ÿWPCh +C´ê•“;/¶ƒKæ§`´Â’·1õ¡éÿü/Ën­­)‡ÂL N1ÿˆó§·‘[I>µ›¬ÉïáHûµÃ$¹ú›æœ¶{4˾¹ýBËZ‘"ÔI T,8üƒ Š y¤™¦Ñ›T¿2ÍÙ -Ç;f€5¥ý†ÄÚ6ébtD«fvcre~fen' '!"×;w¸³SÜ¡R¤’ƒª{­I«ÝA·í ð|À^çx°a&“LÍÕ ª´÷àÄwíÍ0¹úqäº+ò@\„FÝ´~osýõÖß¾ïîûãËeó®á€’†uÆt˜5 ‹T%íˆ\i©¸è–Qà Ÿar]æyÌÄB§¿^Hõá;F}3°füàR¡õ)ÂøïŸ]‘C}?7¤ð UÑÚºWºÜ{87®†©NéÌ©ñQ´Õ™5ªÝÁ ó>à,·Æ!|ðVä)aß>ŸfX{ñá6Þ"/£ÆÇÄ|åyÒO•r°æ gNâµNÓ@A>|yÞ¸4g\ÕG|áFãÆfýµmqCll¢‡’;Ê Uý>ÿc÷¬}§ßѤ"FÜO‚Æ™µŽ¹$í½2 ]^œÑƒ*A/ÙIP{¨h U*¨ží!Õ_b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1U@÷N77"9E[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[b]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] 0ëeeee BPP 0¤m D3 D-D 0Kqq AS¼Æ 0¤Õ 0Dy A«½»O+ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'    3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman  Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ- ù-(|G2sb$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¢Íò»»Ô d(|3y$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3y$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Å»»»ÔÑ8€M‰XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€*Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îtÅÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Å»îît#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€20,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XM‰X»¼ÅÔÌò òÔ#†¼Å»XXM‰$#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€MATTHEW€Ô_ÔDeLOSSÔ_Ô€LARSEN€and€Ð úJ ÐANDREW€LEE€MATTHEWSÔ‡XM‰X»¼ÅÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sumner€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€83„Ô_ÔCTIÔ_Ô„CR„696„1999€€€€€€Jane€Ô_ÔWheatcraftÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„01675„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€12,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendants,€Matthew€Ô_ÔDeLossÔ_Ô€Larsen€and€Andrew€Lee€Matthews,€were€indicted€for€aggravatedÐ ŒÜ Ðrobbery€and€aggravated€assault.€€Pursuant€to€negotiated€plea€agreements,€the€defendants€pled€guiltyÐ xÈ Ðto€robbery,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401,€and€aggravated€assault,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102,Ð d´ Ðboth€Class€C€felonies.€The€defendants€also€agreed€to€serve€consecutive€sentences,€with€the€mannerÐ P  Ðof€service€and€length€of€their€sentences€to€be€determined€by€the€trial€court.€€Following€a€sentencingÐ <Œ Ðhearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€five„year€sentences€for€each€felony€conviction€and€denied€any€formÐ (x Ðof€alternative€sentencing,€which€resulted€in€effective€sentences€of€ten€years€confinement€for€bothÐ d Ðdefendants.€€In€this€appeal,€Larsen€and€Matthews€separately€challenge€their€sentences€on€similarÐ P Ðgrounds,€essentially€alleging€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€(1)€finding€no€mitigating€factors€wereÐ ì< Ðapplicable€in€their€respective€cases,€and€(2)€denying€both€defendants€any€form€of€alternativeÐ Ø( Ðsentencing.€€Our€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€reveals€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€application€of€enhancementÐ Ä Ðfactors.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€applicable€lawÔ#†¼Å»XXM‰â#ÔÔ‡XM‰X»¼ÅÔ€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances€in€theÐ ° Ðrecord,€we€modify€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€determination€concerning€the€length€of€the€defendantsððÐ œì Ðsentence€for€aggravated€assault€and€affirm€all€other€aspects€of€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ˆØ ÐÔ#†¼Å»XXM‰÷ #ÔÔ‡XM‰X»¼ÅÔÓSÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;Ð `!°  ÐJudgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed,€in€Part,€and€Modified,€in€Part.ó óÐ L"œ! ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Å»àXM‰s #ÔÔ‡XM‰X.¼ÅÔÔ‡XM‰XàXM‰ÔThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó€andÐ $$t# ÐòòTerry€Ô_ÔLaffertyÔ_Ôóó,€Ô_ÔSp.J.Ô_Ô,€joined.Ð %` $ ÐÌRandy€P.€Lucas,€Ô_ÔGallatinÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Matthew€Ô_ÔDeLossÔ_Ô€Larsen;€and€Cheryl€J.Ð è&8"& ÐÔ_ÔSkidmoreÔ_Ô,€for€the€appellant,€Andrew€Lee€Matthews.Ð Ô'$#' ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ¬)ü$) ÐLawrence€Ray€Whitley,€District€Attorney€General;€Sallie€Wade€Brown,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ˜*è%* ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð „+Ô&+ ÐÓE ÓÔ#†XM‰XXXM‰“ #ÔÔ#†¼Å»XXM‰t #ÔÔ‡XM‰X»¼ÅÔÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Å»XXM‰~#ÔÔ‡XM‰X»¼ÅÔÐ \-¬(-ý÷ ÐÔ_Ô‡Ô#†¼Å»XXM‰à#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XM‰X»¼ÅÔò òà@!ìàFactual€Backgroundó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àDuring€the€early€morning€hours€of€July€26,€1999,€the€Par€Mart€convenience€store€inÐ ˆØ ÐHendersonville€was€robbed€of€$177.69€by€two€armed€men€with€red€bandanas€tied€ð ðWild„Westðð€styleÐ tÄ Ðover€each€manððs€nose€and€mouth.€€The€twenty„two„year„old€clerk,€Michael€Cadorette,€and€hisÐ `° Ðeighteen„year„old€girlfriend,€Crystal€Parks,€were€the€only€two€people€in€the€store€at€the€time.€Ð L œ ÐCadorette€called€the€police€after€the€robbers€left€and€placed€Parks€in€the€cooler€for€safekeeping€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðcase€they€returned.€€When€the€police€officers€arrived,€they€took€separate€statements€from€CadoretteÐ $ t Ðand€Parks€which€detailed€the€following€facts:€two€armed,€black€males€robbed€the€store„„one€with€aÐ  ` Ð.22€caliber€revolver€and€the€other€with€a€sawed„off€shotgun;€the€man€with€the€revolver€made€ParksÐ ü L  Ðsit€on€the€ground€facing€a€cabinet€and€ordered€her€not€to€look€at€him;€the€man€with€the€shotgunÐ è 8  Ðdirected€Cadorette€to€give€him€the€money€from€the€cash€register€and€said,€ð ðHurry€up,€or€Iððll€put€a€capÐ Ô$  Ðin€your€ass.ðð€Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€the€hours€preceding€the€robbery,€Officer€Janel€Rogan€with€the€Hendersonville€PoliceÐ ˜è  ÐDepartment€reported€observing€a€Buick€Riviera€parked€on€the€highway€exit€ramp€across€the€streetÐ „Ô  Ðfrom€the€Par€Mart€store.€€A€ð ðtag€checkðð€on€the€vehicle€revealed€that€it€belonged€to€Andrew€LeeÐ pÀ ÐMatthews.€€Since€the€vehicle€had€not€been€reported€stolen,€Rogan€did€nothing€about€it€at€that€time.€Ð \¬ ÐWhen€Rogan€returned€to€investigate€the€robbery,€however,€she€noticed€the€Buick€was€gone,€and€aÐ H˜ Ðwitness€reported€that€it€had€been€driven€away€at€approximately€the€same€time€the€police€arrived€toÐ 4„ Ðinvestigate€the€robbery.€€The€officers€began€searching€for€the€vehicle€and€registered€owner,€AndrewÐ  p ÐLee€Matthews.€€Arriving€at€Matthewsðð€address,€they€discovered€the€vehicle€and€observed€two€menÐ  \ Ðwho€matched€the€descriptions€of€the€robbers.€€(The€two€men€observed€by€the€officers€were€theÐ øH Ðdefendants,€Matthews,€and€his€roommate,€Larsen.)€€The€officers€then€approached€the€defendants€toÐ ä4 Ðquestion€them.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAfter€Matthews€was€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€he€confessed€to€committing€the€robbery.€Ð ¨ø ÐLarsen€initially€denied€any€involvement€with€the€crime;€however,€when€he€observed€that€MatthewsÐ ”ä Ðwas€cooperating€with€the€police,€he€also€confessed€and€the€two€men€were€arrested.€€MatthewsÐ €Ð Ðconsented€to€a€search€of€his€vehicle€and€residence,€whereupon€the€police€officers€discovered€theÐ l¼ Ðfollowing:€a€box€of€latex€gloves€and€a€red€bandana,€matching€a€glove€and€bandana€they€had€foundÐ X ¨ Ðnear€the€crime€scene€earlier;€clothing€similar€to€that€reportedly€worn€by€the€defendants€during€theÐ D!” Ðrobbery;€and€$116€in€cash€($55€on€Matthewsðð€person,€and€$61€in€one„dollar„bills€under€the€mattress).€Ð 0"€  ÐMatthews€also€provided€the€officers€with€the€location€of€the€ð ðsawed„offðð€Ithaca€pump€12„gaugeÐ #l! Ðshotgun€used€in€the€robbery€and€it€was€subsequently€discovered,€loaded,€with€one€cartridge€in€theÐ $X" Ðchamber€and€another€in€the€magazine.€€A€search€of€Larsenððs€person€revealed€$66€dollars€in€cash,Ð ô$D # Ðwhich€Larsen€confessed€was€a€part€of€the€money€from€the€robbery.€€Matthews€and€Larsen€told€theÐ à%0!$ Ðofficers€that€they€robbed€the€Par€Mart€because€they€needed€money€to€pay€rent.€€Matthews€thenÐ Ì&"% Ðproceeded€to€relate€different€stories€about€where€and€how€he€obtained€the€.22€caliber€revolver€usedÐ ¸'#& Ðin€the€robbery.€€First,€he€told€the€police€he€purchased€the€weapon€from€an€unknown€person€near€hisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhome.€€Next,€he€claimed€to€have€borrowed€the€weapon€and€returned€it€after€the€robbery.€€Later,€heÐ )à$( Ðtold€the€police€that€he€threw€the€revolver€away.€€During€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€urgedÐ |*Ì%) ÐMatthews€to€ð ðcome€cleanðð€with€the€accurate€story.€€Matthews€then€testified€that€a€passing€strangerÐ h+¸&* Ðloaned€him€the€weapon€after€he€overheard€Matthews€and€Larsen€planning€the€robbery€while€sittingÐ ° Ðin€the€street€in€front€of€his€apartment.€€Matthews€claimed€that€a€few€hours€after€the€robbery,€theÐ œì Ðunknown€weapon€donor€showed€up€again€to€retrieve€his€gun€and€Matthews€gave€it€back.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àDuring€the€defendantsðð€initial€conversation€with€the€police€officers,€both€men€denied€drinkingÐ `° Ðprior€to€the€robbery,€but€admitted€to€buying€a€case€of€beer€and€cigarettes€afterward.€€The€defendantsÐ L œ Ðalso€shared€responsibility€for€coming€up€with€the€idea€and€the€planning€of€the€robbery.€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendants€told€the€police€that€they€purchased€the€latex€gloves€at€a€Super€Wal„Mart€and€the€bandanasÐ $ t Ðat€a€small€Chinese€store€on€their€way€to€rob€the€Par€Mart.Ð  ` ÐÌò òà@¢¢!ìàSentencing€Hearingó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àMatthews€testified€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€he€was€currently€employed€as€a€cashier€atÐ À  Ða€Dollar€General€store€and€also€enrolled€as€a€student€at€Tennessee€State€University.€€He€claimed€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðat€the€time€of€the€robbery,€however,€he€was€unemployed€for€the€first€time€in€seven€or€eight€years€andÐ ˜è  Ðwas€without€money€to€pay€his€rent.€€Although€his€family€had€always€been€supportive€and€probablyÐ „Ô  Ðwould€have€helped€him,€he€said€that€pride€prevented€him€from€asking€them€for€assistance.€€MatthewsÐ pÀ Ðtestified€that€he€felt€stressed€because€a€number€of€his€relatives€were€planning€to€come€to€TennesseeÐ \¬ Ðand€live€with€him,€but€he€was€unable€to€be€responsible€for€them€financially.€€Matthews€asserted€thatÐ H˜ Ðthese€circumstances€caused€him€to€start€drinking,€which€then€caused€his€mind€to€become€unstableÐ 4„ Ðand€eventually€led€to€his€commission€of€the€instant€crimes.€€He€claimed€that€alcohol€was€to€blameÐ  p Ðfor€all€of€his€criminal€actions.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àMatthews€also€testified€at€length€regarding€the€negative€impact€of€his€convictions€on€his€life.€Ð ä4 ÐHe€claimed€repeatedly€that€he€had€not€understood€the€ð ðseriousnessðð€of€his€crime.€€He€was€concernedÐ Ð  Ðthat€his€criminal€acts€had€affected€his€family,€his€friends,€and€his€job€in€an€unfavorable€way€and€thatÐ ¼  Ðhis€opportunities€were€subsequently€limited€in€that€he€could€no€longer€ð ðdo€the€things€[he]€used€to€doððÐ ¨ø Ðor€get€the€kinds€of€jobs€he€wanted.€€He€was€also€disturbed€because€he€had€to€change€schools.€Ð ”ä ÐMatthews€claimed€that€since€he€had€no€experience€with€using€a€gun€or€committing€robbery,€heÐ €Ð Ðsimply€did€not€know€what€he€was€doing€and€armed€robbery€was€ð ðtotally€out€of€characterðð€for€him.€Ð l¼ ÐMatthews€admitted€that€when€his€family€asked€him€what€he€would€have€done€if€the€victims€resisted,Ð X ¨ Ðhe€told€them€he€did€not€know€for€certain€but€that€he€would€not€have€killed€anyone.€€Matthews€furtherÐ D!” Ðtestified€that,€because€he€had€once€been€robbed€himself,€he€had€firsthand€experience€with€the€fearÐ 0"€  Ðcreated€by€staring€down€the€barrel€of€a€gun.€€He€apologized€to€the€victims€during€his€testimony,Ð #l! Ðoffering€to€assist€them€in€any€way€he€could.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àLarsen€testified€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€he€was€seventeen€years€old€at€the€time€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðrobbery.€€At€the€time€of€the€hearing,€he€lived€alone€in€a€trailer€and€was€employed€at€a€ð ðLegendsððÐ Ì&"% Ðrestaurant.€€Larsen€had€moved€out€of€his€motherððs€residence€while€he€was€in€high€school€because€heÐ ¸'#& Ðand€his€mother€did€not€have€a€good€relationship.€€Larsen€claimed€that€his€mother€suffered€from€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðchemical€imbalance€in€her€brain€that€caused€her€to€get€angry€and€throw€things.€€His€plan€was€to€finishÐ )à$( Ðhigh€school;€his€long„term€goal€was€to€become€a€basketball€coach.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àWith€regard€to€the€robbery,€Larsen€testified€that€he€had€been€drinking€beforehand.€€However,Ð ° Ðhe€claimed€that€he€was€a€casual€drinker€only€and€did€not€have€a€drug€or€alcohol€problem.€€LarsenÐ œì Ðfurther€stated€that€he€had€not€given€the€consequences€of€the€robbery€much€thought.€€He€said€that€heÐ ˆØ Ðknew€the€crimes€he€committed€were€very€serious,€but€claimed€that€he€was€not€ð ðin€the€right€state€ofÐ tÄ Ðmindðð€at€the€time.€€Among€other€things,€he€was€dealing€with€some€stressful€problems€and€had€noÐ `° Ðfamily€in€Tennessee€to€assist€him.€€Larsen€admitted€that€robbery€was€the€first€and€only€course€ofÐ L œ Ðaction€that€he€and€Matthews€had€considered€as€a€solution€to€their€money€problems.€€Larsen€furtherÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestified€that€the€day€before€the€robbery,€he€spent€twenty€dollars€for€a€sawed„off€shotgun€because€heÐ $ t Ðlived€in€a€ð ðvery€rough€neighborhoodðð€and€felt€he€needed€protection;€he€claimed€that€he€did€not€buyÐ  ` Ðit€in€preparation€for€the€robbery€and€that€the€stock€was€cut€off€before€he€purchased€it.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àDuring€his€testimony,€Larsen€extended€his€ð ðsincerest€regardsðð€to€the€victims€of€his€crime.€Ð Ô$  ÐHe€claimed€that€he€also€has€been€robbed€at€gunpoint€three€or€four€times€and€knew€that€ð ðit€is€not€aÐ À  Ðvery€pleasant€feeling.ðð€€Larsen€denied€telling€the€victim€to€ð ðHurry€up,€or€Iððll€put€a€cap€in€your€ass,ððÐ ¬ü  Ðbut€admitted€that€if€the€victim€had€pointed€a€gun€at€him€during€the€robbery,€he€might€have€shot€him.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àHelen€Larsen,€the€maternal€grandmother€of€Larsen,€testified€that€Larsen€had€been€on€his€ownÐ pÀ Ðsince€adolescence.€€Larsenððs€mother€was€declared€manic€depressive€at€the€age€of€fourteen€and€refusedÐ \¬ Ðto€accept€help€from€family€for€either€herself€or€Larsen.€€Larsenððs€grandmother€testified€that€she€wasÐ H˜ Ðwilling€to€take€full€responsibility€for€Larsen.€€She€requested€permission€from€the€trial€court€to€takeÐ 4„ Ðhim€to€her€farm€in€Illinois€where€he€could€live,€work,€and€complete€high€school.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€were€each€convicted€of€two€Class€C€felonies.€€As€Range€I€standard€offenders,Ð øH Ðthey€may€be€sentenced€to€not€less€than€three€nor€more€than€six€years€for€each€conviction.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ä4 ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3)€(1997).€€The€defendants€had€previously€agreed€to€consecutive€sentencing;Ð Ð  Ðthe€purpose€of€the€sentencing€hearing€was€to€determine€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€theirÐ ¼  Ðsentences.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€defendantsðð€crimes€wereÐ ¨ø Ðð ðterribly,€terribly€seriousðð€and,€after€considering€all€of€the€evidence,€including€the€presentence€reportsÐ ”ä Ðand€the€testimony€presented,€the€trial€court€found€both€defendants€equally€responsible€for€theÐ €Ð Ðplanning€and€execution€of€the€crime.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€also€noted€that€both€victims€claimed€to€be€too€upset€to€face€the€defendantsÐ D!” Ðagain€and€were,€therefore,€unavailable€to€testify€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Statements€from€theÐ 0"€  Ðvictims€were€included€in€the€presentence€report,€however,€and€were€reviewed€by€the€trial€court.€Ð #l! ÐCadorette,€the€store€clerk,€attested€to€the€following:€after€the€robbery,€he€could€no€longer€work€forÐ $X" Ðfear€of€being€robbed€a€second€time€and€quit€his€job.€€He€avoided€walking€at€night,€being€in€theÐ ô$D # Ðpresence€of€African„Americans€in€general,€and€going€into€service€stations€whenever€possible.€Ð à%0!$ ÐUnable€fo€find€new€employment€after€the€robbery,€Cadorette€subsequently€ran€out€of€money€and€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðevicted€from€his€apartment.€€Parks,€the€other€victim,€similarly€complained€that€she€lived€in€constantÐ ¸'#& Ðfear€after€the€robbery€because€her€job€required€her€to€work€alone.€€She€also€stated€that€her€life€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðno€longer€normal;€after€the€robbery,€she€was€afraid€to€walk€down€the€street€and€to€be€around€people,Ð )à$( Ðespecially€African„American€men.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÑ*Ñâ âÑÑÑ  Ñâ âÑ  Ñà  àConcluding€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court€found€three€enhancement€factorsÐ ° Ðapplicable€to€both€defendantsðð€sentences€and€no€mitigating€factors.€€Applying€the€factors€inÐ œì ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€subsections€40„35„113(3),€(10),€and€(16),€the€trial€court€enhanced€bothÐ ˆØ Ðdefendantsðð€sentences€from€the€presumptive€minimum€in€the€range€(three€years)€to€five€years€for€eachÐ tÄ Ðfelony.€€òòSee€id.óó€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€found€the€crimes€involved€more€than€oneÐ `° Ðvictim;€the€defendants€showed€no€hesitation€about€committing€the€crimes€where€the€risk€to€humanÐ L œ Ðlife€was€high;€and€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€was€great.€€However,€the€record€reveals€that€the€trialÐ 8 ˆ Ðcourt€failed€to€affirmatively€state€what€weight€each€factor€received€in€its€determination.€€ClearlyÐ $ t Ðdisturbed€by€the€negative€impact€the€defendantsðð€crime€had€on€the€victims,€the€trial€court€stated€onlyÐ  ` Ðthat€great€emotional€injury€had€occurred€and€that€it€was€amazed€no€one€was€killed.€€The€trial€courtÐ ü L  Ðthen€determined€that€Larsen€and€Matthews€should€serve€their€respective€ten„year€sentences€inÐ è 8  Ðconfinement,€based€on€the€fact€that€the€crime€was€very€serious€and€a€need€for€deterrence€existed.€Ð Ô$  ÐThe€trial€court€commented€that€Matthews€seemed€less€concerned€about€the€damage€he€causedÐ À  Ðinnocent€victims€than€the€effect€that€the€circumstances€had€on€his€own€life,€and€further€remarked€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðð ðsomewhere€down€the€line,€perhaps€these€gentlemen€can€be€rehabilitated,€but€[the€court]€was€soÐ ˜è  Ðappalled€by€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€and€the€psychological€damage€to€the€victims,€that€[it]Ð „Ô  Ðdid€not€think€a€sentence€of€split€confinement€would€serve€the€ends€of€justice€.€.€.€.ðð€€Ð pÀ ÐÌò òà@‚‚&ìàAnalysisó óˆÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€this€appeal,€both€defendants€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€determination€regarding€the€lengthÐ  p Ðof€their€sentences€as€well€as€the€denial€of€any€form€of€alternative€sentencing.€€Specifically,€LarsenÐ  \ Ðcontends€that€the€trial€court€erred€(1)€by€refusing€to€find€that€any€mitigating€factors€applied€to€eitherÐ øH Ðsentence,€(2)€by€applying€the€enhancement€factors€cited€without€including€any€mitigating€factors,€andÐ ä4 Ð(3)€by€refusing€to€consider€alternative€sentencing.€€We€shall€treat€Larsenððs€first€two€issues€as€a€singleÐ Ð  Ðissue€alleging€non„application€of€appropriate€mitigating€factors.€€Matthewsðð€contentions€are€almostÐ ¼  Ðidentical€to€Larsenððs.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€(1)€by€refusing€to€find€that€the€proofÐ ¨ø Ðsupported€application€of€any€mitigating€factors€to€either€sentence€and€(2)€in€imposing€a€sentence€ofÐ ”ä Ðincarceration€rather€than€any€form€of€alternative€sentencing.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àWhen€a€defendant€appeals€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence€imposed€byÐ X ¨ Ðthe€trial€court,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€trialÐ D!” Ðcourtððs€determinations€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d).€€The€presumption€ofÐ 0"€  Ðcorrectness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÐ #l! Ðthe€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ð $X" Ð169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€Ð ô$D # ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d),€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€In€conducting€our€review,Ð à%0!$ Ðwe€must€consider€all€the€evidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€enhancingÐ Ì&"% Ðand€mitigating€factors,€arguments€of€counsel,€the€defendantsðð€statements,€the€nature€and€characterÐ ¸'#& Ðof€the€offense,€and€the€defendantsðð€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-103(5),Ð ¤(ô#' Ð-210(b)€(1997€&€Supp.€2000);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€When,€as€here,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtÐ )à$( Ðimproperly€applied€enhancement€factors€and€failed€to€clearly€articulate€how€the€mitigating€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðenhancement€factors€were€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€the€sentence,€our€review€is€òòdeóóÐ h+¸&* Ðòònovoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€given€to€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€determinations.€€òòSeeóóÐ ° ÐòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599-600€(Tenn.€1994).Ð œì ÐÌà  àò òA.€€Length€of€Sentences€ó óÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àDefendant€Larsen€contends€that€the€following€statutory€mitigating€factors€are€applicable€inÐ L œ Ðhis€case:€(6)€ð ð[t]he€defendant,€because€of€youth€or€old€age,€lacked€substantial€judgment€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðcommitting€the€offenseðð;€€(7)€ð ð[t]he€defendant€was€motivated€by€a€desire€to€provide€necessities€forÐ $ t Ðthe€defendantððs€family€or€the€defendantððs€selfðð;€(11)€ð ð[t]he€defendant€.€.€.€committed€the€offenseÐ  ` Ðunder€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€lawÐ ü L  Ðmotivated€his€criminal€conductðð;€and€(13)€ð ð[a]ny€other€factor€consistent€with€the€purposes€of€thisÐ è 8  Ðchapter,ðð€i.e.,€the€defendant€Larsen€freely€admitted€his€guilt€and€also€expressed€remorse€forÐ Ô$  Ðcommitting€the€crime.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(6),€(7),€(11),€and€(13)€(1997).€€We€disagree.Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€favor€of€mitigation€due€to€youth,€Larsen€submits€that€because€he€was€seventeen€years€oldÐ ˜è  Ðat€the€time€of€the€crime,€he€never€knew€his€father,€his€mother€lacked€the€proper€parental€skills€dueÐ „Ô  Ðto€mental€illness,€and€he€was€forced€to€drop€out€of€high€school€to€support€himself,€he€thereforeÐ pÀ Ðlacked€substantial€judgment€to€the€extent€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€apply€€mitigation€factor€(6)Ð \¬ Ðis€error.€€Although€this€Court€is€sympathetic€to€young€adults€that€must€face€difficulties€while€growingÐ H˜ Ðup,€Larsenððs€circumstances€do€not€demonstrate€an€inability€to€appreciate€the€nature€of€his€criminalÐ 4„ Ðconduct€due€to€age.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€33€(Tenn.€1993)€(courts€should€considerÐ  p Ðthe€concept€of€youth€in€context,€i.e.,€the€defendantððs€age,€education,€maturity,€experience,€mentalÐ  \ Ðcapacity€or€development,€and€any€other€pertinent€circumstance€tending€to€demonstrate€theÐ øH Ðdefendantððs€ability€or€inability€to€appreciate€the€nature€of€his€conduct).€€Larsen€testified€that€he€knewÐ ä4 Ðhis€crimes€were€ð ðvery€serious.ðð€€In€fact,€he€claimed€that€he€had€been€robbed€three€or€four€timesÐ Ð  Ðhimself€and€found€the€experience€ð ðunpleasant.ðð€€Accordingly,€factor€(6)€does€not€apply€to€hisÐ ¼  Ðcircumstances.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àMitigating€factor€(7),€which€requires€proof€that€a€defendant€was€motivated€to€commit€hisÐ €Ð Ðcrimes€by€a€desire€to€provide€necessities€for€himself,€is€likewise€not€established€by€the€proof.€€In€fact,Ð l¼ Ðthe€record€reveals€that€Larsen€probably€thought€little€of€ð ðnecessitiesðð€at€the€time€of€his€crime,€asÐ X ¨ Ðdisplayed€by€the€exercise€of€extremely€poor€judgment€in€managing€what€money€he€did€have.€Ð D!” ÐNotwithstanding€the€fact€he€and€Matthews€had€insufficient€funds€to€pay€rent,€Larsen€confessed€thatÐ 0"€  Ðhe€spent€twenty€dollars€for€a€shotgun€the€day€before€the€robbery.€€He€further€testified€that€theÐ #l! Ðpurchase€was€to€provide€for€his€general€protection€and€not€in€preparation€for€committing€the€crime.€Ð $X" ÐMoreover,€both€defendants€admitted€that€after€the€robbery,€they€used€a€portion€of€their€ill„gottenÐ ô$D # Ðgains€to€purchase€cigarettes€and€beer.€€These€purchases€clearly€fail€to€indicate€that€the€desire€forÐ à%0!$ Ðð ðnecessitiesðð€was€sufficient€to€apply€factor€(7).Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àLarsenððs€next€contention,€that€he€ð ðcommitted€the€offense€under€such€unusual€circumstancesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law€motivated€his€criminal€conduct,ðð€isÐ )à$( Ðlikewise€without€merit.€€Larsen€submits€that€factor€(11)€applies,€but€only€because€his€motherÐ |*Ì%) Ðprevented€his€grandmother€from€assisting€him€with€support€and/or€a€place€to€live€when€he€wasÐ h+¸&* Ðyounger.€€Without€more,€we€fail€to€see€a€logical€nexus€between€the€grandmotherððs€frustrated€attemptsÐ ° Ðto€help€Larsen€years€ago€and€the€unusual€circumstances€required€to€apply€factor€(11).€€This€factorÐ œì Ðdoes€not€apply.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àLarsen€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€to€mitigate€his€sentence€based€onÐ `° Ðboth€his€free€admission€of€guilt€and€his€remorse€for€committing€the€crime.€€The€record€shows€thatÐ L œ ÐLarsen€confessed€guilt€for€the€crimes€after€the€defendants€were€discovered€and€Matthews€hadÐ 8 ˆ Ðconsented€to€a€search€of€the€getaway€car€and€apartment.€€Clearly,€there€was€a€good€chance€thatÐ $ t ÐLarsenððs€complicity€would€be€revealed€when€the€police€questioned€Matthews€further.€€Because€theÐ  ` Ðdiscovery€of€his€involvement€appeared€inevitable,€his€ð ðfree€admission€of€guiltðð€is€entitled€to€littleÐ ü L  Ðfavorable€consideration.€€Neither€is€Larsenððs€profession€of€ð ðremorseðð€a€mitigating€factor€here.€Ð è 8  ÐRather,€we€concur€with€the€trial€courtððs€opinion€that€the€defendantsðð€crimes€were€the€ð ðacts€of€peopleÐ Ô$  Ðwho€have€no€conscience€and€who€donððt€care€about€how€other€people€react.ðð€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àDefendant€Matthews€also€contends€that€his€sentence€is€excessive€and€asserts€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðfollowing€mitigating€factors€are€applicable:€(6)€ð ð[t]he€defendant,€because€of€youth€or€old€age,€lackedÐ „Ô  Ðsubstantial€judgment€in€committing€the€offenseðð;€(7)€ð ð[t]he€defendant€was€motivated€by€a€desire€toÐ pÀ Ðprovide€necessities€for€the€defendantððs€family€or€the€defendantððs€selfðð;€(9)€ð ð[t]he€defendant€assistedÐ \¬ Ðthe€authorities€in€.€.€.€detecting€or€apprehending€other€persons€who€had€committed€the€offensesðð;€(10)Ð H˜ Ðð ð[t]he€defendant€assisted€the€authorities€in€locating€or€recovering€any€property€or€person€involvedÐ 4„ Ðin€the€crime;€and€€(13)€ð ð[a]ny€other€factor€consistent€with€the€purposes€of€this€chapter,ðð€i.e.,Ð  p ÐMatthews€expressed€ð ðsubstantialðð€remorse€for€committing€the€crime.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„113(6),€(7),€(9),Ð  \ Ð(10),€and€(13).€€Again,€we€disagree.Ð øH ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€mitigating€factor€(6),€Matthews€failed€to€demonstrate€that€he€lackedÐ Ð  Ðsubstantial€judgment€or€that€he€was€unable€to€appreciate€the€nature€of€his€criminal€conduct€due€toÐ ¼  Ðyouth.€€Matthews€was€twenty„two€at€the€time€he€committed€the€offense€and,€barring€unusualÐ ¨ø Ðcircumstances€which€would€prove€impaired€judgment,€not€sufficiently€youthful€to€apply€this€factor.€Ð ”ä ÐFactors€(7)€and€(13),€which€may€allow€mitigation€for€crimes€motivated€by€a€desire€to€provideÐ €Ð Ðnecessities€and€a€showing€of€remorse,€respectively,€are€also€inapplicable€to€Matthewsðð€circumstancesÐ l¼ Ðfor€reasons€substantively€analogous€to€those€discussed€above€in€Larsenððs€case.€Basically,€the€fact€thatÐ X ¨ Ðthe€defendants€purchased€beer€and€cigarettes€with€the€stolen€money€renders€their€claim€of€motivationÐ D!” Ðby€a€desire€for€necessities€implausible.€€It€is€likewise€nonsensical€to€condone€armed€robbery€as€aÐ 0"€  Ðsolution€to€possible€late€rent€payments.€€Concerning€remorse,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€thatÐ #l! ÐMatthewsðð€expressions€of€penitence€appear€to€be€grounded€more€in€sympathy€for€himself€that€for€thatÐ $X" Ðof€his€victims.€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€two€remaining€mitigating€factors€in€Matthewsððs€argument€would€require€us€to€find€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðhe€assisted€the€authorities€in€detecting€or€apprehending€Larsen€and/or€that€he€assisted€the€police€inÐ ¸'#& Ðlocating€or€recovering€any€property€or€persons€involved€in€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„113(9),€(10).€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐThe€record€contains€no€proof€that€Matthews€aided€the€police€officers€in€recovering€the€money€outsideÐ )à$( Ðof€giving€his€consent€to€search.€€Matthews€argues€that€his€ð ðassistanceðð€in€apprehending€Larsen€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðproven€by€the€fact€that€Larsen€was€unwilling€to€cooperate€with€the€police€until€Matthews€cooperated.€Ð h+¸&* ÐHowever,€nothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€Larsenððs€decision€to€confess€had€anything€to€do€withÐ ° Ðprompting€on€the€part€of€Matthews.€Ð œì ÐÌà  àHaving€determined€that€mitigating€factors€do€not€apply€in€the€case€of€either€defendant,€weÐ tÄ Ðreview€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancement€factors.€€To€briefly€recount,€both€defendants€wereÐ `° Ðconvicted€of€one€count€each€of€robbery€of€Michael€Cadorette€and€of€aggravated€assault€of€CrystalÐ L œ ÐParks.€€Robbery€is€the€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€of€another€byÐ 8 ˆ Ðviolence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401€(1997).€€As€charged€here,Ð $ t Ðaggravated€assault€is€committed€by€a€person€who€intentionally€or€knowingly€causes€another€toÐ  ` Ðreasonably€fear€imminent€bodily€injury€and€uses€or€displays€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ü L  Ððððð€39„13„101,€„102€(1997).€€The€record€reveals€that€the€trial€court€enhanced€each€of€the€sentencesÐ è 8  Ðof€both€defendants€from€three€to€five€years€for€each€felony€by€applying€the€following€factors:€(3)Ð Ô$  Ðð ð[t]he€offense€involved€more€than€one€(1)€victimðð;€(10)€ð ð[t]he€defendant€had€no€hesitation€aboutÐ À  Ðcommitting€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€highðð;€and€(16)€ð ð[t]he€crime€was€committedÐ ¬ü  Ðunder€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ˜è  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(3),€(10),€and€(16)€(1997).€€After€a€review€of€the€record€and€applicable€law,€we€findÐ „Ô  Ðenhancement€factor€(10)€applies€to€the€defendantsðð€sentences€for€aggravated€assault€and€robbery,Ð pÀ Ðfactor€(16)€is€applicable€to€the€sentences€for€robbery€only,€and€enhancement€factor€(3)€can€be€usedÐ \¬ Ðto€enhance€the€sentences€for€neither€offense.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àEnhancement€factor€(3)€does€not€apply€because€neither€offense€committed€by€the€defendantsÐ  p Ðinvolved€more€than€one€victim.€€This€Court€has€determined€that€the€use€of€the€word€ð ðvictim,ðð€asÐ  \ Ðcontemplated€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40-35-114(3),€is€limited€in€scope€to€a€personÐ øH Ðor€entity€that€is€injured,€killed,€had€property€stolen,€or€had€property€destroyed€by€the€perpetrator€ofÐ ä4 Ðthe€crime.€€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€384€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Here,€the€defendantsÐ Ð  Ðwere€convicted€for€the€crime€of€robbery€against€Michael€Cadorette€and€for€the€aggravated€assault€ofÐ ¼  ÐCrystal€Parks.€€Because€no€property€was€destroyed€or€taken€from€Parks€during€the€robbery,€and€sheÐ ¨ø Ðwas€not€injured€or€killed€as€a€result,€she€was€not€a€ð ðvictimðð€of€the€robbery.€€Moreover,€the€factorÐ ”ä Ðapplicable€where€the€offense€involves€more€than€one€victim€may€not€be€applied€to€enhance€aÐ €Ð Ðsentence€where€the€defendant€is€separately€convicted€of€offenses€against€each€victim.€€òòState€v.Ð l¼ ÐWilliamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€69,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Makokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€366,€373Ð X ¨ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741€S.W.2d€127,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòStateÐ D!” Ðv.€Curtis€Lee€Majorsóó,€No.€01C01„9602„CR„00076,€1997€WL€424436€at€*9,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.Ð 0"€  ÐCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€30,€1997)€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998)€(enhancement€factor€(3)Ð #l! Ðdid€not€apply€where€defendant€committed€an€armed€robbery€of€a€restaurant€with€three€employees€andÐ $X" Ðwas€subsequently€convicted€of€one€count€of€aggravated€robbery€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€assaultÐ ô$D # Ðbecause€he€was€convicted€for€separate€offenses€for€each€victim).€€Therefore,€because€Parks€was€notÐ à%0!$ Ða€victim€of€the€robbery€offense,€and€both€defendantsòòóó€were€separately€convicted€of€an€offense€againstÐ Ì&"% ÐCadorette,€this€factor€does€not€apply.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àWhen€determining€whether€enhancement€factor€(10)€applies,€the€initial€inquiry€is€whetherÐ )à$( Ðproof€of€this€enhancement€factor€would€also€prove€an€essential€element€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð |*Ì%) ÐJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€603€(Tenn.€1994).€€Put€another€way,€where€a€high€risk€to€human€life€isÐ h+¸&* Ðestablished€with€proof€separate€from€that€necessary€to€establish€an€element€of€the€offense,Ð ° Ðenhancement€factor€(10)€may€be€applied€if€supported€by€the€facts.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2dÐ œì Ð448,€452€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€òòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó,€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.Ð ˆØ Ð2000).€€Enhancement€factor€(10)€is€appropriate€in€cases€where€the€defendant€demonstrates€aÐ tÄ Ðculpability€distinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€than€that€incident€to€the€offense€for€which€he€wasÐ `° Ðconvicted.€€òòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€603.€€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€proof€that€a€high€risk€to€the€lives€ofÐ L œ ÐCadorette€and€Parks€existed€during€the€defendantsðð€commission€of€the€robbery€was€established€byÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€fact€that€they€each€used€deadly€weapons€(firearms)€to€commit€the€crime.€€Such€evidenceÐ $ t Ðdemonstrated€a€culpability€distinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€than€that€necessary€to€commit€theÐ  ` Ðoffense€of€robbery€and€was€not€required€to€prove€the€elements€of€this€crime.€€In€contrast,€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendantsðð€use€of€deadly€weapons€did€establish€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€of€aggravatedÐ è 8  Ðassault.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€885€S.W.2d€357,€363-64€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(as€a€€general€rule,Ð Ô$  Ðenhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16)€are€inherent€in€the€crime€of€aggravated€assault€accomplishedÐ À  Ðthrough€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon).€€However,€even€when€the€facts€proving€factor€(10)€likewiseÐ ¬ü  Ðestablishes€an€element€of€the€offense,€it€may€still€be€applied€where€the€defendant€creates€a€high€riskÐ ˜è  Ðto€the€life€of€a€person€other€than€the€victim.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€452€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð „Ô  ÐApp.€1995).€€Since€Cadorette€was€a€victim€of€the€robbery€only,€and€not€the€aggravated€assaultÐ pÀ Ðoffense,€the€risk€to€his€life€which€resulted€from€the€aggravated€assault€against€Parks€permits€theÐ \¬ Ðapplication€of€enhancement€factor€(10)€to€the€defendantsðð€sentences€for€aggravated€assault,€inÐ H˜ Ðaddition€to€the€sentences€for€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lavenderóó,€967€S.W.2d€803,€808€(Tenn.€1998)Ð 4„ Ð(facts€supported€application€of€factors€(10)€and€(16)€to€defendantððs€sentence€for€robbery€whereÐ  p Ðvictims€were€informed€one€of€them€would€be€killed€if€they€did€not€cooperate€and€each€feared€for€theÐ  \ Ðsafety€of€the€other).Ð øH ÐÌà  àLastly,€regarding€enhancement€factor€(16),€we€similarly€observe€that€the€proof€required€toÐ Ð  Ðshow€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€where€potential€for€bodily€injury€was€great€wasÐ ¼  Ðestablished€by€the€defendantsðð€use€of€deadly€weapons€and,€further,€that€this€proof€was€necessary€toÐ ¨ø Ðprove€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€of€aggravated€assault,€but€not€to€prove€an€element€of€theÐ ”ä Ðrobbery€offense.€€Therefore,€factor€(16)€may€be€applied€to€the€defendantsðð€sentences€for€robbery€ifÐ €Ð Ðsupported€by€the€facts.€€Specifically,€the€record€shows€that€the€defendants€entered€the€Par€Mart€storeÐ l¼ Ðbrandishing€a€sawed„off€shotgun€and€a€revolver,€and€Larsen€informed€the€victim,€Cadorette,€that€ifÐ X ¨ Ðhe€did€not€hurry€up€he€may€receive€ð ða€cap€in€[his]€ass.ðð€€The€presence€of€the€firearms,€combined€withÐ D!” Ðthe€verbal€threat€to€Cadorette€and€the€fact€that€Larsen€admitted€he€might€have€shot€Cadorette€if€heÐ 0"€  Ðhad€presented€a€weapon,€clearly€indicates€a€potential€for€great€bodily€injury€to€the€victim€existedÐ #l! Ðduring€the€defendantsðð€commission€of€the€robbery.€€Thus,€since€both€defendants€used€firearms,€factorÐ $X" Ð(16)€may€be€used€to€enhance€the€defendantsðð€sentences€for€robbery,€but€not€aggravated€assault.€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àTo€facilitate€meaningful€appellate€review,€ð ðthe€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasonsÐ Ì&"% Ðfor€arriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,Ð ¸'#& Ðstate€the€specific€facts€supporting€each€enhancement€factor€found,€and€articulate€how€the€mitigatingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðand€enhancement€factors€have€been€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€the€sentence.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð )à$( ÐJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599„600€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€weight€afforded€an€enhancement€or€mitigatingÐ |*Ì%) Ðfactor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€if€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€purposes€andÐ h+¸&* Ðprinciples€of€the€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€and€the€record€supports€itsÐ ° Ðfindings.€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àAs€previously€observed,€the€trial€court€inappropriately€applied€enhancement€factors€and€failedÐ tÄ Ðto€articulate€how€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€were€balanced€in€determining€the€sentence,Ð `° Ðstating€only€that€great€emotional€injury€had€occurred€and€that€it€was€ð ðjust€amazing€no€one€wasÐ L œ Ðkilled.ðð€€To€recount,€our€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€reveals€that€enhancement€factor€(10)€applies€to€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendantsðð€sentences€for€both€convictions;€factor€(16)€applies€to€the€defendantsðð€sentences€forÐ $ t Ðrobbery€only,€and€not€aggravated€assault;€and€enhancement€factor€(3)€does€not€apply€to€eitherÐ  ` Ðdefendantððs€convictions.€€No€mitigating€factors€apply.€€Thus,€for€purposes€of€determining€sentenceÐ ü L  Ðlength,€two€enhancement€factors€apply€to€the€defendantsðð€sentences€for€robbery,€one€enhancementÐ è 8  Ðfactor€applies€to€their€conviction€for€aggravated€assault,€and€no€mitigating€factors€of€significantÐ Ô$  Ðweight€were€applicable€to€either€conviction€in€either€defendantððs€case.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€determination€concerning€the€robberyÐ ˜è  Ðconviction€for€both€defendants.€€The€record€reveals€that€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16)€areÐ „Ô  Ðdeserving€of€great€weight,€which€is€more€than€sufficient,€standing€alone,€to€support€the€five-yearÐ pÀ Ðsentence€for€robbery€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€As€to€the€defendantsðð€sentences€for€aggravatedÐ \¬ Ðassault,€our€statute€provides€that€where€there€are€enhancement€factors€but€no€mitigating€factors,€theÐ H˜ Ðcourt€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€the€range,€three€years€in€this€case,€but€still€withinÐ 4„ Ðthat€range€(three€to€six€years).€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(d)€(1997).€€Therefore,€because€weÐ  p Ðfind€that€one€enhancement€factor€but€no€mitigating€factors€apply,€we€order€that€both€defendantsððÐ  \ Ðsentences€for€aggravated€assault€be€reduced€from€five€years€to€four€years€and€that€the€judgment€beÐ øH Ðamended€to€reflect€this€modification.€€òòóóÐ ä4 ÐÌò òB.€€Denial€of€Alternative€Sentencingó óà À àÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àBoth€defendants€also€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€any€form€of€alternative€sentencing.€Ð ”ä ÐLarsen€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€(1)€by€failing€to€address€the€statutory€presumption€favoringÐ €Ð Ðalternative€sentencing,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„102(6),€and€(2)€by€basing€its€denialÐ l¼ Ðof€alternative€sentencing€on€inadequate€findings.€€Matthewsðð€contention€that€incarceration€isÐ X ¨ Ðimproper€relies€on€similar€premises:€(1)€the€favorable€statutory€presumption€to€which€he€was€entitledÐ D!” Ðwas€unsuccessfully€rebutted€by€evidence€to€the€contrary,€and€(2)€the€principles€outlined€in€TennesseeÐ 0"€  ÐCode€Annotated€section€40„35„103€support€alternative€sentencing€in€his€case.€€For€reasons€whichÐ #l! Ðfollow,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€alternative€sentencing..Ð $X" ÐÌà  àAs€Range€I,€standard€offenders€convicted€of€Class€C€felonies,€both€defendants€may€beÐ à%0!$ Ðpresumed€to€be€favorable€candidates€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidenceÐ Ì&"% Ðto€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-102(6)€(1997).€€The€presumption€in€favor€of€alternativeÐ ¸'#& Ðsentencing€may€be€rebutted€by€evidence€that€(1)€ð ðconfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€byÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrestraining€the€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct,ðð€(2)€ð ðconfinement€is€necessaryÐ )à$( Ðto€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provideÐ |*Ì%) Ðan€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses,ðð€or€(3)€ð ðmeasures€less€restrictiveÐ h+¸&* Ðthan€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.ðð€€òòId.óó€ððÐ ° Ð40-35-103(1)(A)-(C);€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€In€addition,€a€defendantððs€potential€forÐ œì Ðrehabilitation€or€lack€thereof€should€be€examined€when€determining€whether€an€alternative€sentenceÐ ˆØ Ðis€appropriate.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-103(5).€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€record€reveals€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€presentence€report€and€heard€testimonyÐ L œ Ðfrom€the€defendants€as€well€as€their€families€and€friends€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€In€accordanceÐ 8 ˆ Ðwith€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103,€the€court€then€considered,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€whetherÐ $ t Ðconfinement€was€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€to€provide€anÐ  ` Ðeffective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses.€€It€decided€affirmatively.€€The€courtÐ ü L  Ðacknowledged€that€neither€defendant€had€an€extensive€criminal€history€and€expressed€some€distressÐ è 8  Ðat€ð ðputting€young€people€in€the€penitentiary.ðð€€However,€when€it€considered€the€impact€on€theÐ Ô$  Ðvictims,€the€seriousness€of€the€crime,€and€the€resulting€need€to€deter€others€from€committing€similarÐ À  Ðcrimes,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€neither€defendant€was€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternativeÐ ¬ü  Ðsentencing.€€The€trial€court€then€sentenced€both€defendants€accordingly,€commenting€that€splitÐ ˜è  Ðconfinement€would€not€ð ðserve€the€ends€of€justice.ðð€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àLarsen€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€consider€alternatives€to€incarcerationÐ \¬ Ðand€by€ignoring€the€statutory€presumption€which€favors€alternative€sentencing.€€Our€review€of€theÐ H˜ Ðrecord€indicates€otherwise.€€The€trial€court€did€not€ð ðrefuse€to€considerðð€whether€alternativeÐ 4„ Ðsentencing€would€be€proper€in€lieu€of€incarceration.€€Rather,€it€candidly€stated€that€it€found€itÐ  p Ðð ðdifficultðð€to€order€incarceration€for€young€people€and,€further,€that€it€did€so€ð ðwith€a€heavy€heart.ðð€Ð  \ ÐRegarding€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€address€the€statutory€presumption,€our€statute€does€not€directÐ øH Ðthe€trial€court€to€affirmatively€or€unequivocally€verbalize€at€what€point€it€considers€the€statutoryÐ ä4 Ðpresumption€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„102(6).€€Here,€the€record€containsÐ Ð  Ðnumerous€references€which€indicate€the€trial€court€considered€sentencing€alternatives,€to€wit:€the€trialÐ ¼  Ðcourtððs€statement€that€it€was€unable€to€conscientiously€order€split€confinement,€and€its€deliberationÐ ¨ø Ðover€the€evidence€which€contradicted€the€statutory€presumption;€evidence€which€was€ultimatelyÐ ”ä Ðsuccessful€in€rebutting€the€presumption€favoring€alternative€sentencing.€€Ô‡ XM‰XXXM‰ÔòòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Ô#†XM‰XX XM‰ç¾#ԀРl¼ ÐÌà  àLarsen€also€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€alternative€sentencing€was€not€based€onÐ D!” Ðadequate€findings€of€fact.€€The€record€reveals€that€the€court€considered€confinement€necessaryÐ 0"€  Ðbecause€the€crime€was€ð ðvery,€very€serious.ðð€€We€believe€that€this€statement€indicated€the€trial€courtððsÐ #l! Ðintention€to€ð ðavoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.ðð€€Larsen€contends€that€the€law€doesÐ $X" Ðnot€allow€the€trial€court€to€deny€alternatives€to€incarceration€based€solely€on€the€seriousness€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðoffense,€citing€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€374„75€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€defendantððsÐ à%0!$ Ðassertion€is€correct;€however,€the€trial€court€did€not€base€it€denial€solely€on€the€seriousness€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðoffense,€but€further€found€ð ðsuch€a€need€to€deter€people€from€committing€this€crime€that€this€is€goingÐ ¸'#& Ðto€be€a€sentence€of€incarceration.ðð€€€Although€the€record€could€be€significantly€clearer€with€regardÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€what€facts€underlied€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€a€need€for€deterrence,€for€the€reasons€following,Ð )à$( Ðwe€affirm€its€denial€of€alternative€sentencing€in€this€particular€matter.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àAs€previously€stated,€a€trial€court€may€properly€deny€alternative€sentencing€and€orderÐ ° Ðconfinement€when€it€finds€incarceration€is€necessary€to€ð ðavoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÐ œì Ðoffense€or€.€.€.€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offensesðð€pursuantÐ ˆØ Ðto€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103(1)(B).€€These€two€conditions€constitute€ð ðevidenceÐ tÄ Ðto€the€contrary,ðð€proof€of€which€may€be€used€to€overcome€the€statutory€presumption€in€favor€ofÐ `° Ðalternative€sentencing€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„102(6).€€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€3Ð L œ ÐS.W.3d€456,€462€(Tenn.€1999)€(citing€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€940€S.W.2d€558,€560€(Tenn.€1997)).€€WhenÐ 8 ˆ Ða€trial€court€decides€to€deny€probation€basedòòóó€òòsolelyóó€upon€the€nature€of€the€offense,€ð ðthe€criminal€act,Ð $ t Ðas€committed,€must€be€ððespecially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€orÐ  ` Ðotherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree,ðð€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€must€outweigh€allÐ ü L  Ðfactors€favoring€probation.ðð€€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€3€S.W.3d€453,€462€n.15€(Tenn.€1999)€(citations€omitted).€Ð è 8  ÐBy€contrast,€sufficient€proof€that€confinement€is€necessary€to€provide€deterrence€requires€only€thatÐ Ô$  Ðconfinement€be€ð ðparticularly€suitedðð€to€provide€a€deterrent€effect;€ð ðit€does€not€require€proof€thatÐ À  Ðincarceration€ððwillðð€or€ððshouldðð€deter€others€from€committing€similar€crimes.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.3d€1,€9€(Tenn.€2000).€€Deterrence€is€discussed€further€below.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àFirst,€we€find€the€trial€courtððs€intention€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offenseÐ pÀ Ðis€a€valid€objective€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€Both€defendants€were€armed,€and€bothÐ \¬ Ðadmitted€that€they€could€not€predict€how€they€would€have€responded€if€the€victims€had€resisted.€Ð H˜ ÐAlthough€the€instant€convictions€were€for€robbery,€in€lieu€of€aggravated€robbery€(the€indictedÐ 4„ Ðoffense),€a€sentencing€court€is€not€prohibited€from€considering€criminal€behavior€for€which€there€hasÐ  p Ðbeen€no€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Winfieldóó,€23€S.W.3d€279,€283€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€òòState€v.€Caricoóó,€968Ð  \ ÐS.W.2d€280,€287€(Tenn.€1998)).€€Facts€relevant€to€sentencing€must€be€proven€only€by€aÐ øH Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€Further,€because€the€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€did€notÐ ä4 Ðdeny€alternative€sentencing€based€òòsolelyóó€on€the€nature€of€the€offense,€we€may€infer€that€the€courtÐ Ð  Ðassumed€it€was€unnecessary€to€find€that€the€criminal€act,€as€committed,€was€ð ðespecially€violent,Ð ¼  Ðhorrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degreeððÐ ¨ø Ðas€required€by€law€when€the€serious€nature€of€the€offense€is€the€sole€ground.€€òòLaneóó,€3€S.W.3d€at€462Ð ”ä Ðn.15.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àDeterrence€is€an€additional€pragmatic€objective,€and€alternative€sentencing€may€be€properlyÐ X ¨ Ðdenied€on€the€basis€of€deterrent€issues€alone.€€òòSeeóó€òòHooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€at€6.€€In€òòHooperóó,€our€supremeÐ D!” Ðcourt€relaxed€the€standards€set€forth€by€previous€case€law€which€demanded€that€certain€types€of€proofÐ 0"€  Ðbe€presented€to€show€that€incarceration€would€or€should€result€in€deterrence.€€òòSee€id.óó€at€10.€€In€doingÐ #l! Ðso,€it€emphasized€that€ð ðthe€record€must€contain€some€proof€of€the€need€for€deterrence€before€aÐ $X" Ðdefendant,€who€is€otherwise€eligible€for€probation€or€other€alternative€sentence,€may€beÐ ô$D # Ðincarcerated.ðð€òòId.óó€at€9.€€Because€the€ð ðscienceðð€of€deterrence€is€imprecise€at€best,€the€supreme€courtÐ à%0!$ Ðalso€stated€that€the€trial€courts€should€be€given€ð ðconsiderable€latitude€in€determining€whether€a€needÐ Ì&"% Ðfor€deterrence€exists€and€whether€incarceration€appropriately€addresses€that€need.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€10.€Ð ¸'#& ÐAccordingly,€a€trial€courtððs€decision€to€incarcerate€a€defendant€based€on€a€need€for€deterrence€mayÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbe€presumed€to€be€correct€ð ðso€long€as€any€reasonable€person€looking€at€the€entire€record€couldÐ )à$( Ðâ âconclude€that€(1)€a€need€to€deter€similar€crimes€is€present€in€the€particular€community,€jurisdiction,Ð |*Ì%) Ðor€in€the€state€as€a€whole,€and€(2)€incarceration€of€the€defendant€may€rationally€serve€as€a€deterrentÐ ° Ðto€others€similarly€situated€and€likely€to€commit€similar€crimes.ðð€òòId.óó€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAlthough€denial€of€alternative€sentencing€may€be€justified€in€the€instant€case€on€this€basis,Ð tÄ Ðthe€law€plainly€requires€that€the€record€contain€òòsomeóó€evidence€to€support€the€finding.€€The€record€inÐ `° Ðthe€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€is€somewhat€lacking€regarding€the€need€to€deter€other€persons€from€committingÐ L œ Ðsimilar€crimes,€however,€even€under€the€relaxed€standard€set€forth€in€òòHooperóó.€€If€the€trial€courtððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðconclusion€concerning€deterrence€was€based€on€some€type€of€proof,€it€failed€to€affirmativelyÐ $ t Ðarticulate€what€that€proof€was.€€According€to€the€record,€the€trial€court€stated€only€that€ð ðthere€is€suchÐ  ` Ða€need€to€deter€people€from€this€crime€that€this€is€going€to€be€a€sentence€of€incarceration.ðð€€WeÐ ü L  Ðfurther€note€that€the€State€had€ample€opportunity€to€present€evidence€for€the€need€for€deterrence,€butÐ è 8  Ðfor€whatever€reason,€declined€to€do€so.€€The€prosecution€could€have€easily€questioned€DetectiveÐ Ô$  ÐBarry€Russell,€who€testified€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€As€an€officer€with€the€Hendersonville€PoliceÐ À  ÐDepartment,€Russell€should€be€familiar€with€the€incidence€of€the€various€crimes€in€the€vicinity€andÐ ¬ü  Ðable€to€testify€as€to€the€number€of€robberies€that€occurred€in€the€City€of€Hendersonville€or€SumnerÐ ˜è  ÐCounty,€thus€satisfying€the€requirement€for€proof€of€a€need€for€deterrence€of€persons€other€than€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefendants.€€As€it€stands,€this€record€contains€no€proof€that€any€other€robberies€have€been€committedÐ pÀ Ðin€these€particular€areas.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àNotwithstanding€the€lack€of€affirmative€findings€regarding€this€matter,€we€find€the€recordÐ 4„ Ðcontains€sufficient€proof€to€establish€deterrence€in€light€of€the€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòHooperóó.€Ð  p ÐIn€òòHooperóó,€the€supreme€court€provided€five€factors€for€the€trial€court€to€consider€when€decidingÐ  \ Ðð ðwhether€a€need€for€deterrence€is€present€and€whether€incarceration€is€particularly€suited€to€achieveÐ øH Ðthat€goal.ðð€€òòHooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€at€10.€€As€relevant€here,€factor€two€requires€the€court€to€considerÐ ä4 Ðð ðwhether€the€defendantððs€crime€was€the€result€of€intentional,€knowing,€or€reckless€conduct€or€wasÐ Ð  Ðotherwise€motivated€by€a€desire€to€profit€or€gain€from€the€criminal€behavior.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€11.€€From€theÐ ¼  Ðevidence€elicited€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€it€is€clear€that€the€robbery€was€the€result€of€well„planned,Ð ¨ø Ðintentional€conduct.€€This€was€basically€proved€by€the€defendantsðð€admission€that€they€planned€theÐ ”ä Ðrobbery€a€significant€amount€of€time€beforehand:€Matthews€testified€that€he€and€Larsen€discussedÐ €Ð Ðthe€robbery€in€the€street€in€front€of€his€house€(so€loudly,€in€fact,€that€a€passerby€loaned€him€a€gun€toÐ l¼ Ðaccomplish€the€crime);€Larsen€purchased€a€shotgun€the€day€prior€to€the€robbery;€and€the€defendantsÐ X ¨ Ðadmitted€to€stopping€at€two€different€stores€on€their€way€to€rob€the€Par€Mart€in€order€to€purchaseÐ D!” Ðgloves€and€bandanas€for€their€ð ðbandidoðð€disguise.€€The€defendants€even€confessed€to€selecting€theÐ 0"€  Ðtarget€for€their€crime€in€advance:€Larsen€testified€that€he€picked€it€out€because€Matthews€wasÐ #l! Ðunfamiliar€with€the€area.€€The€record€also€contains€proof€that€the€robbery€was€motivated€by€a€desireÐ $X" Ðto€profit€or€gain€from€the€criminal€behavior:€the€defendants€admitted€that€they€robbed€the€store€toÐ ô$D # Ðprovide€themselves€with€rent€money€and€that€they€purchased€beer€and€cigarettes€afterward.€€As€aÐ à%0!$ Ðfinal€matter€regarding€the€deterrence€issue,€we€note€that€because€the€sentencing€hearing€took€placeÐ Ì&"% Ðon€June€2,€2000,€and€the€decision€in€òòHooperóó€was€filed€on€September€21,€2000,€theòòóó€case€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðunavailable€to€the€trial€court€when€it€sentenced€the€defendants.€€€However,€the€rule€which€requiresÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€trial€court€to€state€what€evidence€it€relied€upon€to€support€its€finding€of€a€need€for€deterrence€isÐ )à$( Ðlong„standing,€and€òòsomeóó€evidence€has€always€been€required.€€Notwithstanding€the€state€of€the€record,Ð |*Ì%) Ða€finding€of€deterrence€is€supported€in€this€case€for€the€reasons€stated€above.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àAlthough€not€specifically€mentioned€by€the€trial€court,€the€defendants€or€the€State,€we€believeÐ ° Ðthe€potential€for€rehabilitation€and€its€lack€thereof€is€a€further€proper€consideration€in€determiningÐ œì Ðwhether€sentence€alternatives€are€appropriate€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð ˆØ Ð103(5)€(1997).€€This€Court€has€previously€held€that€a€defendantððs€lack€of€candor,€credibility,€andÐ tÄ Ðwillingness€to€accept€responsibility€for€his€crime€are€further€relevant€considerations€in€determiningÐ `° Ða€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòState€v.€Zeoliaóó,€928€S.W.2d€457,€463€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð L œ Ð1996);€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€306€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€857Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€571,€574€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Larsen€claimed€to€be€sorry€for€his€crime,€but€thenÐ $ t Ðproceeded€to€lay€blame€for€his€criminal€conduct€on€the€fact€that€his€childhood€was€plagued€withÐ  ` Ðproblems€and€he€had€been€drinking€beforehand.€€This€apparent€unwillingness€to€accept€responsibilityÐ ü L  Ðdecreases€his€potential€for€rehabilitation€and€is€yet€another€factor€indicating€that€incarceration€isÐ è 8  Ðappropriate.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àMatthews€also€contends€that€his€incarceration€is€improper.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€(1)Ð ¬ü  Ðthe€favorable€statutory€presumption€to€which€he€was€entitled€by€law€was€unsuccessfully€rebutted€byÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€to€the€contrary,€and€(2)€the€principles€outlined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103€supportÐ „Ô  Ðalternative€sentencing€in€his€case.€€We€disagree.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àConcerning€the€statutory€presumption,€Matthews€submits€that€the€State€did€not€presentÐ H˜ Ðsufficient€proof€of€ð ðevidence€to€the€contraryðð€because€the€trial€court€is€precluded€from€denyingÐ 4„ Ðalternative€sentencing€based€solely€on€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€that,€under€òòState€v.Ð  p ÐBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€Ô‡ XM‰XXXM‰Ô€448€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1995)Ô#†XM‰XX XM‰¥ó#Ô,€it€is€also€prohibited€from€ordering€incarcerationÐ  \ Ðbased€on€a€need€for€deterrence€without€proof€that€his€confinement€will€have€a€deterrent€effect.€€HeÐ øH Ðasserts€that€a€need€for€deterrence€in€Sumner€County€or€any€other€county€in€Tennessee€was€notÐ ä4 Ðproven.€€Defendant€is€correct€in€all€of€his€assertions.€€However,€as€we€concluded€above,€the€recordÐ Ð  Ðshows€that€the€trial€court€did€not€deny€alternative€sentencing€based€solely€on€the€serious€nature€ofÐ ¼  Ðthe€crime,€but€also€relied€upon€the€need€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€and€that€this€finding€isÐ ¨ø Ðsupported€by€the€facts€and€circumstances€contained€in€the€record.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àMatthews€also€argues€that€the€remorse€and€willingness€to€accept€responsibility€displayed€byÐ l¼ Ðhim€at€the€sentencing€hearing€was€given€no€weight€by€the€trial€court.€€The€trial€court€astutelyÐ X ¨ Ðobserved€that€the€majority€of€Matthewsðð€concern€and€sorrow€was€directed€at€his€own€plight,€not€thatÐ D!” Ðof€the€victims.€€Moreover,€according€to€Matthews€testimony,€he€blamed€not€part,€but€òòallóó€of€hisÐ 0"€  Ðcriminal€conduct€on€the€fact€that€he€had€been€drinking€prior€to€the€crime.€€As€previously€mentioned,Ð #l! Ða€defendantððs€willingness€to€accept€responsibility€for€his€crime€is€a€relevant€consideration€inÐ $X" Ðdetermining€rehabilitation€potential.€€òòZeoliaóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€463.€€Here,€there€is€no€such€evidence.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€after€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€applicable€law,€we€concur€with€theÐ Ì&"% Ðtrial€courtððs€result€in€denying€the€defendants€any€form€of€alternative€sentencing.€€Specifically,€we€findÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€a€sentence€of€incarceration€is€appropriate€under€the€circumstances€presented€because€the€recordÐ ¤(ô#' Ðshows€that€(1)€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€(2)Ð )à$( Ðâ âconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence,€and€(3)€the€defendantsÐ |*Ì%) Ðdemonstrate€a€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€Thus,€the€defendants€are€not€entitled€to€relief€onÐ ° Ðthis€issue.Ð œì Ðâ âÌò òà@  %ìàConclusionó óˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àFor€the€forgoing€reasons,€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€determination€is€affirmed,€in€part,€andÐ L œ Ðmodified,€in€part.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€determination€with€regard€to€the€defendantsðð€sentencesÐ 8 ˆ Ðfor€the€offense€of€robbery.€€Concerning€the€defendantsðð€sentences€for€aggravated€assault,€we€reduceÐ $ t Ðthe€length€from€five€years€to€four€years€in€accordance€with€our€conclusions€concerning€mitigatingÐ  ` Ðand€enhancement€factors€and€remand€this€matter€to€the€trial€court€to€enter€an€amended€judgmentÐ ü L  Ðwhich€reflects€this€modification€and€results€in€an€effective€sentence€of€nine€years€for€each€defendant.€Ð è 8  ÐAll€other€aspects€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€are€affirmed.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE