ÿWPCh 4# è %óUNù 0ÆG 4) 0 8w@B 0D‚ 0DÆ 0J 0TT 0^¨ 0h 0rn 0|à 0†\ 0â 1ur 0dç AQK Æœ 0Db 0@¦ Bæ D/ B2 D3OU>‚U*ÀB)êDC AMVÍ£§pv~vÓ•˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏX(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÌqæ$3|xò(º(3©$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÕÖ×EØÙDÚÕäeåæçÓ€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd!#.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÃÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌò òAugustÏ21,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€,ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔThe€defendant's€name€is€also€spelled€"Gale"€Pell€throughout€the€record.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ý›Ñ7€‡@XdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€,Ԝـ!ÙßR€/0.A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLEóóÌà@ àJULY€1998€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€03C01„9707„CC„00292€€Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à*à àBLOUNT€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÓÓGAIL€PELL,à àà àà àà à*à à(DUI,€Second€Offense,€ÌÌà àAppellant.à àà àà à*à àDriving€on€Revoked€License)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€Appelleeóó:ÌÌMack€Garnerà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌDistrict€Public€Defender€à àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ419€High€Street€à àà àà àà àà àÌMaryville,€TN€€37804à àà àà àEllen€H.€PollackÌ(at€trial)à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€ÌJulie€A.€Martin,€Attorneyà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌP.O.€Box€426€ÌKnoxville,€TN€€37901„0426à àà àPhilip€Morton€Ì(on€appeal)à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à363€Court€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMaryville,€TN€€37804ÌÌÌà àà àÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÇÓÓà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌà àà àThe€defendant,€Gail€Pell,× ƒ1 ××  ×€was€convicted€of€driving€while€under€theÏinfluence€of€an€intoxicant,€second€offense,€and€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€TheÏtrial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days,€suspendingÏall€but€one€hundred€twenty€days,€for€driving€under€the€influence€and€ordered€a€six„month€concurrent€sentence,€with€all€suspended€except€for€two€days,€for€driving€on€aÏrevoked€license.€€The€balance€of€each€sentence€was€to€be€served€on€supervisedÏprobation.€€Five€months€later,€probation€was€revoked€and€the€defendant€wasÏordered€to€serve€her€sentence€in€jail€at€seventy„five€percent.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€Ìrequiring€seventy„five€percent€of€her€œsentence€to€be€served.›€€ÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àOn€February€5,€1997,€the€defendant€entered€guilty€pleas€on€each€ofÏthe€two€charges.€€Later€that€same€day,€before€she€reported€to€jail€to€start€serving€theÍsentence,€the€defendant€drank€six€beers.€€Afterward,€she€was€stopped€by€police€asÏshe€was€driving€from€her€boyfriend's€residence.€€As€the€officer€began€hisÏinvestigation,€the€defendant,€who€had€no€operator's€license,€was€"overwhelmed€byÏfright€and€drove€off."€€The€defendant€had€marijuana€in€her€possession€at€the€timeÏand€had€smoked€marijuana€while€visiting€her€boyfriend.€€The€defendant€admittedÏthat€she€was€intoxicated.€€Shortly€thereafter,€she€entered€a€guilty€plea€in€the€BlountÏCounty€General€Sessions€Court€and€received€an€additional€sentence€of€oneÏhundred€twenty€days.€€By€the€time€of€the€probation€revocation€hearing€on€July€3,Ï1997,€the€defendant€had€been€incarcerated€almost€five€months.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€defendant€had€violated€the€terms€ofÏher€probation€and€ordered€her€to€serve€the€eleven„month,€twenty„nine„dayÏsentence€with€a€seventy„five€percent€release€eligibility,€"which€means€basicallyÏnine€months."€€The€defendant€was€given€credit€for€the€time€she€had€served€in€jailÏand€was€declared€eligible€to€participate€in€work€programs€to€earn€sentence€credits.€ÏAlthough€it€was€unknown€whether€inpatient€treatment€would€be€available,€the€trialÏjudge€indicated€that€he€would€allow€"some€of€this€nine€months€in€an€inpatientÏtreatment"€program.€€ÌThe€sentence€was€allowed€to€be€served€concurrently€with€that€ordered€in€theÏgeneral€sessions€court.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€concedes€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€by€revoking€her€probation€but€takes€issue€with€the€length€of€her€jailÏsentence.€€She€argues€that€"doubling€her€actual€time€of€incarceration€as€a€result€ofÏher€subsequent€conviction€was€excessive€and€erroneous."€€She€contends€that€theÏnine„month€sentence€"is€not€the€least€severe€measure€...€in€order€to€achieveÏsentencing€purposes."€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€challenge€is€made€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€"de€novo€review€...€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€isÏtaken€are€correct."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€ÌÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;Ï(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÏdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€and€Ì„210.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Ìà à€€€Ìà àà àIn€misdemeanor€sentencing,€a€separate€sentencing€hearing€is€notÏmandatory€but€the€court€is€required€to€provide€the€defendant€with€a€reasonableÏopportunity€to€be€heard€as€to€the€length€and€manner€of€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„302(a).€€Misdemeanor€sentences€must€be€specific€and€in€accordanceÏwith€the€principles,€purposes,€and€goals€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€ofÏ1989.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„104,€„117,€and€„302;€€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€902ÏS.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€misdemeanor€offender€must€be€sentenced€toÏan€authorized€determinant€sentence€with€a€percentage€of€that€sentence€designatedÏfor€eligibility€for€rehabilitative€programs.€€Generally,€a€percentage€of€not€greaterÏthan€75%€of€the€sentence€should€be€fixed€for€a€misdemeanor€offender;€however,€aÏDUI€offender€may€be€required€to€serve€the€full€100%€of€his€sentence.€€òòPalmeróó,€902ÏS.W.2d€at€393„94.€€In€determining€the€percentage€of€the€sentence,€the€court€mustÏconsider€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€as€well€as€the€legislative€purposesÏand€principles€related€to€sentencing.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àà àUpon€service€of€that€percentage,€the€administrative€agency€governingÏthe€rehabilitative€programs€determines€which€among€the€lawful€programs€availableÏis€appropriate.€€The€trial€court€retains€the€authority€to€place€the€defendant€onÍprobation€either€immediately€or€after€a€term€of€periodic€or€continuous€confinement.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(e).€€The€legislature€has€encouraged€courts€toÏconsider€public€or€private€agencies€for€probation€supervision€prior€to€directingÏsupervision€by€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(f).€ÏThe€governing€statute€is€designed€to€provide€the€trial€court€with€continuingÏjurisdiction€in€misdemeanor€cases€and€a€wide€latitude€of€flexibility.€€TheÏmisdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€a€minimumÏsentence.€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€ÌÌà àà àObviously,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€revokingÏprobation.€€The€minimum€period€of€incarceration€was€one€hundred€twenty€days;€theÏmaximum€possible€sentence€was€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1).€€In€our€view,€an€overriding€sentencing€consideration€is€thatÏconfinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense;Ïmoreover,€other€less€restrictive€measures€have€been€unsuccessful.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B),€and€(C).€€Given€the€defendant's€prior€criminal€history€andÏher€failure€to€take€advantage€of€opportunities€at€rehabilitation,€a€lengthy€term€in€jailÏis€warranted.€€The€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€more€than€fair€to€theÏdefendant€under€the€entire€circumstances€of€the€case.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge€