ÿWPCp" … %Vw@\ 0ÜœU:x 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u© 0d B‚U *ŸB)ÉDCò AM5©‚$+‘O'àv~vÓ… D3X 0@‹ AOË Æ! 0Dà! D/$" BS"X UDDUD U!e"Ó€(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularuM%3|x+(Ð(3ï™$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€üèXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ŸÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌAu…gustÏ5,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀüèXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€was€originally€charged€with€four€counts€of€theft€of€property.€Ì ‡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóA€total€of€$2,745.66€in€stolen€merchandise€was€recovered€from€the€vehicle.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThis€provision€provides€that€"nothing€in€this€chapter€shall€be€construed€as€altering€anyÏprovision€of€present€statutory€or€case€law€requiring€that€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€forÏprobation€rests€with€the€defendant."ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÙ€€Ùò òßR€#$"A1-j|` õ `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àMAY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9703„CC„00095Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àMARSHALL€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€CHARLES€LEE,€JudgeÌSAMUEL€L.€LAMB,€JR.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Sentencing)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌó óÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òJames€Robin€McKinney,€Jr.ó óà àà àò òJohn€Knox€Walkupó óÌSuite€103à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ214€Second€Avenue€Northà àÌNashville,€TN€€37201à àà àà àò òKaren€M.€Yacuzzoó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€JusticeÏDivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWilliam€Michael€McCownó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWeakley€E.€Barnardó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMarshall€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLewisburg,€TN€€37091ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Samuel€L.€Lamb,€Jr.,€appeals€as€of€right€the€sentencingÏdecision€of€the€Marshall€County€Circuit€Court.€€Pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement,€theÏappellant€pled€guilty€to€three€counts€of€theft€of€property€and€received€an€effectiveÏfive€year€sentence.× ƒ% ××  ×€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€theÏappellant€serve€270€days€of€this€sentence€in€the€county€jail€with€the€balance€of€theÏsentence€to€be€served€in€the€community€corrections€program.€€In€this€appeal,€theÏappellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€full€probation€or€placementÏin€community€corrections.ÌÌà àAfter€review,€we€affirm.ÌÌò òà@ àòòBackgroundóóó óÌÌà àOn€May€8,€1996,€the€appellant,€age€22,€and€his€wife,€Jennifer€Lamb,€age€19,Ïresidents€of€Davidson€County,€accompanied€by€€Donald€Maxey,€Jr.€and€DonnaÏMaxey,€traveled€to€Columbia,€Tennessee,€for€the€purpose€of€committing€thefts.€€TheÏfour€entered€Wal„Mart,€where€they€stole€numerous€electronic€items,€including€VCRsÏand€camcorders.€€After€loading€the€stolen€items€into€the€trunk€of€the€appellantððs€car,Íthey€proceeded€to€K„Mart€where€they€repeated€the€same€procedure.€€Later€thatÏevening,€the€group€stopped€at€a€local€park€to€view€the€stolen€merchandise.€ÏDetective€David€Copeland€of€the€Lewisburg€Police€Department€approached€theÏfour.€€None€could€produce€valid€identification.€€The€detective€noticed€several€newÏboxes€of€Magnavox€VCRs€in€the€vehicle€as€well€as€Wal„Mart€and€K„Mart€shoppingÏbags.€€Detective€Copeland€asked€to€search€the€vehicle€and€consent€was€given.€ÏWhen€he€asked€the€appellant€where€he€had€gotten€the€merchandise,€the€appellantÏsaid€he€ÌÌÌhad€taken€it€from€the€dock€at€the€back€of€the€Wal„Mart€store€in€Lewisburg.× ƒ& ××  ×€ÏDetective€Copeland€advised€the€appellant€that€there€was€no€dock€at€the€Wal„MartÏin€Lewisburg.€ÌÌà àUpon€further€questioning€at€the€Lewisburg€Police€Department,€the€appellantÏrelated€an€entirely€different€story.€€The€appellant€told€the€detective€that€he€and€hisÏwife€did€not€go€to€the€stores€on€the€night€in€question€because€they€were€visiting€hisÏwifeððs€grandfather.€€Eventually,€however,€the€appellant€admitted€that€he,€his€wife,Ïand€the€Maxeys€were€all€equally€guilty€of€the€thefts.€€The€appellant€later€pled€guiltyÏto€two€counts€of€class€E€theft€and€one€count€of€class€D€theft.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€court€heard€testimony€from€the€appellant€andÏthe€officers€involved€in€this€case.€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€was€currentlyÏworking€for€the€TVA€Steam€Plant€in€Gallatin€and€had€maintained€this€position€forÏthree€weeks€as€of€the€date€of€the€sentencing€hearing.€€He€admitted€that€he€hadÏpreviously€been€placed€on€probation,€following€a€charge€for€burglary€which€wasÏlater€reduced€to€criminal€trespass.€€€When€asked€if€he€had€ever€been€known€underÏanother€name,€the€appellant€invoked€his€fifth€amendment€right€against€self„incrimination.€€He€further€stated€that€he€dropped€out€of€school€in€the€tenth€gradeÏand€had€made€no€attempt€to€pursue€his€G.E.D.€He€testified€that€he€was€arrested€forÏpublic€intoxication€while€out€on€bond€pending€resolution€of€the€charges€in€theÏpresent€case.€€He€also€remarked€that€he€was€aware€that€his€wife€was€on€probationÏwhen€the€two€committed€these€offenses.€€The€appellant€was€sentenced€toÏconcurrent€two€year€sentences€for€the€two€class€E€felony€convictions,€to€runÏconsecutive€to€the€three€year€sentence€imposed€for€the€class€D€felony€conviction.ÏThe€trial€court€then€ordered€that€the€appellant€serve€270€days€of€his€five€yearÏsentence€in€the€county€jail€followed€by€placement€in€the€local€communityÏcorrections€program.ÌÌà@ àÌà@ àò òòòAnalysisó óóóÌÌà àIn€this€appeal,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€ð ðgive€theÏDefendant€the€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing,ðð€and€improperly€shifted€to€theÏappellant€the€burden€of€establishing€entitlement€to€probation.€€Review€by€this€courtÏof€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence€is€òòde€novoóó€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determination€made€by€the€trial€court€is€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d)(1990).€€This€presumption€only€applies,€however,€if€the€recordÏdemonstrates€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€relevant€sentencingÏprinciples.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€We€conclude€thatÏthe€presumption€of€correctness€applies€in€this€case.€€In€making€the€review,€this€courtÏmust€consider€the€evidence€heard€at€trial€and€at€sentencing,€the€presentenceÏreport,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€anyÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€the€appellantððs€statements,€and€theÏappellantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„€(1995ÏSupp.),€103(5)€(1990),€„210(b)€(1995€Supp.);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2dÏ377,€379€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citing€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168).€€The€burden€isÏon€the€appellant€to€show€that€the€sentence€imposed€was€improper.€€€SentencingÏCommission€Comments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).ÌÌà@ àA.€€òòAlternative€SentencingóóÌà àSpecifically,€in€reference€to€alternative€sentencing,€the€court€held,€ð ðThe€courtÏmust€begin€its€inquiry€as€to€the€appropriate€sentence€for€Mr.€Lamb€with€theÏpresumption€that€he€is€entitled€to€alternative€sentencing.ðð€€Notwithstanding€theÍpresumption€granted€the€appellant,€the€trial€court€appropriately€reviewed€theÏsentencing€evidence€to€determine€(1)€whether€the€presumption€was€rebutted€byÏð ðevidence€to€the€contrary,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€and€(2)€whether€theÏappellantððs€previous€criminal€history€and€failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitationÏstripped€him€of€entitlement€to€the€presumption.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5)Ïand€(6).€€ð ðConvicted€felons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessingÏcriminal€histories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€andÏevincing€failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitationðð€are€not€entitled€to€the€presumptionÏfor€alternative€sentencing€options.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€òòSee€alsoóóÏòòState€v.€Binghamóó,€€910€S.W.2d€448,€453€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995)€(citing€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€167€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993)).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€State€presented€ð ðevidence€toÏthe€contrary,ðð€thus,€rebutting€the€appellantððs€entitlement€to€the€statutory€presumptionÏfor€an€alternative€sentence.€€The€record€supports€this€finding€and€the€trial€courtððsÏapplication€of€the€law.ÌÌà@ àB.€€òòProbation€and€Burden€of€ProofóóÌà àNext,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€a€non„Ïincarcerative€sentence€of€either€€ð ðstraight€probationðð€or€placement€in€a€communityÏcorrections€program.€€In€support€of€this€position,€he€contends€that€the€court€erred€inÏholding€ð ðthat€the€burden€was€on€the€Defendant€to€show€the€Court€that€he€wasÏentitled€to€be€granted€probation.ðð€€€In€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€455„456,€thisÍcourt€distinguished€between€the€burden€of€proof€for€presumption€of€an€alternativeÏsentence€and€probation:ÌÓÓ€€à8 àIt€should€be€pointed€out€that€determining€whether€a€defendant€isÏentitled€to€an€alternative€sentence€necessarily€requires€a€separateÏinquiry€from€that€of€determining€whether€the€defendant€is€entitled€toÏfull€probation.€€This€is€so€because€the€inquiries€involve€differentÏburdens€of€proof.€€Where€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€the€statutoryÏpresumption€of€alternative€sentencing,€the€State€has€the€burden€ofÏovercoming€the€presumption€with€evidence€to€the€contrary.€ÏConversely,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€suitabilityÏfor€full€probation,€even€if€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€the€statutoryÏpresumption€of€alternative€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)(1994€Supp).[× ƒ' ××  ×]€€There€is€no€bright€line€rule€for€determiningÏwhen€probation€should€be€granted.€€To€meet€the€burden€ofÏestablishing€suitability€for€full€probation,€the€defendant€mustÏdemonstrate€that€probation€will€"subserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€theÏbest€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant."€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,Ï803€S.W.2d€250,€259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€denying€a€sentence€of€total€probation€or€community€corrections,€the€trialÏcourt€found:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€defendant€has€demonstrated€to€the€court€failures€of€past€efforts€ofÏpast€rehabilitation.€€.€.€.€€Within€two€years€from€the€completion€of€hisÏprior€probation€he€is€committing€not€one,€not€two€but€three€additionalÏfelonies€in€two€jurisdictions.€€Perhaps€worse€than€that€is€the€fact€thatÏthe€defendant€knew€that€he€had€an€accomplice€with€him,€his€wife,€whoÏwas€also€on€probation€for€exactly€the€same€offense.€€And€assisted€andÏaided€and€abetted€her€in€the€commission€of€these€felonies€while€sheÏwas€on€probation.Ìà8 à.€.€.€€ÌÌà8 à.€.€.€he€does€not€think€that€the€officials€of€the€court€are€very€importantÍpersons,€that€it€is€alright€to€lie€to€them€initially€until€it€looks€like€they€areÏgoing€to€pin€his€ears€down.€€He€does€not€think€that€having€casesÏpending€in€court€are€very€important€because€he€goes€out€to€commitÏwhat€counsel€for€the€defense€says€is€a€minor€infraction€[publicÏintoxication].€€.€.€.€€He€has€an€unstable€employment€history€andÏcertainly€not€one€that€speaks€well€for€him.ÌÌÌThese€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÓÓà àUpon€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€find€that,€based€upon€the€nature€andÏcircumstances€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved€and€because€measures€lessÏrestrictive€than€confinement€have€proven€to€be€unsuccessful,€imposition€of€270Ïdays€incarceration€in€the€county€jail€is€justified.€€€We€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððsÏapplication€of€the€law€or€its€sentencing€decision.ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judge