WPC ELaBy5vԃ{ U5ÿ Z@ʯG;v>3ߋO.qoGU`aHS<'' u`G(3; h2+CܭA`nRAkIZxǨI!d3e+ Y{?:ʍ~O{C=S|D ##f27=Yݷ[@jȾ   OPINION   ` Thedefendant,DavidKrantz,appealsasofrighthissentencesbaseduponguiltypleastovariouscountsofaggravatedburglaryandtheftover$1,000inTrousdale,Macon,andSmithCounties.Thesentencesinthethree(3)countieshavebeenconsolidatedforappellatepurposes.Thedefendantreceivedaneffectivesentenceoffour(4)yearswithone(1)yeartobeservedinthelocaljailandtheremainderonprobation.Thedefendantcontendsthetrialcourtfailedtoapplyamitigatingfactorinsentencinghimanderredinnotgrantingtotalprobation.Althoughweremandforthecorrectionofthejudgments,thetrialcourtisaffirmedinallotherrespects.  PROCEDURALHISTORY  L    ` ThedefendantwasindictedinJune1995inTrousdaleCountyforburglary,aggravatedburglary,theftover$1,000,andtheftover$10,000.Hepledguiltytotwo(2)countsofaggravatedburglary.   #  1      ׀Thetheftchargeswere !  thendismissed. ` ThedefendantwasindictedinAugust1995inSmithCountyforthree(3)countsofaggravatedburglary,two(2)countsoftheftover$1,000,andone(1)countoftheftover$10,000.Hepledguiltytothree(3)countsoftheftover$1,000.Theaggravatedburglarychargeswerethendismissed. ` ThedefendantwasindictedinOctober1995inMaconCountyforaggravatedburglaryandtheftover$1,000.Thedefendantpledguiltytoone(1)countofaggravatedburglary.Thetheftchargewasthendismissed. L506  ` Sentencingwasheld  atthesametimefor    allconvictions.Thedefendantreceivedaneffectivesentenceoffour(4)years.Thefirstyearofthesentencewasorderedtobeservedinthelocaljailwiththeremainingthree(3)yearstobeservedonprobation.  SENTENCING  8      ` ThisCourtsreviewofthesentenceimposedbythetrialcourtisdenovo   withapresumptionofcorrectness.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d).Thispresumptionisconditioneduponanaffirmativeshowingintherecordthatthetrialjudgeconsideredthesentencingprinciplesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances.Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,169(Tenn.1991).Ifthetrial X courtfailstocomplywiththestatutorydirectives,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessandourreviewisdenovo.Statev.Poole,945S.W.2d93,96  (Tenn.1997). ` Theburdenisupontheappealingpartytoshowthatthesentenceisimproper.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d)SentencingCommissionComments.Inconductingourreview,wearerequired,pursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.4035210,toconsiderthefollowingfactorsinsentencing:8 ` (1)[t]heevidence,ifany,receivedatthetrialandthesentencinghearing;(2)[t]hepresentencereport;(3)[t]heprinciplesofsentencingandargumentsastosentencingalternatives;(4)[t]henatureandcharacteristicsofthecriminalconductinvolved;(5)[e]videnceandinformationofferedbythepartiesontheenhancementandmitigatingfactorsin4035113and4035114;and(6)[a]nystatementthedefendantwishestomakeinthedefendantsownbehalfaboutsentencing. ` `   ` Thereisnomathematicalequationtobeutilizedindeterminingsentencingalternatives.Notonlyshouldthesentencefittheoffense,butitshouldfittheoffenderaswell.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035103(2);Statev.Boggs, t727 932S.W.2d467,477(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).Indeed,individualized L949 punishmentistheessenceofalternativesentencing.Statev.Dowdy,894  S.W.2d301,305(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).  A.MitigatingFactor 8      ` Thedefendantcontendsthetrialcourterredbyfailingtofindhiscooperationwithlawenforcementasanapplicablemitigatingfactor.Thestateconcededatthesentencinghearingthatthedefendantscooperationhelpedtoestablishvenueand makecases[againstthecodefendant]inMaconCounty,TrousdaleCountyandalsoinSmithCounty.Thetrialcourtrefusedtogivethismitigatingfactoranyweightbecausethefactsthedefendantrelatedtolawenforcementweredifferentthanthosegiventothetrialcourtatthesentencinghearing. ` Althoughwefindthiscooperationshouldhavebeenconsideredasamitigatingfactor,weseenoreasontoreducethesentences.Thefouryearsentenceforaggravatedburglaryisonlyoneyearabovetheminimumofthree(3)years.Thedefendantreceivedtheminimumthree(3)yearsfortheotheraggravatedburglaries.Forthetheftsover$1,000,thedefendantreceivedtwo(2),three(3),andfour(4)yearsentences.Allsentencesareconcurrent.Thedefendanthadalreadybeensentencedtosix(6)yearsfortheftinSumnerCounty.Weseenoreasontoreducethesentences.  B.Probation (/x*. (1) 2H.2     ` Thedefendantsprimarycontentionisthatthetrialcourterroneouslydeniedhimtotalprobation.Adefendantiseligibleforprobationifthesentence 838 receivedbythedefendantiseightyearsorless,subjecttosomestatutoryexclusions.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035303(a). ` AnespeciallymitigatedorstandardoffenderconvictedofaClassC,DorEfelonyispresumedtobeafavorablecandidateforalternativesentencingintheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035102(6).Atrialcourtmustpresumethatadefendantsentencedtoeightyearsorlessandwhoisnotanoffenderforwhomincarcerationisapriorityissubjecttoalternativesentencing.Statev.Byrd,861S.W.2d377,37980(Tenn.Crim. p App.1993).Itisfurtherpresumedthatasentenceotherthanincarcerationwouldresultinsuccessfulrehabilitationunlessrebuttedbysufficientevidenceintherecord.Id.at380.However,althoughadefendantmaybepresumedtobe H afavorablecandidateforalternativesentencing,thedefendanthastheburdenofestablishingsuitabilityfortotalprobation.Statev.Boggs,932  S.W.2d      at477;      seeTenn.CodeAnn.4035303(b).   ` Indeterminingwhethertograntordenyprobation,atrialcourtshouldconsiderthecircumstancesoftheoffense,thedefendant'scriminalrecord,thedefendantssocialhistoryandpresentcondition,theneedfordeterrence,andthebestinterestofthedefendantandthepublic.Statev.Grear,568S.W.2d '#& 285,286(Tenn.1978);Statev.Boyd,925S.W.2d237,244(Tenn.Crim.App. )$( 1995);Statev.Black,924S.W.2d912,917(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).The h+&* defendant'slackofcredibilityisalsoanappropriateconsiderationandreflectsonadefendant'spotentialforrehabilitation.Statev.Dowdy,894  S.W.2d      at306.     /h*.  ` Underthe1989SentencingAct,sentenceswhichinvolveconfinementaretobebasedonthefollowingconsiderationscontainedinTenn.CodeAnn.4035103(1):8 ` (A)[c]onfinementisnecessarytoprotectsocietybyrestrainingadefendantwhohasalonghistoryofcriminalconduct; ` `   (:x5: 8 ` (B)[c]onfinementisnecessarytoavoiddepreciatingtheseriousnessoftheoffenseorconfinementisparticularlysuitedtoprovideaneffectivedeterrencetootherslikelytocommitsimilaroffenses;or ` `  8 ` (C)[m]easureslessrestrictivethanconfinementhavefrequentlyorrecentlybeenappliedunsuccessfullytothedefendant. ` `  SeeStatev.Grigsby,957S.W.2d541,545(Tenn.Crim.App.1997);Statev.  ` Millsaps,920S.W.2d267,270(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).  8    (2)       ` Thetrialcourt  stateditfound    thedefendantcompletelylackingincredibility.Thedefendanttestifiedatsentencingthathethoughthewassimplyassistinghisaccomplicetransportfurniture.Hemaintainedhehadnoideahewasstealingeventhoughhealwayspickedthefurnitureupinthe  evening,andfrom    unoccupiedhomes.Wegivegreatdeferencetothetrialcourtinassessingcredibility.Thedefendantslackofcredibilitywasproperlyconsideredbythetrialcourtindenyingtotalprobation.SeeStatev.Dowdy,894S.W.2dat306. h   ` Thetrialcourtfoundthedefendantshouldnotreceivetotalprobationafterconsideringthecircumstancesoftheoffenses,hiscriminalhistory,hislackofcandor,andtheneedtoprotectthepublicfromfurtheroffensescommittedbyhim.Weagree.Thepropertylossinthesecaseswasextremelyhigh,andthedefendantneveradmittedculpability.Althoughthedefendantclaimstotalprobationiswarrantedsohecancontinuerestitutionpaymentstothevictims,itwouldappearthat,giventhebestofcircumstances,thevictimscannotrealisticallyexpecttobefullycompensatedbythedefendant.Simplyput,thedefendanthasfailedtoestablishhissuitabilityfortotalprobation.              CORRECTIONOFJUDGMENTS 616     ` Althoughnotraisedbytheparties,wenoteseveralerrorsinthe H:5: judgmentsenteredbythetrialcourt. ` Firstly,theTrousdaleCountyandSmithCountyjudgmentscombinemorethanonecountintoasinglejudgment.Aseparatejudgmentshouldbepreparedforeachcounteventhoughtheyareinthesameindictment.Sup.Ct.Rules,Rule17.Uponremand,separatejudgmentsshouldbepreparedandenteredforeachoffense. ` Secondly,thenotation paroleconditioneduponrestitutionmustbedeleted.Thedefendantwillbeonprobation,notparole.Ifrestitutionistobeaconditionofprobation,thetrialcourtuponremandmustdeterminetheamount,scheduleofpayments,andallocationamongvictims.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. H 4035304(g)(3);seealsoStatev.Alford,___S.W.2d___(Tenn.1998)(filed   June15,1998,atJackson). ` Finally,thejudgmentinTrousdaleCountycaseno.9548reflectsaguiltypleatoClassCaggravatedburglaryandasentenceofthree(3)years.TheindictmentonlychargestheoffenseofClassDsimpleburglary.SeeTenn. $X" CodeAnn.3914402(a)(1).Wefindnoamendmenttotheindictmentintherecord.We,therefore,reducethejudgmentfromaggravatedburglarytosimpleburglaryand,pursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.4035401(c),setthesentenceattwo(2)years.Uponremandthetrialcourtshallenteranamendedjudgmentforsimpleburglarywithatwo(2)yearsentencetorunconcurrentlywithallother  sentences.Thisdoesnotchangetheeffectivefouryearsentneceence.     ` Thiscaseisremandedfortheentryofjudgmentsassetforthinthisopinion.Inallotheraspects,thetrialcourtisAFFIRMED.       (:x5:   `     h      p _______________________   `     h      p JOEG.RILEY,JUDGECONCUR:_____________________________CURWOODWITT,JUDGE_____________________________LEEMOORE,SPECIALJUDGE