ÿWPCßF … 0VU<kU#6§ 0“Ý 0¾p 0¾. 0¾ì 0¾ª 0nh 0•Ö 0nk 0nÙ 0sG 0º 0R| 0nÎ 0 < 0KF 0F‘’× 1ii# 0 Ò# 0 Þ% Bê' D3(Æ:( 0 ) 0( + AM4+ D++¬+UN¼+ % ,, 0ñ,U: . 1mC.w@°.4ð. 0J/ 0TN/ 0^¢/ 0h0 0rh0 0|Ú0 0†V1 0Ü1 1ul2 0dá2U*E3yo3bè4B)J6DCs6 AM¶6„7v~‡8vÓ: 0dØ? 0<@ 0ŠË@ 0 UA 0´õA 0Ç©B 0ÛpC 0ïKD AO:EƉE 0DOF D/“F BÂF<udÿÿ:Default ParaÓ  ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔô\  `$Times NewRoman<þ6X9`(Courier New.Ä ”ÿÿ,TOC 1Ò ° ÒÓ X ÓÒ ° ÒÓ X ÓÔ  ÔÓ ÜÜ(#T$ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ.· Ìÿÿ,TOC 2Ò ° ÒÓ ° ÓÒ ° ÒÓ X ÓÓ Ü4(#T$ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ8.ÜÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ.· Ìÿÿ,TOC 3Ò ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ X ÓÓ ÜŒ (#T$ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ8.ÜÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ.· Ìÿÿ,TOC 4Ò ° ÒÓ ` ÓÒ ° ÒÓ X ÓÓ Üä (#T$ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ8.ÜÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ.· Ìÿÿ,TOC 5Ò ° ÒÓ ¸ ÓÒ ° ÒÓ X ÓÓ Ü<(#T$ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ8.ÜÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ.« ˆÿÿ,TOC 6Ò ° ÒÓ X ÓÒ ° ÒÓ ÜÜ(#T$ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ.” Æÿÿ,TOC 7Ò ° ÒÓ X ÓÒ ° ÒÓ ¨ý ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ>4Ü,J¢úR ª Z² bºj #>ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ.« ˆÿÿ,TOC 8Ò ° ÒÓ X ÓÒ ° ÒÓ ÜÜ(#T$ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ.« ˆÿÿ,TOC 9Ò ° ÒÓ X ÓÒ ° ÒÓ ÜÜ(#T$ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ2  ”ÿÿ0Index 1Ò ° ÒÓ ° ÓÒ ° ÒÓ X ÓÓ Pû ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ2· Ìÿÿ0Index 2Ò ° ÒÓ ° ÓÒ ° ÒÓ X ÓÓ Ü4(#T$ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ8.ÜÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ:xŸÿÿ8TOA HeadingÓ Ü(#T$ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ;1Ü„¢úR ª Z² bºj #;ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ2Ÿœÿÿ0CaptionÓ;1Ü„Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!T$;ÓÔ€XXXÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ8.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!(#8ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ<jdÿÿ:_Equation CaÔ€ôôôÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ0{Ÿÿÿ.FooterÓ Üìü!(#ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ;1Ü„¢úR ª Z² bºj #;ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ:j¢ÿÿ8Page NumberÔ€ôôôÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÓ>4Ü,J¢úR ª Z² bºj #>ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ' OPINION *Marilyn Hathaway 0 .   $ÿÿ35;AGMU]c1I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)(ä2uå$ªªÝ ƒ&Å×!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€'X¯‘XX#XÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ý(ä2uå$©©Ý ƒ&Å×!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€'X¯‘XX#XÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ý d'ÿÿÈÈÈÈdxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(ä2uå$££Ý ƒ&Å×!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€'X¯‘XX#XÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’A<< cÿÿ'ÈÈÈÈdxd3|x´(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular#X(ÉÅ×$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€'XßÈXX#XÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regularstuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) ¢U£U¤U¥U¦U§U¨b©PªP«Ó€³†;$Ôô2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô+-./0123 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial oÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€<ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ Œ ÒÒ  ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ ` 4ŽXÓÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÌÓ  ÓÔ€ôÔÌ XÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€<ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ Œ ÒÒ  ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÔ€Ô€Ô€ôÔÌÌ% Line 7 d????7Border 1dd€@Cþÿ << Gÿÿ zÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€<ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€<ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€<XÔÌÌJulyÏ30,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€<ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ Ü ÒÒ v ÒÖ€=ÖÖ€>ÖÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ ° ÑÑ ° ÑÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€<ŠÔÔ€Ô›œßR€AB@A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌAPRIL€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔÈ” äÌ ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€,à àœðð›Ìà àà àAPPELLEEà àà àà à€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àœðð›ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àœà àC.C.A.›€No.€01C01„9706„CC„00234Ìà àà àà àà àà àœðð›à àœMARSHALL›€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à€€€à àœHONORABLE›€CHARLES€LEEÌLESA€MAE€MALONEà àà àœðð›Ìà àà àAPPELLANTà àà àœà à(SENTENCING)›ÌÌÌÌÌòòÌFOR€THE€APPELLANTóóà àà àà àœòòFOR›€THE€APPELLEEÌÌóóRobert€H.€Plummer,€Jr.à àà àà àœJohn›€Knox€WalkupÌ415€Bridge€Streetà àà àà àà àœAttorney›€General€and€ReporterÌP.€O.€Box€1361à àà à€€€à àà àœ425›€Fifth€Avenue,€NorthÌFranklin,€TN€€37065„1361à àà àà àœNashville,›€TN€€37243̛̜ÓC€! € H@ä 4CÓà àà àà àà àà àà àœKaren›€M.€YacuzzoÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœAssistant›€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ425›€Fifth€Avenue,€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœNashville,›€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœW.›€Michael€McCownÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœDistrict›€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœMarshall›€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœLewisburg,›€TN€€37091ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœWeakley›€E.€BarnardÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœAssistant›€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœMarshall›€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœLewisburg,›€TN€€37091ÌÌœÌÌOPINION›€FILED:€€_______________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÑ7€#ˆÊ#òòdÄXXdæ7ÑÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓÓœò òOPINION›ÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€defendant,€Lesa€Mae€Malone,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€length€andÏmanner€of€service€of€a€sentence€imposed€by€the€Marshall€County€Circuit€Court€forÏtheft€of€over€$60,000,€a€Class€B€felony.€€She€received€a€sentence€of€ten€(10)€years€inÏthe€Department€of€Correction.€€The€defendant€complains€the€trial€court:€€(1)Ïimproperly€denied€the€alternative€sentencing€of€community€corrections,€(2)Ïimproperly€used€the€defendantððs€pretrial€diversion€from€1984€as€a€conviction€andÏalso€an€element€of€the€crime€to€enhance€the€punishment,€and€(3)€improperly€used€theÏconcept€of€deterrence€when€there€was€no€evidence€to€that€effect€in€the€record.€€AfterÏa€review€of€the€evidence€in€this€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€applicableÏlaw,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÓ  Óò òFACTSÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€Marshall€County€grand€jury€indicted€the€defendant€in€indictment€Ì#€12990,€involving€356€counts€of€forgery€and€in€count€357,€theft€of€property€overÏ$60,000.€€The€offenses€occurred€between€October,€1993€through€January,€1996.€€OnÏDecember€11,€1996,€the€defendant€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€to€count€357,€theft€ofÏproperty€over€the€value€of€€$60,000.€€The€other€356€counts€of€forgery€wereÏdismissed.€€The€trial€court€set€a€hearing€for€February€5,€1997,€to€determine€the€lengthÏof€the€sentence€and€the€manner€of€service.€€The€State€alleges€in€alternative€countsÏ(356)€of€forgery€and€uttering€that€the€defendant€intended€to€defraud€or€harm€theÍMarshall€Medical€Center€of€Lewisburg,€Tennessee€and€Nationsbank€of€Tennessee.€ÏIn€count€357,€the€State€alleges€that€the€defendant,€between€October€15,€1993,€andÏJanuary€19,€1996,€committed€the€offense€of€theft€of€property€from€the€LewisburgÏCommunity€Hospital€DBA€Marshall€Medical€Center€in€the€amount€of€One€HundredÏTwenty„Five€Thousand€Nine€Hundred€Nine€Dollars€and€eighty€cents,€($125,909.80).€œÇ›à àAt€the€entry€of€the€open€plea€of€guilty,€the€State€submitted€a€stipulatedÏstatement€of€facts€as€to€how€the€defendant€committed€these€various€offenses.€€TheÏState€believed€it€could€prove€the€defendant,€while€an€employee€in€the€payrollÏdepartment€of€the€Lewisburg€Community€Hospital,€forged€certain€employeesðð€cardsÏand€time€sheets€by€cutting€checks€for€certain€amounts€and€forging€the€employeesððÏnames€and€cashing€the€same€at€a€bank.€€A€copy€of€the€presentence€report,€introducedÏin€the€sentencing€hearing€(and€in€the€record)€describes€the€defendantððs€criminalÏactivities€as€being€achieved€by€the€defendant€submitting€false€time€sheets€for€allegedÏovertime€hours€on€various€employees€in€the€nursing€department€to€payroll€andÏhaving€additional€checks€issued.€€The€defendant€would€then€forge€the€employeesððÏnames€onto€the€checks,€co„sign€the€checks,€and€cash€them€at€a€local€bank.€€Twenty„nine€(29)€employees€were€the€victims€of€this€scheme.€€Upon€being€confronted€by€theÏhospital€administrators,€the€defendant€admitted€to€committing€these€offenses.€€Also,Ïthe€defendant€confessed€to€the€Lewisburg€Police€as€to€how€she€committed€theseÏoffenses.€Ìà àIn€the€presentence€report,€the€defendant€offered€her€version€of€the€events:ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓœà àð ðI›€began€approximately€in€1994€falsifying€time€sheets€andÏhaving€make„up€checks€written€on€other€employees,€then€I€wouldÏcash€them€for€myself.€€I€was€having€problems€getting€my€childÏsupport€and€I€used€the€money€for€myself€and€to€take€care€of€myÏchildren.€€It€became€regular€to€do€until€I€was€terminated.€€I€realizeÏwhat€I€did€was€very€wrong€and€dishonest.€€I€was€trying€to€take€careÏof€my€children,€but€I€did€live€beyond€my€means.€€I€would€like€theÏchance€to€pay€back€the€money€if€it€takes€the€rest€of€my€life.€I€amÏvery€sorry€for€what€I€did.ððÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓÓò òSENTENCING€HEARINGÌÓ  Óó óà àIn€her€request€for€a€minimum€sentence€and€alternative€sentencing,€theÏdefendant€offered€the€testimony€of€six€witnesses,€including€herself.€€At€theÏcommencement€of€the€hearing€a€disagreement€arose€between€the€State€and€theÏdefendant€about€an€arrest€for€embezzlement€in€1984.€€The€record€establishesÏthat€the€defendant€had€been€arrested€in€1984€for€forgery€in€six€(6)€counts€inÏwhich€she€œÌforged›€checks€of€her€employer,€Dr.€Beech,€in€the€amount€of€$1,900.€ÏApparently,€the€defendant€was€placed€on€pretrial€diversion,€restitution€madeÏand€the€charges€dismissed€and€expunged.€€The€trial€court€believed€there€was€aÏquestion€of€this€arrest€being€relevant€in€the€absence€of€a€conviction,€but€mayÏhave€become€relevant€on€the€question€of€deterrence€as€to€the€defendant.€Ìà àMrs.€Cathy€Darnell,€older€sister€of€the€defendant,€advised€the€trial€courtÏthat€the€defendant€has€a€very€good€relationship€with€her€two€daughters,€agesÏeleven€(11)€and€thirteen€(13).€€Mrs.€Darnell€described€her€sister€as€trying€tooÏhard€to€provide€for€her€children€and€wanting€to€give€them€the€best€ofÏeverything.€€Mrs.€Darnell€believed€her€sister€had€suffered€so€much€and€hadÏlearned€her€lesson.€€Mrs.€Darnell€admitted€she€did€not€ask€the€defendant€whatÏshe€had€did€with€the€$125,909.00,€nor€had€the€defendant€volunteered€anyÏinformation.€€The€witness€saw€no€evidence€of€extravagant€living€on€herÏsisterððs€part.€€However,€the€witness€was€aware€that€her€sister€lived€on€a€farm€inÏa€medium€price€home,€drove€an€Explorer,€and€had€bought€two€horses€forÏfamily€recreation€and€showing.€€Mrs.€Darnell€agreed€the€purchases€andÏupkeep€of€these€horses€were€expensive.€€Mrs.€Darnell€was€aware€of€herÍsisterððs€arrest€in€1984€and€talked€to€her€about€the€event€at€the€time.€€TheÏwitness€informed€the€trial€court€that€the€defendantððs€first€husband€more€or€lessÏabandoned€the€defendant€by€entering€the€military€service€and€leaving€theÏdefendant€with€two€babies.€€An€interesting€aspect€of€Mrs.€Darnellððs€testimonyÏrevealed€that€she€and€the€defendant€had€agreed€to€offer€approximatelyÏ$40,000€for€a€Merle€Norman€cosmetic€franchise,€in€Pulaski,€Tennessee€inÏOctober,€1996.€€The€defendant€was€to€pay€$20,000€for€her€share€of€theÏfranchise€or€be€at€least€responsible€for€her€share.€Ìà àMs.€Virginia€Stuart€and€Ms.€Jamie€Ellis,€co„employees€of€the€defendantÏwhile€at€the€Lewisburg€Community€Hospital,€advised€the€trial€court€that€theyÏhad€the€occasion€to€observe€the€defendant€advance€from€a€switchboardÏoperator€to€œÇsecretary›€of€the€Director€of€Nursing.€€They€both€left€the€hospital€in€1993€andÏwould€see€the€defendant€on€a€social€basis,€either€in€her€home€or€at€horseÏshows.€€Both€witnesses€characterized€the€defendantððs€relationship€with€herÏchildren€as€very€loving.€€Both€witnesses€did€not€observe€any€extravagantÏliving€on€the€defendantððs€part.€€Both€witnesses€expressed€surprise€at€theÏhearing€in€learning€the€defendant€had€been€arrested€in€1984€for€a€similarÏoffense,€but,€being€friends€with€the€defendant,€concluded€that€the€episode€inÏ1984€would€not€change€their€minds€concerning€the€defendant.€Ìà àMr.€Roger€Malone,€the€defendantððs€husband,€testified€he€and€theÏdefendant€married€a€couple€of€years€before€the€hearing.€€His€wife€wasÏemployed€at€the€hospital€as€a€secretary€and€he€did€not€know€her€salary.€€Mr.ÏMalone€was€aware€of€his€wifeððs€problems€with€her€ex„husband€and€his€refusalÏto€pay€child€support.€€Also,€Mr.€Malone€was€aware€of€the€defendantððs€pastÏarrest€and€understood€restitution€had€been€made.€€Mr.€Malone€is€a€€vinylÏsiding€installer,€who€owns€and€paid€for€his€sixty„one€(61)€acre€farm,€whichÏcontained€a€medium€three€bedroom€home.€€Mr.€Malone€estimated€his€incomeÏat€about€$50,000€to€$60,000€in€a€good€year.€€Mr.€Malone€advised€the€trialÏcourt€that€the€defendantððs€two€children€attended€public€schools.€€As€to€theÏoffense,€Mr.€Malone€learned€about€the€charges€two€months€after€theÏdefendant€had€been€released€from€the€hospital.€€The€defendant€had€hiddenÏthis€matter€from€her€husband.€€Mr.€Malone€stated€his€reaction€as€follows:ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ ' ÒÓÓœà àð ðI›€was€very€upset,€very€hurt.€I€worked€hard€all€of€my€lifeÏand€tried€to€make€every€dollar€that€I€could€to€pay€my€own€bills,€andÏit€really€hurt€meðð.€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThe€defendant€never€satisfactorily€explained€to€her€husband€why€she€did€it.ÏWhen€asked€where€the€$125,909.80€went,€the€witness€responded:ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü Òœà àÓÓð ðI›€canððt€tell€you.€I€have€asked€her€a€hundred€times,€and€sheÏcanððt€tell€me.€€If€she€had€gone€out€and€bought€a€$50,000€vehicle€orÏa€$50,000€horse€or€$25,000€diamond€ring,€I€could€understand€whereÏpart€of€it€went.€I€lived€with€her€during€this€time.€€I€couldnððt€explainÏto€you€where€that€kind€of€money€wentðð.€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓMr.€Malone€confirmed€that€the€defendant€purchased€two€spotted€geldings€forÏabout€$3,300,€leased€an€Explorer€in€her€own€name,€and€paid€for€some€lawnÏshrubbery€for€the€home.€€Although€the€defendant€works,€Mr.€Malone,€as€toÏrestitution,€stated:€ð ðI€donððt€see€any€way€she€can€make€full€restitution.ððÌà àMr.€Joe€ð ðBuckðð€Beard,€a€very€close€friend€of€the€defendantððs€husband,Ïadvised€the€trial€court€of€his€observations€of€the€defendant€over€several€years.€ÏMr.€Beard€was€a€former€deputy€with€the€Lewis€County€Sheriffððs€DepartmentÏand€a€former€member€of€the€Lewisburg€Police€Department.€€Since€1993,€Mr.ÏBeard€had€seen€the€defendant€at€horse€shows,€mainly€on€weekends.€€He€askedÏthe€defendant€what€she€did€with€the€money,€to€which€she€replied€she€didnððtÏknow.€€Mr.€Beard€testified€that€the€defendant€did€not€live€an€extravagantÏlifestyle€and€that€possibly€some€of€the€money€went€for€horses€and€training.€ÏMr.€Beard€became€aware€of€the€defendantððs€past€offense€two€weeks€prior€toÏthe€hearing.Ìà àThe€defendant€was€married€at€age€seventeen€(17)€and€two€childrenÏwere€quickly€born.€€The€defendant€and€her€husband€separated€in€1985.€€HeÏjoined€the€military€service€leaving€her€with€a€thirteen€(13)€month€old€and€a€fiveÏ(5)€month€old.€€She€received€some€child€support€while€her€husband€was€in€theÍservice,€but€this€ended€when€he€returned.€€Since€the€defendantððs€divorce,€sheÏhas€worked€at€various€jobs.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing€the€defendant€wasÏworking€two€jobs,€one€at€Brindley€Construction€Company€and€one€at€aÏconvenience€store€on€the€weekends.€€She€estimates€her€income€at€$300€everyÏtwo€weeks.€€Ìà àAt€the€first€of€February,€1996,€the€defendant€was€confronted€by€anÏadministrator€of€the€hospital€concerning€the€payroll€checks.€€The€defendantÏadmitted€what€she€had€done€and€took€sole€blame€for€these€offenses,€includingÏa€statement€of€admission.€The€defendant€described€how€she€committed€theseÏoffenses:Ìà àð ðQ.€€„„how€did€you€decide€to€start€doing€œthis?Ç›à àA.€€I€remember€someone€needing€a€makeup€check€done„„Ìà àQ.€€What€is€a€makeup€check?Ìà àA.€€A€makeup€check€is€a€„„was€a€check€that€was€written€that€wasÏproduced€that€wasnððt€actually€pulled€off€of€the€payroll€sheet.€€If€an€error€hadÏbeen€made,€if€they€didnððt€clock€in€or€clock€out€or€if€someone€failed€to€payÏthem€educational€pay€or€whatever€the€pay€was,€a€makeup€check€was€issued.„„IÏnever€planned€on€doing€it.€It€just€happened.Ìà àà àà àà àà à*******Ìà àQ.€€So€within€three€to€four€months€of€being€placed€in€this€new€position,Ïyou€started€stealing;€is€that€correct?Ìà àA.€€Yes,€sir.€Ìà àQ.€€That€stealing€continued€until€you€got€caught?Ìà àA.€€Yes,€sir.ððÌà àThe€defendant€submitted€to€the€trial€court€a€summary€of€where€sheÏbelieves€the€money€went€and€for€what.€€The€defendant€accounted€forÏapproximately€$71,000€in€this€twenty„seven€(27)€month€period€of€theft,Ïranging€from€the€purchase€of€a€horse€($3,500),€an€Explorer€($10,000),€Wal„Mart€($9,000),€utilities,€and€a€cellular€phone€($2,500).€€The€total€did€not€countÏchild€care,€clothes€or€cash€spent.€The€defendant€admitted€she€had€the€love€ofÏher€husband,€a€home,€food,€clothing€and€the€care€of€her€children.€€Why€thenÏdid€the€defendant€commit€this€theft?Ìà àð ðQ.€€What€you€are€saying€is:€€You€spent€money€on€your€family,€but€thatÏwas€to€bring€them€up€to€the€lifestyle€that€you€wanted?Ìà àA.€€Right.Ìà àQ.€€It€wasnððt€necessities;€it€was€lifestyle?Ìà àA.€€Yes€sir,€you€are€right.ðð€Ìà àThe€defendant€further€admitted€that€in€1984€she€had€stolen€$1,900.00Ïfrom€her€employer,€Dr.€James€Beech.€€The€defendant€was€granted€pretrialÏdiversion.€The€defendant€admitted€advising€the€court€she€would€never€doÏanything€like€this€again.€Ìà àœAfter›€an€eloquent€and€passionate€plea€for€an€eight€(8)€year€sentenceÏœand€›€probation€based€on€the€requirement€of€restitution€in€behalf€of€theÏdefendant,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€a€mid„range€sentence€ofÏten€(10)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.ÌÓ  Óò òMANNER€OF€SERVICE€OF€SENTENCEÌÓ  Óó óà àWe€will€first€review€the€defendantððs€complaint€that€the€trial€courtÏimproperly€denied€an€alternative€sentence,€to„wit;€community€corrections.€€OurÏreview€of€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence€is€òòde€novo€óóupon€the€record€withÏthe€presumption€that€the€trial€courtððs€determination€is€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„401€(d).€€Such€a€review€requires€us€to€consider€the€evidenceÏpresented€at€the€guilty€plea€and€sentencing€hearing,€the€pre„sentence€report,Ïthe€principles€and€purposes€of€sentencing,€the€argument€of€counsel,€the€natureÏand€characteristics€of€the€offense,€the€existing€mitigating€and€enhancingÏfactors,€the€statement€of€the€defendant,€and€the€potential€for€rehabilitation.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210;€òòState€v.€Moss,€óó727€S.W.2d€229Ï(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Taylor,€óó744€S.W.2d€919€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€Ìà àThe€defendant€argues€that€to€place€her€in€the€community€correctionsÏprogram,€in€lieu€of€incarceration,€is€best€for€her€rehabilitation.€€Since€theÏdefendant€is€not€a€violent€nor€an€habitual€criminal,€she€can€be€rehabilitated€inÏsuch€program€and€counseling.€€Further,€the€defendant€contends€she€shouldÏnot€be€denied€community€corrections€placement€due€to€her€prior€bad€act€at€theÏage€of€nineteen€(19),€as€that€offense€occurred€nine€(9)€years€prior€to€theÏcurrent€offense.€€Since€her€arrest,€the€defendant€has€sought€counseling,€whichÏhas€had€a€positive€effect€on€her€life€and€outlook.€€Her€motive€in€committing€theÏpresent€offense€was€to€be€sure€her€œÌfamily›€stayed€with€her.€€She€acknowledges€her€actions€were€wrong€and€sheÏrecognizes€they€were€wrong.€Ìà àIn€response,€the€State€contends€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€orderingÏthe€defendant€to€serve€a€mid„range€sentence€and€in€ordering€the€defendant€toÏserve€her€sentence€in€confinement.Ìà àFurther,€the€State€contends€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€applyingÏcertain€enhancing€factors€to€raise€the€defendantððs€sentence€from€the€minimumÏof€eight€(8)€years€to€ten€(10)€years,€six€(6)€months€and€by€applying€oneÏmitigating€factor€to€reduce€the€sentence€to€ten€(10)€years.€€Also,€the€trial€courtÏwas€correct€in€denying€an€alternative€sentence€to€the€defendant€in€the€form€ofÏcommunity€corrections.Ìà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€set€out€its€rulings€as€toÏthe€proper€sentence€and€denial€of€an€alternative€sentence.€€The€trial€courtÏfound€four€€factors€applicable€to€the€sentencing€procedure.€€In€mitigation€theÍtrial€court€found€the€defendantððs€criminal€conduct€neither€caused€norÏthreatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113€(1).€€InÏenhancement€the€trial€court€found€three€(3)€factors:€€the€defendant€has€aÏprevious€history€of€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€toÏestablish€the€appropriate€range,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ìðð€40„35„114(1);€the€offense€involve€more€than€one€victim,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„114(3);€and,€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust,€or€used€aÏspecial€skill€in€a€manner€that€significantly€facilitated€the€commission€or€theÏfulfillment€of€the€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(15).€Ìà àThe€trial€court€in€applying€enhancement€factor€(1)„„history€of€criminalÏbehavior„„was€impressed€the€defendant€began€committing€these€offenses€six€Ïyears€after€completing€diversion€in€1987.€€Also,€the€trial€court€stated,ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü ÒÓ ` ‹XÓÓÓð ðThe€Court€does€find€that€enhancing€factor€(1)€and€does€placeÏsignificance€on€the€fact€that€we€are€dealing€with€virtually€the€sameÏtype€of€offense,€even€though€committed€in€different€ways.€By€that,€IÏmean€different€schemes.ððÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÓÓà àAs€to€enhancement€factor€(3)„„more€than€one€victim„„the€trial€courtÏfound€this€factor€applicable€because€of€the€unique€facts€in€the€case€and€theÏunique€methodology€employed€by€the€defendant€to€accomplish€the€crime.€ÏThe€presentence€report€contained€a€victim€impact€statement€from€the€MarshallÏMedical€Center€outlining€the€effect€of€these€forged€checks€on€variousÏemployees€in€dealing€with€the€IRS.€€The€trial€court€gave€this€factor€less€weightÏthan€the€others.Ìà àThe€trial€court€placed€great€weight€on€enhancement€factor€(15)„„aÏviolation€of€private€trust€and€special€skill€in€assessing€the€proper€sentence,ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü ÒÓ ` ‹XÓÓÓð ðThe€court€notes€with€interest€that€on€the€expenditures€which€wereÏhad€during€this€time,€the€defendant€spent€some€money€to€go€to€someÏaccounting€school€and€take€some€accounting€courses€while€she€wasÏusing€those€skills€to,€apparently,€purloin€funds€from€her€employer.ÏSo€that€would€be€a€special€skill€in€addition€to€the€violation€of€trust.ððÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÓÓà àThe€defendant€must€establish€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€length€orÏmanner€of€service€of€the€sentence€imposed€is€improper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„401(d).€€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€However,€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€attached€to€the€trial€courtððs€determination€isÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòState€v€Ashby,€óó823€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991).€€Persons€who€are€especiallyÏmitigated€or€standard€offenders€convicted€of€Class€C,€D€or€E€felonies€areÏpresumed€to€be€favorable€candidates€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€theÏabsence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102€(5).€ÏSince€the€defendant€has€plead€guilty€to€theft€over€the€value€of€$60,000,€as€a€Ïstandard€offender,€a€Class€B€felony,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€theÏpresumption€of€a€favorable€candidate€for€an€alternative€sentence.€€Ìà àWe€believe€there€is€ample€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€trialÏcourtððs€determination€that€the€defendantððs€ten€(10)€year€sentence€is€proper.€ÏThe€defendant€complains€that€the€offense€of€1984€should€have€little€weight€inÏdetermining€œanÇenhancement›€of€the€sentence€and€it€was€error€to€consider€this€offense€inÏenhancing€the€defendantððs€sentence.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€courtððsÏassessment€that€the€defendantððs€actions€in€1984€and€the€present€offense€areÏvery€significant.€€In€1984,€the€defendant€stole€$1,900€from€her€employer€and,Ïdue€to€the€benevolence€of€our€criminal€justice€system,€had€the€benefit€ofÏpretrial€diversion€and€no€criminal€record.€€The€nature€of€these€offenses€are€tooÏsimilar€for€a€trial€court€to€overlook.€€Enhancement€factor€(1)€was€properlyÏconsidered€by€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€William€Jeffrey€Carico,€óóòò€€€€€óó€S.W.2d€òò€€€€€óóÏ(Tenn.€1998).€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€complaint.Ìà àSecond,€the€defendant€complains€the€trial€court€improperly€foundÏenhancement€factor€(3)„„more€than€one€victim„„applicable.€€The€defendantÏargues€this€assessment€is€akin€to€stating€an€assault€or€robbery€has€more€thanÏone€(1)€victim€because€the€families€of€the€victims€suffer€as€a€direct€result€of€theÏactions.€A€review€of€the€presentence€report€establishes€the€defendantÏdefrauded€twenty„nine€(29)€separate€co„employees,€as€well€as€the€hospital,€inÏforging€these€ð ðmake€upðð€checks.€€When€these€various€employees€attemptedÏto€correct€their€respective€€financial€conditions,€especially€with€the€IRS,€thatÏwould€be€one€mean€task.€€Although€the€trial€court€did€not€give€this€factorÏgreat€weight,€the€overall€effect€on€these€various€employees€of€these€forgeriesÏwas€substantial.€€The€trial€court€properly€concluded€that€there€was€more€thanÏone€victim€in€this€case,€thereby€justifying€the€use€of€enhancement€factor€(3).€ÏThe€defendantððs€second€complaint€is€without€merit.Ìà àThird,€the€defendant€complains€the€trial€improperly€found€enhancement€œÌfactor›€(15)„„trust€or€use€of€special€skill„„applicable.€€The€defendant€points€outÏtrust€was€certainly€involved,€but€there€was€no€proof€of€a€special€skill€beingÏinvolved.€€However,€the€trial€court,€in€assessing€the€facts€as€to€exactly€how€theÏdefendant€accomplished€these€thefts,€believed€she€utilized€her€accountingÏclasses€to€further€œÌher›€scheme.€€We€find€ample€evidence€in€this€record€that€the€trial€court€didÏproperly€find€this€enhancement€applicable€to€this€defendant.€€There€is€no€meritÏto€this€complaint.€Ìà àAlthough,€the€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€should€have€givenÏgreater€weight€to€the€mitigating€factor€(1)€to€impose€a€sentence€of€eight€(8)Ïyears,€we€find€the€trial€court€correctly€balanced€the€weight€for€each€factor€inÏarriving€at€a€ten€(10)€year€sentence.€€The€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òDenial€ofó óÌò òà àCommunity€Corrections€ProgramÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓó óà àThe€defendant€strongly€contends€she€meets€the€requirements€forÏsentencing€into€the€community€corrections€program€in€order€to€rehabilitateÏher.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106„„Eligible€Offenders,€sets€out€minimumÏcriteria€for€persons€applying€for€alternative€sentences.€€The€defendant€submitsÏshe€falls€within€the€criteria€of:ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü ÒÓ ` ‹XÓÓÓ(2)€€Persons€who€are€convicted€of€property„related,€or€drug/alcohol„related€felony€offenses€or€other€felony€offenses€not€involving€crimesÏagainst€the€person€as€provided€in€title€39,€chapter€13,€parts€1„5;ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÓÓà à(3)€€Persons€who€are€convicted€of€nonviolent€offenses;ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` ‹XÓÓÓ(4)€€Persons€who€are€convicted€of€felony€offenses€in€the€which€the€useÏor€possession€of€a€weapon€was€not€involved;ÌÌ(5)€€Persons€who€do€not€demonstrate€a€pattern€of€committing€violentÏoffenses;€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÓÓà àà àMore€particularly;ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ r ÒÓ ` ‹XÓÓÓ(C)€€Felony€offenders€not€otherwise€eligible€under€subsection€(a),Ïand€who€would€be€usually€considered€unfit€for€probation€due€toÏhistories€of€chronic€alcohol,€drug€abuse,€or€mental€health€problems,Ïbut€whose€special€needs€are€treatable€and€could€be€served€best€inÏthe€community€rather€than€in€a€correctional€institution,€may€beÏconsidered€eligible€for€punishment€in€the€community€under€theÏprovisions€of€this€chapter.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÓÓÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€if€these€offenses€had€been€committedÏbecause€of€an€alcohol€or€drug€problem,€it€would€be€reasonable€to€assume€sheÏwould€receive€community€corrections,€because€her€problem€would€beÏtreatable.€€The€œdefendantÇconcedes›€her€actions€do€not€rise€to€the€level€of€mental€health€problems,€butÏthrough€her€testimony€and€her€counselor€her€problems€are€treatable.€€ThroughÏher€testimony,€the€defendant€verbalized€her€fears€concerning€her€pastÏmarriage,€her€loss€of€her€children,€and€her€ultimate€realization€that€her€fearsÏwere€misplaced.€€Her€counselor,€Susan€Miller,€a€licensed€counselor€andÏtherapist,€believes€the€defendant€can€refrain€from€this€type€of€activity€and€thatÏsupervised€probation€and€therapy€would€benefit€her.€€Thus,€the€defendant,Ïthrough€her€misguided€mental€perceptions,€is€treatable€in€a€communityÏcorrections€system.€Ìà àThe€trial€court,€upon€finding€the€defendant€ineligible€for€probation,Ïbegan€an€analysis€of€the€defendantððs€request€for€community€correctionsÏplacement.€€The€trial€court€found€no€limitations€on€the€sentence€for€communityÏcorrections€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(a).€€In€denying€theÏdefendantððs€request€for€community€corrections,€the€trial€court€was€mostÏconcerned€that€the€defendant€utilized€her€position€of€trust€to€defraud€her€co„employees€and€the€hospital,€and€with€the€large€amount€of€money€taken,Ï$125,909.80.€€In€referring€to€the€sentencing€principles€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„102€(2)€and€(3),€the€trial€court€stated:ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü ÒÓ ` ‹XÓÓÓà àð ðMr.€Plummer€has€done€a€very€good€job€in€arguingÏwhat€the€effect€of€the€impact€of€confinement€to€this€lady€would€beÏupon€her€and€her€family.€But€the€Court€has€to€sit€in€a€position€whereÏit€views€not€only€the€defendant€and€what€would€be€best€for€theÏdefendant,€but€it€has€to€view€the€Courtððs€decision€on€society€as€aÏwhole.ÌÌà àWhat€message€would€we€be€sending€to€our€society,Ïthe€other€people€out€there€who€are€working€in€employmentÏsituations,€young€people,€if€we€told€them€that€you€can€steal€fromÍyour€employer,€not€once,€and€the€second€time€you€steal€from€yourÏemployer,€you€can€steal€$125,000€and€you€wonððt€go€to€jail?€€IððmÏafraid€that€message€has€too€often€been€sent€to€the€young€people€ofÏour€society€and€our€society€in€general.€€That€is€that€which€the€CourtÏhas€to€consider€is€not€only€the€impact€upon€this€defendant€but€uponÏsociety€as€a€whole.Ìà àÌà àThe€Court€does€feel€that€the€crime€of€this€nature€thatÏthe€Court€has€no€other€alternative€than€to€incarcerate€the€defendantÏfor€the€crimes€that€she€has€committed.ððÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÓÓà àA€trial€court€is€entitled€to€a€presumption€of€correctness€in€determining€aÏproper€sentence€if€it€correctly€applied€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€itsÏfindings€are€supported€by€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Boggs,€óó932€S.W.2d€467,Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App..€1996).€€Although,€the€trial€court€did€not€comment€on€theÏsentencing€principles€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103€(1),€(B)€the€trial€courtÏdid€consider€this€subsection.Ìà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103:ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ r ÒÓÓœ›œà à(1)›€Sentences€involving€confinement€should€be€based€onÏthe€following€€circumstances:ÌÌÓ  Ó*€*€*ÌÌÓ  Óà à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€toÏprovide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similarÏoffenses;€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àThe€sentence€imposed€should€be€no€greater€than€that€deserved€for€theÏoffenses€committed,€and€any€inequities€in€sentencing€should€be€avoided.€€TheÏsentence€imposed€should€be€the€least€severe€measure€necessary€to€achieve€theÏpurposes€of€the€Sentencing€Act€of€1989.€€A€defendantððs€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment€should€be€considered€in€determiningÍthe€sentencing€alternative€or€length€of€term.€€Trial€judges€are€encouraged€toÏuse€alternatives€to€incarceration€that€include€victim€compensation,€reparation,Ïor€community€service.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103€(2),€(3),€(4),€(5)€and€(6).€ÏWithin€this€contemplation€is€the€placement€of€an€eligible€candidate€forÏcommunity€corrections.€Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Cummings,€óó868€S.W.2d€661,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€JudgeÏSummers€speaking€for€this€court€said€about€the€role€of€the€communityÏcorrections€program:ÌÓÓœà àà àð ðThe›€Tennessee€Community€œCorrections€Act›€of€1985€was€œÌà àpassed›€by€the€1st€œExtraordinary›€Session€of€the€1985€General€Assembly.€œÌà àThe›€purposes€of€community€corrections€was€to€establish€a€policy€to€œÌà àpunish›€selected,€non„violent€felony€offenders€in€front€end€community€œÇÑ X Ñà àbased€alternatives€to›€incarceration.€€Because€of€prison€overcrowding,Ïœà àà àcommunity›€corrections€was€a€way€to€reserve€secure€confinement€œÌà àfacilities›€for€violent€felony€offenders.€€As€part€of€the€goals€of€the€œÌà àCommunity›€Correction€Act,€the€General€Assembly€established€efficientÏœà àà àcommunity›€corrections€programs;€promoted€accountability€ofÏoffenders€œÌà àto›€their€local€community;€filled€gaps€in€the€local€correctional€system€œÌà àthrough›€the€development€of€a€range€of€sanctions€and€services;€reduced€œÌà àthe›€number€of€non„violent€felony€offenders€in€correctional€institutions€œÌà àand›€jail;€and€provided€ððopportunities€for€offenders€demonstrating€œÌà àspecial›€needs€to€receive€services€which€enhance€their€ability€to€provide€œÌà àfor›€their€families€and€become€contributing€members€of€their€œÌà àcommunityðð.›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„104.ððÌÌÓÓà àWe€agree€that€the€defendant€may€be€entitled€to€consideration€of€theÏbenefits€of€a€community€corrections€program,€but€was€the€defendant€eligibleÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106€(c)?€€The€defendant€must€establishÏunder€subsection€(C)€she€is€òòsuitable€óófor€placement€in€the€communityÏcorrections€program.€€The€defendant€must€establish€a€history€of€chronicÏalcohol,€drug€abuse,€or€mental€health€problems;€these€factors€were€reasonablyÏrelated€to€and€contributed€to€the€offenderððs€criminal€conduct;€the€identifiableÏspecial€need€(or€needs)€are€treatable,€and€the€treatment€of€the€special€needÏcould€be€best€served€in€the€community€rather€than€in€a€correctional€institution.€ÏWe€believe€the€defendantððs€misguided€mental€perceptions€do€not€meet€theseÏrequirements.€Ìà àOrdinarily,€deterrence€alone€is€not€grounds€for€denial€of€communityÏcorrections.€€òòState€v.€Ashby,€óó823€S.W.2d€166,€170€(Tenn.€1991).€€Deterrence€isÏcertainly€a€principle€to€consider€in€sentencing,€but€both€case€law€and€statutesÏcontemplate€that€consideration€should€be€qualified.€€òòState€v.óó€òòAshby,€supra;€ÏStateÌv.€Fletcher,€óó805€S.W.2d€785,€787€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€generalÏdeterrence,€as€well€as€specific€deterrence,€may€be€sufficient€based€on€the€factsÏof€a€particular€case.€€In€òòState€v.€Millsaps,€óó920€S.W.2d€267,€271€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995),€Millsaps,€a€bookkeeper€and€employee€for€a€furniture€company,Ïbetween€1988€and€1991€stole€$80,220.19.€€The€trial€court€denied€probation€onÏthe€ground€of€deterrence€stating:€ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ r ÒÓ ` ‹XÓÓÓð ðI€think€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€this€offense€because€it€involves€an€incredibly€largeÏamount€of€money.ðð€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ r ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÓÓà àIn€affirming€the€trial€courtððs€decision,€Judge€Hayes,€speaking€forÏthis€Court,€stated:ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ r ÒÓ ` ‹XÓÓÓà àð ðHowever,€in€a€case€involving€facts€almost€identicalÏto€those€in€the€instant€case,€we€observed:ÌÌÒ ä ÒÒ r ÒÓ ` hŠXÓà àð ðThat€the€record€supports€the€trialÏcourtððs€reasoning€that€if€people€with€similar€abilities€and€inÏsimilar€positions€to€the€defendant€believed€that€they€couldÏcommit€offenses€of€a€similar€magnitude€without€having€toÏbe€confined€and€without€making€real€restitution,€thereÏwould€be€a€significant€number€of€them€who€would€yield€toÏcriminal€temptation€with€impunity€and€little€concern€for€theÏharm€caused€others„„„unquestionably,€(the€sentencingÏcourt)€rightfully€considered€„„„the€need€for€effectiveÏdeterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar,€seriousÏoffenses.ðð€òòState€v.€Franks,€óóNo.€03C01„9209„CR„00303Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App..€at€Knoxville,€December€22,€1993).€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÓÓà àFrom€our€analysis€of€the€record,€the€defendant€has€not€carried€herÏburden€in€establishing€that€she€should€receive€placement€in€the€communityÏcorrections€program€in€lieu€of€confinement.€€The€trial€court€was€correct€inÏbeing€concerned€regarding€the€seriousness€of€these€multiple€offenses.€€TheÏdefendantððs€conduct€continued€over€a€twenty„seven€(27)€month€period.€€SheÏissued,€forged,€and€cashed€approximately€six€(6)€checks€a€month.€€The€amountÏof€loss€to€the€defendantððs€co„employees€and€her€employer€was€an€incrediblyÍlarge€amount€of€money.€€Was€the€defendant€really€serious€about€restitution?€ÏThe€defendant€offered€$10,000€front€end€restitution,€but€the€evidenceÏsuggested€she€and€her€sister€offered€$40,000€for€a€cosmetic€franchise€inÏPulaski,€Tennessee.€€There€is€also€evidence€in€this€record€the€defendantÏattempted€to€dissuade€a€co„employee,€Becky€Clark,€from€disclosing€theÏdefendantððs€actions€in€regards€to€Clarkððs€checks.€Ìà àAnother€major€hurdle€the€defendant€attempted€to€overcome€was€theÏemployer€thefts€of€1984.€€As€to€the€defendantððs€motive€in€1984,€the€defendantÏstole€from€her€employer€because€she€needed€the€money€to€support€herself€andÏher€very€young€children.€€As€previously€stated,€the€defendant€was€grantedÏpretrial€diversion.€In€this€offense€the€defendant€was€motivated€to€steal,€also€forÏher€children,€but€not€for€necessities.€€The€defendant€wanted€the€good€things€ofÏlife,€such€as€training€horses,€a€satellite€dish,€cable€television,€a€cellular€phone,Ïnice€clothes,€a€computer€and€a€new€Explorer.€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ r Òà àWe€believe€the€trial€court€properly€considered€deterrence€inÏassessing€the€sentence.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° Òà àWe€hold€that€the€factors€in€favor€of€incarceration€outweigh€the€factorsÏagainst,€and€the€defendant€has€failed€to€establish€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdenying€any€alternative€sentence.€€The€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àL.€T.€Lafferty,€Special€JudgeÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌó ó__________________________òòÌóóGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌ__________________________ÌThomas€T.€Woodall,€JudgeÌ