ÿWPC  0# °UN» %  0(b7w@?4“¢ 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡U>ë 0@) D3i Bœ U *¹ B)ã DC AMO 4œ v~Ð AQN ÆŸ 0De 0D© D/í BvÓ9˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ¥¦D§¨D©ª«¬­Ó€¹B\J#3|x¹2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òOctober€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€µOXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€*ÙßR€&'%A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌAUGUST€SESSION,€1997ÌÌ€ÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)€€€€€€C.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9701„CR„00005Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellee,ò òà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€HON.€ARTHUR€T.€BENNETT,ó ó€Ìò òCONNIE€L.€FULTON,à àà àà à)€€€€€€€JUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó ó€€€€€€€Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà àò òà à)€€€€€€€(THEFT€OVER€$500.00)€Ìó óÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òROBERT€M.€BRANNON,€JR.à àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó ó295€Washington,€Suite€3à àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€38103€Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà àDEBORAH€A.€TULLIS€Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òPERRY€HAYES€ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Street,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103à0 àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€#°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant,€Connie€L.€Fulton,€appeals€as€of€right€the€determination€ofÏthe€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€that€the€sentences€she€received€for€variousÏconvictions€should€be€served€by€incarceration€and€not€œby€alternative›€sentencing.€ÏThe€Defendant€entered€guilty€pleas€to€three€counts€of€theft,€one€count€of€recklessÏdriving,€and€one€count€of€driving€a€motor€vehicle€while€her€license€was€revoked,Ïcanceled,€or€suspended.€€Pursuant€to€a€negotiated€plea€agreement,€theÏDefendant€was€sentenced€to€two€years€as€a€Range€I€Standard€Offender€forÏher€conviction€for€theft€over€$500.€€This€sentence€was€ordered€to€be€servedÏconcurrently€with€her€two€nine„month€sentences€for€theft€under€$500,€her€90„dayÏsentence€for€€reckless€driving,€and€her€90„day€sentence€for€driving€while€herÏlicense€was€revoked,€suspended,€or€canceled.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing,€theÏtrial€court€ordered€the€sentences€to€be€served€totally€by€incarceration.€€In€her€soleÏissue€on€appeal,€œthe€Defendant›€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€herÏalternative€sentencing.€€We€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà 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€areÍcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€considerÏthe€evidence€adduced€at€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€presentenceÏreport,€the€principles€of€sentencing,€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€toÏsentencing€alternatives,€the€nature€of€the€offense,€and€the€defendantððs€potentialÏfor€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210;€òòState€v.€Parkeróó,€932€S.W.2dÏ945,€955„56€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1996).Ìà àÌà 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€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÏUpon€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€considered€all€the€properÏsentencing€principles€and€stated€its€reasons€and€findings€on€the€record.€ÏTherefore,€review€by€this€court€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.Ìà àÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„102€outlines€when€alternativeÏsentencing€is€appropriate.€€A€defendant€œð ðwho›€œis›€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€firstÏpriority€regarding€œsentencing›€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)€œand›€(4).€€The€courtÍshould€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€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€when€he€stated:€ð ðYouððveÏgot€to€convince€me€that€you€donððt€need€to€go€to€jail€and€stay€there€as€long€asÏwe€can€keep€you€there,ðð€because€this€denied€her€the€presumption€of€being€aÏfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„102(6).€€Although€the€judge€may€have€acted€prematurely€in€implying€thatÏœthe€Defendant›€did€not€have€that€presumption,€after€a€careful€review€of€the€recordÏit€appears€that€the€judge€was€knowledgeable€of€the€Defendantððs€criminal€historyÏprior€to€the€sentencing€hearing.€à àÌà 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€an€extensive€criminal€record€dating€back€to€1986.€€She€hasÏbeen€previously€convicted€more€than€ten€times€for€shoplifting.€€The€DefendantÏwas€on€bond€awaiting€trial€when€she€committed€four€of€the€five€current€charges,Ïand€furthermore,€she€was€on€probation€for€possession€of€cocaine€when€sheÏcommitted€all€of€the€present€offenses.€€The€Defendant€has€apparently€failed€atÏall€past€efforts€of€rehabilitation.€€Because€of€these€facts,€the€trial€court€reasonedÏthat€the€Defendant€has€a€total€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society.€€ÏThe€court€further€found€that€granting€alternative€sentencing€would€depreciate€theÏseriousness€of€the€crime.€€This€court€has€held€that€where€a€defendantððs€historyÏindicates€a€clear€disregard€for€the€œlaws›€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€œ834,€840›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994).€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€she€is€an€eligible€candidate€for€CommunityÏCorrections€because€she€meets€the€minimum€requirements€outlined€inÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„36„106.€€€The€Community€CorrectionsÏAct€allows€certain€eligible€offenders€to€participate€in€community€basedÍalternatives€to€incarceration,€however,€a€defendant€must€first€be€a€suitableÏcandidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„36„103€and€40„35„104(9).€€Therefore,€since€the€court€found€the€Defendant€to€be€ineligible€forÏalternative€sentencing€because€of€the€factors€discussed€above,€this€precludesÏher€from€participating€in€the€Community€Corrections€program.€€Ìà àÌà 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,€the€arguments€made€by€counsel,€the€nature€of€theÏoffense,€and€the€Defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation,€we€find€that€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€err€in€denying€the€Defendant€alternative€sentencing.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€ÌÌà à€We€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court.ÌœÓÓÓ  ÓÌ›à àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌÌœÌ___________________________________›ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌœÌ___________________________________›ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judge