ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ H 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ B)Ç DCð U*3 AM] BªÞÇv~¥vÓ# D3ö 0@) AOiƸ 0D~ D/ Bñ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ HEIJKLEMNDODPQÓ€Ô¡¨ Z‹83|xZ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌMay€21,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€$&"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àMARCH€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€01C01„9606„CR„00249ó óÌà àAppellee,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òWILSON€COUNTYÌVS.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHon.€J.O.€Bond,€JudgeÌPENELOPE€R.€KARNES,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à à(Vehicular€Assault€„€Sentencing)Ìà àAppellant.à@ à)ÌÌÌÌò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌCOMER€L.€DONNELLà àà àà àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONó ó›ÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òKAREN€G.€CHAFFINà àà àà àà àM.€ALLISON€THOMPSONó óÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ213€North€Cumberland€Streetà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌP.O.€Box€888à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌLebanon,€TN€37087Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òTOM€P.€THOMPSON,€JR.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òDOUG€HALLó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à111€Cherry€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLebanon,€TN€37087ÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÇÑ7€…SXXdìXXdì7ÑÓÓà@ àòòOPINIONó óóóÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Penelope€R.€Karnes,€appeals€the€sentences€imposed€byÏthe€Criminal€Court€of€Wilson€County€following€her€guilty€plea€to€two€(2)€counts€ofÏvehicular€assault.€€The€trial€court€ordered€her€to€serve€four€(4)€years€on€eachÏcount€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€œCorrection€to€be›€served€consecutively.€ÏOn€appeal,€Karnes€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by:€(1)€imposing€excessiveÏsentences;€(2)€denying€probation;€and€(3)€ordering€that€the€sentences€be€servedÏconsecutively.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€œcourt.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTSÌó óóó›Ìà àIn€March€1994,€Karnes€was€driving€her€vehicle€in€the€wrong€lane€onÏHighway€109€in€Wilson€County,€Tennessee.€€Her€car€collided€with€a€car€drivenÏby€James€McDermott,€causing€serious€injuries€to€McDermott€and€his€passenger,ÏBruce€Silverman.€€Karnes€admitted€to€the€officer€responding€to€the€accident€thatÏshe€had€been€drinking.€€Subsequent€blood€tests€revealed€that€Karnesðð€bloodÏalcohol€level€was€.26.Ìà àKarnes€was€indicted€on€two€(2)€counts€of€aggravated€assault,€thirdÏoffense€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€driving€on€a€revokedÏlicense,€violation€of€registration€law,€and€driving€on€the€wrong€side€of€aÏroadway.€€She€pled€guilty€to€two€(2)€counts€of€œthe€amended€charge€of€vehicular›Ïassault,€and€the€state€entered€òònolle€prosequióó€orders€on€the€remaining€counts€ofÍthe€indictment.Ìà àAfter€a€sentencing€hearing,€Karnes€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I,ÏStandard€Offender€to€four€(4)€years€on€each€count€of€vehicular€assault.€€The€trialÏcourt€ordered€that€the€sentences€were€to€be€served€consecutively.€€Furthermore,Ïthe€trial€court€denied€any€form€of€sentencing€alternative.ÌÌœÌà@ àò òòòREVIEW›€OF€SENTENCINGÌó óóóÌà 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).€€The€burdenÏis€upon€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€In€conducting€ourÏreview,€we€are€required,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210,€to€considerÏthe€following€factors€in€sentencing:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€[t]he€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencingÏhearing;€(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€[t]heÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)Ï[e]vidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]ny€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€œ[her]›Ïown€behalf€about€sentencing.ÌÌÓÓà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€giving€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€œprinciples›€set€out€under€sentencing€law,€andÏthe€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€weÏmay€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€ÏòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà@ àò òòòEXCESSIVE€SENTENCESó óóóÌÌà àKarnes€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€the€maximumÏsentence€of€four€(4)€years€for€each€count€of€vehicular€assault,€a€Class€D€felony.€ÏShe€claims€that€the€trial€court€was€not€justified€in€relying€upon€her€past€criminalÏconvictions€because€those€convictions€were€merely€for€misdemeanor€drivingÏoffenses.€€Therefore,€she€argues€that€the€sentence€imposed€was€not€the€ð ðleastÏsevere€measure€necessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€for€which€the€sentence€isÏimposed.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(4).Ìà àIf€no€mitigating€or€enhancing€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,€œ805ÏS.W.2d€at€788.›€€However,€if€such€factors€do€exist,€a€trial€court€should€start€at€theÏminimum€sentence,€enhance€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€forÏaggravating€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€for€theÏmitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€No€particular€weight€forÍeach€factor€is€prescribed€by€the€statute,€as€the€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€leftÏto€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€as€long€as€its€findings€are€supported€by€theÏrecord.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€œ229,€238›€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Santiagoóó,Ï914€S.W.2d€œ116,€125›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€Nevertheless,€should€there€be€noÏmitigating€factors,€but€enhancement€factors€are€present,€a€trial€court€may€set€theÏsentence€above€the€minimum€within€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d);€òòseeóó€œòòManning€v.€Stateóó,›€883€S.W.2d€œ635,€638›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ìà àAfter€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€five€enhancementÏfactors€applied€in€this€case:€(1)€Karnes€œhad›€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€range;€(2)€the€offense€involved€more€than€one€œvictim;›€(3)€theÏpersonal€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victims€were€particularly€great;€(4)€KarnesÏœhad›€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€aÏsentence€involving€release€in€the€community;€and€(5)€she€had€no€hesitationÏabout€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(3),€(6),€(8)€and€(10).€€The€trial€court€found€that€noÏmitigating€factors€applied.Ìà àThe€trial€court€properly€applied€enhancement€factor€(1)€in€this€case.€ÏKarnes€has€two€prior€DUI€convictions€plus€a€prior€conviction€for€driving€on€aÏrevoked€license.€€Although€these€are€misdemeanor€œconvictions,€the€statute€doesÏnot€require€the€prior€convictions€to€be€felonies.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).›€€Furthermore,€Karnes€testified€that€she€had€continued€to€drive€sinceÍ1990€even€though€she€did€not€have€a€license,€evidencing€previous€criminalÏbehavior.Ìà àœThe›€trial€court€œfound›€that€Karnes€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÏcrime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10).€ÏEnhancement€factor€(10)€may€be€applied€in€instances€where€individuals€otherÏthan€the€victim€are€in€the€area€of€the€defendantððs€criminal€conduct€and€areÏsubject€to€injury.€€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€909€S.W.2d€46,€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòseeÏalsoóó€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€453€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€œHowever,Ïthis€factor€is€inapplicable€where€the€only€risk€to€human€life€is€the€risk€to€theÏvictim.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€868€S.W.2d€729,€732€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ìà àThe€testimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing€and€the€pre„sentence€reportÏshowed€that€Karnes€was€driving€in€the€wrong€lane€on€a€highway€in€WilsonÏCounty€with€a€blood€alcohol€content€of€.26.€€There€is€no€direct€evidence€in€theÏrecord€that€she€endangered€the€lives€of€others€aside€from€the€victims.€€The€trialÏcourt€erroneously€applied€this€enhancement€factor.Ìà àThe€trial€court€misapplied€the€enhancement€factor€that€the€offenseÏinvolved€more€than€one€victim.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3).€€ThisÏenhancement€factor€may€not€be€applied€when€the€appellant€is€separatelyÏconvicted€of€the€offense€committed€against€each€victim.€€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,Ï919€S.W.2d€69,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Claboóó,€905€S.W.2d€197,Ï206€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,€900€S.W.2d€36,€54€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1994).Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6)€was€anÍappropriate€enhancement€factor.€€However,€in€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,Ï602€(Tenn.€1994),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€ð ðproof€of€seriousÏbodily€injury€will€always€constitute€proof€of€particularly€great€injury.ðð€€Therefore,Ïbecause€serious€bodily€injury€is€an€element€of›€vehicular€assault,€particularlyÏgreat€injuries€to€the€victims€is€not€an€appropriate€enhancement€factor.€€òòState€v.ÏRhodesóó,€917€S.W.2d€708,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòsee€also€óóòòState€v.ÏWilliamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€œ82„83;›€òòState€v.€Croweóó,€914€S.W.2d€933,€940€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€œ1995).›Ìà àThe€trial€court€further€found€that€Karnes€has€a€previous€history€ofÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€inÏthe€community.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€Although€Karnes€admitted€toÏdriving€after€her€license€was€revoked,€œit€is€unclear€whether›€she€drove€on€aÏrevoked€license€while€on€probation.€€This€enhancement€factor€was€erroneouslyÏapplied.Ìà àAlthough€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€œsome€enhancement›€œfactors,›ÏKarnes€is€not€automatically€entitled€to€a€reduction€in€her€sentences.€€òòState€v.ÏKeelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€423€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€It€is€evident€from€theÏrecord€that€the€trial€court€placed€great€weight€on€Karnesðð€prior€convictions€andÏprior€criminal€behavior.€€Indeed,€her€prior€convictions€resulted€from€the€sameÏcriminal€conduct€that€caused€her€to€commit€the€present€offenses;€namely,Ïœdriving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.›€€œTherefore,›€we€find€that€the€œfour„yearÏsentences›€imposed€are€not€excessive.ÌÌà@ àò òòòDENIAL€OF€PROBATIONóóó óÌÌà àKarnes€contends€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€in€denyingÏprobation.€€She€argues€that€she€is€presumably€entitled€to€probation€and€theÏstate€did€not€attempt€to€overcome€the€statutory€presumption.€€As€a€result,€sheÏclaims€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error.Ìà 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€40„35„102(6).€€AÏdefendant€is€eligible€for€probation€if€the€sentence€received€by€the€defendant€isÏeight€years€or€less,€subject€to€some€statutory€exclusions.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a).Ìà àA€trial€court€must€presume€that€a€defendant€sentenced€to€eight€years€orÏless€and€who€is€not€an€offender€for€whom€incarceration€is€a€priority€is€subject€toÏalternative€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€œ377,€379„80›€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€€It€is€further€presumed€that€œa›€sentence€other€than€incarcerationÏwould€result€in€successful€rehabilitation€unless€rebutted€by€sufficient€evidenceÏin€the€record.€€œòòIdóó.€at€380.›€€œHowever,›€although€a€defendant€may€be€presumed€toÏbe€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing,€the€defendant€has€theÏburden€of€establishing€suitability€for€total€probation.€€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2dÏœ467,€477›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b).€€EvenÏthough€probation€must€be€automatically€considered,€ð ðthe€defendant€is€notÏautomatically€entitled€to€probation€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments;€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2dÏœ370,€373›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ìà àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€or€deny€probation,€a€trial€court€shouldÏconsider€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendant's€criminal€record,€theÏdefendantððs€social€history€and€present€condition,€the€need€for€deterrence,€andÏthe€best€interest€of€the€defendant€and€€the€public.€€òòState€v.€Grearóó,€568€S.W.2dÏ285,€286€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€925€S.W.2d€237,€244€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€924€S.W.2d€912,€917€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€InÏdetermining€if€incarceration€is€appropriate,€a€trial€court€may€consider€the€need€toÏprotect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€having€a€long€history€of€criminalÏconduct,€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€whetherÏconfinement€is€particularly€appropriate€to€effectively€deter€others€likely€œto›€commitÏsimilar€offenses,€and€whether€less€restrictive€measures€have€often€or€recentlyÏbeen€unsuccessfully€applied€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.Ìà àThere€is€no€mathematical€equation€to€be€utilized€in€determiningÏsentencing€alternatives.€€Not€only€should€the€sentence€fit€the€offense,€but€itÏshould€fit€the€offender€as€well.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2);€òòState€v.€œBoggsóó,Ï932€S.W.2d€at€477.›€€Indeed,€individualized€punishment€is€the€essence€ofÏalternative€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994).€€In€summary,€sentencing€must€be€determined€on€a€case„by„case€basis,Ïtailoring€each€sentence€to€that€particular€defendant€based€upon€the€facts€of€thatÏcase€and€the€circumstances€of€that€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€atÍ235.Ìà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€focused€on€Karnesðð€past€criminalÏbehavior.€€The€trial€judge€noted€that€Karnes€had€been€convicted€of€DUI€on€twoÏprevious€occasions,€and€she€continued€to€drink€and€drive.€€Karnes€œconceded›Ïthat€she€had€been€admitted€to€a€thirty€day€treatment€facility€for€her€alcoholism,Ïbut€that€she€ð ðwould€slip€back.ðð€€Even€though€she€has€been€diagnosed€as€aÏchronic€alcoholic,€she€testified€that€she€is€still€drinking.Ìà àFor€her€previous€DUI€convictions,€Karnes€received€œminimal›€time€in€jail,Ïwith€the€balance€of€her€sentences€to€be€served€œon›€probation.€€Apparently,€theseÏmeasures€were€unsuccessful.€€Furthermore,€she€œhas›€shown€a€lack€of€potentialÏfor€rehabilitation€in€light€of€the€fact€that€she€is€still€drinking.€€No€doubt€herÏdestructive€behavior€would€have€continued€had€it€not€culminated€in€thisÏaccident€which€seriously€injured€two€people.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€trialÏcourt€was€within€its€discretion€in€denying€probation.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGó óóóÌÌà àFinally,€Karnes€insists€that€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€imposingÏconsecutive€sentences.€€She€argues€that€the€trial€court€could€not€have€found€byÏa€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€consecutive€sentencing€criteria€œhave›Ïbeen€œmet.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).€€She€also€suggests€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€considering€the€same€factors€to€enhance€her€sentence€asÏwell€as€to€support€consecutive€sentencing.€›€€Therefore,€she€œmaintains›€that€herÍsentences€should€run€œconcurrently.Ìà àInitially,€we€must€note€that€this€Court€has€previously€held€that€there€isÏnothing€in€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€which€would€prohibit€consideration€of€theÏsame€facts€and€circumstances€both€to€enhance€sentences€and€to€require€thoseÏsentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€òòState€v.€Melvinóó,€913€S.W.2d€195,€205Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€867€S.W.2d€361,€377€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).›Ìà àA€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€the€court€finds€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€ð ð[œt]he›€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offenderÏwhose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitationÏabout€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.ðð€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€œ40„35„115(b)(4).›€€The€trial€court€specifically€found€that€Karnes€was€aÏdangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life.€ÏœThe€record€supports›€that€œfinding,›€especially€considering€her€history€of€drivingÏwhile€œunder€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.›Ìà àFurthermore,€the€court€is€required€to€determine€whether€the€consecutiveÏsentences€(1)€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed;Ï(2)€serve€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€offender;€andÏ(3)€are€congruent€with€general€principles€of€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905ÏS.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àIn€this€case,€Karnes€severely€injured€two€people€after€having€beenÏconvicted€of€driving€under€the€influence€on€two€previous€occasions.€€There€is€noÏindication€in€the€record€that€Karnes€intends€to€stop€drinking.€€Although€sheÍclaims€that€she€does€not€want€to€drive€again,€she€is€physically€able€to€do€so.€ÏAdditionally,€two€DUI€convictions€œdid›€not€œdeter›€her€from€drinking€and€œdriving.€ÏEven€after€prior€involvement€with€the€criminal€justice€system,€she€continued€toÏdisregard€our€laws€and€severely€injured€two€innocent€victims€as€well€as€herself.›€ÏAs€a€result,€we€conclude€that€consecutive€sentences€are€reasonably€related€toÏthe€severity€of€œthese›€œoffenses›€and€serve€to€protect€the€public€from€furtherÏcriminal€conduct.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌÌà àIn€conclusion,€Karnes€has€not€shown€that€the€sentences€she€received€areÏimproper.€€œAs€a›€multiple€DUI€offender€who€has€shown€little€potential€forÏœrehabilitation,€she€unfortunately€is€a€danger€to€the€public.›€€The€trial€court€wasÏwarranted€in€imposing€four€(4)€year€consecutive€sentences€for€œtwo›€counts€ofÏvehicular€œassault.Ìà àThe›€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOE€G.€RILEY,€œJUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEó ó