ÿWPCS …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝåw@í4- A 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U *Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÍv~êvÓh D3; 0@n AO®Æý 0Dà D/ B6˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- stEuDvwDxy{z[{[|Ó€Úƒç"3|x‡2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òDecember€16,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ìŸXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌÌœOCTOBER›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ03C01„9705„CR„00195›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœSULLIVAN›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œR.€JERRY€BECKó ó›Ìò òœBRADLEY€JOE€à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌHOUSEWRIGHT,ó ó›à àà àà àò ò)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Sentencing)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œSULLIVAN€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœRICHARD€SPIVEY›à àà àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ142€Cherokee€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌKingsport,€TN€37660à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSANDY€C.€PATRICKÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGREELEY€WELLSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€MONTGOMERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSullivan€County€Justice€CenterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure.€€The€Defendant,€Bradley€Joe€Housewright,€pleadedÏòònoloóó€òòcontendereóó€to€five€counts€of€assault,€Class€A€misdemeanors,€and€oneÏcount€of€vehicular€homicide,€a€Class€B€felony.€€œPursuant€to€a€plea€agreement,Ïhe›€was€sentenced€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€each€œassault›Ïœconviction€and›€eight€years€for€the€vehicular€homicide€conviction.€€The€sentencesÏwere€ordered€to€œbe€served€concurrently.›€€The€trial€court€considered€and€deniedÏalternative€sentencing€and€ordered€the€Defendant€to€serve€his€œsentences›€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€The€Defendant€raises€three€intertwined€issues€in€thisÏappeal:€(1)€That€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€the€Defendantððs€request€forÏalternative€sentencing;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€rejecting€the€proposition€thatÏthe€fact€a€death€occurred€is€not€a€proper€factor€œto€consider€in›€deciding€alternativeÏsentencing;€and€(3)€that€the€court€erred€by€applying€the€exceptionalÏcircumstances€rule€in€denying€alternative€sentencing.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€at€approximately€10:00€p.m.€on€July€8,€1995,€theÏDefendant€was€at€the€home€of€a€friend.€€The€home€belonged€to€the€brother€ofÍthe€victim€of€the€vehicular€homicide,€Christopher€Collins.€€Collins€was€a€lifelongÏfriend€of€the€Defendant.€€Collins€met€the€Defendant€at€this€house€atÏapproximately€9:45€p.m.€€The€Defendant€had€œconsumed€at›€least€five€beers€inÏfour€hours.€€The€Defendant€decided€to€go€to€a€store€less€than€a€mile€away€toÏget€some€more€beer.€€Collins€accompanied€the€Defendant€in€a€1981€ToyotaÏautomobile.€€€€Collins€had€also€been€œdrinking.›€€ÌÌà àAfter€buying€the€beer,€the€Defendant€and€Collins€headed€back€to€theÏhouse€traveling€west€on€Bloomingdale€Pike€in€Sullivan€County€at€approximatelyÏ45€to€50€miles€per€hour.€€A€Chevrolet€Blazer€was€traveling€east€onÏBloomingdale€œPike,€being›€driven€by€Chad€Ball€and€containing€four€œpassengers.€ÏSome€persons€in€the€Blazer€saw€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€approaching€andÏstated€that€the€headlights€went€off€just€before€the€collision.€€The€DefendantÏturned€left€onto€Brooklawn€in€front€of€the€Blazer€and€the€Blazer€struck€his€vehicle.€ÏThe€Blazer€overturned€and€three€passengers€in€the€back€seat€were€thrown€fromÏthe€vehicle.€€Collins€was€pinned€in€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€and€€wasÏunconscious€when€the€police€arrived.€€He€was€pronounced€dead€at€the€HolstonÏValley€Community€Hospital.€€The€other€victims€were€injured,€but€none€seriously.ÌÌà àThe€Defendantððs€blood€alcohol€registered€.15%€and€Collinsðð€was€.02%.€ÏThe€Defendant€was€indicted€for€one€count€of€vehicular€homicide€involvingÍintoxication€and€five€counts€of€aggravated€assault.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€55„10„401;€39„13„213(a)(2);€39„13„102(a)(2)(A).€€On€December€13,€1996€andÏpursuant€to€a€negotiated€plea€agreement,€the€Defendant€pleaded€òònoloóóÏòòcontendereóó€to€five€counts€of€simple€assault,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ39„13„101,€and€one€count€of€vehicular€homicide.€€For€the€vehicular€homicide,€theÏDefendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I,€Standard€Offender€to€eight€years,€theÏminimum€sentence€in€the€range€for€a€Class€B€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„213(b).€€€The€Defendant€moved€for€alternative€sentencing€and€a€hearingÏwas€conducted€on€January€24,€1997.€€In€an€order€containing€lengthy€findings€ofÏfact€and€legal€analysis,€the€trial€court€denied€the€Defendantððs€motion.€€It€is€fromÏthis›€denial€that€the€Defendant€now€appeals.ÌÌà àWhile€we€recognize€the€Defendant€has€presented€his€appeal€in€terms€ofÏthree€issues,€because€of€their€interrelatedness,€we€will€address€them€asÏcomponents€of€the€primary€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grantÏœalternative€sentencing.›€€œWhen›€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€theÏmanner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóóÏreview€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€theÏtrial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€isÏ"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÍconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€œ(c)›€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€ XÔððððÔ€ ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà 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€œprinciples›€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).ÌÌà àIn€1995,€the€legislature€amended€the€œlaw€regarding€the€offense›€ofÏvehicular€homicide€and€specified€that€ð ð[v]ehicular€homicide€is€a€Class€C€felony,Íunless€it€is€the€proximate€result€of€driver€intoxication€as€set€forth€in€subdivisionÏ(a)(2),€in€which€case€it€is€a€Class€B€felony.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„213(b)(1997).€€The€Defendant€was€convicted€of€vehicular€homicide€pursuant€toÏthe€intoxication€provision€and€thus,€was€subject€to€the€sentence€range€for€aÏClass€B€felony.€€The€sentencing€range€for€a€standard€offender€for€a€Class€BÏfelony€is€eight€(8)€to€twelve€(12)€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„101.€€ÌÌà àœBecause€vehicular›€homicide€by€intoxication€is€a€Class€B€felony,€€there€isÏno€presumption€that€the€œDefendant›€is€a€suitable€candidate€for€œalternativeÏsentencing€options€as›€afforded€those€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€However,€probation€must€be€automaticallyÏconsidered€by€the€trial€court€as€a€sentencing€alternative€for€eligible€defendants.€€ÏœTenn.€Code›€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b).€€€ð ðA€defendant€shall€be€eligible€for€probationÏunder€the€provisions€of€this€chapter€if€the€sentence€actually€imposed€upon€suchÏdefendant€is€eight€(8)€years€or€less.ðð€€œTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð›€40„35„303(a).€€ÏFurthermore,€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€probation€rests€with€theÏDefendant.€œTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð›€40„35„303(b).€€€Guidance€in€determining€whatÏœfactors€are€to€be€considered€concerning€alternative›€sentences€may€be€found€inÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103(1),€which€states:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓSentences€involving€confinement€should€be€based€on€the€followingÏœconsiderations:Ì›Ì(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€aÏdefendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;ÌÌ(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€ofÏthe€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effectiveÏdeterrent€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€€orÌÌœ(C)›€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€orÏrecently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌòòSeeóó€œòòAshbyóó,›€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€A€court€may€also€apply€the€mitigating€andÏenhancing€factors€set€forth€in€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€40„35„113Ïand€„114€as€they€are€relevant€to€the€section€40„35„103€considerations.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(5);€€òòState€v.€Zeoliaóó,€928€S.W.2d€457,€461€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1996).€Finally,€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€of€aÏdefendant€should€be€considered€in€determining€whether€he€should€be€grantedÏan€alternative€sentence.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5);€òòState€v.€Bostonóó,Ï938€S.W.2d€435,€438€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€ÌÌà àFor€œa›€denial€to€œoccur€based€on›€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€"asÏcommitted,€œ[they]€must›€be€'especially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,Ïoffensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree,'€and€the€natureÏof€the€offense€must€outweigh€all€factors€favoring€probation."€€€€òòState€v.€Travisóó,Ï622€S.W.2d€529,€534€(Tenn.€1981);€€òòState€v.€Cleavoróó,€691€S.W.2d€541,€543Ï(Tenn.€1985).€This€principle€has€been€codified€in€section€40„35„103(1)(B)€whichÍconsiders€confinement€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€ÏòòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€375€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStateÏv.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€787€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€SentencingÏdecisions€should€not,€however,€turn€on€a€generalization€of€the€crime€committed,Ïsuch€as€the€fact€that€a€death€occurred.€€€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,Ï456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€œòòbut€seeóó›€òòState€v.€Ramseyóó,€903€S.W.2d€709,€714Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àWhen€a€defendant€is€not€afforded€the€presumption€of€suitability€forÏœalternative€sentencing,€the›€defendant€bears€the€burden€solely€to€establish€that€itÏwould€€ð ðsubserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€andÏthe€defendant.ðð€œòòBinghamóó,›€910€S.W.2d€at€456€œ(quoting›€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803ÏS.W.2d€250,€259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€courtÏdetermined€that€œalternative€sentencing€for›€the€Defendant€would€not€serve€theÏends€of€justice.€€The€presentence€report€indicates€that€at€the€time€of€the€hearingÏœconcerning€the€manner€of€service€of€the€sentence,›€the€Defendant€was€twenty„three€years€old,€single,€œand›€lived€with€his€€mother.€€He€had€no€prior€offenses€asÏa€juvenile€or€an€adult.€€He€graduated€from€€high€school€in€1992,€attended€a€truckÏdriving€school€afterwards,€and€has€been€steadily€employed.€€He€admitted€to€aÏhistory€of€alcohol€and€marijuana€use.€€The€victimððs€mother€submitted€a€statementÏthat€she€was€not€opposed€to€probation€for€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€at€the€hearing€in€addition€to€the€aforementionedÏfacts,€that€he€was€a€close€friend€of€the€victim.€€The€Defendant€had€difficultyÏsleeping€after€the€accident€and€cried€at€night.€€He€testified€that€he€made€a€bigÏmistake€and€that€he€was€willing€to€pay€his€debt€to€society.€€The€Defendant€alsoÏadmitted€that€he€had€continued€to€drink€alcohol€after€the€accident.€€He€agreedÏthat€he€was€feeling€the€effects€of€alcohol€when€he€decided€to€drive€the€night€ofÏthe€incident.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€denied€œalternative€sentencing€and›€documented€its€reasoningÏin€extensive€findings.€€In€general€terms,€the€trial€judge€found€that€the€unfavorableÏfactors€considered€weighed€against€the€Defendantððs€proof€that€he€was€aÏsuitable€candidate€œfor€alternative€sentencing.›€€The€court€considered€the€facts€thatÏ(1)€the€Defendant€turned€off€the€vehicleððs€headlights;€(2)€the€danger€to€theÏpassengers€in€the€other€vehicle€who€were€thrown€onto€the€roadway;€(3)€thatÏvictims€other€than€the€Defendant€were€injured;€and€(4)€that€the€DefendantððsÏblood€alcohol€level€of€.15%€was€well€over€the€legal€limit.€€The€trial€judgeÏconsidered€the€circumstances€to€be€reprehensible,€excessive€and€to€anÏexaggerated€degree€such€that€probation€was€not€warranted.€€Because€theÏDefendant€was€afforded€no€presumption€that€he€was€a€suitable€candidate€forÏœalternative€sentencing,€the›€trial€judge€was€vested€with€a€considerable€degree€ofÍdiscretion€within€the€sentencing€guidelines€to€determine€the€œmanner€of€service€ofÏthe€sentence.€€We›€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€œjudge›€œerred€or€abused›€œhis›Ïdiscretion€by€denying€œan€alternative€to€incarceration.›ÌÌà àHowever,€the€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏrejecting€the€proposition€that€the€fact€that€a€death€occurred€cannot€alone€supportÏthe€denial€of€œalternative€sentencing.€€Specifically,›€a€panel€of€this€Court€has€heldÏthat€the€trial€court€may€not€consider€factors€which€constitute€elements€of€theÏoffense€in€question.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995).€€Thus,€the€fact€that€a€death€occurred€alone€cannot€support€denial€ofÏprobation€in€a€case€where€death€is€a€general€element€of€the€offense.€€òòId.ó󀀜This›ÏCourt€recognizes€the€grave€nature€of€crimes€that€involve€the€death€of€anotherÏperson.€€However,€œwe€also€readily€acknowledge€that€we›€are€œgoverned€by›€lawsÏenacted€by€the€legislature.€€œThe€legislature€has€provided€that€a€personÏsentenced€to€eight€(8)€years€or€less€is€eligible€for€probation€and€other€sentencingÏoptions,€even€if€convicted€for€an€offense€involving€the€death€of€another€person.›ÌÌà àApparently,€the€legislature€has€considered€the€nature€of€the€offense€ofÏvehicular€homicide€and€determined€that€the€proper€grade€of€the€offense€is€aÏClass€C€felony€in€cases€of€recklessness€and€a€Class€B€felony€in€cases€whereÏintoxication€is€involved.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„213(b).€€The€legislature€hasÍalso€specified€that€persons€convicted€of€Class€C€felonies€are€presumedÏfavorable€candidates€for€alternative€sentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€Therefore,€even€in€a€case€involving€a€death,€a€defendant€may€receiveÏœalternative€sentencing,€including€probation.€€Here,›€because€the€Defendant€wasÏconvicted€by€way€of€intoxication,€he€is€a€Class€B€felon€who€does€not€possessÏthe€presumption€but€neither€is€he€precluded€from€receiving€probation€œor€otherÏsentencing€alternatives€solely€because›€a€death€occurred.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„303(a).€€The€trial€court€must€consider€his€suitability€for€probation€œbut›€theÏburden€of€proof€remains€solely€upon€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àIn€conjunction€with€this,€the€trial€court€also€concluded€that€in€cases€whereÏa€death€occurred,€a€defendant€must€demonstrate€exceptional€circumstances€toÏestablish€his€or€her€suitability€for€œalternative€sentencing.€€He›€based€his€reasoningÏon€cases€decided€under€prior€sentencing€œlaw,›€œòòseeóó›€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€662€S.W.2dÏ588,€590€(Tenn.€1983);€òòKilgore€v.€Stateóó,€588€S.W.2d€567,€568€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1979),€that€applied€a€rule€that€exceptional€circumstances€must€be€demonstratedÏœto€warrant€probation€in›€a€case€involving€the€death€of€another€person.€€Again,Ïwe€recognize€the€tragic€and€œsenseless›€losses€involved€in€cases€of€vehicularÏhomicide.€€However,€there€is€nothing€in€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€that€provides€forÏthe€application€of€an€exceptional€circumstances€doctrine€and€we€must€concludeÏthat€œany€such€doctrine›€did€not€survive€in€our€present€Code.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€MichaelÍD.€Frazieróó,€C.C.A.€No.€0C01„9602„CR„00084,€Knox€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€June€4,€1997);€òòState€v.€McKinzie€Monroe€Blackóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9401„CC„00006,€Robertson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€14,Ï1995);€òòbut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Ramseyóó,€903€S.W.2d€709,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).€€The€burden€remains€upon€the€Defendant€to€prove€his€suitability€forÏœalternative€sentencing€but›€œwe€do€not€believe€that€our€law€mandates€anÏenhanced›€burden€to€prove€exceptional€circumstances€when€a€death€occurs.€ÏTherefore,€œwe€believe€that€the›€trial€court€erred€in€applying€this€rule€to€the€case€atÏbar.ÌÌà àNevertheless,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€œjudge›€abused€œhis›Ïdiscretion€in€refusing€to€grant€œan€alternative€sentence.€€The›€Defendant€presentedÏproof€regarding€his€appropriateness€for€probation.€€The€victimððs€mother€was€alsoÏin€favor€of€an€alternative€sentence.€€Yet,€there€is€evidence€in€the€record€that€theÏaccident€was€violent,€reprehensible€and€offensive.€€Multiple€victims€wereÏinvolved€and€three€of€those€persons€were€thrown€from€their€vehicle.€€The€trialÏcourt€determined€that€the€circumstances€of€the€œoffense€outweighed›€the€positiveÏfactors€submitted€by€the€Defendant€such€that€granting€an€alternative€sentenceÏwould€not€serve€the€ends€of€justice.€€€There€being€no€presumption€for€alternativeÏsentencing€because€the€Defendant€was€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony,€the€trialÏjudge€was€warranted€in€using€his€discretion€to€determine€the€appropriate€mannerÍof€service€of€the€sentence.€€Clearly,€he€was€concerned€with€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense€and€the€record€supports€this€finding.ÌÌà àTherefore,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌœÌÓÓ›à àà àà àà àà àœ____________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE›