WPC,  W t8O~*fnDEfJ\fZ.M?T Wr@B57y&uM蒚s&`7{f9\0QG*9'1*xp~ǬK<6`=4U+GqNC^4  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtisAffirmed  f   # Ƥ  X# XX . ƤJerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJosephM._Tipton_,J.,andThomas > T._Woodall_,J.,joined. * NancyMeyer,Clinton,Tennesseeattorneyfortheappellant,ChristopherLindsay.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter,MarvinS.Blair,Jr.,Nashville,Tennesseeand   JamesN.Ramsey,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,JanHicks,AssistantDistrictAttorney,fortheappellee, v!  StateofTennessee. b"! N @@OO& OPINION # Ƥ X X} # XX  Ƥ :$# # Ƥ X XZ #    ƤXX@$# XXXX #WORKRELEASE# Ƥ X X # XX  ƤԈ &b!%    Thedefendantchallengesthetrialcourtsdecisionnottoallowhimtoparticipateinawork &N"& releaseprogram.Hearguesthatthecourterredwhenitheldthatthecourtwaswithoutauthorityto ':#' orderthedefendanttoparticipateinsuchaprogramXXX XԀ# XXXX#becauseAndersonCountydidnothaveawork (&$(  releaseprogram. )&%)   Contrarytothedefendantsassertion,AndersonCountysfailuretoinstituteaworkrelease   programdoesnotviolatethedefendantsrighttoequalprotection.Equalprotectionisguaranteed  byboththeUnitedStatesandTennesseeConstitutions.  #  2      ׀Although"[_t]he_Ԁequalprotectionprovisions  oftheTennesseeConstitutionandtheFourteenthAmendmentarehistoricallyandlinguistically t distinct,"theTennesseeSupremeCourthasstatedthatArticleI,section8andArticleXI,section8 ` oftheTennesseeConstitutionconfer"essentiallythesameprotection"astheequalprotectionclause L  oftheUnitedStatesConstitution.Statev.Tester,879S.W.2d823,82728(Tenn.1994)(citing 8  TennesseeSmallSchoolSystemsv._McWherter_,851S.W.2d139,152(Tenn.1993)). $ t   Underboththestateandfederalconstitutions,astatutedoesnotunconstitutionallycreate  ` anunreasonableclassificationunlessitappliestosomegroupsandexcludesothers.Statev._Teasley_,  L  653S.W.2d761,762(Tenn._Crim_.App.1983).Thatisnotthecaseherebecausethestatutesat  8  issueareequallyapplicabletoallcounties.Section412128allowsthemandatoryminimum $  incarcerationforasecond_DUI_Ԁconvictiontobeservedinaworkreleaseprogramprovidedcertain   conditionsaremet.UntilTester,however,theactonlyappliedtodefendantsincountieswitheither   ametropolitanformofgovernmentorapopulationofsevenhundredthousand(700,000)ormore. #  3      ׀   SeeTenn.CodeAnn.41-2-128(c)(1)&(9)(1990&Supp.1993).TheTesterCourtheldthe   statuteunconstitutionalbecausethelegislaturehadnorationalbasisforexcludingninetytwo(92) p countiesfromtheprogram.Tester,879S.W.2dat830.Inresponsetothedecision,theState \ Legislatureagainpassedthestatute,butwithoutthelanguagerestrictingtheprogramtocertain H counties.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.412128(1997).TheLegislaturealsoamendedsection134,  whichprovidedproceduresforimplementationoftheprogramtothecounties,toreflectthechanges  tosection128.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.412134(1997).    Furthermore,theTennesseeLegislaturehasclearlystatedthat [_a]ll_Ԁcountiesinthestate..# Ƥ X Xl # XX  Ƥ t .# Ƥ X X# XX  Ƥmay# Ƥ X X;# XX  Ƥinstituteaworkreleaseprogram....Tenn.CodeAnn.412133(Emphasisadded).The ` useofthepermissiveword mayindicatesthat,whilethelegislatureintendedtoauthorizeeach L  countytoinstituteaworkreleaseprogram,itdidnotintendtheprogramtobecompulsory.Thus, 8  theamendedstatutesdonotcompeleachcountytocreateaworkreleaseprogram.Inshort,this $ t legislationhasnotcreatedaclassification;indeed,ithasspecificallydeclinedtodoso.Thus,the  ` defendantsequalprotectionrightsarenotimplicated.  L      Furthermore,becauseAndersonCountydidnothaveaworkreleaseprogram,thetrial  8  courtdidnoterrinsentencingthedefendantasitdid.Workreleaseisaformofprobationandis, $  therefore,aprivilegeandnotaright.Statev._Correll_,626S.W.2d699(Tenn.1982);XXX XԀ# XXXX #Statev.   Lowe,661S.W.2d701(Tenn.Crim.App.1983).XXX XԀ# XXXXb!#Wehavebeenunabletofindanysupportfor   thedefendant'sargumentthattrialcourtsshouldsentencedefendantstoworkreleaseevenwhen   thecountyinwhichthedefendantissentenceddoesnothaveaworkreleaseprogram.Nordowe   findanyauthoritygivingatrialjudgetherighttoorderamisdemeanorsentencetobeservedina  countyotherthantheoneinwhichtheoffenseoccurred.XXX XԀ# XXXX##Thus,wefindnoerrorinthetrial  court'sdeterminationthatthedefendantmustservefortyfive(45)days,thestatutoryminimum  incarcerationforasecondDUI,injail.Thisissuehasnomerit. p    # Ƥ X X# XX  ƤPERIODICCONFINEMENT# Ƥ X X%# XX  Ƥ  H     Thedefendantnextarguesthatthetrialcourtshouldhaveorderedhimtoservehissentence 4 onaperiodicbasis.Punishmentfordrivingundertheinfluence,secondoffenseisgovernedbyTenn.  p CodeAnn.55-10-403(1998).Therelevantportionsofthisstatutestate:  \ ` ` (a)(1)Forconvictiononthesecondoffense,thereshallbeimposeda H fineofnotlessthansixhundreddollars($600)normorethanthree 4 thousandfivehundreddollars($5,000)andthepersonorpersons   shallbeconfinedinthecountyjailorworkhousefornotlessthan   fortyfive(45)daysnormorethaneleven(11)monthsand  twenty-nine(29)days,andthecourtshallprohibitsuchconvicted   personorpersonsfromdrivingavehicleinthestateofTennesseefor ! aperiodoftimeoftwo(2)years....Afterserviceofatleastthe l"  minimumsentencedayforday,thejudgehasthediscretiontorequire X#! anindividualconvictedofaviolationoftheprovisionsof_Secs_. D$" 55-10-401--55-10-404toremovelitter...provided,thatanyperson 0% # [so]sentenced...shallbeallowedtodosoatatimeotherthansuch &l!$ person'sregularhoursofemployment. 'X"% (b)(1)Nopersonchargedwithviolatingtheprovisionsof_Secs_. (0$' 55-10-401--55-10-404shallbeeligibleforsuspensionofprosecution )%( anddismissalofchargespursuanttotheprovisionsof_Secs_. *&) 40-15-102--40-15-105and40-32-101(a)(3)-(c)(3)orforanyother +&* pretrialdiversionprogram,norshallanypersonconvictedundersuch  sectionsbeeligibleforsuspensionofsentenceorprobationpursuant  toSec.40-21-101[repealed]oranyotherprovisionoflaw  authorizingsuspensionofsentenceorprobationuntilsuchtimeas t suchpersonhasfullyserveddayfordayatleasttheminimum ` sentenceprovidedbylaw. L  ` ` ThisCourthasdeterminedthattheterms dayfordayexcludethepossibilityofperiodic $ t confinementfora_DUI_Ԁoffenderuntiltheoffenderhasservedthemandatoryminimum.Statev.  ` _Gurley_,691S.W.2d562,56364(Tenn._Crim_.App.1984).Furthermore,despiteprovisionsinthe  L  SentencingReformActof1989thatprovideforperiodicconfinement,theTennesseeSupremeCourt  8  heldthattheSentencingReformActdoesnotapplyto_DUI_Ԁsentencesinwhichapplicationoftheact $  wouldserveto alter,amend,ordecreasethepenaltiesprovidedbylaw.Statev.Palmer,902   S.W.2d391(Tenn.1995).XXX X #  4      ׀# XXXX2#ThisCourthaspreviouslyheldthatallowingaDUIoffendertoserve   hismandatoryminimumsentenceonaperiodicbasiswouldimpermissiblyalterthepenalty   envisionedbyTenn.CodeAnn.5510403.SeeStatev.DarrelJohnEast,No.01C019408CC   0288,1995WL562239,at*2(Tenn._Crim_.App.atNashville,Sept.22,1995).Thus,thetrialcourt  correctlyheldthatitwaswithoutauthoritytoorderthedefendanttoservehismandatoryminimum p sentenceonaperiodicbasis. \   Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED. H    4 %    # Ƥ X XX%# XX  Ƥ   `     h     ___________________________________  \    `     h     JERRYSMITH,JUDGE