ÿWPC< VFâOÁYkËBOR–XÃI0+' s¦šÒ*—¿%¯¾ðÿNy•xêès1âzøÕ³Îˆ±YgaÏä-Áÿ0ÕL-¨ÅÐ2qxeöÁJG7©Šã??}9qⲊ‰IÚw”ÍÅùQ:QSøÄý´Þ¤àäAἦ»W=;ž >Bw÷·%î¡® ˆ 1ìÛf§Ò¦“‘¿[Ц\˜`††Ni+»Ç$½ÒÀPðó%ûîý·)£V‡ø×h™^Ës‚Ŧöç»0Á<ïËóçUÆÿ6³ÿ/O¾£Q…ø=ÎÇ—wN|–e÷pœ$¯Ðd^¼Ul&ƒU+Ÿºœ,Ö5d0åO¾®e=ñHí‰7Ž«ÚÎÕ—“™UžoØAÂîñ§køpиÓÀóضý§Ð~†±¯¤z´D‚½ßÖ岨þÞìÏ¥šõ¼z=läÅ!¦ œ )’6€ëj|L5z;Ç*·º£rÚ…ÒJ~µ”f!‹6°WêÁÖŠíÂíå#tº’ÇbYíîõ=wß~MÐeçÈÈBü³|ÜzV°Ÿ²Ü¥Â?öxÖ=ž@¤ø±X½¥›ÊãxúÏ»ÙV{X§µ¨V±Æ«ãOoEÛÂΊBaÍ×iÅég 'Æchºù‘ü=kL`Zb#Á\ % ^ # 0§/ U NÖ w$ 4( z< Ò¶ ˆ — m™ ° Ƹ Æ~ ÆD Æ  NÐÐÐEÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒbÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔ 0 ÜÜÜÜ Bææ 0à D3Æ D-ù 0K&& ASqÆÄ 0Ê 0DM A«‘˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»ç£È(˜ (ÿÁ$¡¡Ô€X¦ƒXXXÔÑ€..ÑÑ8€¦ƒXXdð»»d8ÑÑ ýý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularq\;'ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(›G2BL$¤¤Ý ƒÿÁ!ÝÔ€X»;X»»ÔÑ€.ÑÑ8€»;XXdðd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X»;XXX»;Ô d(›3_Ó$££Ý ƒÿÁ!ÝÔ€X»;X»»ÔÑ€.ÑÑ8€»;XXdðd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(›3_Ó$¢¢Ý ƒÿÁ!ÝÔ€X»;X»»ÔÑ€.ÑÑ8€»;XXdðd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒÿÁ!ÝÔ€X»;X»»ÔÑ€.ÑÑ8€»;XXdðdÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  Ñà@î î ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  ð ÐÌò òÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€òòv.óó€VERNON€E.€HAASó óÐ €Ð ÐÓCÓÌà@Ù Ù ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyˆÐ ` ° Ðà@Æ Æ ìàNo.€S42,003€€€€€R.€Jerry€Beck€,€Judge€ˆÐ P   ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E< ` A߈Ð  p  ÐÌà@þ þ ìàNo.€E1999„00690„CCA„R3„CD€„€Decided€June€8,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈРo  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<þ` AßÐ ÿO  Ðó óÌDefendant€Vernon€E.€Haas€pled€guilty€to€the€Class€E€felony€offense€of€violating€a€Habitual€MotorÐ þN  ÐVehicle€Offender€order€that€prohibited€him€from€driving.€€The€trial€court€subsequently€sentencedÐ î>  ÐDefendant€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€to€a€term€of€two€years€and€three€months€in€the€TennesseeÐ Þ. ÐDepartment€of€Correction.€€Defendant€raises€the€following€issue€in€this€appeal:€whether€the€trialÐ Î Ðcourt€erred€when€it€failed€to€impose€probation€or€a€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€The€judgmentÐ ¾ Ðof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð ®þ ÐÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ŽÞ ÐÌòòÔ_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòRiley,€€J.óó€and€òòGlenn,€J.óó€joined.Ð n¾ ÐÌStephen€M.€Wallace,€District€Public€Defender,€Joseph€F.€Harrison,€Assistant€Public€Defender,Ð Nž ÐÔ_ÔBlountvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€and€Steve€Ô_ÔMcEwenÔ_Ô,€Mountain€City,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€VernonÐ >Ž ÐE.€Haas,€on€appeal;€Frank€L.€Slaughter,€Bristol,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant€Vernon€E.€Haas,€at€trial.€Ð .~ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð ^ ÐH.€Greeley€Wells,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General,€and€Mary€Katharine€Harvey,€for€the€appellee,€StateÐ þN Ðof€Tennessee.Ð î >  ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ Î"" ÐÌà@%ìàò òBACKGROUNDó óˆÐ ®$þ$ ÐÌà  àAt€the€beginning€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€Defendant€stipulated€that€he€was€a€Range€IIÐ Ž&Þ!& Ðmultiple€offender€based€on€his€prior€criminal€record.€€Defendant€also€stipulated€that€enhancementÐ ~'Î"' Ðfactor€(1)€was€applicable€to€his€sentence€because€he€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictionsÐ n(¾#( Ðin€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range€and€enhancement€factor€(8)€wasÐ ^)®$) Ðapplicable€because€he€had€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€aÐ N*ž%* Ðsentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€found€that€mitigatingÐ >+Ž&+ Ðfactor€(1)€was€applicable€because€Defendantððs€criminal€conduct€did€not€cause€or€threaten€seriousÐ .,~', Ðbodily€injury.Ð -n(-ý' ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àDefendant€testified€during€the€sentencing€hearing€that€if€the€trial€court€imposed€probation,Ð ° Ðhe€would€abide€by€the€probation€requirements.€€Defendant€testified€on€cross„examination€that€inÐ  ð Ðaddition€to€the€conviction€in€this€case,€he€had€previously€been€convicted€of€violating€a€HabitualÐ à ÐMotor€Vehicle€Offender€order.€€Defendant€admitted€that€he€had€driven€a€vehicle€in€violation€of€a€Ð €Ð ÐHabitual€Motor€Vehicle€Offender€order€more€than€just€the€two€occasions€for€which€he€was€convicted.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€Defendant€had€beenÐ P   Ðin€continuous€trouble€with€the€law€since€he€was€a€young€man.€€The€court€also€found€that€DefendantÐ @  Ðhad€previously€received€probation€in€another€case€and€that€probation€had€been€revoked.€€The€courtÐ 0 € Ðthen€imposed€a€sentence€of€two€years€and€three€months€and€the€court€denied€Defendantððs€request€forÐ  p  Ðalternative€sentencing.Ð `  ÐÌà@òò&ìàò òANALYSISó óˆÐ ð@  ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€impose€probation€or€aÐ Ð  ÐCommunity€Corrections€sentence€in€this€case.€€Defendant€has€not€challenged€the€length€of€hisÐ À Ðsentence.Ð ° ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òA.ó óˆÐ à ÐÌà  àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€CourtÐ pÀ Ðhas€a€duty€to€conduct€a€de€novo€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÐ `° Ðmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d)€(1997).€€This€presumption€isÐ P  Ð"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÐ @ Ðprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð 0€ Ð1991).Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€(1)€the€evidence,€ifÐ P Ðany,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÐ ð@ Ðsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€theÐ à0 Ðcriminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(6)€any€statementÐ Ð  Ðmade€by€the€defendant€regarding€sentencing;€and€(7)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÐ À! Ðrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-102,€-103,€-210€(1997€&€Supp.€1999).ò òó óÐ °"  ÐÌà  àInitially,€we€note€that€under€Tennessee€law,€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offendersÐ $à" Ðconvicted€of€a€class€C,€D,€or€E€felony€and€who€do€not€possess€a€criminal€history€evincing€a€clearÐ €%Ð # Ðdisregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society€and€a€failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation€areÐ p&À!$ Ðpresumed€to€be€favorable€candidates€for€alternative€sentencing€options,€absent€evidence€to€theÐ `'°"% Ðcontrary.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-102(5),€(6)€(1997).€€Because€Defendant€was€sentenced€as€aÐ P( #& ÐRange€II€multiple€offender,€he€is€not€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.Ð @)$' ÐÌà  àWe€also€note€that€because€Defendantððs€sentence€is€eight€years€or€less€and€none€of€theÐ  +p&) Ðstatutory€exceptions€apply,€Defendant€was€eligible€for€probation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ,`'* Ð40-35-303(a)€(1997).€€Further,€as€an€offender€convicted€of€a€nonviolent€felony€offense,€DefendantÐ ° Ðwas€eligible€for€the€Community€Corrections€Program.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(a)€(Supp.Ð  ð Ð1999).€€However,€even€though€Defendant€was€eligible€for€probation,€he€was€ð ðnot€automaticallyÐ à Ðentitled€to€probation€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-303(b)€(1997)€(SentencingÐ €Ð ÐCommission€Comments).€€Similarly,€the€fact€that€Defendant€satisfied€the€minimum€requirements€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€Community€Corrections€Act€does€not€mean€that€he€is€entitled€to€be€sentenced€under€the€Act€asÐ ` ° Ða€matter€of€law€or€right.€€òòState€v.€Ballóó,€973€S.W.2d€288,€294€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).Ð P   ÐÌà  àWhen€determining€suitability€for€alternative€sentencing,€the€sentencing€court€considers€theÐ 0 € Ðfollowing€factors:€(1)€whether€confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendantÐ  p  Ðwho€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;€(2)€whether€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoidÐ `  Ðdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense;€(3)€whether€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provideÐ P  Ðan€effective€deterrent€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€(4)€whether€measures€lessÐ ð@  Ðrestrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€theÐ à0  Ðdefendant;€and€(5)€whether€the€defendant€has€poor€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð Ð  Ððð€40„35„103(1)€(1997);€òòState€v.€Housewrightóó,€982€S.W.2d€354,€356ð!ð57€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).Ð À ÐÌà@)ìàò òB.ó óˆÐ  ð ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€failed€to€apply€two€mitigating€factors:€(3)Ð €Ð Ðsubstantial€grounds€exist€tending€to€excuse€or€justify€his€criminal€conduct,€though€failing€to€establishÐ pÀ Ða€defense;€and€(11)€the€offense€was€committed€under€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikelyÐ `° Ðthat€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law€motivated€the€criminal€conduct.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð P  Ð35„113(3),€(11)€(1997).€€Defendant€contends€that€applicability€of€these€two€mitigating€factorsÐ @ Ðdemonstrates€that€he€deserved€alternative€sentencing.Ð 0€ ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€agree€that€Defendantððs€claim€in€the€presentence€report€that€he€needed€to€drive€hisÐ ` Ðvehicle€to€get€to€work€so€that€he€would€not€be€fired€is€sufficient€to€establish€ð ðsubstantial€groundsððÐ P Ðtending€to€excuse€or€justify€his€criminal€conduct€and€thus,€we€conclude€that€mitigating€factor€(3)€wasÐ ð@ Ðnot€applicable.€€We€also€conclude€that€mitigating€factor€(11)€was€not€applicable.€€DefendantÐ à0 Ðexpressly€admitted€during€the€sentencing€hearing€that€he€had€driven€a€vehicle€in€violation€of€a€Ð Ð  ÐHabitual€Motor€Vehicle€Offender€order€more€than€just€the€two€occasions€for€which€he€was€convicted.€Ð À! ÐDefendant€obviously€had€no€respect€for€the€law€prohibiting€him€from€driving.€€Regardless,€evenÐ °"  Ðassuming€arguendo€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€apply€these€factors,€the€trial€courtððsÐ  #ð! Ðdenial€of€probation€was€justified€based€on€Defendantððs€poor€potential€for€rehabilitation.Ð $à" ÐÌà  àThe€presentence€report€in€this€case€indicates€that€besides€the€fact€that€he€has€been€declaredÐ p&À!$ Ða€Habitual€Motor€Vehicle€Offender,€Defendantððs€prior€criminal€record€consists€of€one€conviction€forÐ `'°"% Ðaggravated€assault,€one€conviction€for€simple€assault,€one€conviction€for€harassment,€one€convictionÐ P( #& Ðfor€possession€of€a€weapon€with€intent€to€go€armed,€one€conviction€for€reckless€driving,€twoÐ @)$' Ðconvictions€for€DUI,€and€four€convictions€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license€(it€also€appears€thatÐ 0*€%( ÐDefendant€was€convicted€of€several€other€offenses,€but€because€the€presentence€report€is€not€entirelyÐ  +p&) Ðclear€as€to€the€convictions€for€those€particular€offenses,€we€have€given€Defendant€the€benefit€of€theÐ ,`'* Ðdoubt€and€we€do€not€consider€them).€€The€record€also€indicates€that€Defendant€was€previously€placedÐ ° Ðon€probation€and€his€probation€was€revoked€because€he€committed€new€offenses€and€he€made€a€falseÐ  ð Ðstatement€on€his€monthly€report.€€Defendantððs€lengthy€criminal€record€demonstrates€a€clear€disregardÐ à Ðfor€the€laws€of€society€and€the€previous€revocation€of€his€suspended€sentence€demonstrates€a€failureÐ €Ð Ðof€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation.€€Clearly,€Defendant€has€an€extremely€poor€potential€for€rehabilitationÐ pÀ Ðand€society€needs€protection€from€this€Defendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct.€€UnderÐ ` ° Ðthese€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€it€deniedÐ P   Ðalternative€sentencing€in€this€case.€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð @  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.