ÿWPC´ 4# èU:ó %- 0G3w@z4ºÎÝåí 0‹õ 0D€ 0@Ä 0J  0TV 0^ª 0h 0rp 0|â 0†^ 0ä 1ut 0dé AQM Æž 0Dd B¨ 0DÅ D/ B8 D3U U*ˆ B)² DCÛ AM ýk ûhv~cvÓá˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(þ,$¡¡Ô€XoÌXXXÔ ŠD‹ŒDŽD‘’Ó€žn~<$x3|xž(;(3¶r$¤¤Ý ƒþ,!ÝÔ€XžXXXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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`(Arial% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd .Cþÿ << Gÿÿ óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌò òFebruary€12,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€,ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àWe€are€aware€that€a€document€appears€in€the€technical€recordÏwhich€bears€the€caption€ð ðpresentence€report,ðð€and€this€document€contains€aÏvictim€impact€statement.€€This€statement€includes€declarations€of€an€officer€of€theÏcorporate€victim€which€reveal€that€this€victim€suffered€other€thefts€which€resultedÏin€a€large€aggregate€loss.€€We€do€not€even€determine€if€such€information€servesÏas€evidence€of€a€need€for€deterrence€because€the€presentence€report€whichÏcontains€the€statement€is€not€in€evidence.€€Other€aspects€of€the€presentenceÏreport€are€in€evidence€through€the€testimony€of€the€defendant,€but€the€reportÏitself€was€not€exhibited€to€the€sentencing€hearing€by€the€trial€judge.€€ItsÏappearance€in€the€technical€record€certified€by€the€trial€court€clerk€isÏmeaningless€from€an€evidentiary€standpoint.€€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€736€S.W.2d€124,Ï131€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(c);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€JerryÏBlaylockóó,€No.€02C01„9602„CC„00069,€slip€op.€at€15,€n.€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏJackson,€Aug.€21,€1997),€òòpet.€for€perm.€app.€filedóó€(Tenn.€Oct.€20,€1997).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñò ò›Þ ÞÌÌÙ€ ÙòŒòœßR€/0.A1-j|º ` Å `€€@ÿRß›IN€THE€CRIMINAL€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€à àJACKSONóŒóÌDECEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòŒòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,óŒóà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà àà à)€€€€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9612„CR„00476Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€Shelby€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌKENNETH€B.€JOHNSON,òŒòà àà àà àóŒó)€€€€Hon.€James€C.€Beasley,ÏJr.,€JudgeÌòŒòà àà àóŒóà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAPPELLANT.à àà à)€€€€(Sentencing)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà à€€€€€FOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌó óMARK€A.€MESLERà àà àà àà à€€€€€JOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ200€Jefferson€Avenue,€Suite€1250€à à€€€€€Attorney€General€&€Reporterò òÌó óMemphis,€TN€38103ò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€ó óKENNETH€W.€RUCKERÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37243„4351ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€WILLIAM€L.€GIBBONSÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€3„01Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Memphis,€TN€38103ÌÌà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€LEE€V.€COFFERÌà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Assistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€201€Poplar€AvenueÌ€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Memphis,€TN€38103€ò òÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_____________ÌÌòŒòÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌóŒóCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÇÓ  ÓÑ7€žXXdæXXdæ7ÑOPINIONÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àó óà àThe€defendant,€Kenneth€B.€Johnson,€appeals€the€manner€of€theÏservice€of€his€sentence€as€determined€by€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court.€€HeÏwas€charged€with€three€counts€of€forgery€over€$10,000.00,€Class€C€felonies.€ÏUpon€acceptance€of€his€guilty€plea,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€toÏthree€years€on€each€count,€to€run€concurrently,€and€imposed€a€fine€of€$500.00Ïon€each€count.€€The€effective€sentence€of€three€years€was€ordered€to€be€servedÏthrough€periodic€confinement€consisting€of€a€probationary€period€of€four€yearsÏœin›€conjunction€with€incarceration€on€52€consecutive€weekends€during€the€firstÏyear€of€probation.€€During€the€remaining€three€years€of€the€probationary€period,Ïthe€defendant€is€to€perform€100€hours€of€community€service.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÏjudicial€diversion€and€the€denial€of€probation.€€Upon€a€close€review€of€theÏrecord,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€applicable€law,€we€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€sentencing,€the€defendant€was€a€thirty„year€oldÏcollege€graduate.€€The€defendant€testified€he€found€a€tax€form€lying€in€a€postÏoffice€in€Hickory€Hill.€€The€form€reflected€the€name€of€a€taxpayer,€BernardÏJohnson,€the€taxpayerððs€social€security€number€(SSN),€and€a€copy€of€theÏtaxpayerððs€driverððs€license.€€The€defendant€took€this€form€home€with€him.€€Later,Íhe€used€Bernard€Johnsonððs€SSN€to€obtain€a€new€driverððs€license€that€bore€theÏdefendantððs€picture€and€address.€€He€then€used€the€fraudulent€SSN€and/orÏidentification€supplied€by€the€new€driverððs€license€to€obtain€two€loans€totalingÏ$8,622.73.€€(These€loans€were€not€a€subject€of€the€present€indictment,€nor€anyÏother€indictment,€and€the€defendant€testified€the€loans€were€repaid€by€him€andÏhis€parents.)€€In€October,€1995,€subsequent€to€obtaining€the€loans,€theÏdefendant€wanted€to€buy€a€1995€Ford€Mustang€from€Bud€Davis,€Inc.,€a€ShelbyÏCounty€car€dealership.€œDiscovering›€that€he€had€inadequate€credit€to€enable€himÏto€purchase€the€car€without€a€prohibitive€down€payment,€he€applied€forÏfinancing,€title,€and€vehicle€registration€using€the€false€identification€and€SSN.€ÏBefore€the€defendant€returned€to€the€dealership€to€finalize€the€purchase€andÏloan,€the€dealer€learned€about€the€impending€fraud€through€a€credit€check€andÏa€telephone€conversation€with€the€real€Bernard€Johnson.€When€the€defendantÏreturned€to€the€dealership€to€execute€the€various€documents,€the€police€arrestedÏhim,€resulting€in€the€three€charges€of€which€he€stands€convicted.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€testified€that€when€he€returned€to€the€dealership,€heÏhad€actually€decided€to€cancel€the€purchase.€€Moreover,€he€testified,€€that€priorÏto€deciding€to€cancel€the€transaction,€he€had€intended€to€repay€the€car€loan,Ïciting€the€fact€that€he€gave€his€true€address€to€the€would„be€creditor.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€observed€that€the€defendant€had€no€previousÏcriminal€history€except€for€traffic€offenses,€had€received€a€college€degree,€andÍhad€gained€experience€working€as€a€loan€officer€in€a€financial€institution.€ÏHowever,€the€court€expressed€antipathy€toward€the€defendantððs€using€his€socialÏadvantages,€education€and€experience€in€commercial€transactions€to€devise€aÏsignificant,€ð ðwhite€collarðð€fraud€scheme.€€The€court€expressly€stated€that€itÏdisbelieved€the€defendant€when€he€claimed€his€crimes€were€spontaneous€andÏimpulsive€and€that€he€had€not€used€his€expertise€in€devising€the€scheme€fromÏthe€time€when€he€acquired€Bernard€Johnsonððs€SSN€and€driverððs€licenseÏfacsimile.€€The€trial€court€found€that€incarceration€probably€would€not€be€a€factorÏin€assuring€that€the€defendant€would€not€re„offend,€that€the€defendant€probablyÏwould€follow€the€conditions€of€probation,€that€societyððs€interest€is€not€served€byÏincarceration,€and€that€less€restrictive€measures€than€incarceration€probablyÏwould€work.€€Nevertheless,€the€count€denied€judicial€diversion€and€totalÏprobation,€finding€that€some€incarceration€was€necessary€to€avoid€depreciatingÏthe€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€in€order€to€serve€as€a€suitable€deterrent.€€TheÏcourt€cogently€articulated€its€disagreement€with€œtheÌ›œnotion,€discerned€from€the€defendantððs›€position,€that€educated,€socially„advantaged€defendants€with€little€or€no€criminal€record€are€viewed€as€beingÏentitled€to€probated€sentences.€€The€court€questioned€the€law€favoring€thisÏresult,€especially€when€such€ð ðwhite€collarðð€crime€is€often€engendered€by€greedÏor€avarice,€while€more€needful€offenders€are€often€dealt€with€more€severely.€ÏThe€defendant€characterizes€the€courtððs€findings€and€conclusions€as€beingÏarbitrary€and€indicative€of€the€courtððs€refusal€to€follow€the€law,€namely€theÏSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€Principles€of€Sentencing€Review.ÌÌÓ  Óó óà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€ofÏservice€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€ofÏthe€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðThe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentenceÏis€improper€is€upon€the€appellant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€In€the€event€the€record€fails€toÏdemonstrate€the€required€consideration€by€the€trial€court,€review€of€the€sentenceÏis€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòIdóó.€If€appellate€review€reflects€the€trial€court€properlyÏconsidered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supportedÏby€the€record,€this€court€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€haveÏpreferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1991).ÌÌà àà àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€theÏð ðconclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,ðð€determines€the€range€of€sentence€andÏthen€determines€the€specific€sentence€and€the€propriety€of€sentencingÏalternatives€by€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencingÍand€arguments€as€to€sentencing€œalternatives;›€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristicsÏof€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€theÏparties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors;€(6)€any€statements€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendantððs€behalf€about€sentencing;€and€(7)Ïthe€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210(a),€(b)Ï(1997);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„103(5)(1990);€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2dÏ53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àà àA€defendant€who€ð ðis€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offenderÏconvicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidateÏfor€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„102(6)€(1997).€€Our€sentencing€law€also€provides€thatÏð ðconvicted€felons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminalÏhistories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€andÏevincing€failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation,€shall€be€given€first€priorityÏregarding€sentences€involving€incarceration.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„102(5)Ï(1997).€€Thus,€a€defendant€who€meets€the€above€criteria€is€presumed€eligible€forÏalternative€sentencing€unless€sufficient€evidence€rebuts€the€presumption.€ÏHowever,€the€act€does€not€provide€that€all€offenders€who€meet€the€criteria€areÏentitled€to€such€relief;€rather,€it€requires€that€sentencing€issues€be€determined€byÏthe€facts€and€circumstances€presented€in€each€case.€€òòSee€State€v.€Tayloróó,€744ÏS.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€tangentially€referred€to€some€ofÏthe€principles€of€sentencing;€however,€the€defendant€is€correct€in€asserting€thatÏthe€trial€court€evinced€a€certain€antipathy€toward€the€sentencing€law,€especiallyÏinsofar€as€alternative€sentencing€principles€relate€to€a€defendant€in€Mr.ÏJohnsonððs€situation.€€Accordingly,€we€conduct€our€review€without€anyÏpresumption€of€correctness€of€the€manner€of€service€of€the€defendantððsÏsentence.ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òII.€€Judicial€Diversion.ÌÌÓ  Óó óà àà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÏjudicial€diversion.€€The€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€provides€in€pertinentÏpart:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIf€any€person€who€has€not€previously€been€convicted€of€a€felony€orÏa€Class€A€misdemeanor€is€found€guilty€or€pleads€guilty€to€aÏmisdemeanor€which€is€punishable€by€imprisonment€or€a€Class€C,ÏD€or€E€felony,€the€court€may,€without€entering€a€judgment€of€guiltyÏand€with€the€consent€of€such€person,€defer€further€proceedingsÏand€place€the€person€on€probation€upon€such€reasonableÏconditions€as€it€may€require€and€for€a€period€of€time€not€less€thanÏthe€period€of€the€maximum€sentence€for€the€misdemeanor€withÏwhich€he€is€charged,€or€not€more€than€the€period€of€maximumÏsentence€of€the€felony€with€which€he€is€charged,€on€condition€thatÏthe€defendant€pay,€in€addition€to€the€payment€of€not€less€than€tenÏdollars€($10.00)€nor€more€than€thirty„five€dollars€($35.00)€perÏmonth,€as€determined€by€the€court€[as€part€payment€of€theÏexpenses€of€supervision€of€the€defendant]€.€.€.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313(a)(1)€(1997).€€The€procedure€under€this€provisionÍis€commonly€referred€to€as€judicial€diversion.€It€is€substantially€similar€to€pretrialÏdiversion;€however,€judicial€diversion€follows€a€œguilt€determination›€and€theÏdecision€to€grant€diversion€rests€with€the€court,€not€the€prosecutor.€€òòState€v.ÏAndersonóó,€857€S.W.2d€571,€572€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€lower€courtððs€denial€of€judicial€diversion€is€subject€to€appellateÏreversal€only€if€that€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650ÏS.W.2d€352,€356€(Tenn.€1983).€€When€a€defendant€challenges€the€denial€ofÏjudicial€diversion,€we€are€constrained€not€to€revisit€the€issue€if€the€recordÏcontains€any€substantial€evidence€supporting€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€ÏòòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€356;€òòaccordóó€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861€S.W.2d€850,€856Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(where€€the€evidence€is€capable€of€justifying€differingÏresults€in€a€pretrial€diversion€case,€this€court€allows€the€prosecutor€his€or€herÏdiscretion€on€a€decision€of€whether€to€allow€diversion).ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€judicial€diversion,€the€trial€courtÏmust€considerÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(a)€the€accusedððs€amenability€to€correction,€(b)€the€circumstancesÏof€the€offense,€(c)€the€accusedððs€criminal€record,€(d)€the€accusedððsÏsocial€history,€(e)€the€status€of€the€accusedððs€physical€and€mentalÏhealth,€(f)€the€deterrence€value€to€the€accused€as€well€as€others,Ïand€(g)€whether€diversion€will€serve€the€publicððs€and€the€accusedððsÏinterests€in€the€ends€of€justice.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€168€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citationÏomitted).€€Moreover,€the€record€must€reflect€that€the€court€has€weighed€all€of€theÍfactors€in€reaching€its€determination.€€òòIdóó.,€871€S.W.2d€at€168€(citations€omitted).€ÏThe€court€must€explain€on€the€record€why€the€defendant€does€not€qualify€underÏits€analysis,€and€if€the€court€has€based€its€determination€on€only€some€of€theÏfactors,€it€must€explain€why€these€factors€outweigh€the€others.€€òòIdóó.,€871€S.W.2d€atÏ168.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€did€not€explain€whether€it€had€considered€all€of€theÏother€factors,€and€under€the€dictate€of€òòBonestelóó,€the€trial€courtððs€analysis€doesÏnot€adequately€appear€of€record.€€The€question€remains,€however,€whether€theÏtrial€court€reached€the€correct€result€notwithstanding€its€failure€to€explain€itsÏanalysis€on€the€record.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Talmadge€G.€Wilbanksóó,€No.€02C01„9601„CR„00003€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Nov.€19,€1996)€(trial€courtððs€denial€ofÏdiversion€affirmed€despite€courtððs€failure€to€explain€its€considerations€andÏanalysis€on€the€record).ÌÌà àà àWe€cannot€conclude€that€the€court€abused€its€discretion€in€denyingÏjudicial€diversion.€€The€trial€court€determined€the€defendant€was€untruthful,€or€atÏleast€lacked€candor,€in€that€he€maintained€his€actions€were€spontaneous€orÏimpulsive.€€The€defendantððs€characterization€of€his€actions€is€belied€by€hisÏsuccessful€scheme€to€obtain€a€bogus€driverððs€license.€€We€believe€this€lack€ofÏcandor€with€the€trial€court€weighs€against€his€amenability€to€correction.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Paul€Emile€Oliveróó,€No.€03C01„9510„CC„00332€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€July€15,€1996)€(denial€of€pretrial€diversion€upheld€based€uponÍappellantððs€inconsistent€statements€to€the€trial€court€about€his€involvement€inÏdrug€sales€prior€to€apprehension);€òòState€v.€Neaseóó,€713€S.W.2d€90€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1986)€(defendant€who€was€untruthful€with€trial€court€appropriately€deniedÏdiversion).ÌÌà àà àThis€court€has€said€that€the€presence€of€only€one€of€the€factors€isÏsufficient€to€support€a€denial€of€judicial€diversion.€€òòState€v.€Thomas€Daileyóó,€No.Ï02C01„CR„00008€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€21,€1991)€(relying€on€òòStateÏv.€Baronóó,€659€S.W.2d€811€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(applying€this€rule€in€theÏcontext€of€a€denial€of€probation)).€€The€trial€court€had€the€opportunity€to€hear€andÏsee€the€defendant€testify,€and€we€must€defer€to€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€thatÏthe€defendant€lacked€candor.€€Therefore,€the€òòBonestelóó€ð ðamenability€toÏcorrectionðð€factor€adequately€supports€the€denial€of€judicial€diversion.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€Alternative€Sentencing€„€Probation.ÌÌÓ  Óó óà àà àHaving€qualified€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ40„35„102(6)€(1997),€the€defendant€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€forÏalternative€sentencing.€€Moreover,€he€is€eligible€for€probation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„303(a)€(1997).€€He€argues€he€should€receive€straight€probation,Ïrather€than€periodic€confinement.ÌÌà àà àFirst,€we€point€out€that€the€defendant€did€receive€an€alternativeÍsentence.€€Split€or€periodic€confinement€is€an€alternative€sentencing€option.ÏòòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€James€€A.€Howardóó,€No.€03C01„9608„CC„00284,€slip€op.€at€7Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€February€24,€1997),€òòappl.€perm.€app.€dismissedóóÏ(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€James€E.€Allredóó,€No.€03C01„9504„CR„00110,€slip€op.€at€2Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€March€20,€1996);€òòState€v.€Marjorie€JeanetteÏSneedóó,€No.€03C01„9410„CR„00369,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,ÏOctober€17,€1995);€òòState€v.€Danny€Allisonóó,€No.€03C01„9403„CR„00106,€slip€op.Ïat€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€March€23,€1995);€òòState€v.€Alvin€Lee€Lewisóó,€No.Ï01C01„9404„CC„00125,€slip€op.€at€7„8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€March€14,Ï1995),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c)Ï(1997).€€The€benefit€the€defendant€enjoyed€in€being€presumed€a€suitableÏcandidate€for€alternative€sentencing€has€been€depleted.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€we€move€to€the€question€of€probation.€€The€defendantÏseeks€total€probation.€€Probation€is,€indeed,€an€alternative€sentencing€option.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c)(3)€(1997);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)Ï(1997).€€However,€the€burden€rests€with€the€defendant€to€show€that€he€is€entitledÏto€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€(1997);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,Ï910€S.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).€€InÏòòBinghamóó,€this€court€observed:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIt€should€be€pointed€out€that€determining€whether€a€defendant€isÏentitled€to€an€alternative€sentence€necessarily€requires€a€separateÏinquiry€from€that€of€determining€whether€the€defendant€is€entitledÏto€full€probation.€€This€is€so€because€the€inquiries€involve€differentÏburdens€of€proof.€€Where€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€the€statutoryÍpresumption€of€alternative€sentencing,€the€state€has€the€burden€ofÏovercoming€the€presumption€with€evidence€to€the€contrary.€ÏConversely,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishingÏsuitability€for€full€probation,€even€if€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€theÏstatutory€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€455.€€To€prevail€in€the€quest€for€full€probation,€aÏdefendant€must€demonstrate€that€probation€ð ðwill€ððsubserve€the€ends€of€justiceÏand€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.ðððð€òòIdóó.,€910€S.W.2d€atÏ456€(quoting€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)).€€InÏòòBinghamóó,€we€cited€the€following€factors€which,€although€ð ðnot€controlling€theÏdiscretion€of€the€sentencing€court,ðð€should€be€considered€in€determining€theÏappropriateness€of€probation:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€The€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€crime,€under€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(4)€(1990);Ì(2)€the€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation€under€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„103(5)€(1990);Ì(3)€whether€full€probation€would€ð ðunduly€depreciate€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense,ðð€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€(1990);€andÌ(4)€whether€a€sentence€of€full€probation€would€ð ðprovide€anÏeffective€deterrent,ðð€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)Ï(1990).ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòBinghamóó,€901€S.W.2d€at€456.Ìà àÌà àà àThe€defendant€correctly€asserts€that€the€courtððs€reliance€uponÏdeterrence€is€unsupported€in€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€940€S.W.2d€558,Ï560€€€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€375€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Í1991).œ× ƒ1 ××  ×›€€The€courtððs€ruling€cannot€be€justified€by€any€need€for€deterrence.€ÏòòHartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€at€375.ÌÌà àà àConsequently,€the€only€remaining€bases€relied€upon€by€the€courtÏfor€supporting€its€decision€are€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€ofÏthe€offense,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€(1997),€and€the€perceivedÏlack€of€candor.€€We€need€not€discuss€the€claim€that€the€trial€court€improperlyÏdetermined€that€confinement€was€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense,€however,€œbecause,›€as€discussed€in€the€precedingÏsection€of€this€opinion,€the€trial€court€perceived€a€lack€of€candor,€if€notÏmendacity,€in€the€defendantððs€explanation€of€his€offense.ÌÌà àà àA€lack€of€candor,€bearing€upon€the€defendantððs€amenability€toÏprobation,€is€a€recognized€basis€for€denying€probation.€òòState€v.€Neelyóó,€678ÏS.W.2d€48,€49€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.ÍApp.€1993);€òòState€v.€Poeóó,€614€S.W.2d€403€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€ÏAccordingly,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€inÏordering€periodic€confinement.ÌÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌ