ÿWPC ÈI"ïzdÜ­#q‡Åd¡ò”‘Öù7‹ƒ ׋ K#ŠÛL»Ö³eùr < ¼U࿘"5t.%Ùœ\)"ΆršsëˆÕNž]®…<¦•™Î˜éÉ—:F!wÂ!bXXÇÆÒÆ{܃p±2$Nò;}Cå»à »)UIh³oM—ÇßÏMrÓÔíUP£3-ý’èc=€î_šøþ¢|‰Î6E!çÔd¬hŽMˆm‡Á0³M‹¤ÿ_ý²íåtfŠ(‚RIhVÓWÂ<0i«ocÙ“P­¶»ÛdÒ1@?3…|õÞ¯!&ÜŠŒÞ‚Gr¹O×呲OþÉÉÂF½‡{â)t q¦Ü^c7¾Ëç7é}|éFH¯.@´ !½¢ ´ˆ|ô”á?Š"8„¢d’X/4qÐe×¶†ßOÊ´Ç(¿ÃkE%ƒLQÙRÿõè´Ý¾ÒC-äŽs+VB«$­—]jºQÊŸ®B¤½ñ¶ i:䦔ù,Á&*Ÿö7‡¾ ØÄfŽSÚ̈'¢ÂB]º0žãÆ»Iy\úOó$¿q{(Ð6gœfuÏn·@Þ®ÖÙ¤4¿1Q†š’Žgâu¯›IøéÅèíb$:9{ÍG@[À«âf0ºª« b#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq UNù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ11N÷÷÷Eùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùbûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûû 0ë Bîî 0¤  D5¯ D-ä 0K AS\Ư 0¤u 0D A«]˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular}„)â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt•jW) _¦3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2pn$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€®<»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÓÄò»»Ô d(|3A$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€®<»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€®<»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€®<»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼®<»»»ÔÑ8€«[XXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îú¿î»¼®<ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼®<»îîú¿ #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€July€26,€2000Ð X ÐÔ‡X«[X»¼®<ÔÌò òÔ#†¼®<»XX«[#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€ROBERT€BENTLEY€MILLERÔ‡X«[X»¼®<Ôó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€S41,€376€€€€€€R.€Jerry€Beck,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„00970„CCA„R3„CD€Ð ×'  ÐDecember€4,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ Ç  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X­XXX«[ÔThe€Defendant,€pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement,€pleaded€guilty€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€to€twoÐ ¶ Ðcounts€of€facilitation€of€the€sale€of€a€Schedule€IV€drug€(a€Class€E€felony)€and€three€counts€ofÐ ¢ò Ðfacilitation€of€the€sale€of€a€Schedule€VI€drug€(a€Class€A€misdemeanor).€€The€Defendant€receivedÐ ŽÞ Ðsentences€of€three€years€for€each€of€the€felonies€and€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€for€each€of€theÐ zÊ Ðmisdemeanors.€€All€five€sentences€were€to€be€served€concurrently,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€threeÐ f¶ Ðyears.€€The€manner€of€service€of€the€sentence€was€not€part€of€the€plea€agreement€but€was€to€beÐ R¢ Ðdecided€by€the€trial€court€after€a€sentencing€hearing.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ >Ž Ðdetermined€that€the€sentence€should€be€served€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€appeal,€theÐ *z ÐDefendant€argues€that€he€was€wrongfully€denied€probation€or€alternative€sentencing.€€Finding€noÐ f Ðmerit€to€the€Defendantððs€argument,€we€affirm€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court.Ô#†X«[XXX­Ô#ÔÔ#†¼®<»XX«[•#ÔÔ‡X«[X»¼®<ÔÐ R ÐÓÈÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Þ. ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼®<»àX«[¯ #ÔÔ‡X«[X.¼®<ÔRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€andÐ ¾ ÐòòJohn€Everett€Williams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ®þ ÐÌJoseph€F.€Harrison,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Ô_ÔBlountvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€RobertÐ Ž!Þ  ÐBentley€Miller.Ð ~"Î! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Clinton€J.€Morgan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ^$®# ÐH.€Greeley€Wells,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Mary€Katharine€Harvey,€Assistant€DistrictÐ N%ž $ ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð >&Ž!% ÐÓa ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼®<»XX«[ #ÔÔ‡X«[X»¼®<ÔÐ (n#' ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼®<»XX«[æ #ÔÔ‡X«[X»¼®<ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡X­XXX«[ÔÓÓà  àOn€June€28,€1999,€the€Defendant,€Robert€Bentley€Miller,€pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement,Ð þ)N%) Ðpleaded€guilty€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€to€two€counts€of€facilitation€of€the€sale€of€a€ScheduleÐ Ö+&'+ ÐIV€drug,€a€Class€E€felony,€and€to€three€misdemeanor€counts€of€facilitation€of€the€sale€of€a€ScheduleÐ ®-þ(-ý ÐÔ_ÔVI€drug.€€The€plea€agreement€provided€that€the€Defendant€receive€a€sentence€of€three€years€for€eachÐ ° Ðfelony€and€a€sentence€of€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€for€each€misdemeanor,€all€to€be€servedÐ ˆØ Ðconcurrently,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€three€years.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ `° Ðordered€the€Defendant€to€serve€the€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€Defendant€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðalso€ordered€to€pay€a€$2,000€fine.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€charges€arose€out€of€events€occurring€during€the€month€of€August€1996.€€Over€the€courseÐ À  Ðof€five€days,€the€Defendant€rendered€substantial€assistance€in€the€sale€of€drugs€to€a€confidentialÐ ˜è  Ðinformant.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€in€exchange€for€his€assistance,€once€or€twice€he€received€aÐ pÀ Ðsmall€amount€of€marijuana.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€presentence€report€indicated€that€the€Defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminalÐ øH Ðconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€and€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€theÐ Ð  Ðconditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€€The€Defendant€presented€evidence€atÐ ¨ø Ðthe€sentencing€hearing€that€he€had€taken€steps€to€live€as€a€law„abiding€citizen.€€While€serving€aÐ €Ð Ðsentence€for€an€unrelated€conviction,€the€Defendant€attended€anger€management€classes€and€aÐ X ¨ Ðsubstance€abuse€program.€€In€addition,€since€being€released€from€incarceration,€the€DefendantÐ 0"€  Ðattended€Alcoholics€Anonymous€meetings€regularly.€€The€Defendantððs€employer,€mother,€and€wifeÐ $X" Ðeach€testified€about€the€Defendantððs€dependability.€€The€Defendantððs€wife€also€testified€that€theÐ à%0!$ ÐDefendant€provides€financially€for€her€and€her€daughter.Ð ¸'#& Ðâ âÐ )à$( Ðà  àNotwithstanding€the€evidence€offered€by€the€Defendant€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trialÐ ° Ðâ âcourt€determined€that€the€Defendant€should€serve€the€three„year€sentence€in€the€Department€ofÐ ˆØ ÐCorrection.€€In€making€his€determination,€the€judge€ruled€that,€given€the€Defendantððs€extensiveÐ `° Ðcriminal€history,€the€negative€presentence€report,€and€the€failure€of€probation€in€the€past,€the€grantingÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€alternative€sentencing€was€not€possible.€€The€trial€court€considered€the€positive€testimony,€butÐ  ` Ðruled€that€the€evidence€offered€did€not€outweigh€the€criminal€history,€negative€presentence€report,Ð è 8  Ðand€failure€of€probation€in€the€past.Ð À  ÐÌà  à€When€a€criminal€defendant€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,Ð pÀ Ðincluding€the€grant€or€denial€of€probation,€the€reviewing€court€must€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€theÐ H˜ Ðsentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€òòóóTenn.€CodeÐ  p ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption,€however,€ð ðis€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€inÐ øH Ðthe€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÐ Ð  Ðcircumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€the€event€that€the€recordÐ ¨ø Ðfails€to€show€such€consideration,€the€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€properly€applied€theÐ X ¨ Ðapplicable€sentencing€principles€and€is€thus€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€correctness.€€ð ðThe€burdenÐ 0"€  Ðof€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appellant.ðð€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€IfÐ $X" Ðappellate€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðcourt€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€theÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âfactors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€areÐ )à$( Ðadequately€supported€by€the€record,€this€Court€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€haveÐ ° Ðpreferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð ˆØ Ðâ âÌà  àIn€analyzing€the€trial€courtððs€action€on€probation,€this€Court€must€first€review€the€factors€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðbe€considered€in€imposing€a€sentence.€€In€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€theÐ  ` Ðconclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€determines€the€range€of€sentence€and€then€determines€theÐ è 8  Ðspecific€sentence€and€the€propriety€of€sentencing€alternatives€by€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,Ð À  Ðreceived€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€ofÐ ˜è  Ðsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€theÐ pÀ Ðcriminal€conduct€involved,€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancementÐ H˜ Ðand€mitigating€factors,€(6)€any€statements€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendantððs€behalfÐ  p Ðabout€sentencing,€and€(7)€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„Ð øH Ð210(a)(b),€„103(5);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€920€S.W.2d€247,€258€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWith€certain€exceptions,€a€defendant€is€eligible€for€probation€if€the€sentence€actually€imposedÐ €Ð Ðis€eight€years€or€less.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303.€€Although€probation€ð ðmust€be€automaticallyÐ X ¨ Ðconsidered€as€a€sentencing€option€for€eligible€defendants,€the€defendant€is€not€automatically€entitledÐ 0"€  Ðto€probation€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„303(b)€sentencing€commððn€cmts.€€In€determiningÐ $X" Ðwhether€to€grant€or€deny€probation,€the€trial€court€must€consider€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðoffense;€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€background€and€social€history;€the€defendantððs€presentÐ ¸'#& Ðcondition;€the€deterrent€effect€on€other€criminal€activity;€and€the€likelihood€that€probation€is€in€theÐ )à$( Ðbest€interests€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Goodeóó,€956,€S.W.2d€521,€527€òòóó(Tenn.Ð h+¸&* Ð1997).€€The€Defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ° Ð40„35„303(b);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€The€statutory€presumption€of€an€alternative€sentence€doesÐ ˆØ Ðnot€apply€to€a€Range€II€offender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).Ð `° Ѐ€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àThe€court€should€base€a€sentence€involving€confinement€on€the€following€considerations:Ð  ` ÐÓÓà8  àà ` à(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendantÐ è 8  Ðwho€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÐ À  Ðoffense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrent€toÐ ¬ü  Ðothers€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€orИè Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recentlyÐ „Ô  Ðbeen€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant€.€.€.€.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌÓÓ,ÓòòÓÓId.óó€ðð€40„35„103(1).Ð H˜ ÐÌÌÌÌÓ²/Óà  à€In€this€case,€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€prove€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€inÐ ä4 Ðdenying€probation.€€The€trial€judge€considered€the€appropriate€factors€when€deciding€the€manner€inÐ ¼  Ðwhich€the€Defendant€was€to€serve€his€three„year€sentence.Ô#†X«[XXX­o#ÔÔ‡X­XXX«[ÔÔ#†¼î¬ »XX­D#ÔÔ‡X­X »¼î¬Ô€€The€trial€court€based€its€sentence€of€three„Ð ”ä Ðyears€incarceration€on€the€Defendantððs€lengthy€criminal€history,€the€negative€presentence€report,€and€Ð l¼ Ðprevious€failed€attempts€at€probation.€€While€the€trial€court€also€carefully€considered€the€evidenceÐ D!” Ðoffered€by€the€Defendant€in€support€of€an€alternative€sentence,€the€trial€court€believed€the€negativeÐ #l! Ðfactors€outweighed€the€evidence€offered.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÌÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àAccordingly,€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ô#†X«[XXX­^1#ÔÔ#†¼®<»XX«[ 1#ÔÔ€X«[X»¼®<ÔÐ ° ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ( x Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGE