ÿWPC 5UNö %D 0(Jw@r4²ÆÕ 0†Ý 0Dc 0@§ 0Jç 0T1 0^… 0hã 0rK 0|½ 0†9 0¿ 1uO 0dÄ AQ( Æy 0D? Bƒ 0D  D/ä B D30 U>c U*¡ B)Ë DCô AM7 „ '† ¤­^Qv~¯vÓ-(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ EE D D Ó€n~<$3|x(6(2Ä:$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 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 d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd -Cþÿ << Gÿÿ øÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òJune€3,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Azbill€was€not€able€to€record€the€first€sale€because€the€recording€device€wasÏinadvertently€turned€off.Ì šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€On€the€third€occasion,€defendant€would€not€sell€to€Azbill€for€fear€of€being€caughtÏby€the€police.€€Apparently,€defendant€heard€a€rumor€that€the€law€enforcement€authoritiesÏð ðwere€trying€to€bust€a€school€teacher€for€selling€marijuana.ðð€€At€the€time€of€his€arrest,Ïdefendant€was€an€elementary€school€teacher.€€Azbill€testified€at€trial€that€he€was€hiding€inÏManessðð€garage€during€the€the€third€transaction€and€was€able€to€see€much€of€whatÏtranspired€during€that€particular€sale.Ì TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€On€one€of€the€tapes,€defendant€tells€Azbill€that€the€package€contains€a€lot€ofÏð ðshake,ðð€so€defendant€added€extra€marijuana.€€ð ðShakeðð€was€defined€as€the€crumbled€leavesÏin€the€bottom€of€the€package€which€is€considered€to€be€the€less€desirable€part€of€theÏmarijuana.€€Defendant€also€referred€to€the€marijuana€as€ð ðmy€harvestðð€and€told€Maness€thatÏhe€was€saving€the€seeds€to€plant€the€following€year.ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€*ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÙ€ ÙÓ  ÓÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€./-A1-j|°™` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àAPRIL€1998€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€œ02C01›„9707„CC„00267ó óÌà àAppellee,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òDECATUR€COUNTYó óÌò òVS.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHON.€C.€CREED€McGINLEY,ÌWILLIAM€WAYLON€JACKSON,ó óà@ à)à àò òJUDGEÌ€€€a.k.a.€BILL€JACKSON,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à à(Sale€of€Marijuana)Ìà àAppellant.à@ à)ÌÌÌÌÒ†„èyÒò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:ÌÌKATHLEEN€L.€CALDWELLó óÌTaylor,€Halliburton,€Ledbetter€œ&›€€œ€€€ÏCaldwell›Ì44€N.€Second€Street,€Suite€200ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103„2220ÌÌò òJOSEPH€L.€PATTERSONÌ(Trial€Only)Ìó ó225€W.€Baltimore€StreetÌJackson,€TN€€38301„6137Éò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òGEORGIA€BLYTHE€FELNERó óÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCordell€Hull€Building,€2nd€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òG.€ROBERT€RADFORDó óÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òJOHN€W.€OVERTON,€JR.ó óÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌP.O.€Box€484ÌSavannah,€TN€€38372„0484ÌÌò òJERRY€W.€WALLACEó óÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌP.O.€Box€637ÌParsons,€TN€€38363„0637ÒÒÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÇó óÑ7€†XXdìXXdì7ÑÓÓà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendant,€William€Waylon€Jackson,€was€convicted€by€a€DecaturÏCounty€jury€of€three€(3)€counts€of€the€sale€of€marijuana€over€one„half€(ðð)Ïounce,€Class€E€felonies.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€II€offender€toÏconcurrent€terms€of€three€(3)€years€for€each€count€and€denied€alternativeÏsentencing.€€On€appeal,€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÏhis€motion€to€dismiss€the€indictment€as€it€violated€the€mandatory€joinderÏprovision€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€8(a).€€He€further€argues€that€the€trial€court€imposedÏexcessive€sentences€and€improperly€denied€alternative€sentencing.€€We€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTSó óóóÌÌà àAlthough€defendant€does€not€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence,€a€brief€summary€of€the€relevant€facts€is€appropriate.€€In€the€fall€ofÏ1995,€Gary€Azbill€was€working€with€the€Criminal€Investigation€Division€of€theÏTennessee€Highway€Patrol.€€Jerry€Maness,€who€had€criminal€charges€pendingÏat€that€time,€was€assisting€Azbill€in€making€undercover€purchases€of€stolenÏgoods€and€vehicles.€€Maness€and€defendant€had€been€acquainted€for€a€numberÏof€years,€and€Maness€learned€that€defendant€was€involved€in€the€sale€ofÏmarijuana.€€At€Azbillððs€request,€Maness€contacted€defendant€to€ð ðset€up€a€buy.ððÌà àOn€three€separate€occasions,€defendant€sold€Azbill€and/or€Maness€one„quarter€(1/4)€of€a€pound€of€marijuana€for€$550.€€All€of€the€sales€occurred€atÏManessðð€residence€in€Decatur€County.€€On€two€of€the€occasions,€Azbill€was€ableÏto€make€an€audio€tape€of€the€transaction.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Azbill€was€present€during€the€first€twoÏsales€and€monitored€the€third€through€an€audio€transmission.× ƒ1 ××  ×Ìà àDefendant€presented€an€entrapment€defense€at€trial.€€He€testified€that€inÏthe€spring€of€1995,€Maness€approached€several€people,€including€himself,€andÏð ðpropositionedðð€them€to€grow€some€marijuana€plants.€€No€one€acceptedÏManessðð€offer,€and€Maness€began€pressuring€defendant€to€grow€the€plants.€ÏManess€persisted€for€some€time,€and€defendant€finally€agreed.Ìà àDefendant€testified€that€he€planted€the€marijuana€on€the€side€of€a€roadÏseveral€miles€from€his€property,€but€took€no€further€action€to€cultivate€the€plantsððÏgrowth.€€Although€defendant€admittedly€picked€the€marijuana,€dried€it,€packagedÏit€and€eventually€delivered€it€to€Maness,€he€claimed€that€he€did€so€only€atÏManessðð€request.€€He€denied€selling€the€marijuana€to€Maness€or€Azbill€andÏclaimed€that€he€never€received€money€from€either€of€them.Ìà àMarty€Stewart€also€testified€for€the€defense€at€trial.€€He€stated€that€he€wasÏpresent€when€Maness€ð ðpropositionedðð€several€people€to€grow€the€marijuana.Ìà àIn€defendantððs€first€trial,€the€jury€was€not€able€to€reach€a€verdict.€ÍDefendant€was€then€re„indicted€and€convicted€of€three€(3)€counts€of€the€sale€ofÏmarijuana€over€one„half€(ðð)€ounce.€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offenderÏto€concurrent€terms€of€three€(3)€years€for€each€count.€€The€trial€court€deniedÏalternative€sentencing.€€From€his€convictions€and€sentences,€defendant€nowÏbrings€this€appeal.ÌÌà@ àò òòòMANDATORY€JOINDERó óóóÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€defendant€argues€that€the€state€violated€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€8(a)€by€failing€to€join€the€delivery€of€marijuana€counts€with€the€sale€ofÏmarijuana€counts€in€the€first€indictment.€€He€contends€that€he€was€initiallyÏcharged€in€Indictment€No.€411€with€three€(3)€counts€of€selling€marijuana.€ÏFollowing€the€mistrial,€the€state€re„indicted€him€with€three€(3)€counts€ofÏdelivering€and€three€(3)€counts€of€selling€marijuana.€€Defendant€maintains€thatÏthe€delivery€counts€were€not€included€in€the€original€indictment.€€Because€theseÏoffenses€arose€out€of€the€same€conduct,€he€insists€that€the€state€was€required€toÏjoin€the€delivery€counts€in€the€prior€indictment.€€Therefore,€he€asserts€that€theÏtrial€court€should€have€granted€his€motion€to€dismiss€the€subsequent€indictment.Ìà àWe€initially€note€that€defendant€has€failed€to€include€the€prior€indictment,ÏIndictment€No.€411,€as€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.€€It€is€the€appellantððs€duty€toÏhave€prepared€an€adequate€record€in€order€to€allow€a€meaningful€review€onÏappeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24;€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€560€(Tenn.Ï1993);€òòState€v.€Bunchóó,€646€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Careyóó,€914ÍS.W.2d€93,€97€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Goodwinóó,€909€S.W.2d€35,€43Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874€S.W.2d€73,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).€€When€no€evidence€is€preserved€in€the€record€for€review,€we€areÏprecluded€from€considering€the€issue.€€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€833,€836Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€This€Court€is€not€at€liberty€to€speculate€as€to€whatÏcharges€were€contained€in€the€previous€indictment.€€Therefore,€the€issue€isÏwaived.Ìà àFurthermore,€this€issue€was€not€included€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€TheÏissue€is€waived€for€this€reason€as€well.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.ÏWalkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381,€386€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àMoreover,€we€consider€any€possible€error€to€be€harmless,€at€best.€ÏDefendant€complains€of€the€additional€counts€of€the€indictment€charging€himÏwith€the€delivery€of€marijuana.€€However,€defendant€was€convicted€of€the€sale€ofÏmarijuana.€€He€concedes€that€the€selling€counts€were€included€in€the€originalÏindictment.€€Therefore,€defendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€this€alleged€error.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòLENGTH€OF€SENTENCEó óóóÌÌà àIn€his€next€issue,€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€imposed€excessiveÏsentences.€€More€specifically,€he€argues€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€oneÏenhancement€factor€and€failed€to€apply€two€mitigating€factors.Ìà@ àò òA.ó óÌà àThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóóÏwith€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€ThisÏpresumption€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€theÏtrial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€trialÏcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€and€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96Ï(Tenn.€1997).Ìà àThe€burden€is€upon€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€isÏimproper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments.€€In€conducting€our€review,€we€are€required,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210,€to€consider€the€following€factors€in€sentencing:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€[œt]he›€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencingÏhearing;€(2)€[œt]he›€presentence€report;€(3)€[œt]he›€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€[œt]he›Ïnature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)Ï[œe]vidence›€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[œa]ny›€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€hisÏown€behalf€about€sentencing.ÌÌÓÓà àIf€no€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors€for€sentencing€are€present,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€provides€that€the€presumptive€sentence€shall€be€theÏminimum€sentence€within€the€applicable€range.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805ÏS.W.2d€785,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€if€such€factors€do€exist,€aÏtrial€court€should€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€minimumÏsentence€within€the€range€for€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€theÍsentence€within€the€range€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€No€particular€weight€for€each€factor€is€prescribed€by€the€statute,€as€theÏweight€given€to€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€as€long€as€theÏtrial€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€sentencing€act€andÏits€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€238Ï(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Leggsóó,€955€S.W.2d€845,€848€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);ÏòòState€v.€Santiagoóó,€914€S.W.2d€116,€125€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòseeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€Nevertheless,Ïshould€there€be€no€mitigating€factors,€but€enhancement€factors€are€present,€aÏtrial€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€within€the€range.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d);€òòseeóó€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€883€S.W.2d€635,€638€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).Ìà@ àò òB.ó óÌà àDefendant€was€convicted€of€three€(3)€counts€of€the€sale€of€marijuana,ÏClass€E€felonies.€€This€offense€carried€a€range€of€punishment€of€two€(2)€to€fourÏ(4)€years€for€a€Range€II,€Multiple€Offender.€€In€imposing€defendantððs€sentence,Ïthe€trial€court€found€as€an€enhancement€factor€that€defendant€had€a€previousÏhistory€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involvingÏrelease€in€the€community.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€DefendantÏproposed€two€mitigating€factors,€(1)€that€defendantððs€conduct€neither€caused€norÏthreatened€serious€bodily€injury,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1);€and€(2)€thatÏhe€was€ð ðenticedðð€into€growing€the€marijuana,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€ÏThe€trial€court€rejected€these€factors€and€found€that€no€other€mitigating€factorsÍwere€applicable.€€The€trial€court€then€imposed€concurrent€sentences€of€three€(3)Ïyears€for€each€conviction.Ìà@ àò òC.ó óÌà àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€found€that€he€had€aÏprevious€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involvingÏrelease€into€the€community.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€The€pre„sentence€report€reveals€that€defendant€was€placed€on€four€(4)€years€probationÏfollowing€a€robbery€conviction€in€Alabama€in€1981.€€Approximately€three€(3)Ïyears€later,€his€probation€was€revoked€as€a€result€of€a€subsequent€conviction.€ÏThe€trial€court€properly€applied€this€enhancement€factor.Ìà@ àò òD.ó óÌà àDefendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€mitigatingÏfactor€number€1,€that€his€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodilyÏinjury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€Assuming€the€trial€court€should€haveÏfound€this€factor€applicable,€this€factor€is€entitled€to€little€weight.€€òòState€v.€HoytÏEdward€Carrollóó,€C.C.A.€No.€œ03C01›„9607„CC„00254,€Hawkins€County€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€filed€August€12,€1997,€at€Knoxville).Ìà@ àò òE.ó óÌà àDefendant€further€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€as€aÏmitigating€factor€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13),€ð ð[œa]ny›€other€factor€consistentÏwith€the€purposes€of€this€chapter.ðð€€He€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏconsidered€that€he€was€ð ðentrappedðð€as€a€mitigating€factor.Ìà àDefendant€testified€at€trial€that€Maness€pressured€him€into€growing€theÍmarijuana€plants.€€He€claimed€that€he€was€not€ð ðsellingðð€the€marijuana€to€ManessÏor€Azbill€and€never€received€any€money.€€However,€he€acknowledged€that€heÏpicked€the€marijuana,€dried€it,€packaged€it,€and€delivered€it€to€Maness.Ìà àAzbill€testified€that€he€observed€the€transactions€and€on€one€occasionÏactually€placed€the€money€in€defendantððs€hands.€€Furthermore,€the€audio€tapesÏof€the€transactions€do€not€support€defendantððs€entrapment€theory€and€actuallyÏshow€defendantððs€familiarity€with€marijuana.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€Moreover,€the€jury€chose€not€toÏaccept€the€entrapment€defense€as€evidenced€by€the€guilty€verdicts.Ìà àThe€trial€court€rejected€the€defense€at€sentencing€and€refused€to€considerÏit€in€mitigation.€€Under€the€circumstances,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏdeclined€to€apply€the€entrapment€defense€as€a€mitigating€factor€under€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).Ìà@ àò òF.ó óÌà àWe€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÏand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€Although€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1)€should€have€been€considered€as€a€mitigating€factor,€it€would€be€entitledÏto€very€little€weight.€€The€three€(3)€year€Range€II€sentence€for€each€conviction,Ïwhich€was€one€(1)€year€above€the€minimum,€was€proper.Ìà àThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòALTERNATIVE€SENTENCINGó óóóÌÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÏalternative€sentencing.€€He€claims€that€he€is€statutorily€presumed€to€be€aÏfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€because€he€was€convicted€ofÏClass€E€felonies.€€He€maintains€that€the€state€did€not€overcome€thisÏpresumption;€therefore,€he€is€entitled€to€alternative€sentencing.Ìà@ àò òA.ó óÌà àAn€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D€orÏE€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€inÏthe€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„102(6).€ÏBecause€defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender,€he€is€not€statutorilyÏentitled€to€a€presumption€that€he€is€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternativeÏsentencing.›Ìà àIn€determining€if€incarceration€is€appropriate,€a€trial€court€may€considerÏthe€need€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€having€a€long€history€ofÏcriminal€conduct,€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,Ïwhether€confinement€is€particularly€appropriate€to€effectively€deter€others€likelyÏto€commit€similar€offenses,€and€whether€less€restrictive€measures€have€often€orÏrecently€been€unsuccessfully€applied€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169;€òòState€v.€Grigsbyóó,€957ÏS.W.2d€541,€545€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).Ìà àA€court€may€also€consider€the€mitigating€and€enhancing€factors€€set€forthÍin€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„113€and€114€as€they€are€relevant€to€the€ðð€40„35„103€considerations.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(5);€òòState€v.€Bostonóó,€938ÏS.W.2d€435,€438€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Additionally,€a€court€should€considerÏthe€defendantððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€when€determiningÏif€an€alternative€sentence€would€be€appropriate.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5);€òòState€v.€Bostonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€438.€€The€defendant's€lack€of€credibilityÏis€also€an€appropriate€consideration€and€reflects€on€a€defendant's€potential€forÏrehabilitation.€€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€306€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ìà@ àò òB.ó óÌà àœIn›€determining€that€defendant€was€not€a€proper€candidate€for€alternativeÏsentencing,€the€trial€court€considered€that€defendant€had€two€prior€felonyÏconvictions.€€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€provenÏunsuccessful€for€this€defendant€in€that€he€had€a€previous€probation€revocationÏas€a€result€of€a€subsequent€conviction.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€found€thatÏdefendantððs€testimony€at€trial€and€sentencing€was€less€than€candid.€€Lack€ofÏcredibility€is€an€appropriate€consideration€and€reflects€on€a€defendant'sÏpotential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€at€306.€€Moreover,€inÏlight€of€the€amount€of€money€and€quantity€of€marijuana€involved€in€the€sales,€theÏtrial€court€determined€that€alternative€sentencing€would€depreciate€theÏseriousness€of€the€offenses€committed.Ìà@ àò òC.ó óÌà àThe€trial€court€properly€considered€the€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,Ïas€well€as€the€sentencing€principles.€€The€trial€courtððs€findings€are€entitled€to€aÍpresumption€of€correctness.€€We,€therefore,€will€not€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€denialÏof€alternative€sentencing.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEó ó