ÿWPC …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ ˜ 0”  0D4 w@x U:¸ ò 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕB)9 BbDC AMÂzv~˜ D3vÓI 0@ AO\Æ« 0Dq D/µ Bä<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi X%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|Xž«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó³†;$(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ŒbbŽbUU‘U’“”D•Ó€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH2 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% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌMayÏ27,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó pÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔWhile€the€copy€of€the€letter€was€not€certified,€the€defendant€did€produce€a€letter€from€theÏMichigan€court€dated€December€26,€1996,€and€an€envelope€postmarked€December€27,€1996.ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`$$$$'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€BbXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙßR€&'%A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àJANUARY€1998€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€œO1C01›„9703„CC„00112ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWILLIAMSON€COUNTYó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL,ÌJOEL€GUILDS,à àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Theft€of€property€in€excess€of€$1000)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òERIC€L.€DAVISà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌó ó317€Main€St.,€Suite€208à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÌó óFranklin,€TN€œ€37064ò ò›Ìó óà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àJANIS€L.€TURNERó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCounsel€for€the€StateÌ€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€œAve.,›€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCordell€Hull€œBldg›.,€SecondÏœFl.›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àNashville,›€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àJOSEPH€D.€œBAUGH›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àMARK€œPURYEAR›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àG„6€Williamson€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€œ€37064›à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ ° Ñœ›à@ àò òòòÔ€¼ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€XÔÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àÔ% € ÔThe€Williamson€County€grand€jury€returned€a€two€count€presentmentÏagainst€the€defendant€charging€him€with€alternative€counts€of€theft€of€property€inÏexcess€of€one€thousand€dollars€($1000).€€Following€a€jury€trial,€he€was€convicted€ofÏthe€first€count€and€was€given€a€four€year€sentence.€€The€trial€court€ordered€theÏdefendant€to€serve€150€days€of€his€sentence,€day€for€day,€with€the€remainder€to€beÏserved€on€intensive€probation.€€The€defendant€now€appeals€and€argues€that€theÏevidence€was€insufficient€to€convict€him€of€theft,€that€his€sentence€is€excessive,€and€Ïthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€After€a€review€of€theÏrecord€and€applicable€law,€we€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€courtÏbelow.€€ÌœÌ›à àà àThe€defendantððs€conviction€stemmed€from€his€employment€as€theÏmanager€of€two€service€stations€in€Franklin€and€œBrentwood›,€Tennessee.€€DeborahÏCothran,€owner€of€both€stores,€hired€the€defendant€in€1991€at€her€fatherððs€suggestion.€ÏThe€defendant€had€worked€for€Cothranððs€father€for€more€than€ten€years€as€aÏmechanic€and€tow€truck€driver€in€Michigan.€€Cothran€originally€hired€the€defendant€asÏa€mechanic€but€later€promoted€him€to€manager€of€both€stores.€€She€testified€that€sheÏhad€known€the€defendant€for€approximately€fifteen€years€and€that€he€had€been€aÍtrusted€friend€of€her€family.ÌÌà àà à€€In€the€course€of€his€duties€as€manager,€the€defendant€had€the€task€ofÏmaking€the€deposits€for€both€service€stations.€€Mary€Allen,€one€of€the€accountantsÏemployed€by€Cothran€at€the€Franklin€office,€testified€that€she€would€prepare€theÏdeposits€each€day€and€that€the€defendant€would€then€take€the€bank€bag€with€theÏdeposit€slip€and€money€to€First€Tennessee€Bank.€€She€testified€that€the€defendantÏwould€later€return€the€bank€bag€to€her€with€the€receipt€from€the€bank€showing€theÏamount€deposited.ÌÌà àà àCothran€testified€that€all€transactions€at€each€of€the€stores€were€runÏthrough€the€storesðð€cash€registers.€€Periodically,€the€cashiers€at€the€stores€wouldÏmake€drops€into€the€safe.€€Drops€were€made€either€every€hour€or€when€the€cashÏdrawer€had€reached€an€amount€of€two€hundred€dollars€($200).€€Cothran€furtherÏtestified€that€it€had€been€the€defendantððs€job€to€open€the€Brentwood€safe€everyÏmorning€and€take€the€money€to€the€accountants€in€Franklin.€€The€accountants€wouldÏthen€check€the€money€received€against€the€cash€registersðð€tapes€and€prepare€theÏdayððs€deposits.ÌÌà àà àAllen€testified€that€she€first€noticed€a€problem€with€the€bank€depositsÍwhen€she€discovered€that€some€of€the€deposits€had€not€been€made€on€time.€€SheÏtestified€that€one€deposit€in€particular€had€been€made€two€weeks€late.€€AllenÏmentioned€this€to€œCothran›€and€as€a€result,€Allen€called€First€Tennessee€Bank€andÏrequested€that€copies€of€the€bank€deposit€slips€be€sent€to€her.€€She€also€testified€thatÏaround€this€time,€Cothran€began€to€question€the€absence€of€some€rebate€checks.€ÏAllen€explained€that€vendors€periodically€sent€checks€to€the€stores€as€part€of€rebateÏoffers.€€The€amount€of€the€checks€was€typically€tied€to€the€volume€of€sales€of€aÏparticular€item.€€Thus,€Allen€generally€had€no€advance€notice€of€when€a€check€wasÏbeing€sent€or€in€what€amount.€€She€testified€that€she€recorded€all€rebate€checks€in€aÏlog€and€then€deposited€the€checks.€€Allen€also€explained€that€rebate€checks€wereÏsent€to€both€stores.€€However,€she€testified€that€the€defendant€had€instructions€toÏbring€her€all€the€mail€from€the€Brentwood€store€and€that€the€mail€was€not€to€beÏopened.ÌÌà àà àAs€Cothran€further€investigated€the€irregularities€in€the€bank€deposits,Ïshe€decided€to€contact€the€police.€€She€contacted€Detective€Jeff€Hughes€with€theÏBrentwood€Police€Department€on€December€7,€1994.€€Cothran€made€allegations€ofÏtheft€against€the€defendant€but€at€that€time€did€not€have€bank€records€to€support€herÏallegations.€€Cothran€later€obtained€copies€of€bank€deposits€and€passed€thisÏinformation€along€to€Hughes.€€Hughes€subsequently€questioned€and€then€arrestedÍthe€defendant.ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€the€State€presented€three€bank€transactions€that€reflected€anÏirregularity.€€In€the€first,€on€June€14,€1994,€Allen€had€prepared€a€deposit€slip€showingÏa€cash€deposit€in€the€amount€of€nine€hundred€and€eight€dollars€($908).€€However,€theÏdeposit€slip€that€was€actually€deposited€at€the€bank€was€not€the€one€that€Allen€hadÏprepared.€€The€second€slip€showed€a€total€deposit€of€nine€hundred€and€eight€dollarsÏ($908)€but€it€was€not€all€cash€as€was€the€one€prepared€by€Allen.€€The€second€slipÏshowed€a€deposit€of€six€hundred€and€forty„eight€dollars€($648)€in€cash,€sixty„fiveÏcents€($.65)€in€coins,€and€two€hundred€fifty„nine€dollars€and€thirty„five€centsÏ($259.35)€in€checks.€€Along€with€the€deposit€slip€were€copies€of€the€depositedÏchecks.€€The€checks€were€rebate€checks€from€œR.J.›€œReynolds›€Tobacco€Company€andÏPurity€Dairies.€ÌÌà àà àAllen€testified€that€the€second€deposit€slip€had€not€been€in€herÏhandwriting.€€She€further€testified€that€she€had€never€deposited€any€coins€at€FirstÏTennessee.€€Rather,€all€coins€were€sold€to€a€coin€bank.€€Allen€also€stated€that€sheÏhad€never€received€the€rebate€checks€and€that€they€had€not€been€placed€on€her€log.ÌÌà àà àA€second€similar€transaction€occurred€on€October€28,€1994.€€Again,ÍAllen€had€prepared€a€deposit€of€all€cash€in€the€amount€of€two€thousand€threeÏhundred€and€thirty„five€dollars€($2,335).€€However,€the€bank€records€contained€aÏbank€deposit€that€showed€a€deposit€of€cash,€coins,€and€checks€in€that€same€amount.€ÏThe€slip€showed€a€deposit€of€one€thousand€three€hundred€and€seven€dollarsÏ($1,307)€in€cash,€eighty€cents€($.80)€in€coins,€and€one€thousand€twenty„seven€dollarsÏand€twenty€cents€($1027.20)€in€checks.€€The€check€amount€totaled€the€amount€of€twoÏrebate€checks€from€œR.J.›€œReynolds›€Tobacco€Company€and€Philip€Morris.€€Again,€AllenÏtestified€that€she€had€not€prepared€the€second€slip€and€that€she€would€have€neverÏdeposited€coins€at€First€Tennessee.€€She€further€testified€that€the€defendant€had€notÏbeen€given€permission€to€alter€this,€or€any€other,€deposit.ÌÌà àà àœJaxie›€œGillespie›,€a€second€accountant€employed€by€Cothran,€testifiedÏabout€a€third€transaction.€€She€testified€that€she€had€prepared€a€deposit€slip€onÏNovember€11,€1994,€of€cash€only€in€the€amount€of€three€thousand€nine€hundred€andÏseventy„six€dollars€($3,976).€€The€deposit€slip€from€the€bank€reflected€that€sameÏamount€but€in€cash,€coins,€and€check.€€The€second€slip€showed€two€thousand€fourÏhundred€and€œsixty„five›€dollars€($2,465)€in€cash,€fifty€cents€($.50)€in€coins,€and€oneÏthousand€five€hundred€ten€dollars€and€fifty€cents€($1510.50)€in€checks.€€She€testifiedÏthat€she€had€not€given€the€defendant€permission€to€alter€the€deposit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€admitted€to€the€court€that€he€had€cashed€the€rebateÏchecks€through€the€deposit€and€had€then€completed€a€new€deposit€slip.€€However,Ïhe€testified€that€he€had€done€so€at€Cothranððs€direction.€€He€further€testified€thatÏCothran€had€called€him€from€time€to€time€and€had€instructed€him€to€cash€out€a€rebateÏcheck€and€bring€the€cash€to€her.€€He€said€he€performed€this€task€about€thirty€or€fortyÏtimes€during€his€employment€with€Cothran€and€that€the€amounts€ranged€from€fiveÏhundred€dollars€($500)€to€ten€thousand€dollars€($10,000).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€wife,€Leslie€Guilds,€testified€that€she€had€seen€herÏhusband€deliver€money€to€Cothran€on€œat›€least€one€occasion.€€She€testified€that€sheÏand€the€defendant€had€met€Cothran€at€a€sports€bar€in€Brentwood€where€theÏdefendant€had€given€Cothran€a€paper€bag€full€of€cash.€€She€further€testified€that€sheÏand€her€husband€had€not€been€having€any€recent€financial€difficulties.ÌÌà àà àCothran€testified€that€she€had€never€talked€to€the€defendant€aboutÏcashing€a€check€for€her.€€She€said€that€if€she€had€needed€cash,€she€would€talk€to€herÏaccountants€and€have€one€of€them€give€her€some€money.€€She€stated€that€thisÏmoney€had€always€been€reported€as€a€part€of€her€income.€€Cothran€told€the€court€thatÏwhen€she€discovered€that€rebate€checks€had€been€cashed€without€her€knowledge,Ïshe€questioned€the€defendant.€€She€said€the€defendant€first€told€her€that€he€had€notÍseen€the€checks€but€later€changed€his€mind€and€said€he€thought€he€had€taken€themÏto€Mary€Allen.€€Cothran€told€the€defendant€she€did€not€believe€him€and€fired€him€ð ðonÏthe€spot.ðð€€Cothran€said€she€had€been€very€angry,€very€shocked,€and€veryÏdisappointed.ÌÌà àà àTestimony€from€several€witnesses€reflected€that€Cothran€and€theÏdefendant€had€been€friends€as€well€as€employer€and€employee.€€Cothran€gave€the€Ïdefendant€and€his€family€numerous€gifts€including€a€family€trip€to€Disney€Land,€aÏdiamond€ring,€œdownpayments›€for€two€houses,€carpet€for€one€of€the€houses,€andÏvarious€items€of€clothing.€€Cothran€testified€that€she€had€also€loaned€the€defendantÏamounts€of€money€over€the€course€of€his€employment.€€Immediately€prior€to€firing€theÏdefendant,€Cothran€had€him€sign€a€loan€agreement€stating€that€she€was€loaning€himÏone€thousand€one€hundred€dollars€($1100).€€At€trial,€she€testified€that€this€amountÏreflected€the€balance€of€previous€loans€she€had€made€to€him,€not€a€new€loan.ÌÌà àà àIn€an€effort€to€discredit€Cothran,€the€defendant€testified€that€during€hisÏemployment€he€had€participated€with€Cothran€in€what€amounted€to€tax€evasion.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€had€been€paid€two€hundred€and€fifty„three€dollars€a€week€($253)€inÏthe€form€of€a€check.€€However,€he€also€received€seven€hundred€dollars€($700)€aÏweek€in€cash.€€He€said€that€this€latter€amount€was€not€reported€as€income.€€He€furtherÍsaid€that€Cothran€had€paid€herself€six€hundred€dollars€($600)€a€week€in€cash€thatÏwas€also€unreported.€€The€defendant€also€told€the€court€that€Cothran€did€not€report€allÏthe€money€earned€by€her€two€stores.€€For€example,€he€said€that€the€money€madeÏfrom€the€towing€service€was€not€rung€up€on€the€cash€register€so€that€it€would€not€haveÏto€be€reported.€€Two€former€employees€of€Cothran€testified€that€the€normal€businessÏpractice€had€been€to€put€cash€and€checks€from€the€towing€service€in€the€safe€and€notÏring€the€amount€up€on€the€register.€€However,€neither€employee€knew€whatÏhappened€to€the€money€after€they€deposited€it€in€the€safe.€€ÌÌà àà àCothran€testified€that€the€towing€money€was€handled€separately€andÏthat€all€money€had€been€accounted€for€by€her€accountants.€€She€further€testified€thatÏwhile€the€defendant€had€been€paid€in€cash,€she€had€given€him€an€accompanyingÏ1099€tax€form€which€recorded€his€having€received€cash€payment.€€She€also€told€theÏcourt€that€a€five€year€tax€audit€had€just€been€performed€on€both€stores€and€noÏproblems€had€been€found.€€In€fact,€she€received€a€three€thousand€dollar€($3000)Ïrefund€from€the€government.̛̜à àà àThe€defendant€now€argues€that€the€State€failed€to€prove€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€he€committed€the€theft.€€A€defendant€challenging€theÏsufficiency€of€the€proof€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€to€this€Court€why€the€evidence€isÍinsufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact€in€his€or€her€case.€€ThisÏCourt€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€for€lack€of€sufficient€evidence€unless€the€factsÏcontained€in€the€record€and€any€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€areÏinsufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guiltyÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€œTuggle›óó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€à àà àÌÌà àà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence,€we€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecutionÏin€determining€whether€ð ðòòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319,€99€œS.Ct›.€2781,€61€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€infer‚encesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€ÌÌà àà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€valueÏto€be€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835.€€A€guiltyÏverdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimonyÍof€the€witnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€in€order€for€him€to€have€been€convicted,Ïð ðone€would€have€to€believe€Ms.€Cothran€to€the€exclusion€of€the€defendant.ðð€€He€thenÏstates€that€to€do€so€would€be€unreasonable€considering€Cothranððs€irregular€businessÏpractices.€€We€cannot€agree.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€admitted€to€cashing€the€rebate€checks€by€using€the€cashÏin€the€prepared€deposits.€€He€also€admitted€to€making€a€new€deposit€slip.€€Thus,€theÏonly€question€is€whether€he€unlawfully€kept€the€money€or€gave€it€to€Cothran.€€TheÏdefendant€testified€that€he€had€given€the€money€to€Cothran,€while€Cothran€testifiedÏthat€she€had€never€seen€the€money€nor€discussed€such€a€practice€with€theÏdefendant.€€The€jury€simply€believed€Cothran€over€the€defendant.€€To€do€so€is€entirelyÏœwithin›€the€juryððs€province.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œBigbee›óó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€804€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏThe€defendant€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proving€to€this€Court€that€theÏevidence€is€insufficient.€€We€find€no€reason€to€disturb€the€juryððs€verdict.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€The€trialÍcourt€ordered€the€defendant€to€serve€150€days,€day€for€day,€and€to€then€spend€theÏremainder€of€his€four€year€sentence€on€intensive€probation.€€The€defendant€submitsÏthat€he€should€have€been€given€a€three€year€sentence€with€immediate€probation.€€HeÏargues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€adequately€consider€two€mitigating€factors€andÏerroneously€applied€one€enhancement€factor.ÌÌà àà àà àWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€mustÏconduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€ÏThe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,Ïhowever,€ð ðis€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€œAshby›óó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àà àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€at€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€to€be€followed€inÏsentencing.€€This€section€mandates€the€courtððs€consideration€of€the€following:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒX¸)Ó(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing;€(2)€[œt]he›€presentence€report;€(3)€[œt]he›Ïprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÏalternatives;€(4)€[œt]he›€nature€and€characteris‚tics€of€theÏcriminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€[œe]vidence›€and€informationÍoffered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€in€œÌðððð›€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[œa]ny›€statement€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalf€about€senƒtencing.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ¢ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210.ÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ ¢ Òà àà àIn€addition,€this€section€provides€that€the€minimum€sentence€within€theÏrange€is€the€presumptive€sentence.€€If€there€are€enhanc‚ing€and€mitigating€factors,€theÏcourt€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€asÏappropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sen‚tence€within€theÏrange€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€no€mitigating€factors,€theÏcourt€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€range€but€still€within€the€range.€ÏThe€weight€to€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.ÏœShelton›óó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€Act€further€provides€that€ð ð[œw]henever›€the€court€imposes€a€sentence,Ïit€òòshall€place€on€the€recordóó€either€orally€or€in€writing,€what€enhance‚ment€or€mitigatingÏfactors€it€found,€if€any,€as€well€as€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€ðð€40„35„209.ðð€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210(f)€(emphasis€added).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors€under€the€sentencing€guide‚lines,€even€the€absence€of€these€factorsÏmust€be€recorded€if€none€are€found.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210€comment.€€These€findings€byÍthe€trial€judge€must€be€recorded€in€order€to€allow€an€adequate€review€on€appeal.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï̛̜à àà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€applied€two€enhancement€factors,€that€theÏdefendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€and€that€the€defendantÏabused€a€position€of€private€trust.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€&€(15).€€The€defendant€doesÏnot€contest€the€application€of€these€factors.€€However,€the€defendant€challenges€theÏapplication€of€enhancement€factor€number€eight,€that€the€defendant€had€a€previousÏhistory€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€releaseÏin€the€community.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judgeÏdescribed€the€application€of€this€factor€as€ð ðarguable.ðð€€Apparently,€the€defendant€hadÏbeen€placed€on€probation€following€an€April€28,€œ1989,›€conviction.€€He€was€notÏdischarged€from€that€probation€until€August€3,€1994,€but€argues€that€he€should€haveÏbeen€discharged€earlier€and€should€not€have€been€under€any€probationary€restraintÏat€the€time€of€the€June€14,€1994,€transaction.€€Since€the€trial€judge€merely€describedÏthis€factor€as€ð ðarguable,ðð€it€appears€that€no€weight€was€given€to€this€factor.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€twoÏmitigating€factors:€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€seriousÏbodily€injury€and€that€substantial€grounds€existed€tending€to€excuse€or€justify€theÍdefendantððs€criminal€conduct.€€T.C.A.€€ðð€40„35„113(1)€&€(3).€€The€trial€judge€said€heÏreally€did€not€consider€factor€one€as€applying€because€such€a€factor€is€present€inÏevery€theft.€€He€also€noted€that€even€if€mitigation€factor€one€applied,€it€wasÏoutweighed€by€the€enhancement€factors.€€We€agree€and€find€no€error€in€the€trialÏjudgeððs€determination€to€give€the€mitigation€factor€little€weight.€€The€trial€judge€termedÏmitigation€factor€three€ð ðarguableðð€and€said€he€would€give€it€little€weight.€€Again,€weÏsee€no€error€in€this€determination.€€Furthermore,€we€find€no€error€in€sentencing€theÏdefendant€to€the€maximum€of€four€years.€€Two€enhancement€factors€clearly€applied€toÏthis€defendant€while€the€mitigation€factors€were€entitled€to€little,€if€any,€weight.€€WeÏfurther€find€that€full€probation€is€inappropriate€for€the€defendant€and€affirm€the€trialÏcourtððs€order€that€the€defendant€serve€150€days,€day€for€day.ÌÌà àà àAs€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÏdenied€his€motion€for€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€newly€discovered€evidence.€€TheÏdefendant€contends€that€a€new€trial€should€have€been€awarded€because€he€now€hadÏnew€evidence€with€which€to€impeach€Cothran.ÌÌà àà àIn€seeking€a€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence,€theÏdefendant€must€establish€(1)€reasonable€diligence€in€attempting€to€discover€theÏevidence;€(2)€the€materiality€of€the€evidence;€and€(3)€that€the€evidence€would€likelyÍchange€the€result€of€the€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œGoswick›óó,€656€S.W.2d€355,€358„60€(Tenn.Ï1983).€€In€order€to€show€reasonable€diligence,€the€defendant€must€demonstrate€thatÏneither€he€[she]€nor€his€[her]€counsel€had€knowledge€of€the€alleged€newly€discoveredÏevidence€prior€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€2€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€160,€452€S.W.2d€365,Ï367€(1970).€€Whether€the€trial€court€grants€or€denies€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòœHawkins›€v.ÏStateóó,€220€Tenn.€383,€417€S.W.2d€774,€778€(1967).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€claims€that€following€his€trial,€his€wife€found€a€letter€thatÏhad€been€filed€away€in€a€chest„of„drawers€with€other€documents€relating€to€childÏsupport.€€The€letter€had€been€typed€on€stationery€from€the€Franklin€service€station€andÏhad€been€addressed€to€a€child€support€officer€with€the€State€of€Michigan.€€The€letterððsÏclosing€was€worded,€ð ðRespectfully€yours,€Deborah€L.€Cothran.ðð€€However,€there€wasÏno€signature,€only€a€blank€space.€€At€the€top€of€this€letter,€someone€had€written€ð ðœJoes›Ï[sic]€copyðð€in€pencil.€€The€letter,€dated€March€15,€1993,€stated€that€the€defendant€wasÏemployed€at€a€salary€of€$152.25€per€week.€€There€was€no€mention€of€the€defendantÏreceiving€additional€commissions€in€cash.€€The€defendant€also€produced€a€copy€ofÏthis€same€letter€that€he€said€the€State€of€Michigan€had€recently€sent€to€him€at€hisÍrequest.œ× ƒ( ××  ×›€€This€letter€was€identical€with€the€exception€that€the€signature€line€nowÏincluded€the€signature,€ð ðDeborah€R.€Cothran.ðð€€The€defendant€contends€that€theseÏletters€would€have€impeached€Cothranððs€testimony€about€how€the€defendant€wasÏpaid€which,€he€claims€would€then€ð ðhave€corroborated€[his]€allegation€that€Ms.€CothranÏhad€ensnared€[him]€in€a€larger€income€tax€evasion€scheme.ðð€€Furthermore,€he€claimsÏthe€letters€would€have€established€Cothranððs€ð ðcharacter€of€untruthfulness.ððÌÌà àà àAt€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€Cothran€identified€the€letter€as€being€writtenÏon€her€service€stationððs€stationery.€€She€stated€that€the€defendant,€as€manager€of€theÏtwo€stores,€would€have€had€access€to€the€stationery.€€She€testified€that€she€did€notÏrecall€writing€the€letter€and€did€not€think€the€words€ð ðœJoes›€copyðð€were€her€handwriting.€ÏShe€further€testified€that€she€was€one€hundred€percent€sure€that€the€signature€on€theÏphotocopied€letter€was€not€hers.€€She€testified€that€her€middle€name€is€ð ðLee,ðð€thus,Ïshe€would€not€have€signed€her€own€name€using€ð ðRðð€as€a€middle€initial.€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€it€appears€that€the€newly€discovered€evidence€can€have€no€otherÏeffect€than€to€ð ðdiscredit€the€testimony€of€a€witness€at€the€original€trial,€contradict€aÏwitnessðð€statements€or€impeach€a€witness,ðð€the€trial€court€should€not€order€a€new€trialÍð ðunless€the€testimony€of€the€witness€who€is€sought€to€be€impeached€was€so€importantÏto€the€issue,€and€the€evidence€impeaching€the€witness€so€strong€and€convincing€thatÏa€different€result€at€trial€would€necessarily€follow.ðð€€òòState€v.€Rogersóó,€703€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€As€noted€above,€the€decision€to€grant€or€deny€a€newÏtrial€on€the€basis€of€newly€discovered€evidence€is€a€determination€for€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€clear€that€the€ð ðnew€evidenceðð€gathered€by€the€defendant€is€not€soÏstrong€and€convincing€that€if€it€had€been€introduced,€a€different€result€would€haveÏbeen€reached.€€Rather,€the€defendantððs€evidence€was€extremely€weak€in€that€he€couldÏnot€even€prove€that€Cothran€had€written€the€letter.€€In€fact,€it€appeared€that€she€had€notÏwritten€the€letter€as€the€letterððs€signature€was€not€in€her€handwriting€and€was€not€evenÏher€correct€middle€initial.€€This€evidence€is€entirely€unconvincing.€€As€such,€we€see€noÏneed€to€determine€whether€the€defendant€meets€the€due€diligence€prong€of€theÏòòœGoswick›óó€test.€€He€clearly€cannot€meet€the€other€two€prongs.€€Thus,€we€conclude€theÏtrial€judge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€defendantððs€conviction€andÏsentence.ÌÌÓÓœà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€œà àJOHN›€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌœÌÌÌ_______________________________›ÌœJERRY€L.€SMITH›,€JudgeÌÌÌœÌ_______________________________›ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€œJudgeÌ›