ÿWPC> •nou~À}[@ð* å© y ˜@:ñm¯ô*Zp¢qFÛ’ÀßW0 Õ£´*[&­ãu|Ý9œ—¼f椤Ì9Í-ÌsEºñbf¶ÁVÈÖõý4aämyÍ؃C‚6¸-™óÒ,út\»Y–V]#}T1óßEh…»°/·‰å)êü9ÿÇý…RÒú s£²|Xe>7À1}Õý—‡•|ãαìÌÏ¢Dz±ž_†Ä¾h§!/ z¯ÐÇ”3ì^*Í"5Z^;&ˆžü»Ñˆ±hí°›¤ïïJö–áþGpàÖy¸² à£zë€gM’æ¾:¼Ü/*6h×uë0pÝB§yÿîHá…‘‰Ñðý¼‰ö–<ßÏO‹]Û'ßquË š¬:2w³WA¡Œô³´D¹7d>4á~Dâ‹ùÛ[t6N'sé|yMì˜Aå¹;65d*$§Î¯È“£]ÑŽÙG~þPŸÅëPÕ¬}€ô+ÄÕí)™p…tZ Æc|#©â›ÝÄRð¢Í 9LŸâw…<)Gs¡*ùô,Fy„Ð_5!µà³Æ²ÁT¿sÇéDù{º¬N²¿QÕÆÞÂ,9CE¨êe“Ý›ØêµSß[…Õ^ïA<óz] ™œo Ëub#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U#N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U @‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#éNñU>óóE111111111111111111111111b333333333333333333333333333333333333 0ë;;;; B&& 0¤C D3ç D- 0KGG AS’Æå 0¤« 0DO A«“˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»ö±)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularYo†)ȼœ ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(æ")  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 ô\  `‹&Times New Roman- ù-(|G2”$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôè­ò»»Ô d(|3‡w$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡w$¢¢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€ 9XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îF[ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼[»îîF #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJuly€11,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X 9X»¼[ÔÌò òÔ#†¼[»XX 9#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€GENE€ALLAN€LOGUEÐ úJ ÐÔ‡X 9X»¼[Ôó óÌÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Benton€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„CR831€€€€€€Julian€P.€Guinn,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1999„01795„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€15,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDefendant€was€convicted€of€theft€of€property€over€$500.00,€and€sentenced€to€two€(2)€years€as€aÐ d´ ÐRange€I€standard€offender.€€Defendant€now€appeals€as€of€right,€and€raises€the€following€issues:€€theÐ P  Ðevidence€is€insufficient€to€sustain€his€conviction,€the€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€his€motion€forÐ <Œ Ðjudgment€of€acquittal€because€the€state€failed€to€prove€the€value€of€the€property€stolen€and€the€venueÐ (x Ðof€the€crime€in€Benton€County,€and€the€court€erred€in€sentencing€defendant€to€serve€two€(2)€years€andÐ d Ðfailing€to€consider€alternative€sentencing.€€We€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.Ð P ÐÓ¥ÓÌò òT.R.A.P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼[»àX 9˜#ÔÔ‡X 9X.¼[ÔCornelia€A.€Clark,€Sp.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó€andÐ ° ÐòòAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌTerry€J.€Leonard,€for€appellant,€Gene€Allan€Logue.Ð tÄ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter,€Kim€R.€Helper,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€RobertÐ L œ Ðð ðGusðð€Radford,€District€Attorney€General,€Beth€Boswell,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€forÐ 8!ˆ  Ðthe€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð $"t! ÐÓïÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼[»XX 9#ÔÔ‡X 9X»¼[ÔÐ ü#L# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼[»XX 9° #ÔÔ‡X 9X»¼[ÔÓ  Óà  àDean€Akers€owns€a€cabin€on€New€Hope€Road€in€Benton€County.€€He€is€an€over„the„roadÐ Ô%$!% Ðtruck€driver.€€Ô#†¼[»XX 9 #ÔÔ€X 9X»¼[ÔOn€May€17,€1998,€Akers€returned€from€a€trip,€found€the€cabin€ransacked€andÐ À&"& Ðdiscovered€that€some€of€his€personal€property€from€that€home€was€missing.€€He€eventually€recoveredÐ ¬'ü"' Ðhis€two€missing€alpine€compound€bows€at€the€Pot€ððO€Gold€Pawn€Shop€in€Paris,€Henry€County.€Ð ˜(è#( ÐAkers€testified€at€trial€that€he€had€paid€$650.00€for€one€bow€and€$325.00€for€the€second€bow€whenÐ „)Ô$) Ðhe€purchased€them€approximately€one€year€prior€to€the€theft.€€By€the€time€of€their€recovery€at€theÐ p*À%* Ðpawn€shop€they€had€been€stripped€of€many€of€their€accessories,€and€damaged€significantly.€€He€lastÐ \+¬&+ Ðsaw€the€bows€in€their€original€condition€not€long€before€he€discovered€his€house€ransacked.€€AkersÐ H,˜', Ðnever€gave€the€defendant€or€anyone€else€permission€to€enter€the€house€or€take€the€bows.Ð 4-„(-ý Їà  àDeputy€Richard€Lynn€Gallimore€of€the€Benton€County€Sheriffððs€Department€began€anÐ ° Ðinvestigation€of€the€theft€after€Akers€reported€it.€€The€defendant€was€implicated€in€this€offenseÐ œì Ðbecause€he€pawned€the€two€bows€at€the€Pot€ððO€Gold€Pawn€Shop€in€Henry€County€on€May€16,€1998.€Ð ˆØ ÐDeputy€Gallimore€questioned€the€defendant,€who€gave€a€written€statement.€€He€admitted€pawningÐ tÄ Ðthe€bows€in€Henry€County,€but€refused€to€tell€the€deputy€where€he€obtained€them.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àWilliam€Bryan€Carter,€owner€of€the€pawn€shop,€testified€that€he€gave€the€defendant€$75.00Ð 8 ˆ Ðfor€both€bows.€€He€was€unable€to€speculate€on€the€actual€fair€market€value€of€those€items€becauseÐ $ t Ðthey€do€not€sell€well€in€a€pawn€shop.€€He€testified€that€the€bows€are€ð ðpretty€expensiveðð€to€purchase,Ð  ` Ðbut€that€the€resale€value€is€low.€€Upon€learning€the€true€identity€of€the€owner,€Carter€turned€over€theÐ ü L  Ðbows€to€Akers.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€was€indicted€in€Benton€County€for€the€offense€of€theft€by€obtaining€orÐ À  Ðexercising€control€over€two€alpine€compound€bows€of€a€value€of€more€than€$500.00€but€less€thanÐ ¬ü  Ð$1,000.00.€€The€defendant€did€not€testify€at€trial.Ð ˜è  ÐÌÔ‡ X 9XXX 9Ôà  àThe€defendantððs€primary€argument,€stated€in€several€ways,€is€that€the€evidence€is€insufficientÐ pÀ Ðto€support€his€conviction.€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ð \¬ Ðthe€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,Ð H˜ Ðany€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÐ 4„ Ðdoubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€QuestionsÐ  p Ðconcerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€wellÐ  \ Ðas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.Ð øH ÐPappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€reevaluateÐ ä4 Ðthe€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€A€verdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,Ð Ð  Ðapproved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflictsÐ ¼  Ðin€the€testimony€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.€2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).€€AÐ ¨ø ÐÔ#†X 9XX X 9 #Ôpresumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€of€innocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ð ”ä Ð(Tenn.€1973).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àÔ‡ X 9XXX 9ÔThe€undisputed€proof€in€this€case€is€that€two€compound€bows€belonging€to€the€victim€wereÐ X ¨ Ðremoved€without€his€consent€from€a€home€he€owned€in€Benton€County€sometime€between€mid„AprilÐ D!” Ðand€mid„May,€1998.€€The€defendant€was€observed€in€possession€and€control€of€the€bows€on€May€16,Ð 0"€  Ðwhen€he€pawned€them€in€Henry€County€and€received€money€in€return.€€The€theft€of€the€property€wasÐ #l! Ðdiscovered€by€the€victim€on€May€17,€one€day€after€the€property€was€pawned.€€The€owner€of€theÐ $X" Ðproperty€never€gave€his€permission€for€the€possession€or€taking.€€Ô#†X 9XX X 9N#ÔÔ‡ X 9XXX 9ÔDefendant€never€offered€anyÐ ô$D # Ðexplanation€for€his€possession€of€the€bows,€responding€only€ð ðI€ainððt€sayingðð€when€asked€where€heÐ à%0!$ Ðgot€them.€Ð Ì&"% Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÔ#†X 9XX X 9 #Ôà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39-14-403€provides€that€ð ða€person€commits€theft€of€property€if,€with€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðintent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€property,€the€person€knowingly€obtains€or€exercises€control€over€theÐ )à$( Ðproperty€without€the€ownerððs€effective€consentðð.€€Ô‡ X 9XXX 9ÔPossession€of€recently€stolen€goods€gives€rise€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðan€inference€that€the€possessor€has€stolen€them.€€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€912€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð h+¸&* Ð1995).€€In€this€case€the€defendant€clearly€exercised€control€over€property€without€the€ownerððsÐ ° Ðeffective€consent.€€He€evidenced€his€intention€to€deprive€the€owner€when€he€pawned€the€property.€Ð œì ÐBased€on€the€timing€of€his€possession€in€relation€to€the€discovery€of€the€theft,€and€his€refusal€toÐ ˆØ Ðexplain€how€he€came€into€possession€of€the€items,€a€jury€could€reasonably€conclude€he€was€guiltyÐ tÄ Ðof€theft.€€The€proof€of€these€elements€of€the€offense€are€sufficient€to€support€his€conviction€for€theft.Ð `° ÐÌà  àDefendant€next€contends€that€insufficient€evidence€exists€to€convict€him€of€the€Class€E€felonyÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€theft€of€property€valued€at€more€than€five€hundred€dollars€but€less€than€one€thousand€dollars.€€HeÐ $ t Ðasserts€that€failure€to€prove€the€value€of€the€property€taken€results€in€failure€to€prove€the€offenseÐ  ` Ðitself.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àValue€is€defined€as€ð ð(i)€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€.€.€.€at€the€time€and€place€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðoffense;€or€(ii)€if€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€cannot€be€ascertained,€the€cost€of€replacing€theÐ À  Ðproperty€within€a€reasonable€time€after€the€offenseðð.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„11„106(a)(36)(A).€€Tenn.Ð ¬ü  ÐR.€Evid.€701(b)€permits€the€owner€of€personal€property€to€testify€about€the€value€of€that€property.€Ð ˜è  ÐòòSee€also€Reeves€v.€Stateóó,€523€S.W.2d€218,€220€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975);€òòMeeks€v.€Stateóó,€€519€S.W.2dÐ „Ô  Ð410,€421€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€€Presumably,€he€can€testify€about€either€the€fair€market€value€atÐ pÀ Ðthe€time€of€the€offense€or€the€replacement€cost.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àTheft€is€graded€as€a€Class€E€felony€if€the€stolen€property€is€valued€at€more€than€five€hundredÐ 4„ Ðdollars€but€less€than€one€thousand€dollars.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„14„105(2).€€Theft€is€graded€as€aÐ  p ÐClass€A€misdemeanor€if€the€stolen€property€is€valued€at€five€hundred€dollars€or€less.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ  \ ÐAnn.€ðð39-14-105(1).€€If€property€cannot€otherwise€be€valued,€it€is€presumed€to€have€a€value€of€fiftyÐ øH Ðdollars€or€less.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„11„106(a)(36)(C).€€The€theft€is€then€punished€as€a€Class€AÐ ä4 Ðmisdemeanor.Ð Ð  ÐÌÔ#†X 9XX X 9’ #ÔÔ‡ X 9XXX 9Ôà  àIn€this€case,€the€victim€testified€that€he€originally€paid€$650.00€for€one€bow€and€$325.00€forÐ ¨ø Ðthe€second€bow.€€The€purchase€occurred€just€over€one€year€prior€to€the€theft.€€Although€the€pawnÐ ”ä Ðshop€owner€paid€only€$75.00€for€the€two€bows,€he€declined€to€estimate€their€actual€value€because€Ð €Ð Ðbows€do€not€comprise€a€large€part€of€his€business.€€Additionally,€the€victim€testified€that€the€bowsÐ l¼ Ðwhen€recovered€at€the€shop€were€significantly€stripped€down€from€the€condition€in€which€theyÐ X ¨ Ðexisted€when€he€last€saw€them€before€the€theft.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€determination€of€fair€market€value€is€a€jury€question€based€on€the€evidence€presented€atÐ #l! Ðtrial.€€òòState€v.€Hammóó,€611€S.W.2d€826,€828„829€(Tenn.€1981).€€Given€the€information€presented€Ð $X" Ðconcerning€the€original€purchase€price,€the€original€condition€of€the€bows,€and€the€length€ofÐ ô$D # Ðownership,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€for€the€jury€to€determine€that€the€value€of€the€property€takenÐ à%0!$ Ðwas€more€than€five€hundred€dollars€but€less€than€one€thousand€dollars.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÔ#†X 9XX X 9@+#Ôà  àDefendant€next€contends€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€venue€in€Benton€County.€€An€accusedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðis€entitled€to€a€trial€in€the€county€in€which€the€offense€was€committed.€€òòState€v.€Marburyóó,€908€S.W.2dÐ )à$( Ð405,€407€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Bloodsawóó,€746€S.W.2d€722,€723€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð |*Ì%) Ð1987).€€The€burden€is€on€the€state€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€offense€wasÐ h+¸&* Ðcommitted€in€the€county€specified€in€the€indictment.€€òòMarburyóó,€908€S.W.2d€at€407;€òòBloodsawóó,€746Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€at€724.€€However,€if€one€or€more€elements€of€an€offense€are€committed€in€one€county€andÐ œì Ðone€or€more€elements€in€another,€the€offense€may€be€prosecuted€in€either€county.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.Ð ˆØ ÐP.€18(b).€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„11„201(e)€provides€that€the€state€must€prove€venue€ð ðby€aÐ L œ Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidenceðð.€€The€factual€information€must€be€sufficient€to€cause€the€fact€finderÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€believe€that€an€allegation€is€probably€true.€€For€the€evidence€to€preponderate,€it€must€have€theÐ $ t Ðgreater€convincing€effect€in€the€fact€findersðð€belief.€€òòSeeóó€òòMarburyóó,€908€S.W.2d€at€408.€€Venue€mayÐ  ` Ðbe€shown€by€either€direct€or€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hutchersonóó,€790€S.W.2d€532,€533Ð ü L  Ð(Tenn.€1990).€€A€jury€is€entitled€to€draw€a€reasonable€inference€as€to€venue€from€proven€facts.€€òòStateÐ è 8  Ðv.€Reedóó,€845€S.W.2d€234,€238€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAssuming€arguendo€that€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€was€insufficient€to€establishÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€venue€of€the€offense,€the€remedy€would€be€a€remand€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial,€not€aÐ ˜è  Ðdismissal€of€the€prosecution.€€òòState€v.€Hutchersonóó,€790€S.W.2d€532,€534„535€(Tenn.€1990).Ô‡ X 9XXX 9ÔÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àHowever,€in€this€case€venue€has€been€proven€by€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€DefendantÐ \¬ Ðwas€indicted€for€obtaining€or€exercising€control€over€property€in€Benton€County.€€Theft€is€deemedÐ H˜ Ðto€be€a€continuing€course€of€conduct.€€òòSee€State€v.€Lon€Mitchell€Pierce,€Jr.óó,€Sullivan€County,€No.Ð 4„ Ð03C01„9703„CR„0017€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€September€10,€1998).€€The€taking€occurredÐ  p Ðin€Benton€County.€€The€defendant€was€observed€in€possession€of€the€stolen€goods€in€Henry€County.€Ð  \ ÐHis€pawning€of€the€property€there€clearly€evidenced€his€intention€to€deprive€the€owner€of€theÐ øH Ðproperty.€€Since€some€elements€of€the€offense€took€place€in€two€different€counties,€the€state€had€theÐ ä4 Ðright€to€prosecute€in€either€county.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€finally€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€denied€alternative€sentencingÐ ¨ø Ðbased€solely€on€his€refusal€to€name€the€person€he€claims€actually€took€the€property€in€Benton€County.€Ð ”ä ÐHe€asserts€that€the€trial€court€acknowledged€his€presumptive€eligibility€for€alternative€sentencing,Ð €Ð Ðbut€found€that€the€defendant€represented€a€threat€to€society€and€was€not€amenable€to€rehabilitationÐ l¼ Ðsolely€because€he€would€not€name€the€ð ðfriendðð€who€had€sold€him€the€bows€in€question.Ô#†X 9XX X 9t8#ÔÔ‡ X 9XXX 9ÔÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range€or€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€thisÐ 0"€  Ðcourt€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€de€novo€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ #l! Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401€(d).€€ThisÐ $X" Ðpresumption€is,€however,€€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÐ ô$D # Ðconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð à%0!$ ÐS.W.€2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider€(a)€the€evidence,€ifÐ ¤(ô#' Ðany,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€the€presentence€report;€€(c)€the€principlesÐ )à$( Ðof€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðcriminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementsÐ h+¸&* Ðthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitationÐ ° Ðor€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð40„35„102,€„103,€and€„210;€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.€2d€859,Ð œì Ð863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ð ˆØ ÐÌÔ#†X 9XX X 9¢>#ÔÔ‡ X 9XXX 9Ôà  àUnder€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€trial€judges€are€encouraged€to€useÐ `° Ðalternatives€to€incarceration.€€The€defendant,€convicted€of€a€Class€E€felony,€is€presumed€to€be€aÐ L œ Ðfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„102(6).€€However,€Ô#†X 9XX X 9¦D#Ôthe€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€probation€restsÐ $ t Ðwith€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„303(b).€€The€statutory€presumption€of€an€alternativeÐ  ` Ðsentence€may€be€rebutted€by€ð ðevidence€to€the€contraryðð.€€See€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40-35-102(6).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAmong€the€factors€applicable€to€an€application€for€probation€are€the€circumstances€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðoffense,€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€social€history,€and€present€condition,€and€the€deterrentÐ À  Ðeffect€upon€and€the€best€interest€of€the€defendant€and€the€public.€€òòState€v.€Grearóó,€568€S.W2d€285,€286Ð ¬ü  Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€Alternative€sentencing€issues€must€be€determined€by€the€facts€and€circumstances€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthe€individual€case.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€235€(Tenn.€1986).€€ð ðEach€case€must€beÐ „Ô  Ðbottomed€upon€its€own€factsðð.€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€Ð pÀ ÐBecause€sentencing€requires€an€individualized,€case€by€case€approach,€the€method€of€analysis€willÐ \¬ Ðnecessarily€embody€the€exercise€of€discretion€at€the€trial€court€level.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2dÐ H˜ Ð785€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€ð ðIt€is€not€the€policy€of€this€court€to€place€trial€judges€in€a€judicialÐ 4„ Ðstraight„jacket€in€this€or€any€other€area,€and€we€are€always€reluctant€to€interfere€with€their€traditionalÐ  p Ðdiscretionary€powers.ðð€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€171.€(quoting€òòMoten€v.€Stateóó,€559€S.W.2d€770,€773Ð  \ Ð(Tenn.€1977)).Ð øH ÐÔ‡X 9XXX 9ÔÌÔ#†X 9XXX 9.M#ÔÔ‡ X 9XXX 9Ôà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€two€enhancement€factors€applied€to€this€case:€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð Ð  Ððð40-35-114(1)€„€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior,€and€(8)€„€previousÐ ¼  Ðhistory€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€theÐ ¨ø Ðcommunity.€€We€find€both€enhancement€factors€to€be€applicable.€€The€defendant,€who€was€onlyÐ ”ä Ðnineteen€(19)€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€sentencing,€already€had€two€alcohol„related€misdemeanorÐ €Ð Ðconvictions.€€Additionally,€those€offenses€were€committed€after€the€defendant€was€released€on€bailÐ l¼ Ðfollowing€his€arrest€in€the€instant€case.€€Further,€at€the€time€of€sentencing,€defendant€had€twoÐ X ¨ Ðadditional€charges€pending€which€were€alleged€to€have€been€committed€while€he€was€on€probationÐ D!” Ðfrom€the€earlier€alcohol„related€cases€and€released€on€bond€in€the€instant€case.€€All€of€these€mattersÐ 0"€  Ðwere€considered€by€the€trial€judge€in€reaching€his€sentencing€decision.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àIt€is€improper€for€a€trial€court€to€deny€alternative€sentencing€based€solely€on€a€defendantððsÐ ô$D # Ðrefusal€to€reveal€the€names€of€his€sources.€€òòSee€State€v.€Ricky€Keeleóó,€No.€02C01„9805„CC„00139,Ð à%0!$ ÐHardin€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€March€22,€1999).€€However,€a€trial€court€may€considerÐ Ì&"% Ðsuch€refusal€along€with€other€factors€in€determining€whether€alternative€sentencing€is€in€the€bestÐ ¸'#& Ðinterest€of€the€defendant€and€society.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Larry€Neal€Wilsonóó,€No.€02C01„9303„CC„00040,Ð ¤(ô#' ÐHardin€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€April€6,€1994).€€Ô#†X 9XX X 9qM#ÔÔ‡X 9XXX 9ÔA€lack€of€candor,€bearing€upon€theÐ )à$( Ðdefendantððs€amenability€to€probation,€is€a€basis€for€denying€probation.€€òòState€v.€Neelyóó,€678€S.W.2dÐ |*Ì%) Ð48,€49€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Similarly,€aÐ h+¸&* Ðdefendantððs€untruthfulness€is€a€factor€that€can€be€considered.€€òòState€v.€Bunchóó,€646€S.W.2d€158,€160Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€1983).€€Ô#†X 9XXX 9ØT#ÔÔ‡ X 9XXX 9ÔÐ œì ÐÔ#†X 9XX X 9ÛV#ÔÌÔ‡ X 9XXX 9Ôà  àBased€on€the€defendantððs€prior€criminal€history,€his€lack€of€apparent€amenability€toÐ tÄ Ðrehabilitation,€as€well€as€his€lack€of€candor€about€how€he€received€the€bows,€this€court€finds€that€theÐ `° Ðpresumption€of€alternative€sentencing€has€been€rebutted.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð L œ ÐÌÔ#†X 9XX X 93W#Ôà  àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€above,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.Ð $ t ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGE