ÿWPC »]Mõ+¢ 5Zë<-[Nt‹ Op®V{^4Š™ª'bH[¡Më BWT%Õ’HÊÓöm«`ÎàßÎ2'…dX¢žâ…Óm¶°ému£i3xÔèLa o& i´æ2l¯;rÃoÙ$RG4ä³N2ݰ˜0Ì»´ZBÞÁ³ÑÜû¼éžäSß*b|#eÓùS û»=b:ÒíWNnqn²”•È(™e¦Ð߆7…‘@Z ¸\Á™ ê[‡Òr÷mÿ (Éäl72ܯº@©NÍ”Z¼2 ¯¡ÀÍÔ3ßHÔLF¸1ÛóçгL>œ\q.QtïBµ³%ÈLJeŒ³-ªÖ+lëzY¢  ÄßØÛ‹wŒžñbÙcNÏ=ERŒ ¦%Nht£ÕB ³ñ®pD™Ïq-“±mþf?¶? Úd×+kúIÙêÔÙÚ¡‡²ÌðñjæÄBë:xøO0êjŒvvagiÁ#—¯²zdJÊÄ8Úº„çÜQ`³Ží# ²TÂ=¾ÐPø–Ô Ì¡ _* y¨äqÙò|” shnœmRx§+ŒÛ¡‚odʬ™A÷1âFkÇÙÊ¡>ôµ¸hÙ2fN‹£ô’D)¡Ä–i?-Èî*bxbUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#éNñññEóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóbõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõ 0ëýýýý Bèè 0¤ D3© D-Ü 0K   ASTƧ 0¤m 0D A«U(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÒv)â Yo†) @à¤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 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 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 - ù-(|G2$$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%´»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô™Ìò»»Ô d(|3Çm$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%´»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Çm$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%´»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%´»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼%´»»»ÔÑ8€r¨XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î(¥î»¼%´ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼%´»îî(¥ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€à @ àà @` àOctober€3,€2000Ð üL ÐÔ‡Xr¨X»¼%´ÔÌò òÔ#†¼%´»XXr¨#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€ALEXANDER€A.€LEEòòóóÔ‡Xr¨X»¼%´Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„12834à0 @ à€€€€€€€Chris€Craft,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1999„01804„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€14,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ Xr¨XXXr¨ÔThe€Appellant,€Alexander€A.€Lee,€pled€guilty€to€one€count€of€felony€possession€of€cocaine,€a€classÐ xÈ  ÐC€felony.€€The€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€sentenced€the€Appellant€to€three€years,€suspended,Ð d´ Ðwith€nine€months€to€serve€in€the€county€workhouse.€€On€appeal,€the€Appellant€contends€that€the€trialÐ P  Ðjudge€erred€in€denying€his€request€for€total€probation.€€After€review,€we€find€no€error.€Therefore,€theÐ <Œ Ðjudgment€is€affirmed.Ô#†Xr¨XX Xr¨À#ÔÔ#†¼%´»XXr¨–#ÔÔ‡Xr¨X»¼%´ÔÐ (x ÐÓ´ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼%´»àXr¨#ÔÔ‡Xr¨X.¼%´ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòAlan€E.Ð Ø( ÐGlenn,€J.J.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌChristine€W.€Stephens,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Alexander€A.€Lee,€on€appeal,Ð œì ÐHoward€Wagerman,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€at€trial.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€Mark€E.Ð `° ÐDavidson,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€William€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General,€and€JamesÐ L œ ÐWax,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÔ#†¼%´»XXr¨è#ÔÔ‡Xr¨X»¼%´ÔÌÓ¹ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼%´»XXr¨Ë #ÔÔ‡Xr¨X»¼%´ÔÐ ü#L# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼%´»XXr¨> #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xr¨X»¼%´ÔÌÔ‡ Xr¨XXXr¨Ôà  àThe€Appellant,€Alexander€A.€Lee,€was€indicted€by€a€Shelby€County€Grand€Jury€for€one€countÐ À&"& Ðof€possession€of€300€grams€or€more€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€sell€and€one€count€of€possession€of€300Ð ¬'ü"' Ðgrams€or€more€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€deliver,€class€A€felonies.€€Pursuant€to€the€plea€agreement,Ð ˜(è#( Ðthe€Appellant€pled€guilty€to€one€count€of€possession€of€a€controlled€substance€less€than€.5€grams€withÐ „)Ô$) Ðintent€to€sell,€a€class€C€felony.€€The€Appellant€was€sentenced€to€three€years,€suspended,€with€nineÐ p*À%* Ðmonths€to€serve€at€the€county€workhouse€and€fined€$2,000.€€On€appeal,€he€contends€that€the€trialÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âcourt€ð ðwrongly€denied€probationðð€pursuant€to€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„35„102€and€ðð€40„35„103.€Ð H,˜',ý ÐAdditionally,€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€wrongly€denied€probation€because€he€refusedÐ ° Ðto€divulge€the€name€of€his€drug€supplier.€€Upon€review,€we€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment.Ð œì Ðâ âÌò òÓ  ÓBackgroundÐ tÄ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àDetectives€with€the€Memphis€Police€Department€received€information€that€the€Appellant€wasÐ L œ Ðselling€and€storing€drugs€at€an€apartment€in€Memphis.€€Soon€thereafter,€detectives€set€up€surveillanceÐ 8 ˆ Ðoperations€at€a€location€nearby€and€monitored€the€apartment€for€several€days.€€Throughout€thisÐ $ t Ðperiod,€the€detectives€observed€the€Appellant€coming€and€going€from€the€apartment.€€On€oneÐ  ` Ðoccasion,€the€Appellant€was€seen€carrying€a€clear€grocery€bag€with€a€small€box€in€it.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOn€May€1,€1998,€Memphis€Police€Officers€followed€the€Appellantððs€vehicle€to€the€apartmentÐ Ô$  Ðand€stopped€him.€€The€officers€then€went€to€the€apartment€and€received€consent€to€search€from€theÐ À  Ðresident,€Ms.€Taylor.€€Upon€searching€the€apartment,€the€officers€found€the€box€and€clear€plastic€bagÐ ¬ü  Ðin€a€closet.€€The€box€contained€346€grams€of€crack€cocaine,€which€has€a€street€value€ofÐ ˜è  Ðapproximately€$70,000.€€Ms.€Taylor€admitted€that€she€knew€the€cocaine€was€in€the€apartment,€butÐ „Ô  Ðdenied€that€the€cocaine€belonged€to€her.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€Appellant€denied€the€cocaine€was€his.€€He€explained€to€theÐ H˜ Ðcourt€that€he€was€being€paid€to€sell€the€cocaine€for€another€individual.€€The€Appellant€further€statedÐ 4„ Ðthat€he€had€been€moving€cocaine€for€this€individual€ð ðoff€and€onðð€for€a€period€of€six€or€seven€months.€Ð  p ÐThe€Appellant,€however,€refused€to€disclose€the€individualððs€identity€because€he€ð ðprobably€wouldnððtÐ  \ Ðmake€it€out€there,€after€this,€if€[he]€told€the€name.ðð€€Ð øH ÐÌò òÓ  ÓSentencingÐ Ð  ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€him€total€probation.€€First,€heÐ ¨ø Ðcontends€that€the€court€misapplied€principles€of€sentencing.€€Second,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€theÐ ”ä Ðtrial€court€wrongly€denied€probation€based€on€the€Appellantððs€refusal€to€divulge€the€name€of€his€drugÐ €Ð Ðsupplier.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€courtÐ D!” Ðwas€erroneous.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€168€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,Ð 0"€  Ð473€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€786€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1991).Ð #l! ÐAppellate€review€of€a€sentence€is€òòde€novoóó,€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€theÐ $X" Ðcourt€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997);€òòAshbyóó,Ð ô$D # Ð823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€In€determining€whether€the€Appellant€has€carried€the€burden,€this€court€mustÐ à%0!$ Ðconsider€the€evidence€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€presentence€report,€theÐ Ì&"% Ðprinciples€of€sentencing,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offenses,Ð ¸'#& Ðexisting€mitigating€and€enhancing€factors,€statements€made€by€the€offender,€and€the€potential€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrehabilitation.€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169òòóó;òò€Tenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„35„210€(Supp.€1998).€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àAt€the€time€of€his€arrest,€the€Appellant€was€twenty„one€years€old€,€a€high€school€graduate,€andÐ ° Ðâ âhad€no€prior€criminal€convictions.€€Because€the€Appellant€was€convicted€of€a€class€C€felony,€he€isÐ œì Ðentitled€to€the€presumption€that€he€is€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€òòTenn.Ð ˆØ ÐCode€Ann.óó€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(1997).€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€splitÐ tÄ Ðconfinement,€which€is€listed€as€a€sentencing€alternative€in€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„35„104(4)€(1997).€Ð `° ÐTherefore,€the€trial€court€properly€applied€the€statutory€presumption€under€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„Ð L œ Ð35„102(6).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant,€in€effect,€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€sentencing€him€to€totalÐ  ` Ðprobation.€€ð ðThe€determination€of€whether€the€Appellant€is€entitled€to€an€alternative€sentence€andÐ ü L  Ðwhether€the€Appellant€is€entitled€to€full€probation€are€different€inquires.ðð€€òòBoggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€at€477.Ð è 8  ÐWhere€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing,€the€State€hasÐ Ô$  Ðthe€burden€of€overcoming€the€presumption€with€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910Ð À  ÐS.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1995).€€ð ðConversely,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishingÐ ¬ü  Ð[his]€suitability€for€total€probation,€even€if€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€ofÐ ˜è  Ðalternative€sentencing.ðð€òòId.óó;€€òòBoggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€at€477.€€To€meet€the€burden€of€establishingÐ „Ô  Ðsuitability€for€full€probation,€the€defendant€must€demonstrate€that€probation€will€ð ðsubserve€the€endsÐ pÀ Ðof€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.ðð€òòId.óó€at€456.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€Appellant€was€entitled€to€split€confinementÐ 4„ Ðand€reasoned€in€part€as€follows:Ð  p ÐÌà8  àI€do€find,€though,€that€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousnessÐ øH Ðof€the€offense€to€some€extent.€€He€has€a€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing.€€IÐ ä4 Ðthink€because€of€the€amount€of€drugs,€the€fact€that€he€is€still€unrepentant,€as€far€asÐ Ð  Ðprotecting€everyone€else.€€Whether€itððs€to€protect€himself,€or€for€whatever€reason,Ð ¼  Ðheððs€assuming€the€risk€of€all€that.€€Looking€all€(sic)€of€the€people€he€was€going€toÐ ¨ø Ðvictimize€in€our€community,€without€a€thought€to€it,€and€the€fact€that€Iððm€sure€that€allÐ ”ä Ðthese€other€folks€are€watching€him€very€closely€to€see€what€heððs€going€to€do.€€And€ifÐ €Ð ÐI€just€let€this€man€go,€today,€it€would€tell€(sic)€everybody€a€lesson,€ð ðHey,€if€you€donððtÐ l¼ Ðhave€a€record€you€can€deal€in€large€amounts€of€cocaine€and€you€can€get€away€with€it.ðð€Ð X ¨ ÐSo€I€think€confinement€to€some€extent€is€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrent.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌThus,€the€trial€court€found€that€a€sentence€of€split€confinement€would€both€avoid€depreciating€theÐ #l! Ðseriousness€of€the€offense€and,€at€the€same€time,€provide€an€effective€deterrent.€òò€See€óóòòTenn.€CodeÐ $X" ÐAnn.óó€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€(1997);€òòsee€also€óóòòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€456.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  à€When€making€a€decision€regarding€confinement€because€of€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,Ð Ì&"% Ða€court€should€consider€if€"the€circumstances€of€the€offense€as€committed€[are]€especially€violent,Ð ¸'#& Ðhorrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree."Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòSee€óóòòState€v.€Zeoliaóó,€928€S.W.2d€457,€462€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1996);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€Ð )à$( Ðat€454€(citing€€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€374-375€(€Tenn.€Crim.€App.1991)).€In€the€presentÐ |*Ì%) Ðcase,€the€Appellantððs€involvement€was€not€casual.€€Instead,€the€Appellant€had€in€his€possession€andÐ h+¸&* Ðintended€to€sell€$70,000€worth€of€crack€cocaine.€€Indeed,€the€amount€of€crack€cocaine€was€of€anÐ ° Ðexcessive€degree.€€Moreover,€the€Appellant€admitted€that€he€had€been€a€ð ðsellerðð€for€six€to€sevenÐ œì Ðmonths€prior€to€his€arrest.€€As€the€trial€court€stated,€ð ð€Weððre€talking€about€$70,000€in€armed€robberiesÐ ˆØ Ðand€burglaries€and€murders.€€And€Mr.€Lee€says€he€was€just€a€transporter.€€Well,€if€it€isnððt€transported,Ð tÄ Ðit€wonððt€happen.ðð€€As€the€trial€court€correctly€noted,€the€large€amount€of€drugs€involved€in€this€caseÐ `° Ðwould€be€nothing€less€than€detrimental€to€a€community€and€a€sentence€of€total€probation€wouldÐ L œ Ðdepreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€òòóó€Therefore,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€finding€that€totalÐ 8 ˆ Ðprobation€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€next€found€that€confinement€would€provide€an€effective€deterrent.€€We€agree.€Ð ü L  ÐIn€òòState€v.€Daryl€Hooperóó,€No.€M1997„00031„SC„R11„CD€(Tenn.€at€Nashville,€Sept.€21,€2000)€òò(forÐ è 8  Ðpublication)óó,€our€supreme€court€recently€held€that€a€trial€judge€may€sentence€a€defendant€to€a€termÐ Ô$  Ðof€incarceration€based€solely€on€a€need€for€deterrence€when€the€record€contains€evidence€whichÐ À  Ðwould€enable€a€reasonable€person€to€conclude€that€(1)€deterrence€is€needed€in€the€community,Ð ¬ü  Ðjurisdiction,€or€state;€and€(2)€the€defendantððs€incarceration€may€rationally€serve€as€a€deterrent€toÐ ˜è  Ðothers€similarly€situated€and€likely€to€commit€similar€crimes.€€In€the€present€case,€the€Appellant€wasÐ „Ô  Ðawarded€an€alternative€sentence€of€split€confinement,€wherein€he€was€ordered€to€serve€nine€monthsÐ pÀ Ðincarceration€of€his€three„year€sentence.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€the€Appellant€was€ð ðmakingÐ \¬ Ðhis€living€in€the€drug€businessðð€and€found€that€his€failure€to€reveal€the€name€of€his€supplier€indicatedÐ H˜ Ðthat€he€was€still€ð ðunrepentant.ðð€€Additionally,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€confinement€would€beÐ 4„ Ðan€effective€deterrent€by€stating,€ð ðIf€I€just€let€this€man€go,€today,€it€would€[send]€everybody€a€lessonÐ  p Ð.€.€.€if€you€donððt€have€a€record€you€can€deal€in€large€amounts€of€cocaine€and€get€away€with€it.ðð€€€WeÐ  \ Ðagree€with€the€trial€court€and€find€that€a€period€of€confinement€in€this€case€is€proper.€The€evilsÐ øH Ðattendant€to€drug€trafficking€are€well„known€in€society.€€The€proof€shows€that€the€only€motive€behindÐ ä4 Ðthe€Appellantððs€possession€of€these€drugs€was€to€profit€by€his€intentional€and€illegal€conduct.€òòSee€óóÐ Ð  ÐòòId.óó€€at€8.€€Moreover,€the€Appellant€himself€admitted€to€being€involved€in€other€drug€deals€prior€toÐ ¼  Ðhis€arrest€and€refused€to€disclose€the€name€of€his€supplier€and€those€other€individuals€involved.€€òòSeeóó€Ð ¨ø ÐòòId.óó€at€9.€€Based€on€the€foregoing,€we€find€that€confinement€would€provide€an€effective€deterrent€andÐ ”ä Ðthe€trial€court€properly€relied€on€this€factor€during€sentencing.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àLastly,€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€wrongly€denied€him€total€probation€basedÐ X ¨ Ðupon€the€fact€that€he€refused€to€disclose€the€name€of€his€drug€supplier€when€he€entered€his€guiltyÐ D!” Ðplea.€€We€disagree.€€When€asked€by€the€trial€court€why€he€refused€to€disclose€the€identity€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðindividual€who€supplied€the€crack,€the€Appellant€responded€by€saying€that€he€ð ðprobably€wouldnððtÐ #l! Ðmake€it€out€there,€after€this,€if€[he]€told€the€name.ðð€€Clearly,€a€refusal€to€identify€the€person€whoÐ $X" Ðsupplied€the€drugs€that€the€Appellant€admittedly€sold€demonstrates€deficiencies€in€the€AppellantððsÐ ô$D # Ðasserted€feelings€of€remorse€and€contrition,€and€casts€doubt€upon€his€potential€for€rehabilitation.€Ð à%0!$ ÐòòState€v.€Wesley€Garlandóó,€C.C.A.€No.€240€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Dec.€4,€1989).€€Therefore,Ð Ì&"% Ðthe€Appellantððs€refusal€to€cooperate€may€be€relevant€in€the€determination€of€whether€probation€wouldÐ ¸'#& Ðbest€serve€the€public€and€the€Appellant.€€Thus,€such€a€refusal€may€serve€as€a€factual€basis€for€denialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€probation.€€òòId.óó;€òòSee€also€óóòòState€v.€Ricky€Keeleóó,€No.€02C01„9805„CC„00139€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€atÐ )à$( ÐJackson,€Mar.€22,€1999),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Sept.€13,1999).€€However,€it€is€improper€forÐ |*Ì%) Ða€trial€court€to€deny€alternative€sentencing€based€solely€upon€an€Appellantððs€refusal€to€reveal€theÐ h+¸&* Ðnames€of€his€sources.€€òòState€v.€Ricky€Keeleóó,€No.€02C01„9805„CC„00139òòóó;€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Tim€Hensleyóó,Ð ° ÐNo.€03C01„9102„CR„00040€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Oct.€16,€1991),€òòrevððd€in€part€on€otherÐ œì Ðgroundsóó,€01S01„9203„CR„00026€(Tenn.€Aug.€9,€1993).€€Such€was€not€the€case€here.€€€The€trial€courtÐ ˆØ Ðcorrectly€considered€other€factors,€such€as€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€effective€deterrent,€whenÐ tÄ Ðit€determined€that€alternative€sentencing€was€in€the€best€interest€of€the€Appellant€and€society.€€Thus,Ð `° Ðthe€Appellant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€showing€that€the€imposition€of€an€alternative€sentenceÐ L œ Ðwas€improper.€€€As€such,€we€conclude€that€a€sentence€of€split€confinement€would€serve€the€ends€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðjustice€and€fulfill€the€needs€of€the€Appellant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-306€(1997).ò òÐ $ t ÐÌÌÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÐ è 8  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óUpon€òòde€novoóó€review€and€in€accordance€with€the€presumption€of€correctness,€we€are€unableÐ À  Ðto€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€Appellant€total€probation.€€Finding€the€sentencingÐ ¬ü  Ðdecision€justified,€the€judgment€of€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€is€affirmed.Ð ˜è  Ðà  àÌÔ#†Xr¨XX Xr¨È #ÔÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  \ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE