WPC@ &iʣ%v{C6$n&RF< m{j r-fs^ qNFgmGwyVdl ط5XYϻxx BKjGedL18QQa33F&)yཷfE2UC8ҫk~yUȝ{_3e^l9pե* 0v<+ 0`+ 0`, 0`r, 0`, 0`2- 08- 0- 02. 0. 0:/ 0Y0 0_]0 0 0 0j1 003 B*4 D/4 0 5 D/6 06 07 06y8 08 B9 0:9 0: D5: D-: 0K; 0^_; AS;< 0< 0Dz= A= 0<i> 1e>U6 ?U>@?U*~? 0D? 1? 72s@s@ 0N@HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0[1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularJ1+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  - -*5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7O(X7  ?f%2A`Arial?  Se\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dN)1dxd<:zTop of For7Q(X7  ?f%2A`Arial?  Se\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7N)2dxd(|G2j$ !.8dd8         0  0KS.SampleKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS d42Variable(|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  : 8HTML MarkupB      ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK2 0CommentB  '()*+,-/ 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(#$  0  (CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.hA.(O$ !.8dd8     _   8XXdd8@hheINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE#e #Ԉ #    @  @` AssignedonBriefsJuly21,2004 F  STATEOFTENNESSEEv.ROSEMARIEHERNANDEZ   f XX@@ DirectAppealfromtheBedfordCountyCircuitCourt  ` @@No.15,231LeeRussell,Judge  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200301756CCAR3CDFiledDecember16,_2004_   AV) ` dE<` A      #XXp#XXThedefendant,RoseMarieHernandez,pledguiltytoseventycountsofforgery,aClassEfelony, }  whichthetrialcourtmergedintothirtyfiveconvictionsofforgery,andthetrialcourtsentencedher f asaRangeIII,persistentoffendertofiveyearsandsixmonthsforeachconviction.Thetrialcourt O orderedsomeofthesentencestorunconcurrentlyandotherstorunconsecutivelyforaneffective 8 sentenceofthirtythreeyearsandsixmonthsintheDepartmentofCorrection.Thedefendant !q appeals,claimingthetrialcourterredinapplyingcertainenhancementfactorsinviolationoftherule  Z announcedinBlakelyv.Washington,542U.S.__,124S.Ct.2531(2004),andindenying C alternativesentencing#XXۥ#XX.Althoughweconcludethatthesentencingprocedureviolatedtherule , announcedinBlakely,weholdittobeharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Weaffirmthe  judgmentsofthetrialcourt.  v Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentsoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed     JosephM.Tipton,J.#XXA#XXԀdeliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJoeG.Riley,Sp.J.,joined. S RobertW.Wedemeyer,J.,#XX& #XXconcurredintheresult. < AndrewJ.Dearing,III,Shelbyville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,RoseMarieHernandez. !^  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;ThomasE.Williams,III,AssistantAttorney "0" General;W.MichaelMcCown,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andMichaelRandles,AssistantDistrict ## AttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. $ $  @@OO& OPINION &!&      Thiscaserelatestothedefendantsforgingchecks.TheBedfordCountyGrandJuryindicted W(#( thedefendantforseventycountsofforgery,thirtyfiveformakingforgedchecksandthirtyfivefor @)$) passingthem,andonecountofcustodialinterference.#XX #XXAtthepleaacceptancehearing,theState )*y%* recitedthefactsthatitwouldhaveprovedattrialasfollows: +b&+ 8  [I]nDecemberof[2002],Mr.DonaldGibbswenttothesheriffsdepartmentto ,4(- reportthatsomeofhischeckshadbeenstolenandapparentlyforged.Ajoint -). _investigationwasconductedbythe[BedfordCounty]sheriffsdepartmentand[the  Shelbyville]policedepartment[,a]ndtheydevelopedaninvestigationthatledthem  tothedefendant.Theywenttosomemerchantswherethecheckshadbeenforged  withaphotolineuptoincludethepictureofthedefendant[,]and[]severalofthe k merchantspickedthedefendantashavingbeenthepersonthatpassedthechecks. T Theytheninterviewedthedefendantandsheadmittedshetookhischeckbookand =  sheadmittedtoforgingandpassinganumberofthechecks.& v   #XX#XXThedefendantpledguiltytotheseventycountsofforgery,andthetrialcourtdismissedthecustodial  H interferencecharge.Thetrialcourtmergedthethirtyfivecountsofmakingforgedcheckswiththe  1  thirtyfivecountsofpassingthemforatotalofthirtyfiveconvictionsofforgery,oneforeachforged    check.Pursuanttothepleaagreement,thetrialcourtwastodeterminesentencing. #XX#XX     Atthesentencinghearing,theStateenteredthedefendantspresentencereportintoevidence,   whichshowedshehadtwentypriorconvictionsforforgery,twopriorconvictionsfortheftunder n  $500,andonepriorconvictionfordrivingundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant.Thereportalso W  showedthatthedefendanthadpreviouslybeensentencedtoprobationorcommunitycorrections, @ thatshehadviolatedthetermsofherreleaseintothecommunityonfourseparateoccasions,andthat )y shecommittedthecurrentforgerieswhileonparole. b #XX#XX  Thedefendanttestifiedthatshewasparticipatinginasubstanceabuseandrelapseprevention 4 programattheTennesseePrisonforWomen.Sheexplainedthattheprogramtookayearto  completeandincludedangermanagement,relaxationtechniques,andcounseling.Shesaidthe  counselingwashelpingherdealwithsexualabusethatsheexperiencedasachild.Shesaidthatshe  hasprogressedthroughthesubstanceabuseprogramandthatatthetimeofthetrial,shewas   representingsomeoftheinmatesatcounselingandmentoringotherinmates. q   #XX#XXThedefendanttestifiedthatheruseofillegaldrugshadledtothelossofherchildren, C husband,sister,dad,andhome.#XX#XXShesaidshehadbeeninalotoftroublebecauseofherdrug ,| addiction.Shesaid, Ihavemadealotofmistakes.Ihaveviolatedmycommunitycorrections;I e didviolatemyparole.#XX#XXShesaid,however,thatshewaslearningfromhermistakes.Thedefendant N alsopresentedanaffidavitfromacounselorinMorristown,Tennessee,whostatedthatthedefendant  7 hadagoodheartandthatshewaswillingtohelpthedefendantthroughtheprocessofrecovery. !   #XX#XX  Thestateassertedthatthedefendantqualifiedasacareeroffender,butthedefendant #" challengedsomeofherpriorconvictionsbyassertingthattheywerenotseparateanddistinct $# episodes.ThetrialcourtdeterminedthedefendantwasaRangeIII,persistentoffender.Because t% $ thecountsofforgerywereClassEfelonies,theavailablesentencerangewasfourtosixyearsfor ]&!% eachconviction.#XXۣ#XX F'"&   #XX #XXThetrialcourtappliedthefollowingenhancementfactorspursuanttoT.C.A.4035114: )h$( (2)apriorhistoryofcriminalconvictionsinadditiontothoseusedtodeterminetheappropriate *Q%) range;(9)aprevioushistoryofunwillingnesstocomplywiththeconditionsofrelease;and(14)the *:&* crimesoccurredwhilethedefendantwasonparole.Thetrialcourtalsoappliedmitigatingfactors +#'+ (1)and(13),butitdidnotaffordthemgreatweight.SeeT.C.A.4035113(1),(13).Thetrial  courtsentencedthedefendanttofiveyearsandsixmonthsinprisonforeachofthethirtyfive  convictions.    Whendecidingwhethertorunthedefendantssentencesconcurrentlyorconsecutively,the T trialcourtfoundthatthefacttheforgerieswerecommittedwhilethedefendantwasonparoleand =  thefactthatthedefendanthadanextensivecriminalrecordovercamethepresumptioninfavorof & v concurrentsentencing.SeeT.C.A.4035115(b)(2),(6).#XX4!#XXԀThetrialcourtorderedthesentencesfor  _ twentynineofthecountsrunconcurrentlywiththesentencesforsixofthecounts.Itthenordered  H thosesixcountsrunconsecutivelytoeachother,foraneffectivesentenceofthirtythreeyearsand  1  sixmonthsinprison.      #XX&#XX  Thetrialcourtnextdeterminedthatthedefendantwasnotanappropriatecandidatefor   alternativesentencing.Afterconsideringthefactorsprovidedbystatute,thedefendantsphysical   andmentalcondition,hersocialhistory,thefactsandcircumstancessurroundingthisparticular n  offense,herpriorcriminalhistoryandherpreviousactionsandcharacter,thetrialcourtfoundthat W  thepresumptioninfavorofalternativesentencingwasovercomebecausethedefendantspotential @ forrehabilitationwasreasonablyunlikely.Thetrialcourtalsofoundthatahighriskexistedthat )y thedefendantwouldcommitanothercrimewhileonprobation.Thedefendantappeals,contending b thatthetrialcourtimproperlydeniedheralternativesentencingandimproperlyappliedthe K enhancementfactorsinviolationofBlakely.Thestatearguesthatthetrialcourtproperlydenied 4 alternativesentencingandthatthedefendanthaswaivedanyBlakelyissuesbyfailingtopresent  theminthetrialcourt. Inthealternative,thestatecontendsthatanyBlakelyviolationswere  harmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.     @@$I.SENTENCINGANALYSIS u  h(83 X-  Appellatereviewofsentencingisdenovoontherecordwithapresumptionthatthetrial H courtsdeterminationsarecorrect.T.C.A.40-35-401(d).AstheSentencingCommission 1 Commentstothissectionnote,theburdenisnowontheappealingpartytoshowthatthesentencing j isimproper.Thismeansthatifthetrialcourtfollowedthestatutorysentencingprocedure,made  S findingsoffactthatareadequatelysupportedintherecord,andgavedueconsiderationandproper  < weighttothefactorsandprinciplesthatarerelevanttosentencingunderthe1989SentencingAct, !%  wemaynotdisturbthesentenceevenifadifferentresultwerepreferred.Statev.Fletcher,805 "! S.W.2d785,789(Tenn.Crim.App.1991). #"   However, thepresumptionofcorrectnesswhichaccompaniesthetrialcourtsactionis y% $ conditionedupontheaffirmativeshowingintherecordthatthetrialcourtconsideredthesentencing b&!% principlesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances.Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,169(Tenn. K'"& 1991).Inthisrespect,forthepurposeofmeaningfulappellatereview, 4(#' ` ` thetrialcourtmustplaceontherecorditsreasonsforarrivingatthe *V%) finalsentencingdecision,identifythemitigatingandenhancement *?&* factorsfound,statethespecificfactssupportingeachenhancement +('+ factorfound,andarticulatehowthemitigatingandenhancement  factorshavebeenevaluatedandbalancedindeterminingthe  sentence.T.C.A.40-35-210(f)(1990).  ` 3` 3Statev.Jones,883S.W.2d597,599(Tenn.1994).Inconductingadenovoreview,wemust T consider(1)theevidence,ifany,receivedatthetrialandsentencinghearing,(2)thepresentence =  report,(3)theprinciplesofsentencingandargumentsastosentencingalternatives,(4)thenature & v andcharacteristicsofthecriminalconduct,(5)anymitigatingorstatutoryenhancementfactors,(6)  _ anystatementthatthedefendantmadeonhisownbehalf,and(7)thepotentialforrehabilitationor  H treatment.T.C.A.40-35-102,-103,-210;seeAshby,823S.W.2dat168;Statev.Moss,727  1  S.W.2d229,23637(Tenn.1986).      TherangeofpunishmentforaRangeIII,persistentoffenderisfourtosixyearsforaClass   Efelony.T.C.A.4035112(c)(5).Unlessenhancementfactorsarepresent,thepresumptive   sentencetobeimposedistheminimumintherange.T.C.A.40-35-210(c).Oursentencingact n  providesthatprocedurally,thetrialcourtistoincreasethesentencewithintherangebasedonthe W  existenceofenhancementfactorsand,then,reducethesentenceasappropriateforanymitigating @ factors.T.C.A.40-35-210(d),(e).Theweighttobeaffordedanexistingfactorislefttothetrial )y courtsdiscretionsolongasitcomplieswiththepurposesandprinciplesofthe1989SentencingAct b anditsfindingsareadequatelysupportedbytherecord.T.C.A.40-35-210,Sentencing K CommissionComments;Moss,727S.W.2dat237;seeAshby,823S.W.2dat169. 4   Wefirstconsiderwhetherthetrialcourtsapplicationofcertainenhancementfactorsviolated  thedefendantsrighttotrialbyjury.Thetrialcourtcompliedwiththeprinciplesofthe1989  SentencingActwhenitappliedenhancementfactors(2),(9),and(13)toincreaseeachofthe  defendantssentencesfromfouryearstofiveyearsandsixmonths.However,theUnitedStates q SupremeCourtsBlakelydecisionaffectstheportionofour1989SentencingActthatallowsjudges Z tofindapplicablecertainenhancementfactorsandusethosefactorstoincreaseadefendants C sentenceabovethepresumptivesentenceintherange.SeeBlakely,524U.S.at__,124S.Ct.at ,| 2537;Statev.ChesterWayneWalters,#XX'#XXNo.M200303019CCAR3CD,WhiteCounty,slipop.at e 1921(Tenn.Crim.App.Nov.30,2004).Blakelyspecifiesthatotherthanpriorconvictions,any N factsnotreflectedinthejurysverdictoradmittedbythedefendantwhichareusedtoincreasea  7 defendantspunishmentabovethepresumptivesentencemustbefoundbythejury,notthetrial !   court.524U.S.at__,124S.Ct.at2537. " !   Thedefendanttestifiedathersentencinghearingandacknowledgedherpriorconvictions, $# whichBlakelyallowsthetrialcourttouseforenhancementpurposes.However,thedefendantalso t% $ admittedinhertestimonytosubstantialandcontinuousillegaldruguse,toconsistentviolationsof ]&!% thetermsofherpriorsentencesinvolvingreleaseintothecommunity,andtocommissionofthe F'"& forgerieswhileonparole.Thepresentencereportbuttressedtheseadmissions.Incontext,the /(#' admissionswouldsupportfactors(2),thatthedefendanthasaprevioushistoryofcriminalbehavior, )h$( (9),thatthedefendanthasahistoryofunwillingnesstocomplywithconditionsofasentence *Q%) involvingreleaseintothecommunity,and(14),thatthedefendantcommittedtheinstantoffenses *:&* whileonparole.JudgeWedemeyermaintainshisviewheldbythemajorityinWaltersthatan +#'+ admissionbythedefendantatasentencinghearingmayjustifyapplicationofenhancementfactors  withoutviolatingBlakely.However,themajorityofthiscourtconcludesthatthedefendants  admissionsdidnotconstituteadmissionintheBlakelycontextand,therefore,thatthetrialcourts  applicationoffactors(2),forcriminalbehavior,(9),and(13)violatedthedefendantsSixth k Amendmentrighttotrialbyjury.Weconclude,though,thatBlakelyerrorsaresubjectto T constitutionalharmlesserroranalysis.SeeWalters,slipop.at2325.Inthisregard,giventhe =  defendantstestimonialadmissions,weholdthatthetrialcourtsapplicationoftheforegoing & v enhancementfactorswasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.  _   Thetrialcourtalsoorderedsixofthedefendantssentencestorunconsecutivelytotheothers  1  byfindingthatthedefendantcommittedtheforgerieswhileonparoleandbyfindingthatthe    defendanthadanextensivecriminalhistory.SeeT.C.A.4035115(b)(2),(6)#XX@#XX.Wenotethat   althoughthedefendanthasnotraisedthisissueonappeal,thiscourthasheldthatBlakelydoesnot   applytoconsecutivesentencingdeterminations.SeeStatev.EariceRoberts,No.W200302668   CCAR3CD,ShelbyCounty,slipop.at15(Tenn.CrimApp.Nov.23,2004);Statev.Lawrence n  WarrenPierce,No.M200301924CCAR3CD,DavidsonCounty,slipop.at16(Tenn.Crim.App. W  Nov.9,2004).WeagreewithRobertsandPierceandlikewiseconcludethatBlakelydoesnotaffect @ consecutivesentencingdeterminations. )y #XXML#XX  #XX^O#XXWenextconsiderwhetherthetrialcourterredindenyingthedefendantalternative K sentencing.Thedefendantimpliesthatsheispresumedtobeafavorablecandidateforalternative 4 sentencingpursuanttoT.C.A.4035102(6).Shemainlyarguesthatprobationwaswarranted.  Wenote,though,thatsheisaRangeIII,persistentoffendertowhomthefavorablepresumptiondoes  notapply.Id.;Statev.Anderson,985S.W.2d9,1819(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).Inanyevent,the  burdenwasonhertoestablishhersuitabilityforprobation.T.C.A.4035303(b)Sentencing  CommissionComments.Inordertomeetthisburden,thedefendant mustdemonstratethat q probationwillsubservetheendsofjusticeandthebestinterestofboththepublicandthe Z defendant.Statev.Bingham,910S.W.2d448,456(Tenn.Crim.App.1995)(quotingStatev. C Dykes,803S.W.2d250,259(Tenn.Crim.App.1990)).#XX۬O#XX ,| #XXVT#XX  Nobrightlineruleexistsfordeterminingwhatisnecessarytodemonstratethatprobation N willservetheendsofjusticeandthebestinterestofboththepublicandthedefendant.See  7 Bingham,910S.W.2dat456.Indeterminingwhethertograntordenyprobation,thetrialcourt !   mustconsiderthecircumstancessurroundingtheoffense;thedefendantscriminalrecord;the " ! deterrenteffectonothercriminalactivity;thedefendantsphysicalandmentalhealth;the #" defendantsbackgroundandsocialhistory;andthelikelihoodthatprobationisinthebestinterests $# ofboththedefendantandthepublic.Statev.Goode,956S.W.2d521,527(Tenn.Crim.App. t% $ 1997);Statev.Parker,932S.W.2d945,958(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).Atrialcourtmaydenya ]&!% defendantsrequestforalternativesentencingandsentenceadefendanttoconfinementbasedonany F'"& oneofthefollowingconsiderations: /(#' 8  8`   Confinementisnecessarytoprotectsocietybyrestraininga *Q%)  defendantwhohasalonghistoryofcriminalconduct;*:&*` x` x 8  8`   Confinementisnecessarytoavoiddepreciatingtheseriousnessofthe   offenseorconfinementisparticularlysuitedtoprovideaneffective  deterrencetootherslikelytocommitsimilaroffenses;or` x` x 8  8`   Measureslessrestrictivethanconfinementhavefrequentlyor k recentlybeenappliedunsuccessfullytothedefendant.T` x` x   T.C.A.4035103(1)(A)(C). & v   Indenyingthedefendantalternativesentencing,thetrialcourtstated:  H 8  8`   Thereisapresumptioninfavorofalternativesentencing[ifthe    defendantisa]mitigatingorstandardoffenderinaC,DorE   [felony];thatsnotthecase.Evenifshewere,certainlythe   presumptionwouldbeovercomeinthisparticularcaseforseveral   reasons.Oneisherpriorrecordandhertendencytoviolateonan n  ongoingbasisthetermsofherreleaseintothepublic,[this]suggests W  thatshehaslittleornopotentialforrehabilitation.Andthatisa @ factorthatssetoutin[T.C.A.]4035103,subpartfive.Herrecord )y hasbeentoviolate,sometimesnotcaughtforawhile,shewoulduse b illegaldrugsextensivelyandnotgetcaughtforawhile;invariably, K shedoesgetcaughtdoingillegalactivity,ordinarilysomethingto 4 supportthisdrughabitofhers.Certainlysheisaverypoorcandidate  foralternativesentencing.` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`    Ihavetakenintoaccountallthosefactorssetoutbystatute  whenmakingadeterminationastowhethersomeoneisentitledto q alternativesentencing.Ihavereadthepresentencereport,the Z defendantsphysicalandmentalcondition,hersocialhistory,the C factsandcircumstancessurroundingthisparticularoffense,herprior ,| criminalhistory,herpreviousactionsandhercharacter.e` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`    Inthiscase,itsveryimportantthatIconsiderwhetherornot  7 thedefendantmightreasonablybeexpectedtoberehabilitatedand !   herpotentialorherlackofpotentialtoberehabilitated.Ibelieve " ! thereisverylittleofthat.Ithinkthereisahighriskduringthe #" periodofanyprobationthatshewouldcommitanothercrime.Itdoes $# notappear,reasonablyappearthatshewouldabidebythetermsof t% $ probation.Andforthesereasons,Iamgoingtodenyherprobation.]&!%` x` x Weconcludethatthetrialcourtproperlyconsideredtherelevantsentencingprinciples. /(#' Accordingly,wewillconductadenovoreviewoftherecordwithapresumptionthatthetrialcourts )h$( sentencingdeterminationsarecorrect.SeeT.C.A.4035401(d).#XXۭT#XX *Q%)   *:&*   ThedefendantcitesStatev.Smith,735S.W.2d859,864(Tenn.Crim.App.1987),and   assertsthatevidencemustshowthatthesentenceimposedwillhaveadeterrenteffectwithinthe  jurisdictionbeforeatrialjudgeisjustifiedindenyingprobation.Thetrialcourt,however,didnot  denythedefendantsrequestforalternativesentencingbasedupondeterrence.Itdeniedalternative k sentencingbecause herpriorrecordandhertendencytoviolateonanongoingbasisthetermsof T herreleaseintothepublic,suggest[s]thatshehaslittleornopotentialforrehabilitation.Thetrial =  courtdeterminedthatthedefendantshouldservehersentenceinconfinementbecauseofalackof & v potentialforrehabilitation.Weagreewiththetrialcourtsfindings.Thedefendanthasbeengiven  _ theopportunitytorehabilitateherselfunderlessrestrictivemeans,andshehasfailedtotake  H advantageoftheseopportunities.Moreover,theextensiverecordofcriminalactivityindicatesthat  1  sheisnotagoodcandidateforalternativesentencing.Therecordsupportsthetrialcourtsfindings    anditsdeterminationdenyingthedefendantprobationoranyalternativesentence.Weconcludethat   thedefendanthasnotmetherburdenofdemonstratingtheimproprietyofthetrialcourtsdecision.   #XXg#XX  Basedupontheforegoingandtherecordasawhole,weaffirmthejudgmentsofthetrial n  court. W    0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(# p(#p(# #XXۼn#XXԀ#XX;p#XX   `     h     #XXۄp#XX___________________________________ K    `     h     JOSEPHM.TIPTON,JUDGE#XX q#XX 4    `     h     #XXr#