ÿWPCÄ  …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 0¥@ U:å 0D U.c ‘ 0J™ 0Tã 0^7 0h• 0rý 0|o 0†ë 0q 1u 0dv BÚU>÷B)5DC^ D3¡ AMÔâ! 0@ C»ã0žv~ÎvÓL AOÆn 0D4 D/x B§ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ $%&'[(D)D*+,D-Ó€Ô¡¨ `aCþÿ3|x6(U(2â$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€ XÞXXXÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd""""'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ØÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌOctober€16,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò –Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€ ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€defendantððs€name€is€spelled€ð ðToneyðð€on€the€indictment€and€otherÏcourt€documents.€€We€note€that€he€spells€his€name€ð ðTony.ðð€€Various€courtÏdocuments€also€refer€to€him€as€ð ðAnthony.ððÌ ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€ ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€presentence€report€lists€his€convictions€for€such€offenses€as€thirdÏdegree€burglary,€grand€larceny,€assault,€evading€arrest,€felony€escape,€criminalÏimpersonation,€petit€larceny,€and€contributing€to€the€delinquency€of€a€minor.Ì &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€ ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„616(c)€provides€that€the€trial€court€ð ðshall€haveÏno€power€to€suspend€any€such€sentence€or€fine,€.€.€.ðð€€Prior€opinions€of€this€courtÏhave€held€that€this€provision€has€been€superseded€by€the€Criminal€SentencingÏReform€Act€of€1989;€accordingly,€a€trial€court€may€suspend€all€or€part€of€a€motorÏvehicle€offenderððs€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Timothy€Lee€Alexanderóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ï02C01„9412„CR„00286€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€October€11,€1995,€at€Jackson);ÏòòState€v.€Ricky€Fifeóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9401„CR„00036€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filedÏJune€15,€1995,€at€Knoxville).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€+,)A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àAUGUST€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€01C01„9609„CC„00392ó óÌà àAppellee,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òWILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌVS.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHon.€Cornelia€A.€Clark,ÏJudgeó óÌò òTONEY€L.€MOORE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àœ(Motor€Vehicle€HabitualÏOffender)›Ìà àAppellant.à@ àœ)›ÌÌÌÌò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJOHN€H.€HENDERSONà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òLARRY€D.€DROLSUMó óà àà àà àà àò òGEORGIA€BLYTHE€FELNERó óÌAssistant€District€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ407€C€Main€Streetà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌP.O.€Box€68à àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌFranklin,€TN€37065„0068Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOSEPH€D.€BAUGH,€JR.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJEFF€BURKSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliamson€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€G„6Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€37065„0937ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÇÑ7€¥!XXdìXXdì7ÑÓÓà@ àòòOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Toney€L.€Moore,€× ƒ. ××  ×€was€convicted€by€a€Williamson€CountyÏjury€of€driving€after€having€been€declared€a€Motor€Vehicle€Habitual€OffenderÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„616.€€He€was€sentenced€to€four€(4)€yearsÏin€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€On€appeal,€he€challenges€theÏsufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€and€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdenying€alternative€sentencing.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTSóóó óÌÌà àThe€stateððs€proof€at€trial€showed€that€on€August€15,€1995,€Officer€ChrisÏThompson€was€dispatched€to€assist€a€disabled€motorist€on€Highway€31€inÏWilliamson€County€at€approximately€9:00€p.m.€€As€she€approached€the€vehicle,Ïshe€saw€someone€walking€on€the€side€of€the€road€approximately€one„tenth€of€aÏœmile€from€the€disabled€vehicle.›€€She€asked€him€(defendant)€if€he€was€with€theÏdisabled€vehicle.€€The€defendant€told€her€that€he€had€a€flat€tire.€€Because€hisÏjack€was€broken,€he€told€her€that€he€was€walking€to€find€a€phone€or€someoneÏwith€a€jack.Ìà àOfficer€Thompson€drove€the€defendant€back€to€his€car,€œwhere€defendantÍused€the€officerððs€jack€to›€fix€the€tire.€€After€the€tire€was€fixed,€œthe€officer›€asked€toÏsee€defendantððs€driverððs€license.€€Defendant€looked€around€in€his€car€andÏpresented€an€identification€œcard€only.›€€Upon€checking€the€status€of€œthe›€license,ÏOfficer€Thompson€learned€that€defendantððs€license€was€revoked.Ìà àAs€Officer€Thompson€was€placing€defendant€under€arrest,€œthe€defendant›Ïtold€her€that€he€had€not€driven€the€car.€€He€claimed€that€a€ð ðbuddyðð€or€ð ðbuddiesððÏwere€driving€him€and€were€looking€for€help.€€Officer€Thompson€did€not€seeÏanyone€other€than€defendant€around€the€vicinity€of€the€vehicle.Ìà àWhen€Officer€Thompson€returned€home€the€next€morning,€defendantððsÏcar€was€on€the€side€of€Highway€31€as€it€was€the€previous€œevening.Ìà àThe€parties€further€stipulated€outside€of€the€juryððs€presence€that€theÏdefendantððs€license€had€been€revoked,€and€he€had€been€declared€a€MotorÏVehicle€Habitual€Offender.›Ìà àTheresa€Cotham€testified€on€defendantððs€behalf.€€She€stated€that€she€wasÏdriving€defendantððs€car€on€the€night€of€August€15.€€After€they€discovered€theyÏhad€a€flat€tire,€she€left€to€get€assistance.€€An€elderly€couple€gave€her€a€ride€to€herÏhome€in€Columbia,€where€she€got€into€her€car€and€picked€up€defendantððs€father.€ÏWhen€she€and€defendantððs€father€returned,€defendant€was€no€longer€there.€ÏCotham€claimed€that€she€and€defendantððs€father€brought€the€car€back€toÏColumbia€that€œnight.€€No€other€evidence€was€offered€by€the€defense.›Ìà àThe€jury€found€defendant€guilty€of€driving€after€having€been€declared€aÏMotor€Vehicle€Habitual€Offender.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€II,ÏMultiple€Offender€to€four€(4)€years€in€confinement.€€From€the€conviction€andÍsentence,€defendant€brings€this€appeal.ÌÌà@ àò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEóóó óÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence.€€More€specifically,€he€contends€that€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€thatÏhe€was€driving€on€the€night€of€August€15.€€As€a€result,€he€claims€that€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€support€the€finding€of€guilt.Ìà àWhere€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€forÏan€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61ÏL.Ed.2d€560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935€S.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€1996).Ìò òà àó óGreat€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury€in€a€criminal€trial.€€AÏjury€verdict€accredits€the€state's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€ofÏthe€state.€€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,Ï839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€therefrom.€òòIdóó.;€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).€ÏMoreover,€a€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€which€theÏappellant€enjoyed€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€ofÍovercoming€this€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòIdóó.Ìà àð ðAny€person€found€to€be€an€habitual€offender€under€the€provisions€of€thisÏpart€who€thereafter€is€convicted€of€operating€a€motor€vehicle€in€this€state€whileÏthe€judgment€or€order€of€the€court€prohibiting€such€operation€is€in€effect€commitsÏa€Class€E€felony.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„616(b).€€The€state€and€defendantÏentered€into€a€stipulation€that€he€had€been€declared€a€Motor€Vehicle€HabitualÏOffender€in€December€1991,€and€that€his€driverððs€license€œwas€in€a€revoked›Ïœstatus€on›€œthe€date€of€this€incident.›€€Therefore,€the€only€issue€before€the€jury€wasÏwhether€defendant€€operated€the€vehicle€on€August€15.Ìà àWe€find€that€there€is€sufficient€evidence€for€the€jury€to€conclude€thatÏdefendant€drove€his€car€on€the€subject€date.€€Officer€Thompson€did€not€observeÏanyone€other€than€defendant€around€the€car.€€Furthermore,€while€they€wereÏœchanging›€the€œtire,›€defendant€œexplained€to€Officer›€Thompson€that€he€œhad€been€›Ïð ðdriving€alongðð€œwhen€he›€heard€something.€€In€her€trial€testimony,€she€wasÏcertain€that€œdefendant›€told€her€that€he€was€driving.€€Only€after€she€arrestedÏdefendant€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license€did€he€mention€that€someone€elseÏwas€driving€the€car.Ìà àAlthough€Theresa€Cothamððs€testimony€is€contradictory€to€the€finding€ofÏguilt,€obviously€the€jury€discredited€her€testimony.€€The€weight€and€credibility€ofÏthe€witnesses'€testimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€theÏtriers€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Breweróó,Ï932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.̛̜à@ àò òòòALTERNATIVE€SENTENCINGóóó óÌÌà àIn€his€second€assignment€of€error,€defendant€complains€that€the€trialÏjudge€erred€in€denying€alternative€sentencing.€€He€maintains€that€he€couldÏð ðsuccessfully€serv[e]€his€sentence€on€the€Community€Corrections€Program€or€onÏIntensive€Probation.ðð€€Therefore,€he€insists€that€the€trial€court€did€not€properlyÏconsider€alternative€sentencing.Ìà àThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóóÏwith€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€ThisÏpresumption€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€theÏtrial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€trialÏcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€and€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96Ï(Tenn.€1997).Ìà àThe€burden€is€upon€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€isÏimproper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments.€€In€conducting€our€review,€we€are€required,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210,€to€consider€the€following€factors€in€sentencing:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€[t]he€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencingÏhearing;€(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€[t]heÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)Ï[e]vidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]ny€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€hisÍown€behalf€about€sentencing.ÌÌÓÓà àUnder€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€trial€judges€areÏencouraged€to€use€alternatives€to€incarceration.€€An€especially€mitigated€orÏstandard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€aÏfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€ofÏevidence€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€A€trial€court€mustÏpresume€that€a€defendant€sentenced€to€eight€years€or€less€and€who€is€not€anÏoffender€for€whom€incarceration€is€a€priority€is€subject€to€alternative€sentencing.€ÏòòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€379„80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€It€is€furtherÏpresumed€that€€a€sentence€other€than€incarceration€would€result€in€successfulÏrehabilitation€unless€rebutted€by€sufficient€evidence€in€the€record.€€òòIdóó.€at€380.€€Ìà àIn€determining€if€incarceration€is€appropriate,€a€trial€court€may€considerÏthe€need€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€having€a€long€history€ofÏcriminal€conduct,€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,Ïwhether€confinement€is€particularly€appropriate€to€effectively€deter€others€likelyÏto€commit€similar€offenses,€and€whether€less€restrictive€measures€have€often€orÏrecently€been€unsuccessfully€applied€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€œ169.€€Additionally,€a€courtÏshould€consider€the€defendantððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitationÏwhen€determining€if€an€alternative€sentence€would€be€appropriate.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„103(5);€òòState€v.€Bostonóó,€938€S.W.2d€435,€438€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1996).Ìà àBecause€defendant€was€convicted€of€a€Class€E€felony,€he€is€presumablyÍentitled€to€alternative€sentencing.€€However,€the€trial€court€found€sufficientÏevidence€to€rebut€that€presumption€and€determined€that€defendant€was€not€aÏgood€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.›€€We€agree.Ìà àInitially,€we€note€that€defendant€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct€inÏaddition€to€his€numerous€driving€offenses€which€led€to€his€being€declared€aÏMotor€Vehicle€Habitual€Offender.œ× ƒ/ ××  ×›€€Indeed,€he€was€on€probation€for€anotherÏoffense€when€he€was€arrested€for€the€current€charge.€€Moreover,€his€parole€œhad›Ïbeen€revoked€three€(3)€times€previously.€€He€has€shown€an€unwillingness€toÏcomply€with€the€conditions€of€release€in€the€community€and€very€little€potentialÏfor€rehabilitation.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€ordering€that€defendant€serve€hisÏsentence€in€confinement.Ìà àDefendant€suggests€that€the€trial€court€improperly€relied€on€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€55„10„616(c)€in€finding€that€he€was€not€eligible€for€probation.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€However,Ïbecause€we€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€denied€alternative€sentencing€onÏother€grounds,€we€need€not€reach€this€œissue.›ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óÌÌà àWe€find€that€there€is€sufficient€evidence€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€toÏconclude€that€defendant€is€guilty€of€driving€after€having€been€declared€a€œMotor›ÏœVehicle›€œHabitual›€œOffender.›€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€appropriately€deniedÏalternative€sentencing.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€œaffirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJ.€CURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€ÌJOE€H.€WALKER,€III,€SPECIAL€JUDGEó ó›