proceedings€may€provide€a€defendant€with€a€sufficiently€completeÏrecord,€including€a€statement€of€facts€to€which€both€sides€have€agreed.€€òòMayeróó,€404Ð l'd $ ÐU.S.€at€194,€92€S.€Ct.€at€414.€€In€Tennessee,€an€appellant€may€prepare€a€Statement€ofÏthe€Evidence€in€lieu€of€a€verbatim€transcript€if€ð ðno€stenographic€report,€substantiallyÏverbatim€recital€or€transcript€of€the€evidence€or€proceedings€is€available.ðð€€T.R.A.P.Ï24(c);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Gallagheróó,€738€S.W.2d€624,€626€(Tenn.€1987);€òòHammondóó,€638Ð œ.”', ÐS.W.2d€at€434€œ(ñ¿ ñhñ¿ ññ¿ ñHñ¿ ñolding›€that€a€statement€of€the€Evidence€verified€for€accuracy€andÏapproved€by€both€sides€and€the€trial€judge€is€adequate€for€appellate€review€ofÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence).€€Ìâ âÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ðà ¸ àIn€light€of€the€detailed€Statement€of€the€Evidence€provided€by€theÏâ âdefendant€and€approved€by€both€the€district€attorney€and€the€trial€court,€we€concludeÏthat€the€defendant€suffered€no€prejudice€on€appeal€by€not€having€a€court€reporter€atÏtrial.€€The€Statement€of€the€Evidence€was€adequate€for€this€court€to€conduct€its€reviewÏof€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€record€is€inadequate€for€this€court€toÏreview€whether€the€trial€court€failed€in€its€capacity€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€However,€theÏdefendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€transcribed,€and€it€reflects€that€the€trial€courtÏdetermined€the€evidence€to€be€ð ðadequate,€probably€overwhelming.ðð€€Having€concludedÏthat€the€trial€court€exercised€its€capacity€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€we€have€nothing€else€toÏreview.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€719.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ÌÄ ÐÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONÐ d\ Ðó óÓ  Óà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€theÐ < 4 Ðconvictions€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€second€offense,€and€driving€Ìñ¶ ñœñ¶ ñonñ¶ ñ›ñ¶ ñ€a€revoked€license€are€affirmed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€newÏsentencing€hearing.ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à__________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge