ÿWPC÷ 3UBÚ %U."PnX` 0P¸4 0”$ 0D¸w@üU:< v 0D| 0JÀ 0T  0^^ 0h¼ 0r$ 0|– 0† 0˜ 1u( 0d AQ ÆR 0D 0@\ Bœ D/¹ Bè D3 B)8 DCa AM¤ 4ñ %v~¦vÓ$<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi X%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|XX«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó¸LË$(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó DEEFGEHIEJ[K"LLEMÓ€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd!#-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ18,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó wÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔThe€trial€court€originally€announced€it€would€also€apply€enhancement€factor€six,€that€theÏpersonal€injuries€inflicted€upon€or€the€amount€of€damage€to€property€sustained€by€the€victim€wasÏparticularly€great.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(6).€€However,€on€reconsideration,€the€trial€court€determined€thatÏthat›€factor€should€not€be€applied.€€Therefore,€we€see€no€reason€to€discuss€the€defendantððs€argumentÏthat€factor€six€was€erroneously€applied.ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€² XXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€!ÙßR€./-A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àMARCH€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.€œ03C01›„9706„CR„00221ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœGREENE›€COUNTYó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JAMES€E.€œBECKNER›,ÌRAYMOND€œW.€HOUSTON,›à àà àœ)›à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Driving€While€Under€the€œInfluenceò ò›Ìó óœà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà à€€and€Failure€to€Yield)›ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òWILLIAM€H.€BELLà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌó ó114€South€Main€St.à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÌó óœGreeneville›,€TN€37743ò òÌó 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 àC.€BERKELEY€BELLó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àCECIL€C.€MILLS,€JR.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1876Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœGreeneville›,€TN€37744Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÓ  ÓÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà àà àÔ% € ÔThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€driving€while€under€the€influence,Ïsecond€offense,€and€of€failure€to€yield.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€elevenÏmonths,€twenty„nine€days€with€a€seventy„five€percent€release€œeligibility€for€the€drivingÏwhile€under€the€influence€and€thirty€days€for€the€failure€to€yield.›€€In€this€appeal€as€ofÏright,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconvictions€and€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€He€also€challenges€rulings€made€byÏthe€trial€court€with€regard€to€witness€testimony.€€After€a€review€of€the€record€andÏapplicable€law,€we€find€no€merit€to€the€defendantððs€arguments€œand,›€therefore,€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€court€below.ÌÌà àà àOn€December€5,€1995,€the€defendant€was€involved€in€a€two€carÏaccident€in€œGreene›€County.€€Kevin€œFincher›,€the€driver€of€the€second€car,€testified€thatÏhe€had€been€driving€toward€Johnson€City€on€Highway€11€East€between€the€hours€ofÏsix€and€seven€in€the€evening.€€The€road€is€a€four„œlaned›€highway€with€the€two€sidesÏbeing€separated€by€a€grassy€median€with€paved€cut„œthroughs›.€€œFincher›€was€travelingÏin€the€inner€lane€when€he€saw€the€defendantððs€truck€cross€the€median€and€pull€ontoÏthe€highway€without€stopping€to€check€for€oncoming€traffic.€€œFincher›€testified€that€heÍheard€a€crash€and€then€his€car€started€to€spin.€€When€the€car€stopped,€FincherÏchecked€on€the€well„being€of€his€mother€and€grandmother€who€were€riding€in€the€carÏwith€him.€€He€testified€that€both€womenððs€injuries€had€not€appeared€life€threateningÏso€he€left€the€car€to€check€on€the€defendant.€€Ultimately,€the€women€spent€about€threeÏdays€in€the€hospital.ÌÌà àà àFincher€testified€that€as€he€had€reached€the€defendantððs€truck,€theÏdefendant€had€shouted€in€a€slurred€speech,€ð ðGet€me€out.ðð€€Fincher€further€stated€thatÏhe€had€smelled€beer€and€that€the€defendant€œand€the€car€had›€ð ðreeked€of€it.ððÌ€Ìà àà àœJakie›€Christy,€a€patrol€officer€with€œGreene›€County€Sheriffððs€Department,Ïtestified€that€he€had€been€the€first€officer€to€arrive€at€the€accident.€€He€said€he€hadÏseen€six€or€seven€beer€cans€in€the€floorboard€of€the€defendantððs€car.€€He€alsoÏobserved€œan€open›€beer€can€between€the€defendantððs€legs.€€Ivan€Williamson,€aÏtrooper€with€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol,€testified€that€he€too€had€seen€beer€cansÏin€the€defendantððs€car.€€He€said€he€had€not€asked€the€defendant€to€perform€any€fieldÏsobriety€tests€because€the€defendant€appeared€to€have€been€injured€in€the€accidentÏand€was€being€transported€to€a€nearby€hospital.€€Williamson€testified€that€he€hadÏgone€to€the€hospital€and€had€asked€the€defendant€to€consent€to€a€blood€alcohol€testÍbut€that€the€defendant€refused.€€In€fact,€the€defendant€refused€to€have€any€bloodÏwithdrawn€for€any€reason.€€The€defendant€was€released€from€the€hospital€and€wasÏarrested€eight€days€later.ÌÌà àà àJeff€Craft,€a€patrolman€with€the€œGreeneville›€Police,€was€at€the€hospitalÏwhen€the€defendant€arrived.€€Craft€testified€that€the€defendant€had€bloodshot€eyesÏand€had€an€odor€of€alcohol.€€He€also€testified€that€the€defendant€had€said€he€had€oneÏbeer€and€had€just€opened€the€second€when€the€accident€occurred.€€The€defendantÏalso€told€Craft€that€he€had€been€at€the€dentistððs€office€earlier€that€day€and€was€afraidÏthe€blood€alcohol€test€might€be€affected€by€the€nitrous€oxide€he€had€received€at€theÏdentist.€€On€cross„examination,€Craft€stated€that€the€defendantððs€eyes€appeared€to€beÏbloodshot€on€that€day€in€court€as€well.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€called€John€œTyree›,€a€member€of€the€emergency€medicalÏpersonnel€team,€to€testify€about€the€accident.€€œTyree›€testified€that€the€defendant€hadÏnot€exhibited€the€classic€signs€of€intoxication€when€he€examined€him€at€the€scene€ofÏthe€accident.€€He€further€testified€that€the€defendant€was€ð ðsemi„orientedðð€andÏappeared€to€be€suffering€from€ð ðimpact€syndrome.ðð€€œTyree›€stated€that€he€had€not€seenÏor€smelled€any€beer€but€that€his€only€priority€had€been€getting€the€defendant€out€ofÍthe€truck.€€He€also€testified€that€he€œhad€had›€no€training€to€determine€whether€aÏperson€is€intoxicated.ÌÌà àà àœAllyson›€Carpenter,€a€private€investigator€hired€by€the€defendant,Ïtestified€that€she€had€taken€pictures€of€the€highway€where€the€accident€occurred.€ÏThese€photos€were€taken€approximately€ten€months€after€the€accident.€€In€the€photosÏis€a€caution€sign€warning€motorists€to€slow€down€to€35€mph€because€of€an€upcomingÏintersection.€€The€defendant€called€no€other€witnesses€but€did€introduce€his€dentistÏbill€and€his€hospital€report€as€exhibits.ÌÌà àà à€The€defendant€now€argues€that€the€verdict€is€not€supported€byÏsufficient€evidence.€€A€defendant€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€has€theÏburden€of€illustrating€to€this€Court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏverdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact€in€his€or€her€case.€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€aÏverdict€of€guilt€for€lack€of€sufficient€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€recordÏand€any€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòState€v.€œTuggle›óó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌ€à 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€testimonyÏof€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€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€relating€toÏboth€his€convictions.€€As€to€his€conviction€for€driving€while€under€the€influence,€heÍpoints€to€the€lack€of€a€field€sobriety€test,€the€lack€of€a€video€of€the€accident€scene,€andÏthe€fact€that€he€was€not€arrested€at€the€scene€of€the€accident€as€support€for€hisÏargument.€€He€argues€that€Trooper€Williamson€stated€at€an€earlier€hearing€that€theÏdefendant€ð ðwasnððt€what€you€say€intoxicated.ðð€€At€trial,€however,€Trooper€WilliamsonÏexplained€that€because€the€defendant€had€been€somewhat€injured€by€the€accident,Ïhe€could€not€determine€how€intoxicated€the€defendant€had€been.€€He€further€testifiedÏthat€he€had€determined€that€the€defendant€had€been€operating€his€car€while€underÏthe€influence€of€an€intoxicant€based€ð ðon€the€accident€and€based€on€the€investigationÏœon›€the€details€and€based€on€[the€defendantððs]€acknowledgment€he€had€consumedÏalcohol€and€based€on€evidence€.€.€.€found€at€the€scene.ðð€€Testimony€was€presentedÏthat€the€defendant€had€smelled€of€alcohol,€that€empty€and€full€beers€were€found€in€hisÏcar,€and€that€the€defendant€had€an€open€can€of€beer€between€his€legs.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€find€this€evidence€to€be€entirely€sufficient€to€support€the€defendantððsÏconviction€for€driving€while€under€the€influence.€€We€also€note€that€the€defendantððsÏrefusal€to€take€the€blood€alcohol€test€is€probative€on€the€issue€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.ÏMorganóó,€692€S.W.2d€œ428,€430›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€Therefore,€we€find€no€meritÏto€the€defendantððs€sufficiency€challenge€of€this€conviction.ÌÌà àà àLikewise,€we€find€the€evidence€sufficient€to€convict€the€defendant€ofÏfailure€to€yield.€€The€defendant€clearly€failed€to€yield€the€right„of„way€to€the€trafficÏalready€flowing€on€the€highway.€€He€pulled€directly€into€the€path€of€oncoming€trafficÏcausing€his€car€to€strike€another.€€This€issue€is€also€lacking€in€merit.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€toÏallow€defense€counsel€to€question€Jamie€Fincher,€mother€of€Kevin€Fincher,€about€theÏspeed€limit€at€a€particular€place€on€the€highway.€€The€defendant€was€seeking€to€showÏthat€Kevin€Fincher€had€been€speeding€prior€to€the€accident.€€€First,€evidence€isÏconsidered€relevant€if€it€has€"any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÏconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€thanÏit€would€be€without€the€evidence."€€Tenn.€R.€œEvid›.€401.€€Second,€the€scope€ofÏcross„examination€is€largely€within€the€trial€court's€discretion€and€that€discretion€willÏnot€be€disturbed€absent€a€finding€of€abuse.€€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€803€S.W.2d€260,€262Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Thus,€we€have€no€trouble€concluding€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€err€when€it€refused€to€allow€defense€counsel€to€engage€in€the€questioningÏoutlined€above.€€The€questioning€had€no€tendency€to€make€any€fact€of€consequenceÏto€the€defendantððs€case€more€or€less€probable.€€It€was€completely€irrelevant€to€theÏproceeding€œand,›€therefore,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€on€behalf€of€the€trial€court.€ÍWhether€or€not€Kevin€Fincher,€the€victim,€had€been€speeding€is€irrelevant€toÏdetermining€whether€the€defendant€was€driving€while€under€the€influence.€This€issueÏis€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€Kevin€Fincher€ð ðapparently€lied€aÏnumber€of€times€under€oath.ðð€€He€complains€that€Fincher€was€not€truthful€when€heÏsaid€he€did€not€have€a€financial€interest€in€the€outcome€of€the€defendantððs€case.€€ToÏsupport€his€argument,€the€defendant€points€to€two€letters,€attached€as€exhibits€to€hisÏbrief,€that€concern€Fincherððs€insurance€coverage.€€These€letters€in€no€way€bringÏFincherððs€credibility€into€question.€€The€jury€heard€and€saw€Fincher€and€believed€hisÏtestimony.€€Such€a€determination€is€solely€within€the€province€of€the€jury.€€òòState€v.ÏœBigbee›óó,€œ885€S.W.2d€797,€804€(Tenn.€1994).›€€We€further€point€out€that€the€defendantÏfailed€to€litigate€this€issue€at€trial.€€He€made€no€effort€to€introduce€these€letters€at€trial,Ïrather,€he€just€attached€them€to€his€appellate€brief.€€Because€this€issue€was€notÏconsidered€at€trial,€it€cannot€be€properly€considered€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lunatióó,Ï665€S.W.2d€739,€749€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àà àAs€the€defendantððs€final€issue,€he€contends€that€his€sentence€isÏexcessive.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€considered€his€criminalÍconvictions€dating€back€twenty„five€years.€€When€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€herÏsentence,€we€must€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€uponÏthe€appealing€party.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€ÏThis€presumption,€however,€ð ðis€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€theÏrecord€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€factsÏand€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€œAshby›óó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ò € ÒÒ À ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒX¸)ÓÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ Òà àà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€€ðð€40„35„103€sets€out€sentencingÏconsiderations€which€are€guidelines€for€determining€whether€or€not€a€defendantÏshould€be€incarcerated.€€These€include€the€need€ð ðto€protect€society€by€restraining€aÏdefendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct,ðð€the€need€ð ðto€avoidÏdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,ðð€the€determination€that€ð ðconfinement€isÏparticularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similarÏoffenses,ðð€or€the€determination€that€ð ðmeasures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€haveÏfrequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1).ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€the€specific€sentence€and€the€possible€combination€ofÏsentencing€alternatives,€the€court€shall€consider€the€following:€(1)€any€evidence€fromÍthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€concerning€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€natureÏand€characteristics€of€the€offense,€(5)€information€offered€by€the€State€or€theÏdefendant€concerning€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors€as€found€in€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„113€and€„114,€and€(6)€the€defendantððs€statements€in€his€or€her€own€behalfÏconcerning€sentencing.€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210(b).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€sentencedÏhim€to€serve€his€sentence€at€seventy„five€percent.€€Generally,€sentencing€forÏmisdemeanors€ranges€between€zero€and€seventy„five€percent.€œ€T.C.A.›€ðð€œ40„35„302(d).€€In›€order€to€determine€what€percentage€a€œDUI›€offender€should€receive,€theÏcourt€must€consider€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€as€well€as€legislativeÏpurposes€and€principles€related€to€œsentencing.€›€òòState€v.€œDockery›óó,€917€S.W.2d€258,Ï261€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€We€also€note€that€in€misdemeanor€sentencing,€unlikeÏfelony,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumptive€minimum€sentence.€òòState€v.ÏœCreasy›óó,€885€S.W.2d€829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€ÌÌà àà àIn€sentencing€the€defendant€to€seventy„five€percent,€the€trial€court€reliedÍon€three€enhancement€factors€from€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114.œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›€€As€the€first€factor,€the€courtÏrelied€on€the€defendantððs€history€of€criminal€behavior€and€convictions.€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€relied€on€convictions€more€thanÏtwenty€years€old€as€well€as€criminal€cases€in€which€there€was€no€formal€disposition.€ÏFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€the€defendant€did€have€a€lengthy€criminal€history.€€AsÏthe€trial€judge€noted,€ð ð[œQ]uite›€frankly,€if€there€had€been€some€old€convictions€thatÏhadnððt€been€linked€up€until€the€present€time€by€similar€offenses€I€would€pretty€muchÏagree€with€[the€defendant]€that€they€wouldnððt€be€of€a€great€deal€weight,€but€whenÏthereððs€pretty€much€a€chain€that€links€all€the€way€back€from€ðð71€to€the€present€date€ofÏsimilar€offenses€it€makes€a€big€difference.€€It€does€make€it€all€highly€relevant€forÏconsideration€in€sentencing.ðð€€The€record€certainly€supports€the€trial€judgeððsÏconclusions.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€number€one.ÌÌà àà à€€€€The€trial€court€also€applied€enhancement€factor€eight,€that€theÏdefendant€had€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€requirements€ofÏa€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€€This€factor€was€applied€because€theÍtrial€court€found€that€during€times€when€the€defendant€was€serving€a€suspendedÏsentence,€he€was€convicted€on€other€charges.€€Again,€we€find€no€error€in€theÏapplication€of€this€factor.ÌÌà àà àThe€last€factor€applied€by€the€trial€court€was€factor€sixteen,€that€theÏcrime€was€committed€under€circumstances€in€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€aÏvictim€was€great.€€The€defendant€argues€this€factor€should€not€have€been€appliedÏbecause€it€was€not€shown€that€he€was€driving€in€an€ð ðextremely€recklessðð€manner.€€InÏgeneral,€factor€sixteen€may€be€used€as€an€enhancement€factor€in€œDUI›€cases.€€òòSeeóóÏœòòDockery›óó,€917€œS.W.2d€at€263.›€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€drove€his€car€across€aÏhighway€median€and€into€the€path€of€oncoming€traffic.€€He€was€under€the€influence€atÏthe€time€and€had€been€drinking€in€his€car€immediately€prior€to€the€accident.€€TheseÏcircumstances€certainly€œcreated›€a€situation€where€the€potential€for€bodily€harm€wasÏgreat.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Joseph€L.€Fletcheróó,€No.€œ03C01„9606„CC„00229,›€œGreene›€CountyÏ(Tenn.€œCrim.›€App.€filed€July€9,€1997,€at€Knoxville)(applying€factor€sixteen€toÏintoxicated€defendant€who€rear„ended€a€vehicle€at€a€stop€light);€òòState€v.€Kenneth€L.ÏWarrenóó,€No.€œ01CO1„9605„CC„00218,›€Williamson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€MayÏ21,€1997,€at€Nashville)(applying€factor€sixteen€to€intoxicated€defendant€driving€onÏbusy€highway).ÌÌà àà àBased€on€the€above€enhancement€factors,€the€trial€court€determinedÏthat€the€defendantððs€release€eligibility€should€be€set€at€seventy„five€percent.€€HeÏdenied€any€probation€because€ð ðof€the€prior€record,€the€prior€violation,€the€history€ofÏalcohol€abuse,€the€history€of€drug€abuse,€the€deterrence€consideration,€the€particularÏcircumstances€of€this€offense,€involving€reckless€driving,€open€beer€in€the€car,Ïpersonal€injuries€and€property€damage.ððÌÌà àà àOur€review€of€the€record€entirely€supports€the€sentence€ordered€by€theÏtrial€court.€€We€find€a€seventy„five€percent€release€eligibility€œdate€appropriate,›€andÏthus€find€no€merit€to€the€defendantððs€argument€that€the€sentence€is€excessive.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€œcourt€below.›Ìà àœÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó›à àà àà àà àà àÏœà àà àJOHN›€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌœÌÌCONCUR:›ÌœÌÌÌ______________________________›ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌÌœ______________________________›ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€Special€œJudgeÌ›