ÿWPC²9 ÆR;Wgó®g ã´˜—8ŽÁ'Q@UËĤ¯g¬ð–¦£hÙ z];_UF¼òʱûƒ‚Ñe"¬9Þæ½ŸÆÀ£X݇^ô˜e6’Éôú±Ð㹜'´Ç+}¬q£”®<]"KædÓ›xàsÊdsƒñ¹o™qKè­}»få7Ëã¬<W$ 0v•$ 0` % 0`k% 0`Ë% 0`+& 0`‹& 08ë& 0Ò#' 02õ' 0ü'( 0:#) 0Y]) 0_¶) 0 * 0j+ 0„‰, B* . D/7. 0„f. D/ê/ 0Î0 06ç0 01 0:%2 0^_2 0<½2 1eù2U6^3U>”3U*Ò3 1uü3 0ëq4 72\5\5Ž5 B–5b³5 0¤·5 D3[6 D-Ž6 0K»6»6 AS7ÆY7 0¤8 0DÃ8 A«9»B‚n-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularüPH,ê:i¢×+003|x ˜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.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€D(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡P%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dC)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€F(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡P%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓC)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô !"# ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(|G2~¥$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ •»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®Íò»»ÔQi)  d ù(|3þï$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ •»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3þï$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ •»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ •»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ •»»»ÔÑ8€JYXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡ît •ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ •»îît#ԈРÖ& Ðà@Î Î ìàAssigned€on€Briefs€July€17,€2002ˆÐ üL ÐÌà@­­ìàò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€GEORGE€WILLIAM€KINGó óˆÐ  p ÐÌà@Á Á ìàò òÔ€XJYX»¼ •ÔDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyˆÐ F – Ðà@ ìàNo.€2000„A„317€€€€€€Steve€R.€Dozier,€JudgeˆÐ 2 ‚ ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<õ` A߈Ð öF  ÐÌà@E E ìàNo.€M2001„02026„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€13,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ԈРñA  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<È` AßÐ É  Ðó óÌDefendant,€George€William€King,€has€appealed€the€sentence€imposed€upon€him€by€the€trial€courtÐ Ä Ðafter€he€pled€guilty€to€one€count€of€statutory€rape.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€Ð ° ÐÌò òà@zzìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3,€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€Affirmedó ó.ˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,Ð d´ Ðóóand€òòAlan€E.€Glenn,óó€JJ.,€joined.Ð P  ÐÌRobert€Turner,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€George€William€King.Ð (x ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð P ÐVictor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Brian€Ô_ÔHolmgrenÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ì< ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ø( ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€pled€guilty€to€one€count€of€statutory€rape,€a€Class€E€felony,€in€violation€ofÐ ˆ!Ø  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„506.€€The€length€and€manner€of€serving€the€sentence,€includingÐ t"Ä! Ðconsideration€of€judicial€diversion,€was€submitted€to€the€trial€court€for€determination.€€Following€aÐ `#°" Ðsentencing€hearing,€the€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€eighteen€months,€with€all€but€ten€daysÐ L$œ# Ðsuspended.€The€ten€days€must€be€served€day€for€day€on€five€consecutive€weekends.€€Defendant€is€toÐ 8%ˆ $ Ðserve€the€suspended€portion€of€the€sentence€on€probation.€On€appeal,€the€Defendant€contends€thatÐ $&t!% Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€(1)€denying€judicial€diversion;€(2)€failing€to€sentence€the€Defendant€to€theÐ '`"& Ðminimum€sentence;€and€(3)€failing€to€grant€the€Defendant€full€probation.€€The€Defendant€asks€us€toÐ ü'L#' Ðmodify€his€sentence,€arguing€that€he€should€receive€twelve€(12)€months€probation.Ð è(8$( ÐÌà  àThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€de€novo€with€a€presumptionÐ À*&* Ðthat€the€trial€courtððs€determination€is€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumptionÐ ¬+ü&+ Ðapplies€when€the€record€affirmatively€shows€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÐ ˜,è', Ðand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔPettusÔ_Ôóó,€986€S.W.2d€540,€543€(Tenn.€€1999).€€InÐ „-Ô(-ýB ÐÔ_Ôconducting€a€de€novo€review,€this€court€must€consider€ð ð(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trialÐ ° Ðand€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€pre„sentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€argumentsÐ œì Ðas€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct,€(5)€anyÐ ˆØ Ðmitigating€or€statutory€enhancement€factors,€(6)€any€statement€that€the€Defendant€made€on€his€ownÐ tÄ Ðbehalf€and€(7)€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Fletcher,óó€805€S.W.2d€785,€786Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€Defendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€Ð L œ ÐòòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€452€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àWe€note€at€the€outset€that€the€record€before€this€Court€does€not€contain€a€transcript€of€theÐ  ` Ðguilty€plea€submission€hearing.€€In€order€to€ascertain€all€the€facts€and€circumstances€surrounding€theÐ ü L  ÐDefendantððs€offense,€the€guilty€plea€transcript€is€usually€necessary.€€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€996€S.W.2d€842,Ð è 8  Ð844€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€When€a€Defendant€pleads€guilty,€the€guilty€plea€hearing€affords€theÐ Ô$  Ðonly€opportunity€for€the€State€to€present€the€facts€upon€which€the€Defendantððs€guilty€plea€is€based.€Ð À  ÐòòId.,€óóat€843.€€Because€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€offense€are€important€in€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¬ü  Ðsentencing€determination,€this€court€must€usually€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€sentence€is€correctÐ ˜è  Ðin€the€absence€of€a€guilty€plea€transcript.€€òòId.óó€at€844.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€the€Defendant€did€not€submit€a€statement€with€the€pre„sentencing€report,€and€theÐ \¬ Ðvictim,€K.D.,€did€not€return€the€victim€impact€statement.€€(The€victim€will€be€referred€to€by€herÐ H˜ Ðinitials.)€€K.D.€also€did€not€testify€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Therefore,€this€Courtððs€review€of€theÐ 4„ ÐDefendantððs€issues€is€limited€to€the€brief€facts€in€the€pre„sentencing€report,€and€the€DefendantððsÐ  p Ðtestimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  à€€At€the€sentence€hearing,€the€Defendant€testified€that€he€first€met€the€victim,€K.D.,€in€westÐ ä4 ÐNashville€when€he€spotted€her€walking€down€the€street.€€The€Defendant€pulled€his€car€over€and€askedÐ Ð  ÐK.D.€if€she€wanted€a€ride.€€At€that€time,€the€Defendant€was€in€his€early€seventies,€and€K.D.€wasÐ ¼  Ðtwelve€years€old.€€After€K.D.€got€in€the€Defendantððs€car,€he€took€her€to€a€fast€food€restaurant€for€aÐ ¨ø Ðhamburger.€€During€this€meeting,€they€exchanged€phone€numbers,€and€talked€frequently€on€theÐ ”ä Ðtelephone€over€the€next€two€years.€€As€the€friendship€progressed,€the€Defendant€often€transportedÐ €Ð ÐK.D.€to€and€from€school.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àWhen€K.D.€was€fifteen€years€old,€she€ran€away€from€home€and€went€to€stay€at€a€friendððsÐ D!” Ðhouse.€€K.D.€called€the€Defendant€and€told€him€that€her€friendððs€mother€wanted€her€to€pay€rent.€€TheÐ 0"€  ÐDefendant€gave€K.D.€money€for€this€purpose.€€Soon€thereafter,€her€friendððs€mother€asked€K.D.€toÐ #l! Ðleave,€and€K.D.€again€called€the€Defendant€for€help.€€When€she€told€him€her€mother€and€father€wouldÐ $X" Ðnot€let€her€come€home,€the€Defendant€took€her€into€his€home,€and€the€two€lived€together€for€the€nextÐ ô$D # Ðfew€months.€€The€Defendant€was€aware€of€K.D.ððs€age,€but€testified€that€their€sexual€relations€justÐ à%0!$ Ðhappened€as€they€watched€television.€€During€the€time€they€lived€together,€K.D.€and€the€DefendantÐ Ì&"% Ðhad€sexual€intercourse€five€or€six€times,€and€the€Defendant€provided€K.D.€with€food€and€pocketÐ ¸'#& Ðmoney.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àIn€September,€1999,€after€a€referral,€the€police€interviewed€the€Defendant€about€hisÐ |*Ì%) Ðrelationship€with€K.D.€€At€this€point,€K.D.€was€removed€from€the€Defendantððs€home€and€returnedÐ h+¸&* Ðto€her€parents.€€However,€the€next€month,€K.D.€ran€away€again.€€Once€more,€she€called€the€DefendantÐ ° Ðto€come€get€her€because€she€had€no€place€to€stay.€€The€Defendant€picked€her€up€and€took€her€to€aÐ œì Ðfriendððs€home€for€the€night.€€When€her€parents€would€not€take€her€back,€K.D.€returned€with€theÐ ˆØ ÐDefendant€to€his€home.€€In€about€a€week,€the€Department€of€Childrenððs€Services€received€anotherÐ tÄ Ðreferral€and€again€interviewed€the€Defendant€about€K.D.ððs€current€living€arrangements.€€TheÐ `° ÐDefendant€admitted€he€knew€where€K.D.€was€and€arranged€a€meeting€spot€where€he€could€drop€K.D.Ð L œ Ðoff.€€After€this€second€runaway€attempt,€K.D.€was€placed€in€foster€care.€€The€Defendant€testified€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðhe€did€not€have€sex€with€K.D.€during€this€week.€€Subsequently,€the€Defendant€was€indicted€onÐ $ t ÐFebruary€18,€2000.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€Defendant€asked€the€court€to€grant€him€judicial€diversion,Ð è 8  Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313,€for€a€period€of€twelve€months.€€In€support€of€his€request,Ð Ô$  Ðthe€Defendant€testified€that€he€had€no€criminal€record€and€was€not€involved€with€drugs€or€alcohol.€Ð À  ÐThe€Defendant€stated€that€he€was€retired€from€the€Air€Force€with€an€honorable€discharge€afterÐ ¬ü  Ðtwenty„four€years€of€service.€€At€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€Defendant€was€gainfully€employed€asÐ ˜è  Ða€security€guard,€working€full„time€for€one€company,€and€weekends€for€another.€€Since€hisÐ „Ô  Ðindictment,€the€Defendant€said€that€he€had€lost€his€full„time€employment€when€his€employer€learnedÐ pÀ Ðof€the€charges€against€him.€€However,€the€Defendant€was€able€to€increase€his€work€hours€with€theÐ \¬ Ðsecond€company,€but€feared€he€would€not€be€able€to€continue€as€a€security€guard€unless€he€wasÐ H˜ Ðgranted€judicial€diversion.€€The€Defendant€supports€his€invalid€sister,€and€has€no€other€dependents.€Ð 4„ ÐDuring€his€testimony,€the€Defendant€expressed€remorse€and€pointed€out€that€he€cooperated€with€theÐ  p ÐDepartment€of€Childrenððs€Services€when€K.D.€ran€away€the€second€time.€€The€Defendant€alsoÐ  \ Ðoffered€as€a€mitigating€factor€the€fact€that€K.D.€had€not€suffered€any€bodily€injury.Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€State€argued€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€the€Defendant€should€receive€a€period€of€splitÐ Ð  Ðconfinement,€listing€the€Defendantððs€abuse€of€trust€and€desire€to€gratify€his€pleasure€as€enhancementÐ ¼  Ðfactors€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.€€The€State€also€asked€the€court€to€consider€K.D.ððsÐ ¨ø Ðvulnerability€as€a€runaway€in€its€sentencing€decision.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àUpon€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€Defendantððs€request€for€judicialÐ l¼ Ðdiversion€as€well€as€full€probation,€and€sentenced€the€Defendant€as€a€Range€I€offender€to€eighteenÐ X ¨ Ðmonths,€suspended€except€for€ten€days€to€be€served€on€five€consecutive€weekends.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àò òI.€€Judicial€DiversionÐ #l! ÐÌà  àó óThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€not€granting€him€judicialÐ ô$D # Ðdiversion,€and€contends€that€the€record€does€not€contain€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€courtððsÐ à%0!$ Ðdenial.€€We€disagree.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€may,€in€its€discretion,€grant€judicial€diversion€to€a€Defendant€who€meets€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðminimum€statutory€requirements€outlined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313.€€That€is,€the€DefendantÐ )à$( Ð(a)€must€be€convicted€of€or€plead€guilty€to€a€misdemeanor€punishable€by€incarceration€or€a€Class€C,Ð |*Ì%) ÐD,€or€E€felony;€(b)€has€not€previously€been€convicted€of€a€felony€or€a€Class€A€misdemeanor€and€(c)Ð h+¸&* Ðconsents€to€the€imposition€of€a€probationary€period€at€the€maximum€amount€of€time€allowed.€Ð ° ÐHowever,€compliance€with€these€requirements€does€not€mean€that€a€Defendant€is€entitled€to€judicialÐ œì Ðdiversion€as€a€matter€of€right,€and€the€decision€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ˆØ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„313;€òòState€v.€Parker,óó€932€S.W.2d€945€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€A€Defendant€seekingÐ tÄ Ðjudicial€diversion€does€not€enjoy€a€presumption€of€entitlement€that€is€extended€to€a€DefendantÐ `° Ðseeking€alternative€sentencing.€€òòParker,óó€932€S.W.2d€at€958.€€Except€for€the€fact€that€judicialÐ L œ Ðdiversion€is€considered€after€a€determination€of€guilt,€judicial€diversion€is€similar€to€pretrialÐ 8 ˆ Ðdiversion,€and€the€analysis€applied€to€a€review€of€a€prosecutorððs€decision€not€to€grant€pretrialÐ $ t Ðdiversion€is€also€applicable€in€the€denial€of€a€request€for€judicial€diversion.€€òòState€v.€Anderson,óó€857Ð  ` ÐS.W.2d€571,€573€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€In€either€situation,€as€long€as€the€record€contains€anyÐ ü L  Ðsubstantial€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€this€Court€will€not€interfere€with€the€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourtððs€refusal€to€grant€the€Defendant€judicial€diversion.€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€168Ð Ô$  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòoverruled€in€part€on€other€grounds,€State€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€9Ð À  Ð(Tenn.€2000).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€must€consider€the€following€criteria€when€evaluating€whether€an€eligibleÐ „Ô  ÐDefendant€should€be€granted€judicial€diversion:€€(1)€the€attitude€and€behavior€of€the€Defendant€sinceÐ pÀ Ðarrest;€(2)€the€Defendantððs€amenability€to€correction;€€(3)€the€circumstances€of€the€offense;€€(4)€theÐ \¬ ÐDefendantððs€criminal€history;€€(5)€the€Defendantððs€social€history;€€(6)€the€Defendantððs€physical€andÐ H˜ Ðmental€health;€(7)€the€deterrence€value€to€the€Defendant€as€well€as€to€others;€and€(8)€whether€judicialÐ 4„ Ðdiversion€would€serve€the€ends€of€justice,€considering€the€interests€of€the€public€as€well€as€theÐ  p ÐDefendant.òò€€Parker,óó€932€S.W.2d€at€958;€òòState€v.€Cutshawóó,€967€S.W.2d€332,€343„345€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð  \ ÐApp.€1997).€€In€essence,€the€trial€court€must€consider€any€factors€which€may€indicate€that€theÐ øH ÐDefendant€is€likely€to€be€a€repeat€offender.€€òòState€v.€Hammersley,€óó650€S.W.2d€352,€355€(Tenn.€1983).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€the€record€must€reflect€that€the€trial€court€considered€all€of€these€factors€inÐ ¼  Ðmaking€its€determination,€and,€in€its€analysis,€explain€why€the€Defendant€does€not€qualify€for€judicialÐ ¨ø Ðdiversion.€€òòState€v.€Electroplating,€Inc.óó,€990€S.W.2d€211,€229€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998);€òòBonestelóó€871Ð ”ä ÐS.W.2d€at€168.€€Further,€if€the€court€based€its€decisions€on€only€some€of€the€enumerated€criteria,€itÐ €Ð Ðmust€explain€why€these€factors€outweighed€the€others.òò€€Electroplating,€Inc.,€óó990€S.W.2d€at€229.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€this€instance,€the€trial€court€did€not€adequately€explain€on€the€record€why€the€DefendantÐ D!” Ðwas€denied€judicial€diversion€as€required€in€òòBonestelóó,€or€why€the€factors€relied€on€weighed€moreÐ 0"€  Ðheavily€than€others.€òò€Id.€€óóAfter€determining€the€applicable€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€theÐ #l! Ðtrial€court€merely€said:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà ` àMr.€King,€through€his€advanced€age€and€experience,€is€sort€of€taking€anÐ à%0!$ Ðadvantage€of€the€situation€he€finds€[K.D.]€is€[sic],€the€runaway€status;€buy€her€someÐ Ì&"% Ðfood€and€become€acquainted€with€her€and€let€her€stay€and€let€her€watch€TV€and€letÐ ¸'#& Ðher€come€in€my€bed€[sic],€and€things€led€to€him€being€charged€with€this€criminalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðoffense.€.€.€.Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà ` àNow€thatððs€not€much€[an€eighteen€month€sentence],€in€terms€of€this€particularÐ ° Ðâ âsituation;€but€Iððm€doing€that,€based€on€ð!ð€well,€from€Mr.€Kingððs€perspective,€heÐ œì Ðdoesnððt€wanta€[sic]€do€anything€and€wants€expungable€probation,€which€is€asking€forÐ ˆØ Ða€lot€in€this€particular€situation.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àBecause€I€think€if€you€granted€Mr.€King€expungable€probation,€you€would€beÐ L œ Ðdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€this€offense.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€trial€court€could€have€been€more€detailed€in€its€findings,€this€does€not€precludeÐ  ` Ðour€review,€and€we€must€determine€if€the€trial€courtððs€decision€is€correct€despite€the€lack€of€a€detailedÐ ü L  Ðanalysis.€€òòId.óóÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€denied€the€Defendantððs€request€for€judicial€diversionÐ À  Ðsolely€because€judicial€diversion€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€a€conclusion€notÐ ¬ü  Ðsupported€by€the€evidence€in€the€record.€€If€that€is€the€only€basis€for€denial,€the€Defendant€argues,Ð ˜è  Ðanyone€convicted€of€statutory€rape€would€always€be€denied€judicial€diversion.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€denial€of€judicial€diversion€may€be€based€solely€on€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€theÐ \¬ Ðoffense,€so€long€as€all€of€the€other€relevant€factors€have€been€considered,€and€this€factor€outweighsÐ H˜ Ðall€others€that€might€favorably€reflect€on€the€Defendantððs€eligibility.€€òòSee€State€v.€Curry,óó€988€S.W.2dÐ 4„ Ð153,€158€(Tenn.€1999).€€In€its€findings,€the€trial€court€focused€on€the€Defendantððs€abuse€of€K.D.ððsÐ  p Ðtrust,€gained€by€virtue€of€the€Defendantððs€age€and€experience,€and€his€friendship€and€support€overÐ  \ Ða€number€of€years.€€The€trial€court€considered€the€seriousness€of€the€Defendantððs€exploitation€of€thatÐ øH Ðtrust€when€he€commenced€and€continued€sexual€relations€with€K.D.€at€a€time€when€she€was€homelessÐ ä4 Ðand€without€other€means€of€support.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€record€shows€that€the€trial€court€was€also€concerned€with€the€DefendantððsÐ ¨ø Ðattitude€and€behavior€following€his€initial€interview€with€the€police,€and€the€Defendantððs€apparentÐ ”ä Ðlack€of€amenability€to€rehabilitation.€€The€Defendant€voluntarily€took€K.D.€back€into€his€home€afterÐ €Ð Ðhe€was€put€on€notice€that€his€cohabitation€with€the€girl€was€illegal.€€When€she€came€for€help€theÐ l¼ Ðsecond€time,€the€Defendant€could€have€easily€contacted€the€Department€of€Childrenððs€Services€andÐ X ¨ Ðreported€her€whereabouts.€€Instead,€he€waited€over€a€week,€before€the€Department€learned€that€K.D.Ð D!” Ðhad€run€away€again€before€turning€K.D.€over€to€the€Department.€€In€addition,€the€Defendant€wasÐ 0"€  Ðaware€at€all€times€of€K.D.ððs€age€and€family€problems.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€also€feltÐ #l! Ðthat€the€Defendant€lacked€sincerity€in€his€remorse€and€did€not€appear€to€comprehend€either€theÐ $X" Ðseriousness€of€his€actions€or€sufficiently€demonstrate€that€he€would€not€do€such€actions€again.€€òòSee,Ð ô$D # Ðe.g.,€State€v.€Anderson,óó€857€S.W.2d€at€574;€òòElectroplating,€Inc.,€óó990€S.W.2d€at€228.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€is€best€suited€to€judge€the€demeanor€and€testimony€of€the€Defendant€at€theÐ ¸'#& Ðsentencing€hearing,€and€we€will€give€great€weight€to€the€trial€court€concerning€the€credibility€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐDefendant€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòParkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€at€956.€€Based€uponÐ )à$( Ðâ âall€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€available€for€review,€it€is€apparent€that€the€negative€factorsÐ |*Ì%) Ðdiscussed€above€outweigh€the€Defendantððs€otherwise€stable€background.€€Accordingly,€we€find€thatÐ ° Ðthere€is€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€judicial€diversion€to€Defendant.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àò òII.€€Length€of€Sentenceó óÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€sentencing€the€Defendant€to€oneÐ L œ Ðyear,€the€minimum€Range€I€sentence€for€a€Class€E€felony.€€By€setting€the€Defendantððs€sentence€atÐ 8 ˆ Ðeighteen€months,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€improperly€balanced€and€applied€theÐ $ t Ðenhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€the€mitigating€factor€offsets€theÐ  ` Ðenhancement€factor,€and€the€sentence,€therefore,€should€be€set€at€the€minimum€level€as€if€no€factorsÐ ü L  Ðexisted€at€all.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAs€a€Range€I€offender,€the€Defendant€is€subject€to€a€sentence€of€not€less€than€one€nor€moreÐ À  Ðthan€two€years€for€the€commission€of€a€Class€E€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(5).€€If€thereÐ ¬ü  Ðare€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€present€as€defined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„113€andÐ ˜è  Ð40„35„114,€the€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€E€felony€is€the€minimum€sentence€of€one€year.€Ð „Ô  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€If€both€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€are€present,€the€courtÐ pÀ Ðstarts€with€the€minimum€sentence,€and€first€enhances€the€Defendantððs€sentence€as€appropriate€withinÐ \¬ Ðthe€range,€then€reduces€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ H˜ Ð40„35„210(e).Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€weight€placed€on€one€factor€by€the€trial€court€may€vary€from€that€assigned€to€another,Ð  \ Ðand€the€legislature€has€specifically€declined€to€assign€a€numeric€value€to€mitigating€and€enhancementÐ øH Ðfactors.€€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210;€òòState€v.€Boggs,óó€932Ð ä4 ÐS.W.2d€467,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Even€if€the€Defendant€feels€that€the€trial€courtÐ Ð  Ðimproperly€weighed€the€enhancement€factor€more€heavily€than€the€mitigating€factor,€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¼  Ðdiscretion€will€not€be€disturbed€as€long€as€the€sentencing€principles€are€adhered€to€and€its€findingsÐ ¨ø Ðare€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€€òòBoggs,óó€932€S.W.2d€at€476;€òòState€v.€Hayes,€óó899€S.W.2d€175,Ð ”ä Ð185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€argued€that€two€enhancement€factors€were€applicable.€Ð X ¨ ÐThe€State€first€contended€that€the€Defendant€violated€the€private€trust€existing€between€himself€andÐ D!” ÐK.D.,€and,€secondly,€that€the€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€to€gratify€the€DefendantððsÐ 0"€  Ðdesire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€40„35„114(15)€and€(7).€€At€the€conclusion€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€applied€only€Factor€15,€violation€of€a€private€trust,€andÐ $X" Ðconsidered€the€age€and€experience€discrepancy€between€the€Defendant€and€K.D.,€their€live„inÐ ô$D # Ðrelationship,€and€K.D.ððs€vulnerability€as€a€runaway€with€no€other€place€to€stay.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àA€private€trust€involves€a€relationship€in€which€the€Defendant€encourages€the€victim€to€placeÐ ¸'#& Ðconfidence,€reliance€or€faith€with€the€Defendant.€€òòState€v.€Kissinger,óó€922€S.W.2d€482,€488€(Tenn.Ð ¤(ô#' Ð1996).€€€This€type€of€relationship€usually€contains€a€degree€of€vulnerability€on€the€part€of€the€victim,Ð )à$( Ðand€it€is€the€exploitation€of€this€vulnerability€in€the€commission€of€the€offense€which€justifiesÐ |*Ì%) Ðapplication€of€the€enhancement€factor.€€òòState€v.€Gutierrez,óó€5€S.W.3d€641,€646€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð h+¸&* ÐAccordingly,€when€a€minor€victim€is€living€in€the€same€household€as€the€Defendant,€a€private€trustÐ ° Ðis€generally€presumed.€€òòState€v.€Adams,óó€864€S.W.2d€31,€34€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Carico,óó€968Ð œì ÐS.W.2d€280,€286€(Tenn.€1998).€€However,€the€victim€and€Defendant€need€not€be€related€in€order€toÐ ˆØ Ðfind€a€private€trust.€€òòSee€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€34.€€For€example,€a€personal€relationship€betweenÐ tÄ Ðthe€Defendant€and€victim€where€the€Defendant€acts€as€the€victimððs€friend,€paying€for€food€and€otherÐ `° Ðitems,€is€a€sufficient€basis€for€finding€a€private€trust.€€òòSee€State€v.€McKnight,€óó900€S.W.2d€36,€55Ð L œ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àBased€on€our€review€of€the€record,€it€is€apparent€that€Defendant€and€K.D.€shared€aÐ  ` Ðrelationship€based€on€private€trust.€€The€Defendant€was€in€his€seventies,€and€K.D.€was€in€her€earlyÐ ü L  Ðteenage€years€when€the€relationship€started.€€The€Defendant€was€aware€of€K.D.ððs€family€difficulties,Ð è 8  Ðand€for€two€or€three€years,€the€Defendant€acted€as€K.D.ððs€friend,€talking€with€her€ð ðconstantlyðð€on€theÐ Ô$  Ðtelephone,€and€transporting€her€back€and€forth€from€school.€€When€K.D.€ran€away€for€the€first€time,Ð À  Ðshe€turned€to€the€Defendant€for€help€paying€her€rent€at€a€friendððs€house.€€When€her€friend€told€K.D.Ð ¬ü  Ðshe€could€no€longer€stay€with€her€family,€K.D.€again€turned€to€the€Defendant€for€shelter€and€support.€Ð ˜è  ÐThe€Defendant€took€K.D.€into€his€home,€and€they€lived€together€for€the€next€few€months.€€It€wasÐ „Ô  Ðduring€this€time,€when€K.D.€was€particularly€vulnerable€to€the€Defendantððs€offers€of€friendship€andÐ pÀ Ðsupport,€that€the€Defendant€engaged€in€sexual€relations€with€K.D.€€In€the€pre„sentence€report,€K.D.Ð \¬ Ðstated€that€her€mother€was€aware€that€she€was€staying€with€the€Defendant.€€K.D.€further€stated€in€theÐ H˜ Ðreport€that€she€engaged€in€sex€with€the€Defendant€five€times€in€exchange€for€money€for€her€family.€Ð 4„ ÐEven€after€K.D.€was€removed€from€the€Defendantððs€home€in€September,€1999,€the€Defendant€wasÐ  p Ðthe€first€one€she€called€when€she€ran€away€the€following€month.€€The€Defendant€took€her€in€again,Ð  \ Ðliving€with€K.D.€for€a€week,€before€relinquishing€her€to€the€Tennessee€Department€of€ChildrenððsÐ øH ÐServices€after€they€inquired€about€K.D.ððs€location.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€many€respects,€then,€Defendant€acted€not€only€as€K.D.ððs€friend,€but€also€her€surrogateÐ ¼  Ðfamily,€entrusted€with€her€care€and€protection€when€she€had€nowhere€else€to€go.€€Accordingly,€weÐ ¨ø Ðconcur€with€the€trial€court€that€Factor€15€could€properly€be€used€to€enhance€the€DefendantððsÐ ”ä Ðsentence.€€òò€See€State€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€at€489.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€also€considered,€as€a€mitigating€factor,€the€fact€that€the€Defendant€did€notÐ X ¨ Ðcause€K.D.€any€bodily€injury€or€harm,€primarily€because€the€State€did€not€object€to€the€DefendantððsÐ D!” Ðcharacterization€of€the€relationship€as€voluntary,€and€there€was€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€concludeÐ 0"€  Ðotherwise.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€€€However,€based€on€the€facts€and€circumstancesÐ #l! Ðsurrounding€the€Defendantððs€offense,€the€trial€court€assigned€the€mitigating€factor€little€or€no€weightÐ $X" Ðin€its€determinations.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àAs€long€as€the€trial€court€follows€the€principles€of€sentencing,€and€its€findings€are€supportedÐ Ì&"% Ðby€the€evidence€in€the€record,€the€presumption€of€correctness€applies.€€òòState€v.€Boggs,€óó932€S.W.2dÐ ¸'#& Ð467,€476€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1996).€€The€weight€assigned€to€a€particular€factor€is€derived€fromÐ ¤(ô#' Ðð ðbalancing€relative€degrees€of€culpability€within€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€the€caseÐ )à$( Ðinvolved.ðð€€òòId.€€óóIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€the€lack€of€bodily€injury€of€little€importanceÐ |*Ì%) Ðcompared€with€the€Defendantððs€exploitation€of€K.D.ððs€trust.€€The€assignment€of€little,€if€any,€weightÐ h+¸&* Ðto€a€particular€mitigating€factor€is€properly€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.Ð ° ÐSmithóó,€910€S.W.2d€457,€462€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(the€strength€of€three€enhancement€factorsÐ œì Ðjustifies€imposing€the€maximum€sentence€even€with€the€existence€of€a€mitigating€factor).€€Based€onÐ ˆØ Ða€review€of€the€record€before€us,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€assigningÐ tÄ Ðlittle,€if€any,€weight€to€the€mitigating€factor€offered€by€Defendant,€and€the€length€of€sentenceÐ `° Ðimposed€is€proper.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àò òIII.€€Full€Probationó óÐ $ t ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€challenges€the€imposition€of€a€split€confinement€sentence,€arguing€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€record€does€not€contain€sufficient€evidence€to€justify€denying€the€Defendant€full€probation€underÐ è 8  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303.€€The€Defendant€contends€that€full€probation€may€be€denied€on€theÐ Ô$  Ðbasis€of€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense€only€if€these€factors€are€ð ðespecially€violent,Ð À  Ðhorrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree.ðð€Ð ¬ü  ÐòòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€Defendant€argues€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€in€the€record€does€not€support€a€finding€that€the€Defendantððs€actions€reach€this€level€ofÐ „Ô  Ðoffensiveness.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendantððs€reliance€on€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòHartleyóó,€however,€is€misplaced€whenÐ H˜ Ðreviewing€a€denial€of€full€probation.€€The€analysis€for€whether€the€Defendant€is€eligible€forÐ 4„ Ðalternative€sentencing€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102€as€discussed€in€òòHartley€óóis€different€fromÐ  p Ðthe€analysis€used€to€determine€if€the€Defendant€is€eligible€for€full€probation€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð  \ Ððð€40„35„303.€€òòBingham,óó€910€S.W.2d€at€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€Legislature€specificallyÐ øH Ðexcluded€convicted€felons€who€have€criminal€records€displaying€a€total€disregard€for€the€law€andÐ ä4 Ðsocietyððs€morals€from€the€presumption€of€eligibility€for€alternative€sentencing.€€All€others€are€entitledÐ Ð  Ðto€the€presumption.€€Therefore,€the€State€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€an€offender€who€is€not€oneÐ ¼  Ðof€the€excluded€group€should€be€denied€alternative€sentencing.€€If€the€State€relies€on€the€nature€andÐ ¨ø Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€to€overcome€the€presumption,€this€Court€has€concluded€that€theÐ ”ä Ðcircumstances€must€be€particularly€egregious€and€outweigh€all€other€factors.€€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€at€474.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€burden€of€proof,€however,€is€shifted€when€a€Defendant€requests€full€probation,€and€theÐ D!” ÐDefendant€does€not€enjoy€a€presumption€of€eligibility€as€he€does€for€alternative€sentencing.€€€Tenn.Ð 0"€  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð40„35„303(b).€€Although€the€trial€court€must€automatically€consider€probation€as€aÐ #l! Ðsentencing€option€when€the€Defendant€is€granted€alternative€sentencing,€the€Defendant€must€proveÐ $X" Ðthat€probation€is€in€the€best€interests€of€both€the€public€and€the€Defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð ô$D # Ð35„303(b);€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àIn€making€its€determination,€the€trial€court€may€consider€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,Ð ¸'#& Ðthe€Defendantððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation,€whether€full€probation€will€undulyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdepreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€and€whether€a€sentence€other€than€full€probation€wouldÐ )à$( Ðprovide€an€effective€deterrent€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€crimes.€€òòBoggs,€óó932€S.W.2d€at€477;Ð |*Ì%) ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€€40„35„210(b)(4),€„103(5),€„103(1)(B).€€€As€with€alternative€sentencing,€the€trialÐ h+¸&* Ðcourt€may€base€its€decision€solely€on€the€nature€and€circumstances€surrounding€the€offense€if€theseÐ ° Ðfactors€outweigh€all€others€which€might€support€probation.€€òòState€v.€Fletcher,óó€805€S.W.2d€at€788„Ð œì Ð789;òò€Boggs,óó€932€S.W.2d€at€477.€€Moreover,€while€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€offense€mayÐ ˆØ Ðnot€be€egregious€enough€to€deny€the€Defendant€alternative€sentencing€under€the€òòHartleyóó€decision,Ð tÄ Ðsuch€circumstances€may€very€well€justify€denial€of€full€probation€even€though€the€Defendant€isÐ `° Ðeligible€for€alternative€sentencing.€€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€456;€òòBoggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€at€477.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€this€case€so€offensive€and€reprehensibleÐ $ t Ðas€to€warrant€imposing€a€split€confinement€sentence€on€the€Defendant€in€order€to€avoid€depreciatingÐ  ` Ðthe€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B).€€In€making€its€determination,Ð ü L  Ðthe€trial€court€weighed€the€Defendantððs€background€and€age€against€his€abuse€of€K.D.ððs€trust€overÐ è 8  Ðan€extended€period€of€time,€his€repetition€of€the€offense€after€he€was€put€on€notice€that€his€actionsÐ Ô$  Ðwere€illegal,€and€both€his€apparent€incomprehension€of€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€hisÐ À  Ðapparent€lack€of€sincerity€in€his€remorse.€€Upon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€are€unable€to€concludeÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€that€the€Defendant€had€not€met€his€burden€of€establishingÐ ˜è  Ðsuitability€for€full€probation.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àFor€the€reasons€discussed€above,€the€judgment€of€€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð 4„ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE