ÿWPCJ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ  w@4 0Jt 0T¾ 0^ 0hp 0rØ 0|J 0†Æ 0L 1uÜ 0dQ U>µ B)ó DCU*_ AM‰ BÖîóv~ávÓ_ D32 0@e AO¥Æô 0Dº D/þ B-˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡Úƒç"3|x` ÿBYERSÿÿBYERSÿ L PM EN O EP Q R S T U Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d äÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òSeptember€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  Ý›Ò ž ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ž ÒÒ £ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÓ  ÓÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€$&"A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÌÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌSEPTEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÒ ž ÒÒ î ÒÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)à àNO.€03C01„9502„CR„00037Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àBLOUNT€COUNTY€ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€C„8150Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€D.€KELLY€THOMAS,€JUDGE€ÌROBERT€L.€MILLER,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœ(incest,›€one€count)Ì€à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€à àà àà àà àÌà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌKevin€Shepherdà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ404€Ellis€Avenueà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMaryville,€Tennessee€37801à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLisa€A.€YacuzzoÌœRobert€C.€Edwards›à àà àà àà àà àœAssistant›€Attorney€GeneralÌœ707€Market€Street›à àà àà àà àà àœ404›€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌœKnoxville,€Tennessee€37902›à àà àà àœNashville,›€Tennessee€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMike€FlynnÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÒ ž ÒÒ , Òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBlount€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMaryville,€Tennessee€37801Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________ÌÌÌÌAffirmedÌÌÌÌLee€Russell,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌÒ ž ÒÒ X Òòòò òÓ  ÓÓ` °ŽXB'0*ŒXÓÌOPINIONó óÌÌÑ7€edXXdìXXdì7ÑÓ  ÓÓÓà àóóThis€case€is€an€appeal€as€a€matter€of€right€by€Robert€L.€Miller€(ð ðAppellantðð),Ïwho€was€convicted€of€one€count€of€incest€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏðð€39„15„302.€€The€Appellant€appeals€from€the€judgment€of€the€Hon.€D.€Kelly€Thomas,ÏJr.,€Judge€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€Blount€County,€Tennessee,€who€denied€theÏAppellantððs€application€for€probation€and€imposed€a€sentence€of€five€years€in€theÏlocal€jail€with€work€release.€€The€Appellant€challenges€both€the€denial€of€probationÏand€the€length€of€the€sentence€given.€€We€affirm€the€trial€judgeððs€denial€of€probationÏand€the€imposition€of€the€five€year€sentence.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOn€January€31,€1994,€the€Blount€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€the€Appellant€onÏa€single€count€of€incest.€€The€indictment€alleged€that€the€Appellant€sexuallyÏpenetrated€his€daughter,€Amanda€J.€Miller,€in€May€of€1993.€€The€Appellant€waived€hisÏright€to€a€trial€by€jury€and€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€on€August€2,€1994.€€A€sentencingÍhearing€was€conducted€on€September€27,€1994,€at€which€the€State€presented€no€liveÏwitnesses€but€rather€relied€upon€the€Presentence€Report.€€The€Appellant€also€offeredÏno€live€testimony€but€relied€upon€the€Presentence€Report€and€on€a€letter€from€a€BillÏTillery,€a€licensed€clinical€social€worker.€€The€report€of€a€Dr.€Abraham€Brietstein,ÏPh.D.,€with€Clinical€and€School€Associates,€was€part€of€the€Presentence€Report.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€trial€judge€found€two€enhancing€factors€that€he€said€would€cause€theÏsentence€to€be€increased€from€the€minimum€sentence€of€three€years€up€to€six€years.€ÏThese€enhancing€factors€were€the€fact€that€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable€dueÏto€her€age€and€that€the€Appellant€abused€a€position€of€trust€that€significantlyÏfacilitated€the€commission€or€fulfillment€of€the€offense.€€The€trial€court€also€found€as€aÏsentencing€consideration€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€thatÏincarceration€was€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offenseÏand€that€confinement€was€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€toÏothers€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses.€€The€trial€judge€found€two€mitigating€factorsÏpresent€which€caused€him€to€reduce€the€sentence€from€six€years€back€down€to€fiveÏyears,€which€is€the€sentence€that€was€ultimately€imposed.€€The€judge€allowed€theÏsentence€to€be€served€in€the€local€jail€and€Ñ7€edXXdìXXdì7Ñgranted€the€Appellant€work€releaseÏcontingent€on€his€ability€to€find€employment.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€two€enhancing€factors€applied€by€the€trial€courtÏshould€not€have€been€applied€because€they€were€not€supported€by€the€evidence€andÍbecause€they€are€elements€of€the€offense€of€incest.€€The€Appellant€argues€that€theÏtrial€judge€treated€the€two€mitigating€factors€present€here€as€only€one,€when€theyÏshould€have€been€treated€as€two,€specifically,€€cooperation€in€the€investigation€underÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„113(9)€and€voluntary€participation€inÏcounseling€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€The€AppellantÏargues€that€the€trial€judge€improperly€relied€upon€the€nature€of€the€offense€itself€inÏrefusing€to€grant€probation.€€Finally,€the€Appellant€argues€that€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ðð€40„35„102(6)€and€€ðð€40„35„303(a)€create€a€presumption€in€favor€ofÏprobation€which€was€not€overcome€at€the€sentencing€hearing.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€standard€of€review€of€the€denial€of€probation€and€of€the€length€of€theÏsentence€given€in€this€case€is€set€out€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ïas€being€a€òòde€novo€óóreview€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÏmade€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€was€taken€are€correct.€€€œThe€requirementÏthat€the€appellate€court€presume€the€correctness€of€the€determinations€made€by€theÏtrial€court€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€SeeÏòòState€v.€Ashby,€óó823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In›€conducting€this€òòde€novoÏóóreview€of€a€sentence,€the€appellate€court€must€consider€any€evidence€received€at€theÏsentencing€hearing,€the€presentence€report,€the€œprinciples›€of€sentencing,€theÏarguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives,€the€nature€andÏcharacteristics€of€the€offense,€any€mitigating€and€enhancing€factors,€any€statementsÍmade€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf,€and€the€defendantððs€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment,€the€factors€set€out€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ðð€40„35„210(b)€for€the€trial€judge€to€consider€in€setting€the€specificÏsentence€and€the€appropriate€sentencing€alternatives.€€See€òòAshby;€State€v.€Thomas,Ïóó755€S.W.2d€833€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIncest€is€a€class€C€felony€and€carries€a€sentence€of€three€to€six€years.€€The€trialÏjudge€properly€began€his€determination€of€the€Appellantððs€sentence€with€the€lowestÏfigure€in€the€range,€three€years.€€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð40„35„210(c).€€€TheÏtrial€court€then€found€two€enhancing€factors€to€raise€the€sentence€tentatively€to€sixÏyears.€€Appellantððs€challenge€to€the€application€of€these€enhancing€factors€and€hisÏobjection€to€the€sentence€of€five€years€is€entirely€contrary€to€the€position€taken€by€hisÏcounsel€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Defense€counsel€told€the€trial€judge€at€theÏsentencing€hearing,€ð ð[T]o€start€with€the€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€I€agree€withÏ[District€Attorney]€General€Flynn€that€the€two€factors€that€he€cited€today€would€apply€inÏthis€case.ðð€€The€two€factors€cited€by€General€Flynn€were€the€same€two€enhancingÏfactors€ultimately€applied€by€the€trial€judge.€€The€Appellantððs€counsel€conceded€at€theÏsentencing€hearing€that€ð ðthe€court€can€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€rangeÏand€would€be€justified€under€the€law€in€doing€so.€.€.€.ðð€€€The€Appellantððs€counsel€at€theÏsentencing€hearing€even€went€so€far€as€to€suggest€a€sentence€ð ðsomewhere€in€theÏfour„to„five€year€range,ðð€where€the€trial€judge€ultimately€set€the€sentence.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€Appellant€now€cites€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Adams,óó€864€S.W.2d€31€(Tenn.Ï1993),€for€the€proposition€that€age€alone€is€not€a€sufficient€basis€for€enhancementÏabsent€proof€of€actual€natural€physical€and€mental€limitations€of€the€victim.€€ThisÏenhancing€factor€can€be€used€only€if€the€victim,€because€of€his€or€her€age€or€physicalÏor€mental€condition,€was€in€fact€ð ðparticularly€vulnerable,ðð€that€is,€incapable€ofÏresisting,€summoning€help,€or€testifying€against€the€perpetrator.€€òòId.€óóat€35.€€The€StateÏbears€the€burden€of€proving€the€victimððs€limitations€rendering€him€or€her€particularlyÏvulnerable.€œòòId.óó›€The€Supreme€Court€in€òòAdamsóó€held€that€the€record€would€not€supportÏthe€conclusion€that€the€victims€were€particularly€vulnerable,€in€spite€of€the€fact€that€theÏvictims€were€only€four,€five,€and€twelve€years€of€age.€€This€court€has€applied€òòAdamsÏóóto€hold€that€the€mere€proof€that€a€victim€is€twelve€is€insufficient€to€support€applicationÏof€the€vulnerability€enhancement€factor.€€See€òòState€v.€Hayes,€óó899€S.W.2d€œ175,€185Ï(Tenn.›€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€record€from€the€Appellantððs€sentencing€hearing€is€devoid€of€any€evidenceÏof€the€victimððs€mental€or€physical€attributes.€€However,€the€large€physical€size€of€theÏAppellant,€that€he€is€six€feet€one€inch€tall€and€œweighs›€265€pounds,€is€in€evidence.€ÏAlso€in€evidence€is€the€fact€that€the€Appellant€was€thirty„three€years€of€age€when€theÏincest€was€committed,€as€compared€with€the€victim,€who€was€only€twelve€at€the€time.€ÏThis€court€has€held€that€evidence€of€age€alone,€without€proof€of€the€specifics€of€theÏvictimððs€physical€€and€mental€limitations,€is€sufficient€to€sustain€application€of€theÏvulnerability€enhancement€factor€where€the€perpetrator€is€relatively€much€older.€€SeeÍòòState€v.€Beachboard,€óóNo.€03C01„9302„CR„00041,€1993€Ct.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€œ629›Ï(victim€was€fifteen€and€perpetrator€was€thirty„four).€€In€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€theÏperpetrator€was€not€only€years€older€but€was€also€of€very€large€size€and€was€quiteÏintoxicated€at€the€time€of€the€incident,€supporting€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€theÏvictim€was€vulnerable€in€relation€to€the€Appellant.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€Appellantððs€argument€that€vulnerability€is€a€necessary€element€of€incestÏand€therefore€cannot€be€considered€as€an€enhancing€factor€under€the€terms€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€œ40„35„114(4)€›€is€likewise€without€merit.€€The€incestÏstatute€makes€no€reference€to€the€age€of€the€victim€or€to€the€physical€or€mentalÏvulnerability€of€the€victim€or€to€the€relative€physical€or€mental€strength€or€relative€agesÏof€the€victim€and€the€perpetrator.€€This€court€has€expressly€held€that€vulnerability€dueÏto€age€is€not€an€element€of€the€crime€of€incest.€€òòState€v.€Pruitt,€óóNo.€10C01„9304„CR„000123,€1994€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€198€at€p.€7.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€second€enhancing€œfactor€applied€›€was€the€assertion€that€the€AppellantÏabused€a€position€of€private€trust€in€a€manner€that€significantly€facilitated€theÏcommission€of€the€offense.€€The€record€supports€the€application€of€this€factor.€€TheÏAppellant€is€the€œbiological›€and€legal€father€of€the€victim.€€The€Appellant€lived€in€theÏsame€household€with€the€child€and€had€authority€over€her.€€The€exercise€of€thatÏauthority€allowed€him€to€be€with€her€alone,€which€allowed€the€abuse€to€occur.€€TheÏAppellant€argues€that€€the€position€of€trust€cannot€be€used€as€an€enhancing€factorÍunder€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„114(15)€in€an€incest€case€because€theÏexistence€of€the€trust€is€an€essential€element€of€the€crime.€€This€court€has€held€thatÏthe€existence€of€a€position€of€trust€is€not€an€essential€element€of€the€crime€of€incestÏbecause€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„15„302€prohibits€sexual€penetrationÏamong€a€wide€range€of€relations,€including€a€parent€and€child.€€œòòPruitt€óóat€7.›ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€record€does€not€support€the€claim€that€the€trial€judge€failed€to€consider€Ïthe€Appellantððs€cooperation€in€the€investigation€of€the€crime€and€his€voluntaryÏparticipation€in€counseling€as€separate€mitigating€factors.€€€Examination€of€the€recordÏreveals€that€the€trial€judge€did€consider€both€of€these€mitigating€factors€separately,Ïand€the€record€reveals€that€neither€the€Appellantððs€cooperation€in€the€investigationÏnor€his€participation€in€counseling€was€total€or€entirely€voluntary.€€The€trial€judgeÏexpressly€stated€on€the€record€as€follows:€ð ðThe€mitigating€factors€that€the€court€findsÏto€be€appropriate€are€the€òòonesóó€listed€in€the€presentence€report€involving€theÏcooperation€of€the€Defendant€and€the€fact€that€he€has€òòalso€óóengaged€in€counseling.ððÏ[emphasis€œadded]›€€€The€Presentence€Report€reads€as€follows€as€to€mitigating€factors:ÌÓÓÌà8 àMitigating€factors:ÌÌà8 àThe€following€mitigating€factors€were€filed€by€the€defense:ÌÌÓ&` °ƒXz h‰XB'0*ŒX&Óà8 à1.€€à àThe€Defendant€cooperated€with€investigating€authorities€to€theÏà àfullest€à àextent€possible€in€regard€to€the€offense.òòÌÌà8 àóó2.à àThe€Defendant€voluntarily€engaged€in€counseling€to€address€theÏà àà àà àà àœà àà àà àà àà àcircumstances›€for€this€offense€and€has€received€a€favorable€report€à àà àà àà àœà àà àà àà àà àfrom›Íthe€counselor.òòÌÌóóIt€is€apparent€that€the€trial€judge€took€both€of€these€mitigating€factors€into€account.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€Defendantððs€cooperation€was€less€than€complete€in€that€œhe›€neverÏadmitted€recalling€any€details€of€what€he€did€to€his€daughter.€€In€the€preparation€ofÏthe€Presentence€Report,€he€is€quoted€as€initially€reporting€concerning€the€incident,€ð ðIÏhave€no€version€or€reason.ðð€€He€then€denied€recalling€the€incident€and€explained€thatÏhe€œhad›€a€ð ðborderline€multiple€personalityðð€disorder.€€Dr.€Brietsteinððs€report€states€thatÏthe€Appellant€claimed€that€he€could€not€recall€the€incident€because€he€was€tooÏintoxicated€to€recall€the€details.€€Dr.€Brietstein€concludes€that€ð ðhis€explanation€isÏunlikely€to€be€true,€it€being€much€more€likely€that€he€remembers€more€than€he€isÏwilling€to€tell.€ð ð€The€trial€judge€noted€that€the€Appellant€€ð ðsays€he€thinks€his€daughterÏis€telling€the€truth,€but€he€wonððt€take€enough€of€the€responsibility€to€acknowledge€thatÏhe€knows€what€he€did€and€was€aware€of€it€while€he€did€it.ððÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€Appellantððs€cooperation€in€counseling€was€likewise€less€than€completeÏand€voluntary.€€He€did€participate€in€counseling€before€he€was€ever€indicted,€and€heÏdid€participate€in€both€group€counseling€and€family€counseling€with€his€wife€andÏdaughter.€€However,€the€counseling€did€not€begin€until€after€the€accusations€ofÏsexual€abuse€had€been€made.€€Dr.€Brietstein€reports€that€the€Appellant€ð ðwas€referredÏsubsequent€to€allegations€by€his€daughter€that€he€had€sexually€abused€her.ðð€€Mr.ÏTilleryððs€report€indicates€that€he€saw€the€Appellant€on€a€referral€from€a€MaryvilleÍPolice€Department€detective,€suggesting€that€counseling€followed€an€investigation€ofÏthe€incident,€making€it€less€voluntary€than€it€would€have€been€had€it€been€soughtÏprior€to€commencement€of€an€investigation.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àMore€importantly,€even€at€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€AppellantÏhad€not€sought€or€participated€in€an€alcohol€treatment€program€of€any€kind,€in€spite€ofÏthe€fact€that€severe€intoxication€was€one€explanation€he€gave€for€not€recalling€theÏdetails€of€the€incest.€€Dr.€Brietsteinððs€report€indicated€that€the€Appellant€ð ðdoes€appearÏlikely€to€be€an€alcoholic.ðð€€The€doctor€chronicled€€ð ðquite€a€history€of€alcohol€abuseððÏdating€back€to€the€age€of€thirteen.€€By€seventeen,€the€Appellant€was€drinking€heavily,Ïand€for€a€period€of€a€year€€he€€drank€€a€€case€€of€€beer€or€a€fifth€of€liquor€each€day.€€HeÏadmitted€prior€use€ofÌcocaine,€amphetamines,€LSD€(fifteen€to€seventeen€times),€and€marijuana.€€The€trialÏjudge€complained€about€the€failure€of€the€Appellant€to€seek€treatment€for€hisÏsubstance€abuse.€The€trial€judge€correctly€considered€the€mitigating€and€enhancingÏfactors,€and€the€weight€given€to€those€factors€is€left€to€the€trial€judge,€provided€that€heÏcomplies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€andÏprovided€his€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€€See€òòState€v.€Hayes,€óó899€S.W.2dÏ175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€sentence€is€affirmed.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€final€issue€to€be€determined€is€whether€the€trial€judge€erred€in€failing€toÏgrant€the€Appellant€probation.€€A€trial€court€must€presume€that€a€defendant€sentencedÍto€eight€years€or€less€who€is€not€an€offender€for€whom€incarceration€is€a€priority€isÏsubject€to€alternative€sentencing.€€See€òòState€v.€Byrd,€óó861€S.W.2d€377,€379„80€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€It€is€further€presumed€that€a€sentence€other€than€incarcerationÏwould€result€in€successful€rehabilitation€unless€rebutted€by€sufficient€evidence€in€theÏrecord.€€òòId.€óóat€380.€€However,€although€a€defendant€may€be€presumed€to€be€aÏfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÏestablishing€suitability€for€full€probation€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„303(b).€€See€òòState€v.€Boggs,€óó932€S.W.2d€467,€477€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€EvenÏthough€probation€must€automatically€be€considered,€the€defendant€is€notÏautomatically€entitled€to€probation€as€a€matter€of€law.€€See€òòState€v.€Hartley,€óó818ÏS.W.2d€370,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€see€also€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€œ40„35„303(b).ÌÓÓ›ÌÓÓà àThe€trial€judge€not€only€considered€alternative€sentencing€but€did€in€fact€grantÏtwo€forms€of€alternative€sentencing.€€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€œ›€ðð€40„35„104(c)Ïlists€the€various€œsentencing€›€alternatives€œ€available›€to€a€trial€judge.€€Subsection€(c)(5)Ïof€that€statute€œlists€›€œas€›€a€œ€sentencing›€alternative€a€ð ðsentence€of€continuousÏconfinement€in€a€local€€jail€or€workhouse.ðð€€€€The€trial€judge€here€used€this€alternative.€ÏSubsection€œ(c)(6)ÌÌof›€the€sentencing€alternative€statute€lists€work€release€as€such€an€alternative.€€TheÏtrial€judge€in€the€case€here€used€this€alternative€œalso.ÓÓÌ›ÌÌÓÓà àThis€court€has€held€that€a€trial€judge€has€met€the€statutory€presumption€createdÏby€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„102(6)€in€favor€of€alternative€sentencing€ifÏthe€court€€selects€€one€of€the€sentencing€alternatives€listed€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ðð€40„35„104.€€See€òòState€v.€Allison,óó€No.€03C01„9403„CR„00106,€1995ÏTenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€260.€€If€one€of€these€alternatives€is€applied,€the€argumentÏthen€becomes€whether€or€not€the€correct€alternative€was€selected.€€òòId.€€óóThe€òòAllisonóóÏcourt€held€that€where€the€trial€court€has€selected€a€sentencing€alternative€listed€inÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„104,€the€appellate€court€will€not€second„guessÏthe€sentencing€decision€of€the€trial€court€as€to€the€particular€alternative€chosenÏunless€the€record€establishes€compelling€reasons€for€doing€so.€€The€court€in€òòAllison,Ïóórelying€heavily€on€òòState€v.€Ashley,€óó823€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1987),€upheld€a€sentenceÏof€split€confinement€in€a€case€in€which€the€defendant€argued€for€full€probation.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€Appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€consider€probation€and€thatÏhe€denied€probation€entirely€on€the€basis€of€the€nature€of€the€crime€of€incest.€€TheÏnature€of€the€crime€alone€is€not€grounds€to€deny€probation.€€See€òòState€v.€Hartley,€óó818ÏS.W.2d€370,€374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€(fact€that€substance€involved€was€cocaineÏdid€not€in€and€of€itself€justify€denying€probation).€€However,€the€trial€court€in€the€caseÏòòsub€judice€óódid€not€base€his€denial€only€on€the€nature€of€the€crime€of€incest.€€He€citedÏa€number€of€other€considerations€and€expressly€found€that€confinement€wasÏnecessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€a€sentencingÍprinciple€found€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B).€€The€trial€courtÏalso€considered€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€the€rehabilitation€or€treatment€ofÏthe€Appellant€and€considered€the€deterrent€effect€of€the€incarceration.€ÌÓÓœÌÌ›ÌÓÓà àThe€trial€judge€found€that€the€Appellant€was€less€than€entirely€candid€about€hisÏrecollection€of€the€incident€and€that€he€was€less€than€straightforward€in€acceptingÏresponsibility€for€his€actions.€€A€defendantððs€truthfulness€in€providing€information€forÏhis€sentencing€hearing€is€probative€of€the€defendantððs€attitude€toward€society€andÏprobative€of€his€prospects€œfor€›€rehabilitation.€€See€òòState€v.€Byrd,€óó861€S.W.2d€377Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Dr.€Brietsteinððs€report€confirms€the€trial€judgeððs€conclusionÏthat€the€Appellant€was€not€truthful€about€his€recollections€of€the€incident.€€TheÏAppellant€continued€to€drink€and€did€not€seek€treatment€for€alcohol€abuse,€which€wasÏa€major€consideration€by€the€trial€judge.€€The€evidence€concerning€the€incident€ofÏincest€and€the€evidence€of€the€Appellantððs€history€of€alcohol€and€drug€abuse€supportÏthe€trial€judgeððs€conclusion€that€the€Appellant€needed€treatment.€€The€failure€to€seekÏalcohol€treatment€and€a€defendantððs€insistence€on€continuing€to€drink€afterÏcommitting€a€crime€in€which€alcohol€was€involved€bear€upon€the€defendantððsÏprospects€for€rehabilitation.€€See€òòState€v.€Karnes,€óóNo.€01C01„9606„CR„00249,€1997ÏTenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€486.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€also€noted€that€the€Appellant€could€have€been€convicted€ofÍaggravated€rape€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„13„502(a)(4)€since€theÏvictim€of€the€crime€was€under€the€age€of€thirteen.€€Aggravated€rape€is€a€class€AÏfelony,€and€the€Appellant€therefore€could€have€received€a€sentence€of€fifteen€toÏtwenty„five€years€as€a€œRange›€I€offender.€€A€trial€court€is€allowed€to€look€behind€theÏplea€bargain€and€consider€the€true€nature€of€the€offense€committed€in€makingÏsentencing€determinations.€€See€òòState€v.€Hollingsworth,€óó647€S.W.2d€937,€939€(Tenn.Ï1983).ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€alternative€sentencing€imposed€in€this€case€was€proper,€and€theÏAppellant€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proof€to€establish€that€he€was€entitled€toÏprobation.€€The€trial€Ìjudge€properly€sentenced€the€Appellant€under€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act,€and€theÏlength€of€the€sentence€imposed€was€proper€and€was€based€on€the€factors€to€beÏconsidered€under€that€statutory€scheme.€€The€judgment€below€is€affirmed.€€òòÌÓÓœ›ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àóóLEE€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌòòÌÓ  ÓÌóó