ÿWPC …# V %aUNg 0Ƶ 0@{ 4» Ï Þ w@æ 0J& 0Tp 0^Ä 0h" 0rŠ 0|ü 0†x 0þ 1uŽ 0dU>gU*¥B)ÏDCø AM; Bˆ§¥v~LvÓÊ D3 0CÐ 0L AO_Æ® 0Dt D/¸ Bç˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏX(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò³†;$3|xz hEij{klDmPn<eoDpDqÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌJulyÏ31,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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$$$$'ÿÿdxd(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó(!2ÖÞ$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  ÝÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ44ÒÒXXÒÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úó󀂃Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ý›Ñ7€×vXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ Ԝـ€ÙßR€#%"A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLEóóÌà@ àAPRIL€1998€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€€01C01„9708„CC„00321Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà à*à àMARSHALL€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Charles€Lee,€JudgeÌÓÓCRAIG€A.€HAZLETT,à àà à*à à(Habitual€Motor€Vehicle€Offender€andÌÌà àà àAppellant.à àà à*à àDriving€on€a€Revoked€License)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€Appelleeóó:ÌÌCurtis€H.€Gannà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSeventeenth€Judicial€District€€à àà àà àÌ105€South€Main€à àà àà àà àGeorgia€Blythe€FelnerÌP.O.€Box€1119à àà àà àà àCounsel€for€the€State€ÌFayetteville,€TN€€37334à àà àà àCordell€Hull€Building,€Second€Floor€Ì(on€appeal)à àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌMichael€D.€Randles€ÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àJ.€B.€Cox€Ì105€South€Mainà àà àà àà àand€ÌP.O.€Box€1119à àà àà àà àWeakley€E.€Barnard€ÌFayetteville,€TN€€37334à àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌ(on€trial)à àà àà àà àà àRoom€407,€Marshall€County€Courthouse€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLewisburg,€TN€€37091ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌà àà àThe€defendant,€Craig€A.€Hazlett,€was€found€guilty€of€one€count€ofÏdriving€after€being€declared€a€Habitual€Motor€Vehicle€Offender€and€one€count€ofÏdriving€on€a€revoked€license.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€Range€II€sentence€of€threeÏyears,€four€months€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Fines€totaled€$350.00.€€TheÏtrial€court€merged€the€driving€on€a€revoked€license€count€into€the€greater€offense.ÌÌà àà àIn€addition€to€his€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€forÏdriving€after€being€declared€a€Habitual€Motor€Vehicle€Offender,€the€defendantÏcontends€that€the€sentence€is€excessive.€€We€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àNear€midnight€on€June€6,€1996,€Deputy€Phillip€Klarer€of€the€MarshallÏCounty€Sheriff's€Department€was€on€patrol€on€Farmington€Belfast€Road€when€heÏnoticed€a€car€being€driven€by€the€defendant€with€a€missing€taillight€and€expiredÏtags.€€When€the€officer€turned€on€his€emergency€lights,€including€"takedown"€lightsÏwhich€are€designed€to€allow€a€view€of€the€inside€of€the€suspect€vehicle,€heÏobserved€the€driver€move€onto€the€lap€of€a€passenger,€later€identified€as€WysenitaÏHazlett.€€Officer€Klarer€testified€that€a€few€seconds€later,€the€passenger€"got€out€fromÏunderneath€[the€driver]"€into€the€seat€behind€the€steering€wheel.€€The€third€person,Íwho€was€in€the€back€seat,€did€not€move.€€Officer€Klarer€identified€the€defendant€asÏthe€driver.€€òòÌóóÌà àà àWhen€questioned,€the€defendant€admitted€that€his€driver's€license€hadÏbeen€revoked.€€When€asked€why€he€had€switched€seats,€the€defendant€merelyÏshrugged€his€shoulders.€€Ms.€Hazlett,€the€defendant's€wife,€did€not€have€a€driver'sÏlicense.€€It€was€stipulated€at€trial€that€the€defendant€had€been€declared€a€HabitualÏMotor€Vehicle€Offender.ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€the€defendant€claimed€that€his€wife€had€been€driving€the€car.€ÏHe€asserted€that€because€the€car€was€a€compact€with€an€automatic€gear€shift€in€theÏconsole€area,€it€was€impossible€for€him€to€have€switched€places.€€The€defendantÏcontended€that€he€was€teaching€Ms.€Hazlett€how€to€drive.€€The€defendant€insistedÏthat€he€informed€Officer€Klarer€at€the€scene€that€he€was€not€the€driver€of€the€vehicle.€€Ìà àà àMs.€Hazlett€testified€that€their€vehicle,€a€Renault,€had€bucket€seats€withÏan€automatic€shift€in€the€console.€€She€identified€the€third€person€in€the€car€as€a€Mr.ÏShelton,€who€was€not€called€as€a€defense€witness.€€Ms.€Hazlett€claimed€that€sheÏhad€been€driving€the€vehicle€at€the€time€the€officer€turned€on€his€blue€lights.€€SheÏcontended€that€she€was€a€little€larger€at€the€time€of€the€arrest€and€that€it€would€haveÏbeen€impossible€for€her€to€have€exchanged€seats€with€her€husband€at€that€time.€€ÌÌà àà àInitially,€the€defendant€contends€that€no€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€He€insists€that€hisÏtestimony€and€that€of€his€wife€was€credible€and€consistent.ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÏweight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€evidenceÏare€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575ÏS.W.2d€292€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€A€conviction€can€be€set€aside€only€when€aÏreviewing€court€finds€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€finding€by€theÏtrier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€In€a€juryÏtrial,€a€guilty€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÏstate's€witnesses.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627€(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌà àà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€55„10„616€prohibits€one€whoÏhas€been€declared€a€Habitual€Motor€Vehicle€Offender€from€operating€a€motorÏvehicle.€€Here,€the€defendant€stipulated€that€he€had€been€declared€a€HabitualÏMotor€Vehicle€Offender.€€The€issue€for€the€jury€was€whether€to€accredit€theÍtestimony€of€Officer€Klarer€or€that€of€the€Hazletts.€€Because€the€officer€claimed€toÏhave€seen€the€defendant€driving€the€vehicle€and,€after€it€was€stopped,€observedÏhim€exchange€places€with€his€wife,€the€jury€acted€within€its€prerogative€inÏdetermining€the€presence€of€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime.€€In€our€view,€theirÏverdict€satisfies€the€standard€described.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307€(1979).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant,€who€qualified€as€a€Range€II€offender,€committed€aÏClass€E€felony.€€As€his€next€issue,€he€argues€that€the€three„year,€four„monthÏsentence€is€disproportionate€in€comparison€to€the€severity€of€the€offense.€€ÌÌà àà àHe€also€argues€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€incarceration.€€HeÏcontends€that€he€is€"not€a€threat€to€society€and€...€society€needs€no€protection€fromÏhim."€€The€defendant€cites€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(a)€which€governs€whenÏa€sentence€"involving€confinement"€should€be€imposed.€€The€defendant,€thirty„eightÏyears€of€age€at€the€time€of€sentencing,€asserts€that€he€has€been€employed€by€theÏsame€company€for€twenty„four€years,€pays€support€for€a€child€by€a€previousÏmarriage,€and€is€now€remarried.€€The€record,€however,€demonstrates€that€theÏdefendant€has€been€cited€to€court€a€number€of€times€for€failure€to€pay.€€At€the€time€ofÏthe€sentencing,€he€earned€approximately€$300.00€per€week.€€He€asserts€that€hisÏcrime€was€a€non„violent€offense€and€should€not€warrant€such€a€lengthy€term.€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€SentencingÏCommission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€theÏimpropriety€of€the€€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;Ï(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÏdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€and€Ì„210;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àà àAmong€the€factors€applicable€to€the€defendant's€application€forÏprobation€are€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendant's€criminal€record,Ïsocial€history,€and€present€condition,€and€the€deterrent€effect€upon€and€best€interestÏof€the€defendant€and€the€public.€€òòState€v.€Grearóó,€568€S.W.2d€285,€286€(Tenn.€1978).€ÌÌà àà àEspecially€mitigated€or€standard€offenders€convicted€of€Class€C,€D,€orÏE€felonies€are€presumed€to€be€favorable€candidates€"for€alternative€sentencingÏoptions€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€There€is€no€such€presumption€for€a€Class€B€felon.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€With€certain€statutory€exceptions,€none€of€which€apply€here,€probationÏmust€be€automatically€considered€by€the€trial€court€if€the€sentence€for€eachÏconviction€is€eight€years€or€less.€€Tenn.€Code€€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a),€(b).ÌÌà àà àA€sentence€of€split€confinement€involves€the€grant€of€probation€afterÏthe€partial€service€of€a€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„306.€€It€may€include€aÏjail€or€workhouse€sentence€of€up€to€one€year€with€the€probationary€term€to€extendÏfor€any€period€thereafter€up€to€the€statutory€maximum€for€the€offense.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àà àIn€calculating€the€sentence€for€Class€B,€C,€D,€or€E€felony€convictions€atÏthe€time€of€these€offenses,€the€presumptive€sentence€is€the€minimum€within€theÍrange€if€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€If€there€are€enhancement€factors€but€no€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€courtÏmay€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€40„35„210(d).€€AÏsentence€involving€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€requires€anÏassignment€of€relative€weight€for€the€enhancement€factors€as€a€means€ofÏincreasing€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€sentence€mayÏthen€be€reduced€within€the€range€by€any€weight€assigned€to€the€mitigating€factorsÏpresent.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àà àAs€a€Range€II€offender,€the€defendant€faced€a€possible€sentence€ofÏtwo€to€four€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(b)(5).€€His€criminal€historyÏincludes€thirty„eight€prior€arrests€or€convictions,€twenty„nine€of€which€are€for€traffic„related€crimes.€€His€record€includes€several€DUI's,€several€instances€of€driving€on€aÏrevoked€license,€reckless€driving,€and€several€instances€of€driving€after€havingÏbeen€declared€a€Habitual€Motor€Vehicle€Offender.€€On€his€first€such€offense,€heÏreceived€a€one„year€sentence€with€all€but€seventy„five€days€suspended.€€On€hisÏsecond,€the€defendant€received€a€two„year€sentence€to€Community€Corrections,Ïwhich€was€later€revoked.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court,€which€described€the€defendant€as€"likeable,"Íconcluded€that€the€defendant's€conduct€neither€threatened€nor€caused€seriousÏbodily€injury;€thus,€a€single€mitigating€factor€applied.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€Two€enhancement€factors€applied.€€The€defendant€had€a€previous€historyÏof€criminal€convictions.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€Also,€the€defendant€hadÏa€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€sentences€involving€release€inÏthe€community.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€court€carefully€considered€theÏgood€qualities€of€the€defendant.€€Its€primary€concern€was€the€defendant'sÏcontinuing€unwillingness€to€abide€by€his€terms€of€release.€€We€agree.€€The€numberÏof€driving€offenses€the€defendant€has€accumulated€over€the€last€fifteen€years€isÏincredible.€€The€lack€of€an€operator's€license€has€rarely€been€a€deterrent€to€hisÏinclination€to€drive.€€Because€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÏand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,€the€Range€II€sentence€of€three€years€andÏfour€months€is€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€correctness.€€The€defendant€has€failedÏto€overcome€that€presumption.ÌÌà àà àNor€can€we€conclude€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€an€alternativeÏsentence.€€As€a€Range€II€offender,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumptionÏin€favor€of€an€alternative€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(b).€ÍMoreover,€the€defendant's€lengthy€criminal€history€and€his€refusal€to€comply€withÏterms€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community€fully€warrants€the€denialÏof€an€alternative€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(c).€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌThomas€T.€Woodall,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌL.€T.€Lafferty,€Special€Judge€