WPC S=kzAĭ\_-]H;|}2:ؤ}QEǁŻ~~b:%qko]*&ykPDiUn,wpإ*42(;* v`iS xvngx]ֶu(Q|_ka\6],RP $Oi%9n,y8?-䃼c@jH@dvPn qeN`rǦ%1zi샢j 4+]M>HHݏ,UJ,jߎ9Yi^g~ӝ D68"6AaM `'ry5l+!!~vtisNrh1agF-vZ(뒭/c@q۩Db#\ % UN# 0q UN 0DG UN z S ^ % w1 5 4 e+N:< m>EUU@Wb 0 B 0 D3S D- 0K ASQ 0 0D AHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 60(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptn)   RM$      1  6  _Inthiscase,weneednotdecidewhetherthepresumptioninfavorofanalternativesentence_appliesfollowing  therevocationofacommunitycorrectionsplacement,_Ԁbecausewefind_incarceration,inthiscase,appropriateinany n event.J~'TLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xU(9 Z(Times New Roman  - -(|G2M$ !.8EPdd8         0  6 d(|3V{$ !.8EPdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3V{$ !.8EPdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8EPdd8     _   EP8!\XXdd8@ttisEPINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#EPis #Ԉ      @  @` June20,2000Session @ X!\XEP #EPXX!\#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.RHONDAJENNINGSX!\XEP  4 @@ AppealasofRightfromtheCriminalCourtforWilliamsonCounty  ( @@No.II39792TimothyL.Easter,Judge   @@*AV) ` dE<o` A p  @@TTNo.M199901093CCAR3CDFiledNovember30,_2000_ e  AV) ` dE<0` A 1     X!\XXX!\OnOctober28,1998,attheconclusionofabenchtrial,RhondaJennings,thedefendantand &v  appellant,wasfoundguiltyofonecountoftheftoverfivehundreddollarsandonecountoftheft  \ underfivehundreddollars.FollowingasentencinghearingonFebruary26,1999,thetrialcourt B orderedthedefendanttoservetwoyearsoncommunitycorrectionsafterservingtwentydaysinjail. ( OnApril29,1999,awarrantwasfiledagainstthedefendantallegingthatshehadviolateda  conditionofhercommunitycorrectionssentence.AfteranevidentiaryhearingonJuly12,1999,the  trialcourtrevokedthedefendant'scommunitycorrectionssentenceandre-sentencedhertoeighteen  monthsincarceration.Onappeal,theappellantclaimsthathersentenceisexcessive.Aftera p thoroughreviewoftherecord,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.#X!\XXX!\##EPXX!\#X!\XEP V  X!\XXX!\Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtofWilliamson "r CountyisAffirmed.  X   #EPX!\& #X!\X.EPJerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.Welles,J.,andJohn $ EverettWilliams,J.,joined.   J.TimothyStreet,Franklin,Tennessee,attorneyfortheappellant,RhondaJennings.    PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,DavidH._Findley_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral, R"" andRonDavis,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,LeeDryer,AssistantDistrictAttorney,attorneysforthe 8## appellee,StateofTennessee. $n$ $ @@OO& OPINION #EPXX!\S #X!\XEP %:!& #EPXX!\! #X!\XEP  X!\XXX!\@!FactualBackground#EPXX!\ # EPԈ '#(  #   #  #EP (#X!\XEP  #X!\XXX!\#X!\XXX!\AWilliamsonCountyGrandJuryindictedthedefendantforonecountoftheftoverone )$* thousanddollars,fivecountsoftheftunderfivehundreddollars,onecountofcriminal h*%+ impersonationandonecountofdrivingonasuspendedlicense.Priortotrial,theStateentereda N+&, nolleprosequiasto#X!\XXX!\(#X!\XXX!\fourcountsoftheftunderfivehundreddollars.Thedefendantlaterpledguilty 4,'- onasuspendedlicenseandcriminalimpersonation.#X!\XXX!\#X!\XXX!\Atabenchtrialontheremainingcounts,the -j(. defendantwasfoundguiltyofonecountoftheftoverfivehundreddollars,alesserincludedoffense  oftheftoveronethousanddollars,andonecountoftheftunderfivehundreddollars.Followinga  sentencinghearing,thedefendantwassentencedtoservetwoyearsintheCommunityCorrections | Programafterservingtwentydaysinjail.Subsequently,thedefendantwaschargedwithviolating b herCommunityCorrectionssentenceforfailingadrugscreen.Atanevidentiaryhearing,thetrial H courtdeterminedthatthedefendanthadviolatedhercommunitycorrectionssentence.Thetrialcourt . ~ thensentencedthedefendanttoserveeighteenmonthsforthetheftoverfivehundreddollars  d concurrentlytoelevenmonthsandtwentyninedaysfortheftunderfivehundreddollars.  J Ѐ#X!\XXX!\#X!\XXX!\  0 #X!\XXX!\#X!\XXX!\#EPXX!\#  X!\XEPSentencing#EPXX!\#X!\XEP           Thedefendantdoesnotchallengethetrialcourtsrevocationofhercommunitycorrections    sentence.Instead,shearguesthatinimposingasentenceofincarcerationafterrevocation(1)the   trialcourtimproperlyweighedtheenhancementfactors,(2)thatthetrialcourterroneouslyfailedto x  applycertainmitigatingfactors,and(3)thatthetrialcourtshouldhaveorderedalternative ^  sentencing. `  D     I. ` L     #X!\XXX!\8#X!\XXX!\ԀWhenanappellantchallengesthelength,range,ormannerofserviceofasentence,this F Courtconductsadenovoreviewwithapresumptionthatthedeterminationofthetrialcourtwas , correct.Tenn.CodeAnn.40-35-401(d).However,thispresumptionofcorrectnessis  "conditionedupontheaffirmativeshowingthatthetrialcourtintherecordconsideredthesentencing  principlesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances."Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,169(Tenn.  1991).Ifappellatereviewreflectsthatthetrialcourtproperlyconsideredallrelevantfactorsand t itsfindingsoffactareadequatelysupportedbytherecord,thisCourtmustaffirmthesentenceeven Z ifwewouldpreferadifferentresult.Statev.Fletcher,805S.W.2d785,789(Tenn.Crim.App. @ 1991).Inconductingareview,thisCourtmustconsidertheevidence,thepresentencereport,the &v sentencingprinciples,theargumentsofcounsel,thenatureandcharacteroftheoffense,mitigating  \ andenhancementfactors,anystatementsmadebythedefendant,andthepotentialforrehabilitation B ortreatment.Statev.Holland,860S.W.2d53,60(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Thedefendantbears ( theburdenofshowingtheimproprietyofthesentenceimposed.Statev.Gregory,862S.W.2d574,  578(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).#X!\XXX!\#X!\XXX!\       II. p!      Thedefendantwasfoundguiltyoftheftoverfivehundreddollars,aClassEfelony,andtheft V"! underfivehundreddollars,aClassAmisdemeanor.Followingthesentencinghearing,thecourt <#" foundthedefendanttobeaRangeI,standardoffender.Thecourtthenfoundthatthefollowing "$r# enhancementfactorsapplied:(1)thatthedefendanthadaprevioushistoryofcriminalconvictions %X $ orcriminalbehaviorinadditiontothosenecessarytoestablishtheappropriaterange,Tenn.Code %>!% Ann.4035114(1);and(2)thatthedefendanthadaprevioushistoryofunwillingnesstocomply &$"& withtheconditionsofasentenceinvolvingreleaseinthecommunity.Id.4035114(8).Thetrial ' #' courtalsofoundasmitigatingthatthedefendantsactionsneithercausednorthreatenedserious (#( bodilyinjury.Id.4035113(1).Then,thetrialcourtimposedaneighteenmonthsentence,the )$) midpointinthesentencingrangeforaRangeIoffenderconvictedofaClassEfelony.Id.4035 l*%*  112(a)(5). R+&+   Thedefendantconcedestheapplicabilityoftheenhancementfactors.However,sheargues   thatthetrialcourtgavetheenhancementfactorstoomuchweight.Thepresumptivesentencefor  aClassEfelonyistheminimumoftheapplicablerange.Id.40-35-210(c).Ifenhancementand | mitigatingfactorsdoexist,atrialcourtshouldstartatthepresumptivesentence,enhancethe b sentencewithintherangeforenhancementfactorsandthenreducethesentencewithintherangefor H themitigatingfactors.Id.40-35-210(e).Furthermore,noparticularweightforeachfactoris . ~ prescribedbythestatute,astheweightgiventoeachfactorislefttothediscretionofthetrialcourt  d aslongasitsfindingsaresupportedbytherecord.Statev.Palmer,10S.W.3d638,646(Tenn.  J Crim.App.1999);seeTenn.CodeAnn.40-35-210SentencingCommissionComments.Inthis  0 case,wefindthatthetrialcourtproperlyweighedtheenhancingfactors.Thus,thecourtwasacting    withinitsdiscretionbyimposinganeighteenmonthsentence.      Thedefendantalsoarguesthatthetrialcourtshouldhaveconsideredthedefendantsfamily   obligationsmitigatingunderthe catchallprovisionofthestatute.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035 x  113(13).Specifically,theproofatthesentencinghearingshowedthatthedefendantistheprimary ^  caretakerofhertwochildren,hersister,andhermother.Weconcludethatthetrialcourtproperly D  declinedtofindthedefendantsfamilyobligationsmitigating.First,therewasnoevidencethatthe *z  defendantsfamilyneedsplayedanyroleinherdecisiontocommitthesecrimes.Furthermore,even ` iftherewassuchevidence,thetrialcourtisinamuchbetterpositionthanthisCourttodetermine F whether,givenallofthecircumstances,thedefendantsfamilyobligationsshouldbeconsidered , mitigating.Inshort,wefindthesentenceimposedbythetrialcourtappropriate.  Thisissueiswithoutmerit.       III.  /    Finally,thedefendantarguesthatsheshouldhavebeengrantedprobation.TheTennessee t CriminalSentencingReformActof1989mandatesthat"convictedfelonscommittingthemost Z severeoffenses,possessingcriminalhistoriesevincingacleardisregardforthelawsandmoralsof @ society,andevincingfailureofpasteffortsofrehabilitationshallbegivenfirstpriorityregarding &v sentencinginvolvingincarceration."Tenn.CodeAnn.40-35-102(5).Adefendantwhodoesnot  \ qualifyassuchandwhoisanespeciallymitigatedorstandardoffenderofaClassC,D,orEfelony B is"presumedtobeafavorablecandidateforsentencingoptionsintheabsenceofevidencetothe ( contrary."Id.40-35-102(6);However,thispresumptionmayberebuttedbyevidencetothe  contrary.Suchevidencemayincludethefollowingsentencingconsiderations:  8  (A)Confinementisnecessarytoprotectsocietybyrestrainingadefendantwhohas   alonghistoryofcriminalconduct;p!    8  (B)Confinementisnecessarytoavoiddepreciatingtheseriousnessoftheoffenseor <#" confinementisparticularlysuitedtoprovideaneffectivedeterrencetootherslikely "$r# tocommitsimilaroffenses;or%X $   8  (C)Measureslessrestrictivethanconfinementhavefrequentlyorrecentlybeen &$"& appliedunsuccessfullytothedefendant.' #'   Ѐ (#( Id.40-35-103(1).Acourtmayalsoapplythemitigatingandenhancementfactorssetforthin )$) Tenn.CodeAnn.40-35-113and-114,astheyarerelevanttothe40-35-103considerations.Id. l*%*  40-35-210(b)(5).Finally,thepotentialorlackofpotentialforrehabilitationofthedefendant R+&+ shouldbeconsideredindeterminingwhetherheshouldbegrantedanalternativesentence.Id.  40-35-103(5).     Inthiscase,evenifthedefendantwereentitledtothepresumptionthatalternativesentencing | wouldbeappropriate,thepresumptionwasproperlyrebuttedbecausemeasureslessrestrictivethan b confinementhaverecentlybeenappliedunsuccessfullytothedefendant.  #  1      ׀Indeed,inthiscaseshe H wasbeingsentencedforviolatingcommunitycorrections.Thus,asentenceofincarcerationis . ~ appropriateforthisdefendant.  Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  d   Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED.#X!\XXX!\H ##EPXX!\#X!\XEP  J    `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     JERRYSMITH,JUDGE