ÿWPC¤ …U.V %„bŠ 0JŽØn­è 0T• 0(éU: w@K 4‹ 0^Ÿ 0™ý 0D– U:Ú 0h 0r| 0|î 0†j 0ð 1u€ 0dõ B)Y B‚DCŸU*â AM âY;fC6© D3ßt”† 0@v~ZvÓØ 0T« AOÿÆN 0D D/X B‡<þ6X9`(CourierX ù2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô3|x0«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular EE "E#$E%&1e'Ó€Ô¡¨ 2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(I(2 T$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XÏXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular26 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  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 d d!!!!7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ØÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌOctober€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ,Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€$Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOur€review€of€sentencing€determinations€is€òòde€novoóó,€with€or€without€aÏpresumption€of€correctness,€depending€on€whether€the€record€affirmativelyÏreflects€that€the€trial€court€has€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€theÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990);ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ì""""'ÿÿdxd jÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€$Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOf€course,€a€defendant€may€choose€to€waive€his€right€to€formal,€judicialÏsentencing€by€accepting€a€settlement€in€which€a€determined€sentence€is€part€ofÏthe€plea€agreement.Ì ŠÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€$Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€fact,€the€court's€lack€of€confidence€in€the€defendant€proved€prophetic,Ïas€evidenced€by€his€subsequent€escape€from€confinement.€€For€purposes€of€ourÏreview,€however,€we€have€not€considered€the€escape.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔ€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€$ÔßR€%&#A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌó óÌà@ àSEPTEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9610„CC„00437Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRutherford€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òCHRISTOPHER€DANE€MCBRIDE,€ó ó€€€à à)à àHonorable€J.S.€Daniels,ÏJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à à(Motion€for€Reinstatement€ofÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Probation)Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌWILLIAM€A.€OSBORNE€à àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAssistant€District€Public€Defenderà àà0 àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ201€W.€Main€St.,€Ste.€101ÌMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130à àà àà àà àGEORGIA€BLYTHE€FELNERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌÌà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àWILLIAM€WHITESELLÌà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDALE€ROBINSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJudicial€Bldg.,€Third€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÑ€(ÑÇÑ7€RhXXdðXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ` ÑÓÓÑ7€ bC XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌà àà àThe€defendant,€Christopher€Dane€McBride,€appeals€the€RutherfordÏCounty€Circuit€Court's€denial€of€his€post„revocation€motion€for€reinstatement€of€Ïprobation.€€€Following€guilty€pleas€to€the€crimes€of€DUI€and€driving€on€aÏsuspended€license,€McBride€was€sentenced€to€11€months,€29€days€at€75Ïpercent€service,€suspended€in€favor€of€48€hours€of€confinement€in€the€countyÏfacility,€17€months,€29€days€probation,€payment€of€costs€and€fines,€andÏrevocation€of€his€driver's€license€for€one€year€for€DUI,€and€6€monthsÏconfinement€at€75€percent,€suspended€in€favor€of€probation€of€17€months,€29Ïdays€on€the€same€conditions€imposed€in€the€DUI€conviction,€for€driving€on€aÏsuspended€license.€€The€sentences€were€imposed€consecutively.€€Thereafter,Ïthe€defendant's€probation€was€revoked€when€he€failed€to€report€to€theÏRutherford€County€Jail€to€serve€his€48€hours€of€confinement.€€He€was€apparentlyÏordered€to€serve€the€balance€of€his€sentence€in€the€county€jail,€and€severalÏweeks€later€he€filed€a€"motion€for€probation,"€which€the€trial€court€denied€after€aÏhearing.€€In€this€appeal,€he€challenges€the€lower€court's€denial€of€that€motion.ÏOn€review,€we€affirm€the€court€below.ÌÌà àà àWe€begin€by€noting€the€question€of€the€propriety€of€the€probationÏrevocation€and€the€procedures€followed€in€that€proceeding€are€not€before€us.€ÍRather,€the€defendant€has€appealed€only€the€court's€subsequent€denial€of€hisÏ"motion€for€probation."€€The€defendant€characterizes€this€action€as€a€sentencingÏdetermination€and€urges€us€to€consider€the€issue€òòde€novoóó,× ƒ) ××  ×€as€we€would€reviewÏa€sentencing€determination€on€direct€appeal.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€stateÏcharacterizes€the€challenged€action€of€the€trial€court€as€a€probation€revocationÏproceeding€and€counsels€us€to€review€the€trial€court's€action€for€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Leachóó,€914€S.W.2d€104,€106€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€ÏWe€do€not€wholly€agree€with€either€argument.ÌÌà àà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„306(c)€grants€the€trialÏcourt€the€authority€to€revoke€a€split€confinement€sentence€and€impose€aÏsentence€in€the€local€jail€or€workhouse€upon€a€violation€of€probation.€€ThisÏsection€likewise€allows€defendants€placed€in€periodic€confinement€pursuant€toÏthe€section€to€make€periodic€applications€for€a€grant€of€probation.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„306(c)€(1990).€€Although€neither€the€record€nor€the€parties'€briefsÏacknowledge€that€the€defendant€was€proceeding€under€this€section€in€hisÏ"motion€for€probation,"€it€is€apparent€that€this€is€the€applicable€law.€€InÍdetermining€how€we€shall€review€the€issue€before€us,€what€we€find€controlling,Ïand€what€neither€party€at€bar€has€argued,€is€the€appropriate€standard€of€reviewÏòòfor€actions€arising€under€this€section€of€the€Codeóó.ÌÌà àà àOur€research€reveals€no€specific€statutory€directive€as€to€theÏproper€standard€of€review€for€determinations€under€section€40„35„306(c).€ÏLikewise,€we€find€no€decisional€authority€directly€on€point€from€this€court€or€theÏsupreme€court.€€We€are€guided,€however,€by€the€standard€of€review€applicableÏto€motions€for€sentence€reduction€under€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€35,€abuseÏof€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Irickóó,€861€S.W.2d€375,€376€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòStateÏv.€Lance€C.€Hofóó,€No.€01C01„9102„CR„00045€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.Ï20,€1991),€òòperm.€app.€dismissedóó€(Tenn.€1992).€€Further,€another€panel€of€thisÏcourt€has€at€least€implied€that€review€for€abuse€of€discretion€is€appropriateÏunder€section€40„35„306(c).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Elbert€Murfree€Marable,€Sr.óó,€No.Ï01C01„9512„CC„00436,€slip€op.€at€6„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Apr.€3,Ï1997)€(trial€court€"within€its€discretion"€in€requiring€defendant€to€serve€a€year€ofÏhis€sentence€before€making€a€reapplication€for€probation€under€ðð€40„35„306(c)).€ÏIt€is€a€logical€extension€of€the€foregoing€authorities€to€apply€abuse€of€discretionÏreview€to€determinations€under€section€40„35„306(c).€€In€so€holding,€we€furtherÏnote€that€such€defendants€have€previously€been€afforded€formal€sentencingÍunder€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act× ƒ+ ××  ×€and€the€right€of€appeal€therefrom,€at€whichÏtime€the€sentence€would€have€been€subject€to€òòde€novoóó€review.ÌÌà àà àTurning€to€the€case€at€bar,€the€defendant€testified€at€the€hearing€onÏhis€motion€for€probation€about€his€failure€to€serve€the€48€hour€incarcerativeÏportion€of€his€sentence€and€characterized€this€as€poor€judgment.€€He€declaredÏhis€intent€to€marry€his€girlfriend,€with€whom€he€has€two€children,€maintainÏemployment€and€live€responsibly.€€He€tendered€a€letter€from€a€prospectiveÏemployer€who€had€agreed€to€interview€him€upon€his€release.€€He€testified€heÏturned€himself€in€upon€learning€of€the€capias€which€was€issued€following€hisÏfailure€to€report€so€that€he€might€get€the€incident€behind€him.€€The€defendantÏclaimed€he€had€learned€his€lesson€from€the€time€he€had€served.€€He€told€theÏcourt€he€would€not€drive€under€any€circumstance€and€had€arranged€forÏtransportation.ÌÌà àà àThe€order€denying€the€application€for€suspended€sentence€reflectsÏsimply€that€the€request€was€denied.€€The€statement€of€the€evidence,€however,Ïreflects€that€the€court€relied€on€the€defendant's€disregard€of€driving€and€trafficÍlaws€as€evidenced€by€the€specific€data€report€prepared€by€probation€personnel,Ïthe€defendant's€prior€probation€revocation,€and€the€defendant's€status€as€anÏhabitual€motor€vehicle€offender.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€before€us€is€but€26€years€old,€yet€he€has€a€lengthyÏcriminal€history€dating€back€to€the€age€of€10,€which€includes€numerous€motorÏvehicle€offenses,€eight€of€which€are€prior€convictions€for€driving€on€a€revoked€orÏsuspended€license,€multiple€theft„related€offenses€and€multiple€alcohol€andÏdrug€related€offenses.€€He€admitted€a€previous€probation€revocation,€and€he€hasÏpreviously€committed€offenses€while€on€probation.€€The€trial€court€had€noÏreason€to€believe€his€testimony€that€his€performance€would€improve€and€everyÏreason€to€believe€his€anti„social€lifestyle€would€continue,€and€it€noted€as€much.× ƒ, ××  ×€ÏThis€is€simply€a€case€in€which€the€defendant's€actions€speak€louder€than€hisÏwords.€€His€conduct€in€this€case€and€his€long€history€of€non„compliance€with€theÏlaw€and€with€the€terms€of€other€alternative€sentences€indicate€further€leniency€isÏnot€likely€to€yield€favorable€results.€€As€such,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€in€denying€his€motion€for€reinstatement€of€probation.€€ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€urges€for€the€first€time€on€appeal€that€the€trialÏcourt€should€have€considered€other€forms€of€alternative€sentencing.€€This€issue,Ïnot€raised€below,€is€not€properly€before€us.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)€("reliefÏmay€not€be€granted€in€contravention€of€the€trier€of€fact").ÌÌà àà àFinally,€we€observe€from€a€notation€on€the€technical€record€that€theÏdefendant€escaped€from€the€workhouse€the€day€after€counsel€filed€a€notice€ofÏappeal€on€his€behalf.€€The€record€does€not€reflect€whether€the€defendant€wasÏever€recaptured.€€In€Tennessee,€a€defendant€who€escapes€waives€his€right€toÏdirect€appeal,€òòFrench€v.€Stateóó,€824€S.W.2d€161€(Tenn.€1992),€unless€he€is€inÏcustody€at€the€time€his€appeal€is€considered€by€the€appellate€court.€€òòKnight€v.ÏStateóó,€190€Tenn.€326,€229€S.W.2d€501€(1950);€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2dÏ591€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€In€appropriate€circumstances,€the€state€may€makeÏa€motion€for€this€court€to€dismiss€an€escapee's€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.ÏApp.€7€(motions€and€orders);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€22€(motions);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€14Ï(consideration€of€post„judgment€facts€in€the€appellate€court).€€Because€the€stateÏhas€not€made€such€a€request€in€this€case€and€the€defendant's€presentÏincarcerative€status€is€unknown,€we€have€not€considered€whether€theÏdefendant's€appeal€is€subject€to€dismissal€based€upon€his€escape.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€lower€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌ