ÿWPC- GqãÇú|PqhTd Iop0ÚþûsPîÕ˜µá®Ä?Ÿaºà8èC#b`/ãúm›£j>lßJöd,°ó#¹!8xQHÓý©×ȉµŸ5³ŽåààÍG3 cÛOœMøŠ@Ôí+«ü¯’aî|ð_7Ë,Ãz½*¦ùÙã~…z¥£ÜššË‚*­tSóKDkl^‡g\áù€ÌŽ cèQ^ð|D·†Öบ{^ÛøØDϵÞàMéä êO„ó$%½/΋Šáó©xõ0ÄÈp< 6,Pô°Ogiþ`“¼âdí!1–€À ›Â±Õ<.¤¦¾æ`äGX˜Óm,%~VÇ @“íp~ò.rÿí=]|¥E`z¨¬5@ZÞ'5g¤²b/ÍÞ•ËkÞ¡çëñ4AªÛòÿ[è»[Iûòʾ7jguD³¸ÇCõ@ãRžY°÷›£ãÂUE¥©šƒŽÖŒÙb,OBEUcL§EÊ !¾£' @¶Ë%u¤y.’ 5‹4(D]‡Hi4 ÊÄ}(ÇîâÝDTäfMŵãŸ?ì>RÈB§Éö·©Óñ/Šoð? M«¶PÙEq¡4„ÌEðÖîr¶s_œ±‘â…ÌÀ“o b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U,N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U N‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1÷NÿÛ 0DÜE                        b"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 0ë**** B 0¤2 D3Ö D-  0K66 ASÆÔ 0¤š 0D> A«‚˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»Ö†ÿ*â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*ê:i œ ˜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  ÑÝ ƒR»ú$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëÝò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€A€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€was€not€made€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2»ú$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëÝò»»Ô d(|3GŠ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3GŠ$¢¢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€‰XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îI$^•ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼^•»îîI$ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€June€27,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X‰X»¼^•ÔÌò òÔ#†¼^•»XX‰#ÔòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóDAVID€WAYNE€OSBORNEÔ‡X‰X»¼^•Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNos.€S43,429€and€S43,430€€€€€€Phyllis€H.€Miller,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„03086„CCA„R3„CD€Ð ¥õ  ÐJuly€31,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant€pled€nolo€contendere€to€one€count€of€felony€child€neglect,€one€count€of€possessionÐ xÈ  Ðof€drug€paraphernalia,€one€count€of€possession€of€marijuana,€and€two€counts€of€public€intoxication.€Ð d´ ÐAt€issue€in€this€appeal€is€the€sentence€for€felony€child€neglect,€a€Class€D€felony€for€which€theÐ P  ÐDefendant€received€a€two„year€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€Subsequently,€based€upon€aÐ <Œ Ðwarrant€alleging€that€the€Defendant€had€violated€the€terms€and€conditions€of€his€CommunityÐ (x ÐCorrections€sentence,€the€trial€court€revoked€the€Defendantððs€Community€Corrections€sentence€andÐ d Ðincreased€his€original€sentence€from€two€years€to€four€years,€to€be€served€with€the€TennesseeÐ P ÐDepartment€of€Correction.€€In€this€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperlyÐ ì< Ðenhanced€his€two„year€sentence€for€felony€child€neglect€to€four€years€and€that€the€court€erred€byÐ Ø( Ðfailing€to€impose€some€form€of€alternative€sentencing.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properlyÐ Ä Ðincreased€the€length€of€the€Defendantððs€sentence€from€two€to€four€years€and€that€the€DefendantððsÐ ° Ðprison€sentence€was€properly€imposed.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð œì ÐÓÙÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ tÄ 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 L œ ÐòòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌJulie€A.€Rice€(on€appeal),€Knoxville,€Tennessee;€and€Leslie€Hale€(at€trial),€Ô_ÔBlountvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,Ð #`" Ðfor€the€Appellant,€David€Wayne€Osborne.Ð ü#L# ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Patricia€C.€Ô_ÔKussmanÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð Ô%$!% ÐH.€Greeley€Wells,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Teresa€Murray„Smith,€Assistant€DistrictÐ À&"& ÐAttorney€General;€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÓÛ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼^•»XX‰ #ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^•ÔÐ „)Ô$) ÐÌÓ  Óà  àOn€December€15,€1999,€the€Defendant€was€indicted€by€the€Sullivan€County€Grand€Jury€forÐ \+¬&+ Ðtwo€counts€of€public€intoxication,€one€count€of€possession€of€marijuana,€one€count€of€possession€ofÐ H,˜', Ðdrug€paraphernalia,€and€one€count€of€felony€child€neglect.€€On€March€8,€2000,€the€trial€court€acceptedÐ 4-„(-ýÎ ÐÔ_Ôpleas€of€nolo€contendere€by€the€Defendant€to€each€charge.€€On€May€4,€2000,€following€a€sentencingÐ ° Ðhearing,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€probationÐ œì Ðfor€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia;€thirty€days€probation€for€both€convictions€of€publicÐ ˆØ Ðintoxication;€€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€probation€for€possession€of€marijuana;€and€twoÐ tÄ Ðyears€for€felony€child€neglect.€€The€two„year€sentence€for€felony€child€neglect€contained€a€provisionÐ `° Ðwhereby€the€Defendant€was€ordered€to€serve€one€hundred€and€twenty€days€ð ðday€for€dayðð€in€theÐ L œ Ðcounty€jail,€with€the€balance€to€be€served€on€Community€Corrections.€€In€addition,€the€trial€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðordered€that€the€Defendant€continue€drug€and€alcohol€treatment,€submit€to€random€drug€screens,Ð $ t Ðcomplete€parenting€classes,€not€use€or€possess€alcoholic€beverages,€not€use€illegal€drugs,€andÐ  ` Ðmaintain€full„time€employment.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOn€May€30,€2000,€the€trial€court€amended€the€ð ðday€for€dayðð€provision€of€the€judgment€toÐ Ô$  Ðallow€the€Defendant€to€serve€periodic€confinement€in€conjunction€with€his€job.€€On€June€16,€2000,Ð À  Ðthe€trial€court€allowed€an€amended€periodic€confinement€schedule€for€the€Defendant.€€Subsequently,Ð ¬ü  Ðthe€Defendant€filed€a€petition€for€early€release,€which€the€trial€court€denied€on€July€10,€2000.€€OnÐ ˜è  ÐSeptember€5,€2000,€presumably€after€the€Defendant€had€served€the€one€hundred€and€twenty€daysÐ „Ô  Ðsplit„confinement€portion€of€his€sentence,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€setting€forth€the€terms€andÐ pÀ Ðconditions€of€the€Community€Corrections€sentence.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àOn€November€6,€2000,€a€warrant€was€issued€against€the€Defendant,€in€which€it€was€allegedÐ 4„ Ðthat€the€Defendant€had€violated€two€rules€of€Community€Corrections.€€First,€it€was€alleged€that€theÐ  p ÐDefendant€had€violated€a€Community€Corrections€rule€prohibiting€the€use€of€intoxicants,€byÐ  \ Ðallegedly€possessing€alcohol€on€October€6,€2000€and€on€November€3,€2000.€€Second,€it€was€allegedÐ øH Ðthat€the€Defendant€had€violated€another€Community€Corrections€rule€by€leaving€the€John€R.€HayÐ ä4 ÐHouse,€a€treatment€facility,€without€permission.€€The€warrant€was€served€on€the€Defendant€onÐ Ð  ÐNovember€6,€2000,€and€the€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€November€30,€2000.€€At€theÐ ¼  Ðconclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€revoked€the€Defendantððs€Community€Corrections€sentenceÐ ¨ø Ðand€imposed€a€sentence€of€four€years€with€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€for€the€felonyÐ ”ä Ðchild€neglect€conviction.Ð €Ð Ðà  àÌà@òò&ìàòòò òANALYSISóóó óˆÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€this€appeal,€the€Defendant€does€not€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€revocation€of€his€CommunityÐ 0"€  ÐCorrections€sentence,€but€he€does€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€enhancement€of€the€length€of€hisÐ #l! Ðsentence€from€two€years€to€four€years€for€the€felony€child€neglect€conviction.€€He€also€challenges€theÐ $X" Ðtrial€courtððs€unwillingness€to€consider€an€alternative€sentence.Ð ô$D # ÐÔ#†¼^•»XX‰Þ#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^•ÔÌà  àThe€Defendant€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€increased€the€length€of€his€sentenceÐ Ì&"% Ðfrom€two€years€to€four€years€upon€revoking€his€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€The€DefendantÐ ¸'#& Ðdoes€not€contest€the€validity€of€the€trial€courtððs€revocation€of€his€Community€Corrections€sentence.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐNor€does€he€contest€the€trial€courtððs€authority€generally€to€increase€the€length€of€a€revokedÐ )à$( ÐCommunity€Corrections€sentence€up€to€the€maximum€sentence€within€the€appropriate€sentence€rangeÐ ° Ðfor€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(e)(2).€Ð œì ÐÌÔ‡ X‰XXX‰ÔÔ#† ¼^•»X X‰Ò#ÔÔ‡ X‰X» ¼^•Ôà  àÔ#†X‰XX X‰ !#ÔOur€analysis€begins€with€well„settled€principles€that€govern€our€review€of€a€sentenceÐ tÄ Ðdetermination€imposed€under€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€Ô#†¼^•»XX‰â!#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^•ÔÔ‡ X‰XXX‰ÔWhen€a€criminalÐ `° Ðdefendant€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€the€reviewing€court€mustÐ L œ Ðconduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðtrial€court€are€correct.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption,€however,€ð ðisÐ $ t Ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÐ  ` Ðprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð ü L  Ð1991).€€In€the€event€that€the€record€fails€to€show€such€consideration,€the€review€of€the€sentence€isÐ è 8  Ðpurely€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencingÐ ¬ü  Ðhearing,€determines€the€range€of€sentence€and€then€determines€the€specific€sentence€and€the€proprietyÐ ˜è  Ðof€sentencing€alternatives€by€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÐ „Ô  Ðsentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÐ pÀ Ðsentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved,€(5)Ð \¬ Ðevidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€(6)€anyÐ H˜ Ðstatements€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendant's€behalf€about€sentencing,€and€(7)€theÐ 4„ Ðpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€òòóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„210(a),€(b),€„103(5);€òòState€v.Ð  p ÐWilliamsóó,€920€S.W.2d€247,€258€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€presumptive€sentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D€or€E€felonyÔ#†X‰XX X‰%##ÔÔ‡ X‰XXX‰Ô€isÐ ä4 Ðthe€minimum€within€the€applicable€range€unless€there€are€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€present.€Ð Ð  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€If€there€are€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€startÐ ¼  Ðat€the€presumptive€sentence,€enhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors,€andÐ ¨ø Ðthen€reduce€the€sentence€in€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(e).€Ð ”ä ÐThe€weight€to€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòSheltonóó,€854€S.W.2dÐ €Ð Ðat€123.€€However,€the€sentence€must€be€adequately€supported€by€the€record€and€comply€with€theÐ l¼ Ðpurposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€237Ð X ¨ Ð(Tenn.€1986).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àWhen€imposing€a€sentence,€the€trial€court€must€make€specific€findings€of€fact€on€the€recordÐ #l! Ðsupporting€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„209(c).€€The€record€should€also€include€anyÐ $X" Ðenhancement€or€mitigating€factors€applied€by€the€trial€court.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(f).€€Thus,€if€the€trialÐ ô$D # Ðcourt€wishes€to€enhance€a€sentence,€the€court€must€state€its€reasons€on€the€record.€€The€purpose€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðrecording€the€courtððs€reasoning€is€to€guarantee€the€preparation€of€a€proper€record€for€appellateÐ Ì&"% Ðreview.€€òòState€v.€Ervinóó,€939€S.W.2d€581,€584€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Ô#†X‰XX X‰i+#ÔBecause€the€record€in€thisÐ ¸'#& Ðcase€indicates€that€the€trial€court€adequately€considered€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€asÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwell€as€the€underlying€facts,€our€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.Ô‡ X‰XXX‰ÔÐ )à$( Ðâ âÔ#†X‰XX X‰ü2#ÔÔ‡ X‰XXX‰ÔÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€that€theÐ ° Ðâ âcourt€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€theÐ œì Ðfactors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€areÐ ˆØ Ðadequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€"even€if€we€would€haveÐ tÄ Ðpreferred€a€different€result."€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Ô#†X‰XX X‰]3#ÔÔ‡ X‰XXX‰ÔTheÐ `° Ðdefendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence€imposed.€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÐ L œ Ðat€169.òòóóÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÔ#†X‰XX X‰ 6#ÔÔ#†¼^•»XX‰##ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^•ÔÓ  ÓA.€€LENGTH€OF€SENTENCEÐ  ` ÐÓG7ÓÌà  àThe€Defendant€first€contests€the€length€of€his€sentence.€€In€sentencing€the€Defendant,€the€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourt€applied€enhancement€factor€(1),€that€ð ð[t]he€[D]efendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÐ Ô$  Ðconvictions€or€criminal€behaviorðð;€enhancement€factor€(4),€that€ð ð[a]€victim€of€the€offense€wasÐ À  Ðparticularly€vulnerable€because€of€ageðð;Ô#†¼^•»XX‰(7#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^•Ô€enhancement€factor€(8),€that€ð ð[t]he€[D]efendant€has€aÐ ¬ü  Ðprevious€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€inÐ ˜è  Ðthe€communityðð;€and€enhancement€factor€(15),€that€ð ð[t]he€[D]efendant€abused€a€position€of€publicÐ „Ô  Ðor€private€trust€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(4),€(8),€(15).€€Thus,€the€trial€court€found€thatÐ pÀ Ðfour€enhancing€factors€applied€in€sentencing€the€Defendant.€€Additionally,€the€trial€court€found€thatÐ \¬ Ðno€mitigating€factors€applied.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€concerning€each€of€the€enhancement€factors€applied€in€this€case.€Ð  p ÐThe€record€does€indicate€that€the€Defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€orÐ  \ Ðcriminal€behavior,€that€he€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€ofÐ øH Ða€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community,€and€that€he€abused€a€position€of€private€trust€in€theÐ ä4 Ðneglect€of€his€two„year„old€daughter.€€The€trial€court€considered€and€rejected€each€of€the€mitigatingÐ Ð  Ðfactors€proposed€by€the€Defendant€and€found€no€other€mitigating€factors.€€The€trial€courtððs€findingsÐ ¼  Ðin€this€regard€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€and€we€will€not€disturb€those€findings€onÐ ¨ø Ðappeal.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€Defendantððs€argument€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€TennesseeÐ l¼ ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€40„35„114(4),€regarding€the€particular€vulnerability€of€the€victim,€we€concludeÐ X ¨ Ðthat€the€trial€court€should€not€have€applied€this€factor€solely€on€the€basis€of€the€victimððs€age€becauseÐ D!” Ðthe€victimððs€age€is€an€element€of€the€offense€of€felony€child€neglect.€€Nevertheless,€we€conclude€thatÐ 0"€  Ðthe€trial€court€properly€enhanced€the€Defendantððs€sentence€based€upon€enhancement€factor€(4).€€InÐ #l! Ðthis€case,€the€two„year„old€victim€was€clearly€particularly€vulnerable€because€of€her€natural€physicalÐ $X" Ðand€mental€limitations.€€The€trial€court€properly€found€that€the€two„year„old€baby€could€not€resist€theÐ ô$D # Ðcrime,€summon€help,€or€testify€at€a€later€date.€€The€victim€was€totally€dependent€on€the€DefendantÐ à%0!$ Ðfor€her€care.€€Thus,€we€agree€with€the€State€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€when€it€applied€this€factorÐ Ì&"% Ðto€enhance€the€Defendantððs€sentence.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€35€(Tenn.€1993).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÓ  ÓB.€€ALTERNATIVE€SENTENCINGÐ )à$( Ðâ âÓ%DÓÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€Defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€him€some€form€ofÐ ° Ðâ âalternative€sentencing.Ô‡ X‰XXX‰Ô€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„102(5)€provides€as€follows:€Ð œì Ðà8  àIn€recognition€that€state€prison€capacities€and€the€funds€to€build€and€maintain€themÐ ˆØ Ðare€limited,€convicted€felons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessingÐ tÄ Ðcriminal€histories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€andÐ `° Ðevincing€failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priority€regardingÐ L œ Ðsentencing€involving€incarceration€.€.€.€.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐA€defendant€who€does€not€fall€within€this€class€of€offenders€ð ðand€who€is€an€especially€mitigatedÐ $ t Ðoffender€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorableÐ  ` Ðcandidate€for€alternative€sentencing€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ü L  Ððð€40„35„102(6).€€Furthermore,€unless€sufficient€evidence€rebuts€the€presumption,€ð ð[t]he€trial€courtÐ è 8  Ðmust€presume€that€a€defendant€sentenced€to€eight€years€or€less€and€not€an€offender€for€whomÐ Ô$  Ðincarceration€is€a€priority€is€subject€to€alternative€sentencing€and€that€a€sentence€other€thanÐ À  Ðincarceration€would€result€in€successful€rehabilitation€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€379„80Ð ¬ü  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a).€€Tòòóóhe€Defendant,€as€a€standardÐ ˜è  Ðoffender€convicted€of€a€Class€D€felony,€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternativeÐ „Ô  Ðsentencing.€€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àHowever,€all€offenders€who€meet€the€criteria€are€not€entitled€to€relief;€instead,€sentencingÐ H˜ Ðissues€must€be€determined€by€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€each€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744Ð 4„ ÐS.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(citing€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€235€(Tenn.Ð  p Ð1986)).€€Even€if€a€defendant€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€underÐ  \ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„102(6),€the€statutory€presumption€of€an€alternative€sentence€mayÐ øH Ðbe€overcome€ifÐ ä4 Ðà8  àà ` à(A)€[c]onfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendantÐ Ð  Ðwho€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;м Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(B)€[c]onfinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðoffense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€toÐ ”ä Ðothers€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€orЀÐÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(C)€[m]easures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recentlyÐ l¼ Ðbeen€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant€.€.€.€.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A)„(C).€€In€choosing€among€possible€sentencing€alternatives,€theÐ D!” Ðtrial€court€should€also€consider€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103(5),€which€states,€in€pertinentÐ 0"€  Ðpart,€ð ðThe€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€the€rehabilitation€or€treatment€of€a€defendant€should€beÐ #l! Ðconsidered€in€determining€the€sentence€alternative€or€length€of€a€term€to€be€imposed.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„Ð $X" Ð103(5);€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ô#†X‰XX X‰&E#ÔÔ#†¼^•»XX‰O9#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^•Ô€€A€€lack€of€candor€orÐ ô$D # Ðuntruthful€testimony€reflects€poorly€upon€a€defendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€and€therefore€mayÐ à%0!$ Ðbe€a€proper€basis€for€the€denial€of€probationÔ#†¼^•»XX‰ÎS#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^•Ô.€€òòState€v.€Neelyóó,€678€S.W.2d€48,€49€(Tenn.€1984);€òòStateÐ Ì&"% Ðv.€Nunleyóó,€22€S.W.3d€282,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999)Ô#†¼^•»XX‰ãT#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^•Ô;€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€380€(Tenn.Ð ¸'#& ÐCrim.€App.€1993).Ô#†¼^•»XX‰³U#ÔÔ‡X‰X»¼^•ÔÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€stated€on€the€record€its€reasons€for€denying€an€alternative€sentence€in€this€case.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐThe€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€lacked€candor€and€credibility€and€thus€that€he€had€little€orÐ h+¸&* Ðno€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€The€trial€court€was€certainly€in€a€better€position€than€this€Court€toÐ ° Ðassess€the€candor€and€credibility€of€the€Defendant,€and€our€review€of€the€record€supports€its€findingsÐ œì Ðin€this€regard.€€The€trial€court€properly€applied€this€consideration€in€denying€an€alternative€sentence.€Ð ˆØ ÐòòóóAdditionally,€it€is€abundantly€clear€from€the€record€that€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinementÐ tÄ Ðhad€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€this€Defendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð `° Ð103(1)(C).€€This€factor€was€also€properly€applied€by€the€trial€court€in€imposing€a€sentence€ofÐ L œ Ðincarceration.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€AFFIRM€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð  ` ÐÔ#†¼^•»XX‰LV#ÔÔ€X‰X»¼^•ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGE