ÿWPCN q¦#ÛsûbΨ1òj¥m»Ã¼lç,gYEŸ5Y@R@W5òij ¨8‘‡Öèq ¯ËE/Lb¯Á’w7"Gô…Hÿäœð ~'ùþŸÄëpRLw–t]…àþ=aPHi.ô…޾ÐêÍ0Ó·fÚ­áý~- “ûЮP! Ž_ê‘Ë¢³uSPqÁp¤! ŸÏïŽÉX‘Mç+ê!dòáM"¡QT°?9KŒ¦@³´©º´øÖÖþy0ìÂ^žg_I„¢áïíÕ©š—ÒÚ¬c]ù&–ÿiïû´uÎÞQ pˆî¶bo§qƒNEC˜mì‚r£|ɶRn¹ó6†”\h)`ôþ5Í-õeö«üÛü¨è 4B},"ÞeD;&ù?Ž!úg4˜Ú÷½gζ±'Å™a~Õ6Õ×#1óp‰5¿(NzjuÜ$C§0Gùˆj â¤W%ÒJ>y¨E(n·JdL÷uÅÉ·_ ¦}ä–=w2jú÷Y9@_˜‚ók 3Ã˦ò(‚”RÛ Â¢NWa æ¿Çb` ÕCéæOPÿØ©þ!-ªñ¼Ú…ç²k›¬yб jÏÊeŽo¶G_³ók=Ê¡ ˜ñ¶˜¼÷ˆb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#éNñUNóóEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 0ëKKKK B66 0¤S D3÷ D-* 0KWW AS¢Æõ 0¤» 0D_ A«£˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»ªkœ)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularOo”)  1 T¥ ˜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.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 (ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G2V®$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^D»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô?¸ò»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^D»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^D»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€O”»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼NQ»»»ÔÑ8€!„XXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îE î»¼NQÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼NQ»îîE  #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€October€3,€2000Ð üL ÐÔ‡X­X»¼NQÔÌò òÔ#†¼NQ»XX­#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€MICHAEL€EUGENE€KNOXòòóóÔ‡X­X»¼NQÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Gibson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€15718€€€€€€Mark€Agee,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„00362„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐFiled€December€27,€2000Ð ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€pled€guilty€to€vehicular€homicide€by€intoxication,€a€Class€B€felony,€and€was€sentencedÐ d´ Ðas€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to:€eight€years€imprisonment;€a€$10,000€fine;€and€state€probation,€toÐ P  Ðbe€served€upon€his€release€from€prison,€with€the€condition€that€he€perform€five€hundred€hours€ofÐ <Œ Ðcommunity€service.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ (x Ðdenying€his€request€for€alternative€sentencing.€€After€review,€we€conclude€that€the€record€supportsÐ d Ðthe€sentence€of€incarceration,€but€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€that€the€defendant€be€placedÐ P Ðon€probation€and€required€to€perform€community€service€upon€the€completion€of€his€prison€sentence.Ð ì< ÐÔ#†¼NQ»XX­™#ÔÔ‡X­X»¼NQÔAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€portion€of€the€judgment€ordering€an€eight„year€sentence€of€incarcerationÐ Ø( Ðand€a€fine€of€$10,000,€but€reverse€the€portion€ordering€that€the€defendant€be€placed€on€probationÐ Ä Ðfollowing€his€release€and€that€he€perform€community€service.€€In€addition,€we€order€that€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€be€prohibited€from€operating€a€motor€vehicle€for€a€period€of€five€years€from€the€entry€ofÐ œì Ðan€order€prohibiting€such.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÓ©Óò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€in€Part,Ð `° ÐReversed€in€Partó óÐ L œ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼NQ»àX­!#ÔÔ‡X­X.¼NQÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòJerry€L.Ð $"t! ÐSmith,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð #`" ÐÌRichard€Gossum,€Trenton,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Michael€Eugene€Knox.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Mark€E.€Davidson,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð À&"& ÐClayburn€L.€Peeples,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Hal€Dorsey,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð ¬'ü"' Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÓñ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼NQ»XX­ #ÔÔ‡X­X»¼NQÔÐ p*À%* ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼NQ»XX­À #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X­X»¼NQÔà  àThe€defendant€pled€guilty€to€vehicular€homicide€by€intoxication,€and€was€sentenced€to€eightÐ H,˜', Ðyears€in€the€Department€of€Correction,€a€$10,000€fine,€and€five€hundred€hours€of€community€service,Ð 4-„(-ýo Ðto€be€performed€as€a€condition€of€state€probation€upon€his€release€from€prison.€The€defendant€filedÐ ° Ða€timely€appeal,€raising€the€sole€issue€of€whether€the€court€erred€in€denying€him€alternativeÐ œì Ðsentencing.€€After€a€review€of€the€record€and€of€applicable€law,€we€affirm€the€portion€of€the€judgmentÐ ˆØ Ðordering€an€eight„year€sentence€of€incarceration€and€a€fine€of€$10,000,€but€reverse€the€portionÐ tÄ Ðordering€that€the€defendant€be€placed€on€probation€following€his€release€and€that€he€performÐ `° Ðcommunity€service.€€In€addition,€we€order€that€the€defendant€be€prohibited€from€operating€a€motorÐ L œ Ðvehicle€for€a€period€of€five€years€from€the€entry€of€an€order€prohibiting€such.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà@¥¥(ìàòòò òFACTSˆÐ  ` ÐÌó óóóà  àThis€case€arises€out€of€an€alcohol€and€drug„related,€single€vehicle€accident€in€Rutherford,Ð è 8  ÐTennessee,€that€resulted€in€the€death€of€the€carððs€passenger,€Deronda€Reed,€a€young€wife€and€mother.€Ð Ô$  ÐOn€March€17,€1999,€the€thirty„three„year„old€defendant,€Michael€Eugene€Knox,€agreed€to€accompanyÐ À  Ðthe€victim€to€a€shopping€mall€in€Jackson.€€The€victim€drove€from€her€home€in€Union€City€to€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendantððs€home€in€Dyer,€arriving€at€approximately€3:30€or€4:00€p.m.€€From€there,€the€two€rodeÐ ˜è  Ðtogether€to€Jackson,€with€the€defendant€driving€the€victimððs€car.€€When€the€victim€completed€herÐ „Ô  Ðshopping,€the€defendant€and€the€victim€went€first€to€a€restaurant,€and€later€to€a€lounge€for€dancing.€Ð pÀ ÐDuring€the€course€of€the€evening,€both€the€defendant€and€the€victim€drank€alcohol€and€smokedÐ \¬ Ðmarijuana.€€At€some€point€prior€to€the€car€crash,€the€defendant€also€took€Valium.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€was€again€at€the€wheel€when€he€and€the€victim€headed€back€to€Dyer€around€Ð  p Ð9:00€p.m.€€When€they€reached€Dyer,€the€defendant€decided€to€continue€driving€to€Union€City€becauseÐ  \ Ðhe€thought€that€the€victim€was€too€intoxicated€to€drive€herself€home.€The€accident€occurred€inÐ øH ÐRutherford,€when€the€defendant€took€a€curve€in€the€road€too€fast,€lost€control€of€the€car,€and€crashedÐ ä4 Ðinto€a€concrete€road€embankment.€€The€victim,€who€was€thrown€from€the€car,€sustained€massive€headÐ Ð  Ðand€brain€injuries,€and€was€pronounced€dead€upon€arrival€at€a€local€hospital.€€The€victimððs€bloodÐ ¼  Ðalcohol€level€was€.15€percent,€and€the€defendantððs€was€.12€percent.€€€The€defendant€was€subsequentlyÐ ¨ø Ðcharged€with€vehicular€homicide€by€intoxication,€vehicular€homicide€by€recklessness,€and€DUI.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àOn€January€18,€2000,€the€defendant€pled€guilty€to€the€charge€of€vehicular€homicide€byÐ l¼ Ðintoxication.€€A€sentencing€hearing€was€held€the€same€day.€€Rutherford€Police€Officer€James€MullinsÐ X ¨ Ðtestified€that€the€impact€of€the€crash€caused€the€carððs€passenger€door€to€break€open,€and€the€victimÐ D!” Ðto€be€thrown€into€the€concrete.€€Mullins€said€that€police€investigators€determined€that€the€victimððsÐ 0"€  Ðbody€landed€sixty„eight€feet€from€where€the€car€came€to€rest.€€When€he€arrived€on€the€scene€of€theÐ #l! Ðaccident€on€the€evening€of€March€17,€1999,€however,€the€victimððs€body€was€lying€on€the€ground€nextÐ $X" Ðto€the€car,€beside€the€driverððs€door.€€€Mullins€testified€that€the€defendant€initially€claimed€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðvictim€had€been€the€driver,€and€that€the€accident€occurred€when€she€swerved€to€avoid€an€animal€inÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€road.€€Later,€after€the€conclusion€of€the€police€investigation€which€led€to€his€arrest,€€the€defendantÐ Ì&"% Ðadmitted€that€€he€had€dragged€the€victim€to€the€driverððs€door€before€police€arrived,€to€make€it€appearÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€she€had€been€driving€when€the€accident€occurred.€€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âÐ )à$( Ðà  àDr.€Thomas€Nelson,€the€hospital€emergency€room€physician€who€attempted€to€resuscitate€theÐ ° Ðvictim,€€testified€that€€the€defendant€might€have€contributed€to€the€victimððs€death€by€moving€her,€€butÐ œì Ðthat,€in€his€opinion,€she€ð ðwould€have€died€anyway€from€major€head€injuries.ðð€Ð ˆØ Ðâ âÌà  àA€number€of€witnesses€testified€in€the€defendantððs€behalf.€€All€expressed€the€opinion€that€theÐ `° Ðdefendant€would€be€able€to€rehabilitate€himself€if€allowed€to€remain€in€the€community.€TheÐ L œ Ðdefendantððs€ex„wife€said€that€the€defendant€was€a€ð ðkindðð€man,€that€he€would€never€deliberately€hurtÐ 8 ˆ Ðanyone,€and€that€he€was€receiving€professional€help€for€his€problems.€€The€defendantððs€mother€andÐ $ t Ðbrother€testified€that€the€defendant€had€never€before€been€in€trouble.€€The€defendantððs€uncle€said€thatÐ  ` Ðhe€had€lived€with€the€defendant€since€the€accident,€and€that€the€defendant€had€not€used€drugs€orÐ ü L  Ðdrunk€alcohol€since€he€had€moved€in€with€him.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àJim€Johnson,€the€defendantððs€supervisor€at€Wiscon€Total€Power,€testified€that€he€had€knownÐ À  Ðthe€defendant€for€fourteen€years€and€that€he€was€an€ð ðA€okay€fellow.ðð€€Johnson€had€not€seen€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant€drink€since€the€accident.€Robert€Wright,€Wiscon€plant€manager,€said€that€the€defendantÐ ˜è  Ðwas€an€ð ðoutstanding€employeeðð€and€that€everyone€at€the€plant,€including€himself,€ð ðthinks€a€lot€ofÐ „Ô  Ð[him].ðð€John€Carroll,€the€defendantððs€lead€man€at€work,€said€that€the€defendant€was€a€good€person,Ð pÀ Ðthat€no€one€ever€had€a€problem€with€him,€and€that€he€knew€the€defendant€was€sorry€about€what€hadÐ \¬ Ðhappened.€€Three€other€Wiscon€employees,€who€did€not€testify,€appeared€in€court€ready€to€speak€onÐ H˜ Ðthe€defendantððs€behalf.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€had€worked€at€Wiscon€since€graduating€from€high€school,€andÐ  \ Ðthat€he€was€divorced.€€€He€said€that€he€had€known€both€the€victim€and€her€husband,€who€was€his€bestÐ øH Ðfriend,€since€childhood,€and€that€he€had€been€very€close€to€them€and€their€children.€€The€defendantÐ ä4 Ðstated€that€he€had€nightmares€about€the€accident,€and€that€he€felt€ashamed€to€go€out€in€theÐ Ð  Ðcommunity.€€He€said€that€he€was€ð ðtruly€very€sorry,ðð€and€hoped€that€the€victimððs€family€wouldÐ ¼  Ðsomeday€be€able€to€forgive€him.€€He€stated€that€he€had€stopped€drinking€and€using€drugs,€and€feltÐ ¨ø Ðconfident€that,€if€allowed€to€remain€in€the€community,€he€would€be€able€to€rehabilitate€himself€andÐ ”ä Ðconform€to€any€conditions€of€sentencing€that€the€judge€might€impose.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àFinding€no€enhancement€factors€applicable,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€€defendant,€as€aÐ X ¨ ÐRange€I,€standard€offender,€to€eight€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction,€and€a€€$10,000€fine.€€TheÐ D!” Ðcourt€ordered€that€the€defendant€be€placed€in€state€probation€after€serving€his€sentence,€and€requiredÐ 0"€  Ðto€perform€five€hundred€hours€of€community€service€as€a€condition€of€probation.€€The€trial€courtÐ #l! Ðdenied€the€defendantððs€request€for€alternative€sentencing.€€The€court€suggested€that€it€foundÐ $X" Ðconfinement€necessary€both€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€and€to€provide€aÐ ô$D # Ðdeterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses.Ð à%0!$ Ðà@ìì*ìàò òòòˆÌà@òò&ìàANALYSISóóó óˆÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€request€for€alternativeÐ )à$( Ðsentencing.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€he€offered€substantial€proof€of€his€capacity€for€€rehabilitation,Ð |*Ì%) Ðand€met€his€burden€of€showing€that€probation€or€other€alternative€sentencing€would€be€in€the€bestÐ h+¸&* Ðinterests€of€both€himself€and€the€public.€€The€defendant€contends€that€there€was€no€proof€in€theÐ ° Ðrecord€that€a€sentence€of€confinement€would€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€in€theÐ œì Ðjurisdiction,€or€that€confinement€was€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€his€offense.€Ð ˆØ ÐThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€had€no€authority€to€order€that€he€be€placed€in€stateÐ tÄ Ðprobation€and€required€to€perform€five€hundred€hours€of€community€service€upon€his€release€fromÐ `° Ðprison.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€sentencing€the€defendant€to€eight€yearsÐ $ t Ðincarceration.€€€The€State€contends€that€the€circumstances€of€the€defendantððs€offense,€in€not€onlyÐ  ` Ðdriving€under€the€influence,€but€also€dragging€the€victimððs€dying€body€sixty„eight€feet€in€an€effortÐ ü L  Ðto€conceal€his€crime,€justifies€a€finding€that€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÐ è 8  Ðseriousness€of€the€offense.€€The€State€concedes,€however,€that€the€court€erroneously€ordered€stateÐ Ô$  Ðprobation€and€community€service€upon€the€defendantððs€release€from€prison.Ð À  Ѐà@ìì*ìàò òˆÐ ¬ü  Ðó óÔ‡ X­XXX­Ôà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„401(d)€provides€that€this€court€must€review€aÐ ˜è  Ðchallenge€to€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence€òòóóòòde€novoóó€on€the€record€with€a€presumptionÐ „Ô  Ðthat€"the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct."€€Tenn.€CodeÐ pÀ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption,€however,€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€inÐ \¬ Ðthe€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÐ H˜ Ðcircumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€conducting€a€òòóóòòde€novoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider€(a)€any€evidenceÐ  \ Ðreceived€at€the€trial€and/or€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€the€presentence€report,€(c)€the€principles€ofÐ øH Ðsentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(e)€the€nature€andÐ ä4 Ðcharacteristics€of€the€offense,€(f)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors,€(g)€any€statements€made€by€theÐ Ð  Ðaccused€in€his€own€behalf,€and€(h)€the€accused's€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€orÐ ¼  Ðtreatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„103€and€„210;€€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,€829€(Tenn.Ð ¨ø ÐCrim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€party€challenging€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€has€the€burden€of€establishingÐ l¼ Ðthat€the€sentences€are€erroneous.€€Sentencing€Commission€Cmts.€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401;€Ð X ¨ ÐòòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169òòóó.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€the€sentencesÐ D!” Ðimposed€by€the€trial€court€are€erroneous.Ô#†X­XX X­”5#Ôò òó óÐ 0"€  Ðà@ìì*ìàò òó óˆà  àà p àÌà  àAs€a€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony,€the€defendant€was€subject€to€a€sentenceÐ $X" Ðranging€from€eight€to€twelve€years.òòóó€òòóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„101.€Since€the€defendant€wasÐ ô$D # Ðconvicted€of€a€Class€B€felony,€there€was€no€presumption€that€he€was€a€suitable€candidate€forÐ à%0!$ Ðalternative€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(1997).€€However,€because€he€€receivedÐ Ì&"% Ða€sentence€of€eight€years,€the€defendant€was€statutorily€eligible€for€probation,€and€the€trial€court€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðrequired€to€automatically€consider€probation€as€a€sentencing€alternative.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð ¤(ô#' Ð35„303(a)€(1997);€òòState€v.€Housewrightóó,€982€S.W.2d€354,€356€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€The€burdenÐ )à$( Ðwas€upon€the€defendant€to€show€that€he€was€a€suitable€candidate€for€€probation.òòóó€€òòState€v.€Goodeóó,€956Ð |*Ì%) ÐS.W.2d€521,€527€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,€477€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð h+¸&* Ð1996);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€(1997).€€€In€order€to€meet€this€burden,€the€defendant€hadÐ ° Ðto€ð ðdemonstrate€that€probation€[would]€ððsubserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€theÐ œì Ðpublic€and€the€defendant.ðððð€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)Ð ˆØ Ð(quoting€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àFactors€to€be€considered€in€determining€whether€a€defendant€should€be€granted€probationÐ L œ Ðinclude€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€offense,€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€the€defendantððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðpresent€condition,€the€defendantððs€credibility€or€lack€thereof,€the€need€for€deterrence,€and€theÐ $ t Ðdefendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€940€S.W.2d€558,€559€(Tenn.€1997);Ð  ` ÐòòGoodeóó,€956€S.W.2d€at€527;€òòBinghamóó;€910€S.W.2d€at€456òòóó.€Also€relevant€is€whether€a€sentence€ofÐ ü L  Ðprobation€would€unduly€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.òòóó€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€(ð ðDenial€of€probation€mayÐ è 8  Ðbe€based€solely€upon€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€when€they€are€of€such€a€nature€as€to€outweighÐ Ô$  Ðall€other€factors€favoring€probation.ðð).Ð À  ÐÌà  à€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€noted€the€defendantððs€lack€of€a€criminal€record,€theÐ ˜è  Ðclose€relationship€he€had€previously€enjoyed€with€the€victim€and€her€family,€his€lack€of€malice€inÐ „Ô  Ðcommitting€the€crime,€and€his€genuine€remorse.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€court€also€noted€that€ð ðaÐ pÀ Ðyoung€woman,ðð€a€ð ðmother€of€twoðð€had€been€killed,€and€that€the€defendant€had€initially€attempted€toÐ \¬ Ðescape€the€consequences€of€his€actions€by€dragging€the€victimððs€body€to€the€car€and€telling€policeÐ H˜ Ðthat€she€had€been€the€driver.€€€In€light€of€these€facts,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€a€sentence€ofÐ 4„ Ðincarceration€was€warranted€by€the€serious€nature€of€the€offense,€and€the€need€to€send€a€ð ðmessageððÐ  p Ðto€the€community:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[B]ut€I€have€to€send€a€message€to€the€community€and€I€do€this€in€thisÐ ä4 Ðcontext.€€Number€One,€I€do€not€believe€in€ð ðmaking€examples€out€ofÐ Ð  Ðpeople.ðð€€I€believe€the€first€and€primary€consideration€is€what€isÐ ¼  Ðmerited.€€What€is€merited.€€For€lack€of€a€better€term,€retributionð!ðwhatÐ ¨ø Ðyou€deserve.€€This€is€one€of€the€reason[s]€these€cases€are€hard€becauseÐ ”ä Ðthe€moral€factors€arenððt€quite€the€same€as€they€are€in€intentional€harmÐ €Ð Ðpeople€do,€but€if€Iððm€going€to€enforce€personal€responsibilityð!ðitððs€oneÐ l¼ Ðthing€to€read€statistics€about€drunk€driving€and€accidents€and€injuries.€Ð X ¨ ÐItððs€another€thing€when€you€see€it€happen.€€There€is€a€greatÐ D!” Ðresponsibility€that€goes€along€with€that€and€the€responsibility€that€noÐ 0"€  Ðmatter€what€you€or€I€would€do€in€a€similar€situation,€the€responsibilityÐ #l! Ðwe€have€to€accept€as€individuals€who€choose€and€act€and€have€to€takeÐ $X" Ðresponsibility€for€our€actions€and€reap€what€we€sow.€€Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„103(1)(B)€(1997)€provides€that€a€court€may€baseÐ Ì&"% Ða€sentence€of€incarceration€on€a€finding€that€ð ð[c]onfinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÐ ¸'#& Ðseriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðothers€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses[.]ðð€€The€trial€courtððs€remarks€suggest€that€it€relied€on€bothÐ )à$( Ðof€these€factors€in€denying€the€defendantððs€request€for€probation€or€other€alternative€sentencing.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐHowever,€because€the€trial€court€did€not€clearly€state€the€factors€upon€which€it€relied€in€sentencingÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€defendant€to€incarceration,€€we€will€review€this€issue€òòde€novoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€correctnessÐ ° Ðgiven€to€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€determinations.òòóóà  àÐ œì Ðà  àÌà  àThe€defendant€first€argues€that€his€sentence€of€incarceration€cannot€be€based€on€a€finding€ofÐ tÄ Ðdeterrence,€because€no€proof€was€presented€that€his€sentence€would€have€a€deterrent€effect€on€othersÐ `° Ðlikely€to€commit€a€similar€offense€in€his€jurisdiction.€€At€the€time€that€the€defendant€submitted€hisÐ L œ Ðbrief€to€this€court,€the€general€rule€followed€by€the€courts€of€this€state€was€that€òòóóthe€need€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðdeterrence€could€not€be€the€sole€basis€for€denying€alternative€sentencing€unless€there€was€someÐ $ t Ðevidence€in€the€record€of€the€deterrent€effect€the€sentence€would€€have€in€the€jurisdiction.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ  ` Ðv.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€170€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Combsóó,€945€S.W.2d€770,€775€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ü L  ÐApp.€1996);òòóó€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Our€courts€oftenÐ è 8  Ðexempted€drunk€driving€offenses€from€this€proof€requirement,€concluding€that€the€need€forÐ Ô$  Ðdeterrence€in€drunk€driving€and€other€similar€cases€was€self„evident,€and€therefore€required€noÐ À  Ðspecial€proof.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cleavoróó,€691€S.W.2d€541,€543€(Tenn.€1985)€(concluding€that€the€needÐ ¬ü  Ðfor€deterrence€in€drunk€driving€cases€is€ð ðobviousðð);€òòState€v.€Leggsóó,€955€S.W.2d€845,€851€(Tenn.Ð ˜è  ÐCrim.€App.€1997)€(listing€drunk€driving€as€one€of€several€offenses€warranting€ð ðspecial€treatmentððÐ „Ô  Ðwith€regard€to€proof€requirement).òòóó€€Recently,€however,€in€€òòState€v.€Daryl€Hooperóó,€No.€M1997„00031„Ð pÀ ÐSC„R11„CD,€2000€WL€1357520€(Tenn.€Sept.€21,€2000),€our€supreme€court€established€a€newÐ \¬ Ðstandard,€applicable€in€all€cases,€for€trial€courts€to€follow€in€determining€when€òòóóa€need€for€deterrenceÐ H˜ Ðjustifies€imposing€a€sentence€of€incarceration.€Ð 4„ ЀÌà  àThe€defendant€in€òòHooperóó€was€convicted€of€drug€offenses.òòóó€€The€trial€court€denied€his€requestÐ  \ Ðfor€probation,€finding€that€a€sentence€of€incarceration€was€necessary€to€deter€others€from€committingÐ øH Ðsimilar€crimes.€€òòIdóó.€at€*2.€€No€evidence€was€presented€at€sentencing,€however,€that€the€defendantððsÐ ä4 Ðsentence€would€serve€as€a€deterrence€to€others€in€the€jurisdiction.€€òòIdóó.€€On€appeal,€this€court€initiallyÐ Ð  Ðaffirmed€the€sentence,€finding€that€the€crime€was€one€which€was€ð ðdeterrable€per€se.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€*1.€€OnÐ ¼  Ðthe€defendantððs€petition€to€rehear,€we€reversed,€concluding€that€the€practice€of€exempting€someÐ ¨ø Ðcrimes€from€the€general€proof€requirement€conflicted€with€the€holding€in€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÐ ”ä Ð166€(Tenn.€1991).€€òòIdóó.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€legislative€and€case€history€on€the€need€for€deterrence€as€a€basis€forÐ X ¨ Ðincarceration,€our€supreme€court€concluded€that€requiring€proof€ð ðthat€the€sentence€imposed€will€haveÐ D!” Ða€deterrent€effectðð€set€a€standard€contrary€to€the€language€of€the€statute,€which€states€ð ðonly€thatÐ 0"€  Ðconfinement€be€ððparticularly€suitedðð€to€provide€a€deterrent€effect.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€*6.òòòòóóóó€€Thus,€the€courtÐ #l! Ðoverruled€those€cases€€which€could€ð ðbe€read€to€require€proof€that€incarceration€will€or€should€resultÐ $X" Ðin€deterrence.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€court€also€overruled€those€cases€which€held€that€some€crimes,€by€theirÐ ô$D # Ðnature,€are€ð ðdeterrable€per€se,ðð€and€exempted€from€any€proof€requirement.€€òòIdóó.€€In€their€place,€theÐ à%0!$ Ðcourt€established€a€new€standard,€writing:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÓ*°,XƒXŒ –X°œX*Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àBecause€the€ð ðscienceðð€of€deterrence€is€imprecise€at€best,€the€trialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcourts€should€be€given€considerable€latitude€in€determining€whetherÐ )à$( Ða€need€for€deterrence€exists€and€whether€incarceration€appropriatelyÐ |*Ì%) Ðaddresses€that€need.€€Accordingly,€we€will€presume€that€a€trial€courtððsÐ h+¸&* Ðdecision€to€incarcerate€a€defendant€based€on€a€need€for€deterrence€isÐ ° Ðcorrect€so€long€as€any€reasonable€person€looking€at€the€entire€recordÐ œì Ðcould€conclude€that€(1)€a€need€to€deter€similar€crimes€is€present€in€theÐ ˆØ Ðcommunity,€jurisdiction,€or€in€the€state€as€a€whole,€and€€(2)Ð tÄ Ðincarceration€of€the€defendant€may€rationally€serve€as€a€deterrent€toÐ `° Ðothers€similarly€situated€and€likely€to€commit€similar€crimes.ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€*7.€€To€facilitate€meaningful€appellate€review,€and€to€ensure€greater€consistency€in€sentencing,Ð $ t Ðthe€court€offered€a€non„exclusive€list€of€factors€to€consider€in€determining€whether€a€need€forÐ  ` Ðdeterrence€is€present€in€any€given€case:€(1)€Whether€other€incidents€of€the€charged€offense€areÐ ü L  Ðincreasingly€present€in€the€community,€jurisdiction,€or€state€as€a€whole;€(2)€Whether€the€defendantððsÐ è 8  Ðcrime€was€the€result€of€intentional,€knowing,€or€reckless€conduct€or€was€otherwise€motivated€by€aÐ Ô$  Ðdesire€to€profit€or€gain€from€the€criminal€behavior;€(3)€Whether€the€defendantððs€crime€and€convictionÐ À  Ðhave€resulted€in€publicity€beyond€that€normally€expected€in€the€typical€case;€(4)€Whether€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant€was€a€member€of€a€criminal€enterprise,€or€substantially€encouraged€or€assisted€others€inÐ ˜è  Ðachieving€the€criminal€objective;€and€(5)€Whether€the€defendant€has€previously€engaged€in€criminalÐ „Ô  Ðconduct€of€the€same€type€as€the€offense€in€question,€irrespective€of€whether€such€conduct€resultedÐ pÀ Ðin€previous€arrests€or€convictions.€€òòIdóó.€at€*7„9.€€The€court€cautioned€that€these€factors€were€meantÐ \¬ Ðonly€as€a€guide,€and€that€all€factors€need€not€be€present€before€a€trial€court€could€order€incarcerationÐ H˜ Ðbased€on€a€need€to€deter€similar€crimes.€€òòIdóó.€at€*9.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àFactor€(1),€ð ð[w]hether€other€incidents€of€the€charged€offense€are€increasingly€present€in€theÐ  \ Ðcommunity,€jurisdiction,€or€in€the€state€as€a€wholeðð€may€be€established€by€the€use€of€statistics,€orÐ øH Ðmerely€by€ð ðtestimony€by€someone€with€special€knowledge€of€the€level€of€a€particular€crime.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Ð ä4 Ðat€*7„8.€€In€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€mentioned€ð ðstatistics€about€drunk€driving€and€accidentsÐ Ð  Ðand€injuries.ðð€€The€record€before€this€court,€however,€contains€no€indication€of€any€statisticalÐ ¼  Ðevidence€presented€at€sentencing,€or€that€anyone€with€special€knowledge€testified€about€the€level€ofÐ ¨ø Ðdrunk€driving€offenses€in€the€community,€the€jurisdiction,€or€the€state.€€In€the€absence€of€anyÐ ”ä Ðevidence€on€the€matter,€we€are€forced€to€conclude€that€this€factor€does€not€apply.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àFactor€(2)€is€ð ð[w]hether€the€defendantððs€crime€was€the€result€of€intentional,€knowing,€orÐ X ¨ Ðreckless€conduct€or€was€otherwise€motivated€by€a€desire€to€profit€or€gain€from€the€criminalÐ D!” Ðbehavior.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€*8.€€As€the€trial€court€observed,€the€defendant€made€a€conscious€choice€to€driveÐ 0"€  Ðafter€spending€the€evening€drinking€alcohol€and€smoking€marijuana.€€Factor€(2),€therefore,€applies.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àFactor€(3)€is€ð ð[w]hether€the€defendantððs€crime€and€conviction€have€received€substantialÐ ô$D # Ðpublicity€beyond€that€normally€expected€in€the€typical€case.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€For€this€factor€to€apply,€òòóóð ðsomethingÐ à%0!$ Ðmore€than€a€newspaper€article€or€television€reportðð€is€required,€but€òòóóð ðthe€defendantððs€crime€andÐ Ì&"% Ðconviction€need€not€be€known€to€the€community,€jurisdiction,€or€state€as€a€whole,€so€long€as€they€areÐ ¸'#& Ðknown€to€that€discrete€community€of€individuals€likely€to€commit€similar€crimes.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€recordÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€this€case€contains€a€number€of€victim€impact€statements€from€the€victimððs€immediate€andÐ )à$( Ðextended€family.€€In€addition,€several€of€the€defendantððs€coworkers€testified€at€sentencing,€suggestingÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€the€defendantððs€crime€was€publicized€within€his€work€community.€€However,€without€anyÐ h+¸&* Ðevidence€that€these€groups€contained€members€who€were€ð ðlikely€to€commit€similar€crimes,ðð€we€mustÐ ° Ðconclude€that€this€factor€does€not€apply.Ð œì ÐÌà  àFactor€(4),€ð ð[w]hether€the€defendant€was€a€member€of€a€criminal€enterprise,€or€substantiallyÐ tÄ Ðencouraged€or€assisted€others€in€achieving€the€criminal€objectiveðð€is€clearly€inapplicable.€€òòIdóó.€at€*9.Ð `° ÐWe€also€conclude€that€factor€(5)€ð ð[w]hether€the€defendant€[had]€previously€engaged€in€criminalÐ L œ Ðconduct€of€the€same€type€as€the€offense€in€question,ðð€òòidóó.,€cannot€apply,€because€no€evidence€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðintroduced€to€show€that€the€defendant€had€previously€driven€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€or€drugs.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€sum,€we€find€only€one€of€the€five€factors€listed€in€òòHooperóó€applicable.€€We€conclude€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€defendantððs€sentence€of€incarceration€cannot€be€based€on€the€need€for€deterrence.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€a€finding€that€confinement€isÐ À  Ðnecessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€In€order€to€base€a€sentence€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðconfinement€on€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40ð!ð35„Ð ˜è  Ð103(1)(B),€there€must€be€evidence€in€the€record€that€ð ðthe€circumstances€of€the€offense,€as€committed,Ð „Ô  Ðwere€especially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessiveÐ pÀ Ðor€exaggerated€degree,€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€outweighs€all€factors€favoring€a€sentence€otherÐ \¬ Ðthan€confinement.ðð€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€recordÐ H˜ Ðhere€€shows€that,€in€an€effort€to€conceal€his€crime,€the€defendant€dragged€the€victimððs€body€sixty„Ð 4„ Ðeight€feet€across€the€ground€to€place€it€beside€the€driverððs€door€of€the€car.€€At€the€time,€she€was€stillÐ  p Ðalive;€but,€the€defendant€dragged€her€body€so€that€its€position€would€support€the€story€he€was€goingÐ  \ Ðto€tell€law€enforcement€officers€and,€apparently,€without€concern€as€to€whether€moving€the€victimÐ øH Ðwould€cause€further€injury€to€her.€€He€then€lied€to€police€officers€that€he€had€not€been€driving€whenÐ ä4 Ðthe€accident€occurred.€€The€record€further€shows€that€the€defendant€continued€to€deny€hisÐ Ð  Ðresponsibility€for€the€accident€until€after€he€had€been€arrested,€taken€to€jail,€and€confronted€with€theÐ ¼  Ðresults€of€the€police€investigation,€which€revealed€that€the€victim€could€not€have€been€the€driver.€€WeÐ ¨ø Ðconsider€this€behavior€sufficiently€egregious€to€be€labeled€as€ð ðòòóóreprehensible,ðð€ð ðoffensive,ðð€andÐ ”ä Ðð ðexaggerated.ðð€€We€conclude,€therefore,€that€the€evidence€supports€the€denial€of€alternativeÐ €Ð Ðsentencing,€and€the€eight„year€sentence€of€incarceration,€in€order€to€avoid€depreciating€theÐ l¼ Ðseriousness€of€the€defendantððs€offense.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€state€probation€and€community€service€upon€theÐ 0"€  Ðcompletion€of€his€sentence€of€incarceration.€€On€appeal,€the€State€conceded€that€the€trial€court€couldÐ #l! Ðnot€order€that€the€defendant,€upon€his€release€from€confinement,€be€placed€on€probation€and€requiredÐ $X" Ðto€perform€community€service.€€We€concur.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„303(c)Ð ô$D # Ðprovides€that,€if€the€trial€court€finds€probation€to€be€appropriate,€it€ð ðshall€sentence€the€defendant€toÐ à%0!$ Ða€specific€sentence€but€òòshall€suspend€the€execution€of€all€or€part€thereof€óóand€place€the€defendant€onÐ Ì&"% Ðsupervised€or€unsupervised€probation€either€immediately€or€after€a€period€of€confinement€.€.€.€.ðð€Ð ¸'#& ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(c)(1997)€(emphasis€added).€Thus,€the€trial€court€could€not€order€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendant€to€be€placed€on€state€probation€and€required€to€perform€community€service€without€firstÐ )à$( Ðâ âsuspending€all€or€part€of€the€eight„year€sentence.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€eight„year€sentence€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðincarceration€and€the€denial€of€alternative€sentencing,€but€reverse€the€order€of€probation€andÐ ° Ðcommunity€service.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€State€notes€that€the€trial€court€did€not€revoke€the€defendantððs€driving€privileges,€€pursuantÐ tÄ Ðto€subsection€(c)€of€the€vehicular€homicide€statute,€which€states€that€ð ð[t]he€court€òòshallóó€prohibit€aÐ `° Ðdefendant€convicted€of€vehicular€homicide€from€driving€a€vehicle€in€this€state€for€a€period€of€timeÐ L œ Ðnot€less€than€three€(3)€years€nor€more€than€ten€(10)€years.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„213(c)€(1997)Ð 8 ˆ Ð(emphasis€added).€€The€State€asks€that€this€court,€therefore,€revoke€the€defendantððs€driving€privilegesÐ $ t Ðfor€five€years.€€We€believe€this€request€to€be€reasonable,€given€the€circumstances€surrounding€theÐ  ` Ðdefendantððs€offense,€and€order€that€the€defendant€be€prohibited€from€driving€a€motor€vehicle€in€theÐ ü L  ÐState€of€Tennessee€for€a€period€of€five€years€from€the€date€that€the€order€is€entered.Ð è 8  ÐÌà@FF%ìàòòò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àó óóóAfter€reviewing€the€record€and€the€applicable€law,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€this€caseÐ ˜è  Ðsupports€a€denial€of€alternative€sentencing,€and€a€finding€that€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoidÐ „Ô  Ðdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€We€further€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ pÀ Ðsentencing€the€defendant€to€probation€and€community€service€upon€his€release€from€prison,€and€inÐ \¬ Ðfailing€to€revoke€his€driving€privileges.€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€eight„year€sentence€ofÐ H˜ Ðincarceration€and€the€denial€of€alternative€sentencing,€reverse€the€order€of€probation€and€communityÐ 4„ Ðservice,€and€order€that€the€defendant€be€prohibited€from€driving€in€the€State€of€Tennessee€for€a€periodÐ  p Ðof€five€years€from€the€entry€of€an€order€prohibiting€such.Ð  \ Ðòòò òÌó óóóà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àà  àà h àà À àÐ ` x` x ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà Œ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àà Œ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE