ÿWPCò …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ ø 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ U>AU *B)©DCÒ B AM2 D3›îÎv~¼ 0@:vÓz AOMÆœ 0Db D/¦ BÕ˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- )*+,E-./01V2Ó€Úƒç"> WCÆ"|x=((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd d€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òSeptember€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó'''''ÿÿdxd äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€#ôÔÔ€$ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„14„103,„105.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€#ŠÔÔ€$ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€LšXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€()&A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌÌœJULY›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ03C01„9610„CR„00368›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœMORGAN›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYERÌœGLEN€JUSTES,›à àà àà à)à àJUDGE€(By€Interchange)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(Sentencing)ò òÌó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€œMORGAN€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœANDREW€N.€HALL›à àà àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌP.O.€Box€345à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌWartburg,€TN€37887Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMARVIN€E.€CLEMENTS,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCHARLES€E.€HAWKÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àROGER€DELPÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€703Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àKingston,€TN€37763›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€$°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€$ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure.€€Upon€his€plea€of€guilty,€the€Defendant€was€convictedÏof€the€Class€C€felony€offense€of€theft€of€property€over€the€value€of€ten€thousandÏ($10,000)€dollars.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€The€trial€judge€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€four€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction,€with€the€sentence€to€be€served€on€probation€exceptÏfor€120€days€to€be€served€during€weekends€in€the€local€jail.€€The€judge€alsoÏordered€restitution€in€the€amount€of€œthirty„thousand€dollars€($30,000),›€to€be€paidÏin€monthly€installments.€€It€is€from€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€that€theÏDefendant€appeals.€€We€affirm€the€œjudgment›€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àDuring€the€course€of€his€employment€with€a€bail€bonding€company,€theÏDefendant€stole€a€considerable€amount€of€money€from€his€employer.€€HeÏapparently€would€post€bail€bonds,€collect€the€fee€from€the€customer€and€notÏremit€to€his€employer€the€amount€due.€€It€appears€that€he€either€would€not€reportÏposting€the€bond€at€all€or€he€would€not€report€the€full€amount€of€the€fee€collectedÏfrom€the€customer.€€The€illegal€activity€occurred€during€a€substantial€portion€of€theÏten€years€that€he€worked€for€the€bonding€company.ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal,€the€Defendant€complains€of€the€length€of€his€sentence,€theÏfact€that€he€was€denied€full€probation,€and€the€amount€the€trial€judge€œordered›€asÏrestitution.ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€$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€principals€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).Ìà àÌà 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.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€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.€ðð€40„35„102(5).€ÏThus,€a€defendant€sentenced€to€eight€years€or€less€who€is€not€an€offender€forÏwhom€incarceration€is€a€priority€is€presumed€eligible€for€alternative€sentencingÏunless€sufficient€evidence€rebuts€the€presumption.€€However,€the€act€does€notÏprovide€that€all€offenders€who€meet€the€criteria€are€entitled€to€such€relief;€rather,€itÏrequires€that€sentencing€issues€be€determined€by€the€facts€and€circumstancesÍpresented€in€each€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€Ìà àAdditionally,€the€principles€of€sentencing€reflect€that€the€sentence€shouldÏbe€no€greater€than€that€deserved€for€the€offense€committed€and€should€be€theÏleast€severe€measure€necessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€for€which€theÏsentence€is€imposed.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(3)€„€(4).€€The€court€shouldÏalso€consider€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment€of€the€defendant€inÏdetermining€the€sentence€alternative.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌà àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€probation,€the€judge€must€consider€theÏnature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€hisÏbackground€and€social€history,€his€present€condition,€including€his€physical€andÏmental€condition,€the€deterrent€effect€on€other€criminal€activity,€and€the€likelihoodÏthat€probation€is€in€the€best€interests€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.€ÏòòStiller€v.€Stateóó,€516€S.W.2d€617,€620€(Tenn.€1974).€€The€burden€is€on€theÏDefendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€he€received€is€improper€and€that€he€isÏentitled€to€probation.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌà àThe€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€Defendant€was€forty„four€yearsÏold,€married€and€had€four€children.€€Although€he€had€not€completed€high€school,Ïhe€had€received€his€GED.€€Both€the€Defendant€and€his€wife€had€œratherÍsignificant›€health€problems.€€The€Defendant€had€worked€for€the€bail€bondingÏcompany€for€about€ten€years€but€at€the€time€of€sentencing€was€not€employed.€ÏThe€Defendantððs€wife€was€employed€as€a€waitress.€€The€Defendant€had€noÏsignificant€criminal€history.ÌÌà àThe€owner€of€the€bail€bond€company€testified€that€he€thought€the€totalÏamount€taken€by€the€Defendant€was€over€œsixty„eight€thousand€dollarsÏ($68,000).›€€In€fact,€at€one€point€the€Defendant€had€signed€a€promissory€note€inÏthe€amount€of€œthirty„five€thousand€seven€hundred€eighty„eight€dollars€($35,788)›Ïrepresenting€money€he€had€taken€from€the€bonding€company.€€SubsequentÏthereto,€the€Defendant€had€signed€œanother›€promissory€note€for€œfifty„oneÏthousand€four€hundred€forty€dollars€($51,440),›€which€included€the€amount€of€theÏfirst€note€and€some€additional€money€that€he€had€supposedly€taken.€€TheÏDefendant€testified€that€he€œsigned›€these€notes€œonly€because›€his€employerÏasked€him€to€and€because€he€hoped€œthat€by›€signing€œthem›€he€could€avoidÏprosecution.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€he€began€taking€the€money€from€theÏcompany€because€he€needed€money€for€his€family.€€He€also€stated€that€heÏposted€a€number€of€bonds€for€friends€and€acquaintances€without€collecting€anyÏfee€and€that€this€was€a€portion€of€the€amount€which€had€been€œcomputed€by›€hisÏemployer.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€first€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€enhancing€hisÏsentence€to€four€years€rather€than€sentencing€him€to€the€minimum€œsentence€of›Ïthree€years.€€The€State€argues€that€the€Defendantððs€plea€agreement€called€for€aÏœsentence›€of€four€years,€with€the€manner€of€service€of€the€sentence€being€left€toÏthe€œtrial€court.›€€The€State€œthus€argues›€œthat›€the€issue€of€the€length€of€the€sentenceÏhas€been€waived€by€the€plea€agreement.€€The€petition€requesting€the€trial€judgeÏto€accept€the€guilty€plea€does€provide€for€a€recommended€sentence€of€fourÏyears€to€be€served€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€with€all€òòotheróó€sentencingÏissues€to€be€reserved€for€decision€by€the€trial€court.€€We€therefore€agree€with€theÏState€that€the€issue€concerning€the€length€of€the€sentence€has€been€waivedÏand€is€not€reviewable€on€appeal.€€œòòSeeóó€òòDixon€v.€Stateóó,€934€S.W.2d€69,€73Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€We›€also€note€that€this€record€would€support€theÏimposition€of€a€four„year€sentence.€€ÌÌà àBecause€the€Defendant€was€a€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€CÏfelony,€he€was€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€an€alternativeÏsentencing€option.€€The€trial€judge€gave€the€Defendant€the€benefit€of€thisÏpresumption,€sentencing€him€to€periodic€confinement€in€conjunction€with€a€term€ofÏprobation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„104(c)(4)€(Supp.€1996).›€€The€DefendantÏseeks€the€more€favorable€alternative€of€total€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c)(3).€€As€we€have€stated,€the€Defendant€has€the€burden€ofÍestablishing€suitability€for€full€probation,€even€though€he€is€entitled€to€theÏstatutory€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910ÏS.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€There€is€no€ð ðbright€line€ruleðð€forÏdetermining€when€a€Defendant€is€entitled€to€full€probation.€€òòIdóó.€at€456.€€A€trialÏjudge€is€vested€with€a€great€deal€of€discretion€on€the€issue€of€probation.€€FactorsÏto€be€considered€are€whether€probation€will€serve€the€ends€of€justice€and€theÏbest€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€Defendant,€the€nature€andÏcircumstances€of€the€crime,€the€Defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation,€whetherÏfull€probation€would€unduly€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€andÏwhether€full€probation€would€serve€the€need€to€provide€an€effective€deterrent.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€456.ÌÌà àIn€denying€the€Defendant€total€probation,€the€trial€judge€told€the€DefendantÏthat€œhe€did›€not€think€the€Defendant€ð ðreally€appreciated€how€wrong€what€œyouððve›Ïdone€is.ðð€€The€trial€judge€questioned€whether€the€Defendant€œfelt›€œany€remorse.›€ÏThe€judge€also€expressed€œhis›€opinion€that€total€probation€would€depreciate€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense.€€The€judge€had€noted€that€the€theft€of€thisÏsubstantial€amount€of€money€took€place€over€an€extended€period€of€time€andÏviolated€the€private€trust€which€the€Defendantððs€employer€had€placed€in€theÏDefendant.€€Trial€judges€are€traditionally€vested€with€broad€discretionary€powersÍin€sentencing€matters.€€From€this€record,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€judgeÏerred€or€abused€his€discretion€in€denying€this€Defendant€full€probation.ÌÌà àœThe€Defendant€also€complains€of€the€amount€set€as€restitution.€€In›Ïdetermining€the€amount€of€restitution,€the€trial€judge€heard€estimates€ranging€fromÏthe€Defendantððs€suggestion€of€œfive€thousand€dollars€($5,000)›€to€the€victimððsÏtestimony€of€œsixty„eight€thousand€four€hundred€fifteen€dollars€($68,415).›€€TheÏvictim€presented€promissory€notes€signed€by€the€Defendant€totaling€œfifty„oneÏthousand€four€hundred€forty€dollars€($51,440).›€€The€trial€judge€noted€that€theÏfigure€of€œthirty€thousand€dollars€($30,000)›€was€somewhat€arbitrary€but€ð ðanythingÏless€than€that,€I€think€would€be€not€believable.ðð€€The€judge€set€minimumÏpayments€of€œseventy„five€dollars€($75)›€œa€month€for›€twelve€months,€œone€hundredÏfifty€dollars€($150)›€a€month€for€twelve€months,€and€œthree€hundred€dollars€($300)›Ïa€œmonth€thereafter.›€€The€judge€acknowledged€that€if€the€Defendant€made€œonlyÏthe›€minimum€œpayments›€œthe›€œfull€amount›€would€not€be€œtotally€paid›€œduring›€the€œfour„year›€probationary€period,€but€the€court€obviously€realized€the€Defendantððs€abilityÏto€pay€more€was€very€limited.ÌÌà àThis€court€has€held€that€œon€appeal€our›€review€of€the€amount€of€restitutionÏand€œthe€manner€in€which›€it€was€computed€shall€be€conducted€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€theÏrecord€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€made€by€the€trial€court€isÍcorrect.€€òòState€v.€Rex€Blankenshipóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9507„CC„00195,ÏMadison€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€œJan.›€31,€1996);€òòState€v.€FrankÏStewartóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01„C„01„9007„CC„00161,€Maury€œCounty›€œ(Tenn.›€Crim.ÏœApp.,›€Nashville,€Jan.€31,€1991).€€œThere€is€substantial›€evidence€in€œthis›€record€œtoÏsupport€the›€finding€of€the€trial€judge.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€judgeÏerred€or€abused€his€discretion€in€setting€restitution.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€in€this€opinion,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.ÌÓ  Óà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌœÇCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGE