ÿWPC¿ c…t}7,ìËû¯ R•ºlþ9}­3tR„Í ;ÏÂAñðT`p`V_8œÐ5s@žmËɧ¬]D·¨xXe£/]sKRDdŸô©‘ùÀTL& Å’ªg%Ÿ®`’b‘'ŸÍ]WlRJ A4 ÂØIÒæð ™€ª‚`¯•zvi³K"Þ ze~s³êÈÝŒ\¿JÞ/§ÔgêðÒÌMs,þOû>€'4eÙ[pHK¸ÂGÜ‚DüTé>žD÷T¤ 0§\PJ¾z³Ò¥Ð”–BwÉÌÊ‚ñT&™+Súö\KЦN¨s‚ ý!„·2UM’A‰ü¾êp©3uIçÙƒç•ÄWŠýâ!ê·¡„rfÈt¿"Ò/êaºšCöO™J"`.Aaǃ7(·¹Â«­ãdf®(t"ÀH­‡uظ±„ŠD{6·H¬ÐÁŠ SIMq.µƒ&g›µ¹ãááÌ4// b_C@Ûo5B ,Éĵ]¯P&F=.ïç~/löñnë±N¾Â|.n[dé“çàÒÓ 0&FÃQÎy—Kn&X„$ŠË«£oøÐ¨…Ô^ZäÕT©.¤þ² ïθM› `ê$ ñeven€thoñ> ññ? ññ> ñyhñ> ññ? ññ@ ñugh€defendant€convicted€ofñ@ ñ€statutory€rape).ñF ñ›ñF ñÌà ` àAlthough€defendant€complains€that€he€is€entitled€to€the€minimum€sentenceÏbecause€of€ð ðhis€being€a€good€and€productive€citizen,ðð€the€trial€court€considered€thisÏas€a€mitigating€factor.€€However,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€abuse€of€privateÏtrust€outweighed€that€mitigating€factor.€€The€trial€court€has€the€discretion€toÏdetermine€the€particular€weight€to€be€given€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€Ð ì8<4: ÐòòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€at€238.€€The€trial€court€enhanced€the€defendantððsÐ ° Ðsentence€to€eighteen€(18)€months,€six€(6)€months€above€the€minimum€for€a€RangeÏI,€standard€offender.€€Defendant€has€not€met€his€burden€of€showing€that€theÏsentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€improper.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð  h Ð401(d),€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà@CC àò òC.€€Alternative€Sentencingó óˆÐ €Ð  Ðà ` àDefendant€also€claims€that€he€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€forÏalternative€sentencing,€and€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€a€sentence€to€be€servedÏin€imprisonment.€€Under€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€trial€judgesÏare€encouraged€to€use€alternatives€to€incarceration.€€An€especially€mitigated€orÏstandard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€aÏfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidenceÏto€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).Ìà ` àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€or€deny€probation,€a€trial€court€shouldÏconsider€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendant's€criminal€record,€theÏdefendantððs€social€history€and€present€condition,€the€need€for€deterrence,€and€theÏbest€interest€of€the€defendant€and€€the€public.€€òòState€v.€Grearóó,€568€S.W.2d€285,€286Ð P# " Ð(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€925€S.W.2d€237,€244€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòStateÐ %l $ Ðv.€Blackóó,€924€S.W.2d€912,€917€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð è&8"& Ðà ` àIn€determining€if€incarceration€is€appropriate,€a€trial€court€may€consider€theÏneed€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€having€a€long€history€of€criminalÏconduct,€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€whetherÏconfinement€is€particularly€appropriate€to€effectively€deter€others€likely€to€commitÏsimilar€offenses,€and€whether€less€restrictive€measures€have€often€or€recently€beenÏunsuccessfully€applied€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1);€òòsee€alsoóóÐ °1-2 ÐòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.Ð €3Ð.4 Ðà ` àA€court€may€also€consider€the€mitigating€and€enhancing€factors€set€forth€inÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„113€and€114€as€they€are€relevant€to€the€ðð€40„35„103Ïconsiderations.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(5);€òòState€v.€Bostonóó,€938€S.W.2dÐ ä844: Ð435,€438€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Additionally,€a€court€should€consider€theÏdefendantððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€when€determining€if€anÏalternative€sentence€would€be€appropriate.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5);€òòStateÐ H˜ Ðv.€Bostonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€438.Ð  d Ðà ` àThere€is€no€mathematical€equation€to€be€utilized€in€determining€sentencingÏalternatives.€€Not€only€should€the€sentence€fit€the€offense,€but€it€should€fit€theÏoffender€as€well.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2);€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467Ð xÈ  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Indeed,€individualized€punishment€is€the€essence€ofÏalternative€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€at€305.€€In€summary,Ð ` Ðsentencing€must€be€determined€on€a€case„by„case€basis,€tailoring€each€sentenceÏto€that€particular€defendant€based€upon€the€facts€of€that€case€and€theÏcircumstances€of€that€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€at€235.Ð tÄ Ðà ` àIn€determining€that€defendantððs€sentence€should€be€served€in€incarceration,Ïthe€trial€court€once€again€noted€the€defendantððs€lack€of€prior€criminal€history€andÏadmirable€work€and€social€history.€€However,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€nature€ofÏthe€offense€outweighed€defendantððs€commendable€attributes.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏfocused€on€the€abuse€of€defendantððs€position€of€trust,€stating,€ð ðit€is€that€because€ofÏ[defendantððs]€position,€his€position€of€private€trust,€he€was€able€to€continue€andÏfoster€this€illegal€activity€for€over€two€years.ðð€€The€trial€court€found€that€allowingÏdefendant€to€serve€his€sentence€on€probation€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€ofÏthe€offense.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€sentenced€defendant€to€eighteen€(18)€monthsÏconfinement.Ìà ` àProbation€may€be€denied€based€solely€upon€the€circumstances€surroundingÏthe€offense.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);Ð .T). ÐòòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€theÐ Ð/ +0 Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€as€committed€must€be€especially€violent,€horrifying,Ïshocking,€reprehensible,€offensive€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggeratedÏdegree;€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€must€outweigh€all€factors€favoring€probation.€ÏòòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€at€374„75.Ð 7P28 Ðà ` àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€nature€of€the€offenses€committedÐ Ì84: Ðoutweigh€all€other€factors€in€favor€of€alternative€sentencing.€€The€defendant€initiatedÏa€relationship€with€a€juvenile€member€of€his€congregation.€€The€relationshipÏprogressed€and€continued€over€an€extended€period€of€time,€even€though€theÏinstances€of€sexual€penetration€occurred€within€a€short€period€of€time.€€In€the€courseÏof€this€relationship,€defendant€wrote€many€letters€to€the€victim,€including€one€whichÏdescribed€an€explicit€and€graphic€sexual€ð ðfantasyðð€about€the€victim.€€We€œñH ñconcñH ññI ñludeñI ññH ñ›findñH ñ›Ïthat€the€offenses€committed€were€especially€shocking€and€reprehensible€to€justifyÏthe€denial€of€probation.Ìà ` àFurthermore,€defendant€abused€his€position€of€trust€as€a€pastor.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(15).€€In€addition,€these€offenses€were€committed€to€gratifyÏdefendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7).€ÏThese€enhancement€factors€are€relevant€in€determining€whether€an€alternativeÏsentence€is€appropriate.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(5).Ìà ` àWe,€therefore,€œñG ñholdñG ññG ñ›findñG ñ›€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€failing€to€grant€anÏalternative€sentence.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ø( Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.à  àÐ ¤ô Ðà@##"àò òD.€€Judicial€Diversionó óˆÐ p!À  Ðà ` àDefendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€denyingÏjudicial€diversion.€€When€a€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€errorÏin€refusing€to€impose€a€sentence€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313,Ïcommonly€referred€to€as€ð ðjudicial€diversion,ðð€this€Court€must€determine€whether€theÏtrial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€failing€to€sentence€pursuant€to€the€statute.€€òòStateÐ x*È%* Ðv.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€167€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€857Ð D,”', ÐS.W.2d€571,€572€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòState€v.€Georgeóó,€830€S.W.2d€79,€80Ð .`). Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Judicial€diversion€is€similar€to€pretrial€diversion;€however,Ïjudicial€diversion€follows€a€determination€of€guilt,€and€the€decision€to€grant€judicialÏdiversion€rests€with€the€trial€court,€not€the€prosecutor.€€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€857Ð t3Ä.4 ÐS.W.2d€at€572.Ìà ` àThe€criteria€that€must€be€considered€in€determining€whether€an€eligibleÏaccused€should€be€granted€judicial€diversion€include:€(a)€the€defendantððsÏamenability€to€correction;€(b)€the€circumstances€of€the€offense;€(c)€the€defendantððsÏcriminal€record;€€(d)€the€defendantððs€social€history;€(e)€the€defendantððs€physical€andÏmental€health;€and€(f)€the€deterrence€value€to€the€defendant€as€well€as€to€others.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐòòState€v.€Parkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€945,€958€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€An€additionalÐ xÈ  Ðconsideration€is€whether€judicial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€of€justice,€i.e.,€theÏinterests€of€the€public€as€well€as€the€defendant.€€òòId.óóÐ ` Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€denied€judicial€diversion€on€the€same€grounds€as€its€denial€ofÏalternative€sentencing,€namely€the€nature€of€the€offense€in€light€of€(1)€the€length€ofÏtime€during€which€the€improper€conduct€occurred€and€(2)€the€defendantððs€abuse€ofÏa€position€of€private€trust.€€We€œñJ ñconcludeñJ ññK ñfindñK ñ›€that€the€record€fully€supports€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€to€deny€judicial€diversion.Ìà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌñF ñœñF ñÌñF ñ›œñF ñÌñF ñ›ñF ñà@xx(àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ %X $ ÐÌà ` àWe€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€upheld€the€district€attorneyððs€decision€toÏdeny€pretrial€diversion.€€We€further€find€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€courtÏis€appropriate€under€the€facts€of€this€case.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€is€affirmed.ÌñF ñœñF ññD ñÌñD ññF ñ›ñF ñÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóò òÐ t3Ä.4 ÐñF ñœñF ññC ññB ñÌñB ññC ññF ñ›ñF ñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJOE€G.€RILEY,€ñF ñœñF ñJUDGEñE ñÌñE ññF ñ›œñF ññE ñÌñE ññF ñ›ñF ñÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÐ â925; ЇÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ P ÐJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ $à" ÐCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEó ó