ÿWPC™ ä‚ÃÖüú«Zhq+¿sˆµÒYú‹Že ÖÎ@çïZ1q1³$…ƒ y`LØ¥ÄO´¬i¾%»¿ÅwâÆÆîc`ˆÏ,†­îå•ï N®¨ €-Ñ‚Ulk¦8+Nîõµy4)ew“K'µfy¢û‚ßÏ© @Â%ß@!©ÎP¼Ÿ1>ß±÷ò Õã:¼`[®·äÈne)s³Þ’[=Øâq†§Žx²óÖý ^öï¾ÁÏ˰ó պƯUzlOq—n%檑x'{Í¡F…òøvój.Ú!qDcáÅjê „†B­Â°;>Œ\qZT—Ù–Ño.ÍѼ(´ýðc©T¯å-Ê]®q3²øÏ„Δ†é½ãB‘TØìBxƺËǼ½`—·ØæUö„Ë-+¾ecò‘´=üµ4ñb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 U%N¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ UN™ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ9 0DÿNC²EEE÷÷÷2ùùùùùD++++++++++++++++boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 0 wwww B 0¤ž D3B D-u 0K¢¢ ASíÆ@ 0¤ 0Dª A«î˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»t‰11Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularóbï.ê:i¢×+00 ˜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(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ¨Ý ƒRS$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôó]ò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]òòôó]ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôó]òòôó]ÔÔ‡ X iXò ôó]ÔÔ#† ôó]òX X i¼#ÔAccording€to€the€presentence€report,€the€defendant€graduated€from€Science€Hill€High€School€in€Johnson€CityÐ ° Ðin€1983.Ô#†ôó]òò ôó]#Ô McCRARY CuppCrockettCochranElizabethtonKestnerCrumley TBIwarrantlessw]ellamazing[ly i]ft]hereAshby Cmtsc]onfinementm]easuresGrayson S.Ct L.EdWendallVernita i]nNeeleya]lthoughCutshawShipley t]heto to :Ý ƒRS$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôó]ò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]òòôó]ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòóóTheÔ‡»W±»òôó]Ô€Ô#†ôó]ò»»W±¦#Ôdefendant€also€asserts€that€he€was€entitled€to€judicial€diversion€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ ° Ðsection€40„35„313.€€While€the€defendant€does€seem€to€meet€the€statutory€criteria€for€judicial€diversion,€we€note€that€theÐ Â Ðdecision€to€grant€or€deny€a€qualified€defendant€judicial€diversion€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóóÐ †Ö ÐòòState€v.€Electroplating,€Inc.óó,€990€S.W.2d€211,€229€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998);€òòState€v.€Cutshawóó,€967€S.W.2d€332,€344Ð Jš Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€168€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€trial€courtððs€decisionÐ ^ Ðwill€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion,€which€occurs€only€when€the€record€is€devoid€of€anyÐ Ò" Ðsubstantial€evidence€in€support€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€òòSeeóó€òòCutshawóó,€967€S.W.2d€at€344;€òòBonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€atÐ – æ Ð168;€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€857€S.W.2d€571,€572€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€That€is€not€the€case€here.- ù-(›G2S$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€W±»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ôó]ò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]òòôó]Ô d(|3Œ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€W±»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Œ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€W±»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€W±»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼W±»»»ÔÑ8€ iXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îQdW±ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼W±»îîQd #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€18,€2004Ð üL ÐÔ‡X iX»¼W±ÔÌò òÔ#†¼W±»XX i #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€RAYMOND€K.€McCRARYÔ‡X iX»¼W±Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Washington€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€27453€€€€€€Robert€E.€Cupp,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„02368„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€17,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X iXXX iÔThe€defendant,€Raymond€K.€McCrary,€pled€guilty€to€one€count€of€manufacture€of€a€Schedule€VIÐ xÈ  Ðcontrolled€substance,€marijuana,€a€Class€E€felony,€and€one€count€of€possession€for€resale€of€aÐ d´ ÐSchedule€VI€controlled€substance,€marijuana,€also€a€Class€E€felony.€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€RangeÐ P  ÐI,€standard€offender€to€one€year€in€the€Department€of€Correction€on€each€count€to€be€servedÐ <Œ Ðconcurrently.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€denyingÐ (x Ðalternative€sentencing.€€Based€on€our€review,€we€affirm€the€length€of€the€sentence€but€modify€it€toÐ d Ðreflect€a€period€of€incarceration€of€sixty€days,€with€the€remainder€to€be€served€on€probation€withÐ P Ðappropriate€conditions€to€be€established€by€the€trial€court.Ð ì< ÐÔ#†X iXX X iÉ#ÔÔ#†¼W±»XX i”#ÔÔ‡X iX»¼W±ÔÓ½ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed€asÐ Ä ÐModifiedó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼W±»àX i¯#ÔÔ‡X iX.¼W±ÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòJamesÐ ˆØ ÐÔ_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌDavid€Crockett€and€Jerome€Cochran,€Elizabethton,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Raymond€K.Ð L œ ÐMcCrary.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Seth€P.€Kestner,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€JoeÐ #`" ÐC.€Crumley,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Steven€R.€Finney,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ü#L# ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ô#†¼W±»XX i› #ÔÔ‡X iX»¼W±Ô€Ð è$8 $ ÐÓl ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼W±»XX io #ÔÔ‡X iX»¼W±ÔÐ À&"& ÐòòóóÔ#†¼W±»XX i÷ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X iX»¼W±Ôò òÔ‡ X iXXX iÔÌòòÓ  ÓFACTSÐ ˜(è#( ÐÓ¥ ÓÌà  àó óóóThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€manufacture€of€a€Schedule€VI€controlled€substanceÐ p*À%* Ð(marijuana)€and€possession€for€resale€of€a€Schedule€VI€controlled€substance€(marijuana).€Ð \+¬&+ ÐSubsequently,€he€filed€a€motion€to€suppress,€alleging€that€the€arresting€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÐ H,˜', ÐInvestigation€(ð ðTBIðð)€agents€conducted€an€unlawful€warrantless€search€of€one€of€his€rental€propertiesÐ 4-„(-ýú ÐÔ_Ôin€Johnson€City.€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€the€State€introduced€the€defendantððs€confession,€writtenÐ ° Ðout€by€one€of€the€TBI€agents€and€signed€by€the€defendant.€€The€defendantððs€testimony€concerningÐ œì Ðthat€written€confession€is€the€centerpiece€of€this€appeal.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€toÐ ˆØ Ðsuppress,€and€the€defendant€pled€guilty€to€both€charges€and€was€sentenced€to€one€year€on€eachÐ tÄ Ðcharge,€to€be€served€concurrently.€€At€the€probation€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€alternativeÐ `° Ðsentencing€based€upon€the€courtððs€belief€that€the€defendant€had€committed€perjury€at€the€suppressionÐ L œ Ðhearing€when€attempting€to€explain€his€signed€confession.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€confession,€signed€by€the€defendant€and€dated€August€10,€2001,€stated€as€follows:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àI€Raymond€Keith€McCrary€did€water€and€light€and€attempt€toÐ è 8  Ðgrow€marijuana.€€I€was€attempting€to€grow€the€marijuana€to€make€aÐ Ô$  Ðlittle€extra€money.€€I€was€attempting€to€grow€the€marijuana€as€far€backÐ À  Ðas€November.€€I€brought€[the€TBI€agent]€into€the€grow€room€when€heÐ ¬ü  Ðarrived,€on€this€date,€to€show€him€the€marijuana.€€I€did€attempt€to€getÐ ˜è  Ðrid€of€the€marijuana€by€destroying€it€(flushing€it€down€the€toilet).€€IÐ „Ô  Ðbrought€[the€TBI€agent]€in€the€room€on€my€own€in€an€attempt€toÐ pÀ Ðcooperate.€€I€found€the€marijuana€in€the€room€in€November.€€I€believeÐ \¬ Ða€black€male€by€the€name€of€.€.€.€was€growing€the€marijuana€before€IÐ H˜ Ðtook€it€over.€€I€have€not€been€coerced€in€anyway€to€sign€or€make€thisÐ 4„ Ðstatement.€€Again,€I€want€to€cooperate€fully.€€When€[the€TBI€agent]Ð  p Ðarrived,€on€this€date,€I€had€approximately€6€plants€still€growing.€€I€hadÐ  \ Ðlet€approximately€10€plants€die€prior€to€this€time.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà  àFor€the€sake€of€judicial€economy,€we€will€summarize€the€defendantððs€ð ðperjuredðð€testimonyÐ Ð  Ðas€well€as€the€trial€courtððs€reasoning€for€denying€alternative€sentencing.Ð ¼  ÐÔ#†X iXX X i‚ #ÔÔ‡ X iXXX iÔÌà  àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€the€defendant,€apparently€to€the€surprise€of€even€his€own€attorney,Ð ”ä Ðcontended€that€the€confession€he€actually€signed€began€halfway€down€the€page€with€the€sentence€ð ðIÐ €Ð Ðbelieve€a€black€male€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€defendant€accused€the€TBI€agent€of€later€adding€everything€beforeÐ l¼ Ðthat€sentence.€€The€defendantððs€defense€throughout€the€case€was€that€someone€else€had€constructedÐ X ¨ Ðthe€grow€room€in€his€building€without€his€knowledge€and€that€once€he€discovered€the€operation,Ð D!” Ðseveral€months€before€his€arrest,€he€began€slowly€and€methodically€getting€rid€of€the€marijuana,€evenÐ 0"€  Ðtaking€some€to€his€house€for€disposal.€€Later,€the€defendant€contested€the€sentence€of€the€confessionÐ #l! Ðconcerning€the€continued€growing€of€six€marijuana€plants.€€When€asked€by€the€trial€court€why€heÐ $X" Ðsigned€the€confession€that€contained€statements€he€did€not€make,€the€defendant€first€stated,€ð ðIððmÐ ô$D # Ðilliterateðð€and€then€said,€ð ðWell,€I€can€read€and€write€to€a€certain€point.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defendant€said€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðwhen€the€TBI€agent€read€the€statement€back€to€him,€ð ðit€didnððt€sound€the€same.ðð€€At€his€probationÐ Ì&"% Ðhearing,€the€defendant€told€the€trial€court€that€he€had€a€ð ðdyslexic€disease.ðð€€The€trial€court€found€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdefendantððs€testimony€unbelievable,€saying€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing€that€the€defendantððs€testimonyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwas€the€ð ðmost€incredible€thing€Iððve€ever€watched€in€the€courtroomðð€and€that€the€defendantÐ ° Ðintentionally€ð ðfabricatedðð€his€story€and€ð ðliedðð€under€oath.€Ð œì ÐÌà  àAt€the€probation€hearing,€Zane€Loveless,€a€former€Johnson€City€police€officer,€testified€thatÐ tÄ Ðhe€had€known€the€defendant€since€1995.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€was€ð ðwell€thought€ofðð€in€theÐ `° Ðcommunity€and€was€a€truthful€person.€€To€his€knowledge,€the€defendant€had€never€been€involved€inÐ L œ Ðmanufacturing,€selling,€or€using€marijuana.€€Loveless€said€that€he€talked€to€the€defendant€two€or€threeÐ 8 ˆ Ðdays€after€the€law€enforcement€officials€found€the€marijuana,€and€the€defendant€told€him€that€he€hadÐ $ t Ðnot€given€a€statement.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àKaren€Shipley,€the€defendantððs€sister„in„law,€testified€that€the€defendant€had€always€been€aÐ è 8  Ðgood€citizen€and€that€he€worked€ð ða€lot€of€hours€trying€to€take€care€of€[Mrs.€McCrary]€and€their€threeÐ Ô$  Ð(3)€children.ðð€€Asked€about€the€defendantððs€dyslexia,€Shipley€said€that€she€had€not€been€aware€of€itÐ À  Ðuntil€a€few€years€ago€and€ð ðmost€often€people€that€have€those€sort€of€problems€will€overcompensate,Ð ¬ü  Ðand€theyððre€not€going€to€let€people€know€just,€you€know,€I€donððt€know€why€theyððre€embarrassed€byÐ ˜è  Ðit,€but€they€are.ðð€€She€said€the€defendant€had€always€been€honest€in€the€business€dealings€she€and€herÐ „Ô  Ðhusband€had€with€him.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àTeresa€McCrary,€the€defendantððs€wife,€testified€that€they€had€been€married€nine€and€a€halfÐ H˜ Ðyears€and€had€three€children,€ages€9,€7,€and€2.€€She€said€she€had€not€seen€any€marijuana€plants€on€theÐ 4„ Ðpatio€at€their€home€because€ð ð[t]he€patio€is€off€our€garage€on€the€very€top,€and€I€seldom€go€up€there.ðð€Ð  p ÐThe€defendant€never€told€her€that€he€had€found€marijuana€in€his€building.€€According€to€Mrs.Ð  \ ÐMcCrary,€the€defendant€does€have€a€dyslexic€problem.€€As€to€the€defendantððs€truthfulness,€she€saidÐ øH Ðshe€had€never€ð ðcaught€him€in€any€lies.ðð€Ô#†X iXX X i#ÔÔ‡ X iXXX iÔÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àAt€the€probation€hearing,€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€defendant€had€committed€perjury€byÐ ¼  Ðlying€under€oath€in€the€courtroom.€òòò òó óóó€Nonetheless,€the€trial€court€acknowledged€that€the€defendant€hadÐ ¨ø Ða€very€good€record,€indicating€that€if€it€were€not€for€the€defendantððs€untruthfulness,€he€would€haveÐ ”ä Ðbeen€ð ðhome€freeðð€and€even€if€he€had€been€convicted€by€a€jury,€the€court€would€have€ð ðdiverted€himÐ €Ð Ðin€a€heartbeat.ðð€€Although€the€trial€court€considered€the€defendantððs€presentence€report€to€beÐ l¼ Ðð ðamazing[ly]ðð€good,€it€denied€alternative€sentencing€based€on€the€defendantððs€untruthfulness:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAnybody€that€listened€to€him€knew€that€he€was€lying€that€day.€€AndÐ 0"€  Ðthen€the€next€question€is€whether€or€not€the€defendant€mightÐ #l! Ðreasonably€be€expected€to€be€rehabilitated,€and€the€defendantððsÐ $X" Ðpotential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation,€including€the€risk€thatÐ ô$D # Ðduring€the€period€of€probation€the€defendant€will€commit€anotherÐ à%0!$ Ðcrime.€€I€canððt€trust€him.€€He€lies,€not€only€to€just,€you€know,€itððs€notÐ Ì&"% Ða€lie€between€two€individuals€where€youððre€trying€to€tell€a€little€whiteÐ ¸'#& Ðlie€to€get€an€advantage,€this€is€lying€to€God.€€Thatððs€who€he€swore€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€tell€the€truth,€and€he€didnððt.€€So,€you€know,€I€do€consider€that€in€hisÐ )à$( Ðpotential€for€rehabilitation.€€When€he€lies€under€oath€to€try€to€avoidÐ |*Ì%) Ðthis€charge,€it€creates€a€problem€in€this€courtððs€mind€as€to€whether€orÐ h+¸&* Ðnot€he€can€appropriately€be€rehabilitated€.€.€.[i]f€heððll€lie€to€God,€heððllÐ ° Ðlie€to€a€probation€officer,€and€thatððs€a€problem.Мì` x` x ÐÌThe€trial€court€concluded,€ð ðThereððs€enough€in€this€record,€in€the€courtððs€opinion,€to€make€him€serve€Ð tÄ Ðthis€sentence€without€exception,€which€would€mean€he€would€be€in€jail€for€a€hundred€and€five€(105)Ð `° Ðdays.ðð€€Ð L œ Ðòòò òÌÓ  ÓANALYSISÐ $ t ÐÌóóI.€€Standard€of€ReviewÐ ü L  ÐÌÓ 2Óà  àó óWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthis€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€"the€determinationsÐ À  Ðmade€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d)Ð ¬ü  Ð(2003).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÐ ˜è  Ðcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ð „Ô  Ð823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€presumption€does€not€apply€to€the€legal€conclusionsÐ pÀ Ðreached€by€the€trial€court€in€sentencing€the€accused€or€to€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€courtÐ \¬ Ðwhich€are€predicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2d€305,€311€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð H˜ ÐApp.€1994);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€929€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871Ð 4„ ÐS.W.2d€163,€166€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€However,€this€court€is€required€to€give€great€weight€toÐ  p Ðthe€trial€court's€determination€of€controverted€facts€as€the€trial€court's€determination€of€these€factsÐ  \ Ðis€predicated€upon€the€witnesses'€demeanor€and€appearance€when€testifying.Ð øH Ðò òÌà  àó óIn€conducting€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider€(a)€any€evidenceÐ Ð  Ðreceived€at€the€trial€and/or€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€the€presentence€report,€(c)€the€principles€ofÐ ¼  Ðsentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(e)€the€nature€andÐ ¨ø Ðcharacteristics€of€the€offense,€(f)€any€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors,€(g)€any€statements€made€byÐ ”ä Ðthe€accused€in€his€own€behalf,€and€(h)€the€accused's€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitationÐ €Ð Ðor€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-103,€-210;€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,€829€(Tenn.Ð l¼ ÐCrim.€App.€1987).Ð X ¨ Ðò òÌà  àó óThe€party€challenging€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€has€the€burden€of€establishingÐ 0"€  Ðthat€the€sentence€is€erroneous.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401,€Sentencing€Commission€Cmts.;Ð #l! ÐòòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.ò òÐ $X" ÐÓ  ÓÌII.€€Denial€of€Alternative€SentencingÐ à%0!$ ÐÓ  Óó óÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€placed€him€on€probation€or€judicialÐ ¸'#& Ðdiversion€and€that€the€denial€of€alternative€sentencing€was€wrongful€because€the€ð ðsole€basis€for€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconfinement€is€that€the€trial€court€suspects€he€lied.ððà  àÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€enacted€to€ð ðpromote€justice,ðð€Tenn.Ð ° Ðâ âCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102€(2003),€provides€that€the€sentence€imposed€upon€an€offender€should€be€theÐ œì Ðð ðleast€severe€measure€necessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€for€which€the€sentence€is€imposed.ðð€Tenn.Ð ˆØ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(4)€(2003).€€Thus,€trial€judges€are€ð ðencouragedðð€to€use€ð ðalternatives€toÐ tÄ Ðincarceration€that€include€requirements€of€reparation,€victim€compensation€and/or€communityÐ `° Ðservice.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(6)€(2003).€€An€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offenderÐ L œ Ðconvicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternativeÐ 8 ˆ Ðsentencing€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(2003).€ò òÐ $ t Ðà  àÌà  àó óIf€an€offender€meets€the€criteria€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40-35-102(6),€theÐ ü L  Ðtrial€court€"must€presume€that€he€is€subject€to€alternative€sentencing."€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€Ð è 8  ÐHowever,€if€the€court€is€presented€with€"evidence€sufficient€toò ò€ó óovercome€the€presumption,ò ò€ó óthenò ò€ó óitÐ Ô$  Ðmay€sentence€the€defendant€to€confinement€according€to€the€statutory€provision."€€òòId.óó€€TheÐ Ä  Ðpresumption€in€favor€of€alternative€sentencing€may€be€overcome€by€facts€contained€in€theÐ °  Ðpresentence€report,€evidence€presented€by€the€State,€the€testimony€of€the€accused€or€a€defenseÐ œì  Ðwitness,€or€any€other€source,€provided€it€is€made€part€of€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Parkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€945,Ð ˆØ  Ð958€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ð tÄ Ðò òÌà  àó óEvidence€sufficient€to€overcome€the€presumption€in€favor€of€alternative€sentencing€includesÐ Lœ Ðevidence€showing€that€"[c]onfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€whoÐ 8ˆ Ðhas€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct,"€"[c]onfinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÐ $t Ðseriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€toÐ ` Ðothers€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses,"€or€"[m]easures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€haveÐ üL Ðfrequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ è8 Ð40-35-103(1)(A)-(C)€(2003);€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.Ð Ô$ Ðà  àÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€acknowledged€that€none€of€these€factors€were€present.€Ð ¬ü ÐAccording€to€the€presentence€report,€the€defendant€had€no€prior€criminal€record.€€In€the€words€of€theÐ ˜è Ðtrial€court,€ð ðthe€facts€and€circumstances€surrounding€this€offense€or€the€nature€of€the€criminalÐ „Ô Ðconduct€is€no€big€earth€shattering€experience.ðð€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€determined€thatÐ pÀ Ðconfinement€in€this€case€ð ðcanððt€deter€anybody€except€[the€defendant].ðð€€Finally,€no€ð ðmeasures€lessÐ \ ¬ Ðrestrictive€than€confinementðð€have€ever€been€applied€to€the€defendant,€unsuccessful€or€otherwise,Ð H!˜ Ðbecause€this€is€his€first€arrest€and€conviction.Ð 4"„  Ðà  à€€Ð  #p! Ðà  àThe€sentencing€considerations€mandated€by€the€legislature€go€beyond€those€included€in€theÐ  $\" Ðabove€three€factors.€€A€trial€court€should€also€consider€the€potential,€or€lack€of€potential,€of€theÐ ø$H # Ðdefendant€for€rehabilitation.€It€is€well-established€that€lack€of€truthfulness€is€probative€of€aÐ ä%4!$ Ðdefendant's€prospects€for€rehabilitation.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Graysonóó,€438€U.S.€41,€50-52,€98€S.€Ct.Ð Ð& "% Ð2610,€2616,€57€L.€Ed.€2d€582€(1978);€òòState€v.€Shane€Wendall€Yankeeóó,€No.€03C01-9507-CC-00200,Ð ¼' #& Ð1996€WL€438792,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€6,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Feb.€3,Ð ¨(ø#' Ð1997).€€à ` àÐ ”)ä$( Ðâ âà  àÐ €*Ð%) Ðà  àIn€òòState€v.€Robert€Duff€and€Vernita€Coxóó,€No.€02C01„9307„CR„00152,€1995€WL€390951,€atÐ ° Ðâ â*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€28,€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Nov.€6,€1995),€we€noted€thatÐ œì Ðð ð[i]n€accordance€with€this€general€principle,€Tennessee€courts€have€repeatedly€held€thatÐ ˆØ Ðuntruthfulness€is€a€factor€which€may€be€considered€in€determining€the€appropriateness€of€probation.ððÐ tÄ Ðòòóó(citing€òòState€v.€Neeleyóó,€678€S.W.2d€48,€49€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Bunchóó,€646€S.W.2d€158,€160Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€1983)).€€In€addition,€ð ð[a]lthough€untruthfulness€is€not€mentioned€as€a€factor€in€Tenn.€CodeÐ L œ ÐAnn.€ðð€40-35-103(1),€this€court€has€continued€to€declare€it€a€relevant€factor€in€determining€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðsuitability€of€probation€subsequent€to€the€enactment€of€the€1989€Act.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,Ð $ t Ð857€S.W.2d€571,€574€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)Ô#†X iXX X i÷(#ÔÔ‡ X iXXX iÔ).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€the€defendantððs€untruthfulness€can€be€used€as€the€only€reasonÐ è 8  Ðto€deny€alternative€sentencing€and€probation.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Unlike€the€typical€situation€in€which€the€defendantÐ Ô$  Ðis€untruthful€at€his€trial€or€sentencing€hearing,€here€it€was€at€a€pretrial€suppression€hearing.€€That€factÐ À  Ðdoes€not€change€our€analysis€in€this€case.€€We€addressed€the€same€issue€the€defendant€raises€in€òòÐ ¬ü  ÐRobert€Duff€and€Vernita€Coxóó,€òòóó1995€WL€390951,€at€**3„4òòóó,€where€we€held€that€in€some€cases,€it€isÐ ˜è  Ðproper€to€deny€alternative€sentencing€based€solely€on€the€defendantððs€untruthfulness:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àIn€òòState€v.€Leoneóó,€No.€02C01-9206-CR-00148€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð \¬ ÐApp.€September€29,€1993),€this€court€reversed€a€trial€court's€denial€ofÐ H˜ Ðalternative€sentencing€based€solely€on€the€defendant's€lack€of€candorÐ 4„ Ðto€the€court.€€On€the€other€hand,€in€òòState€v.€Jenkinsóó,€733€S.W.2d€528,Ð  p Ð534-536€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)€this€court€upheld€the€denial€ofÐ  \ Ðprobation€based€purely€on€the€untruthfulness€of€the€defendant.ûÿÿdûÐøH` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àüÿÿdüThus€it€is€clear€that€in€some€cases€the€imposition€of€a€sentenceÐ Ð  Ðof€total€confinement€based€solely€on€the€ground€of€the€defendant'sÐ ¼  Ðuntruthfulness€is€proper,€while€in€other€cases€it€is€not.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.Ð ¨ø ÐRussellóó,€773€S.W.2d€913,€915€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)€(theÐ ”ä ÐSentencing€Reform€Act€intends€that€sentences€should€be€consideredÐ €Ð Ðon€a€case€by€case€basis).Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€(footnote€omitted).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€this€defendant's€lack€of€candor€and€truthfulness€indicatesÐ #l! Ðthat€he€does€not€possess€the€attributes€necessary€to€rehabilitate€himself.€€Evidence€in€the€recordÐ $X" Ðsupports€this€conclusion.€€We€note€specifically€this€defendant's€shifting€excuses€for€his€untruthfulnessÐ ° Ðand€his€inability€to€take€full€responsibility€for€his€criminal€behavior.€We€commend€the€trial€courtððsÐ œì Ðdesire€to€protect€the€honor€and€sanctity€of€the€court€and€the€oath€taken€by€a€witness€to€tell€the€ð ðtruthÐ ˆØ Ðand€the€whole€truth.ðð€However,€we€are€ever€mindful€of€the€fact€that€this€defendant€does€not€have€aÐ tÄ Ðð ðlong€history€of€criminal€conduct.ðð€€In€fact,€this€is€his€first€arrest€or€conviction.€€Even€the€trial€courtÐ `° Ðacknowledged€the€relative€seriousness€of€the€underlying€crime€as€compared€to€others.€€Under€theÐ L œ Ðcircumstances€of€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€untruthfulness€of€the€defendant€ð ðdoes€not€constituteÐ 8 ˆ Ðsufficient€evidence€to€overcome€the€statutory€presumption€that€[he]€is€a€favorable€candidate€forÐ $ t Ðalternative€sentencing.ðð€€òòRobert€Duff€and€Vernita€Coxóó,€1995€WL€390951,€at€*4.€€Therefore,€weÐ  ` Ðconclude€that€the€evidence€supports€some€period€of€incarceration,€but,€as€a€presumptive€candidateÐ ü L  Ðfor€alternative€sentencing€and€a€first-time€felony€offender,€split-confinement€is€the€appropriateÐ è 8  Ðsentence.Ð Ô$  ÐÌò òòòÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óóóÐ ¬ü  ÐÓÂaÓÌà  àThe€defendantððs€sentence€is€affirmed€as€to€length€but€modified€to€reflect€a€period€ofÐ „Ô  Ðincarceration€of€sixty€days,€with€the€remainder€to€be€served€on€probation€with€appropriate€conditionsÐ pÀ Ðto€be€established€by€the€trial€court.Ð \¬ ÐÌÔ#†X iXX X ibS#ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE