ÿWPC Zat=LÇÕ:rS¦hy­¸¿èÑ~Ä"ÁÝJEüMzsòÝp*t‚¤tr£µH”T±‹CçZ(®Wc*Džà³¿ÖBpèŰ-:"0ƒ|èê~Žvèçgû¥¡û_X»X:0˜3§Po5lˆüÁ@!ªÓŠr$Ⱥ‰óàÍäÃÂ/(Ý%½ÙßÔ€ðq2ìIÁì² Ä~ ËX,…1ÄâÑêm[Ò, J¡æyëlçó4Ž{l=üêÖp…޵NSekÑ˽³×`«ž}<4ª˜ÈsÍ-ö.¼’1uTS3R`>ŸÌ6ú®Ä½ìvâŠdO'w÷D<öÚ áZ«ýÚœ†Px,®"=§LDÅ««:p·ÏQd—öî=Bä+Oó|kï³Ý7¦CMkB º¢ÖÊAÚmzÕìš6û?ÀJn7çz<ÊQQý¾£@ÝÑY®¶xˆ¬…Ö¯8.Ê[« iMZÊô¨^õh/*'Ù Y.S ¨ùõO¡¯öÁ4|‘ùÃP³P+^ …Š(d`ëÿAý­šÓÑÑE:’gê ^-¦ž°H£¯¢sšý¯˜[ÁH·´ƒÆt„hñàh3£-sŸ¢øBB" :7 ¾¡L¾´xb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i Nx z m| Æ“ ÆY Æ Æå UN«NùûûEb 0ë     Bøø 0¤ D3¹ D-ì 0K ASdÆ· 0¤} 0D! A«e˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»ŃK+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularòK+ œtU£ ˜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‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular - ù-(|G2š™$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B¼»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô Pò»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B¼»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B¼»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Wä»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼©»»»ÔÑ8€1$XXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î¨ î»¼©ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼©»îî¨ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€September€11,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡Xê”X»¼©ÔÌò òÔ#†¼©»XXê”!#ÔòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóSTEPHANIE€RENAE€PERSONÔ‡Xê”X»¼©Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Madison€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00„139€€€€€€Donald€H.€Allen,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„02859„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€10,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓA€Madison€County€jury€convicted€the€Defendant€of€misdemeanor€theft€of€property,€and€the€trial€courtÐ xÈ  Ðsentenced€her€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€of€incarceration.€€The€judgment€of€the€trialÐ d´ Ðcourt€specified€that€the€Defendant€must€serve€seventy„five€percent€of€the€sentence€prior€to€eligibilityÐ P  Ðfor€work€release,€furlough,€trusty€status,€and€rehabilitative€programs.€€The€Defendant€now€appeals,Ð <Œ Ðchallenging€both€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€and€the€sentence€that€was€imposed.€€Finding€thatÐ (x Ðthe€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction€and€that€the€sentence€was€properly€imposed,Ð d Ðwe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð P ÐÓÄÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼©»àXꔟ#ÔÔ‡Xê”X.¼©ÔRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€Woodallóó€andÐ ° ÐòòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌClifford€K.€McGown,€Jr.,€Waverly,€Tennessee€(on€appeal);€George€Morton€Googe,€District€PublicÐ tÄ ÐDefender;€and€Vanessa€D.€King,€Assistant€District€Public€Defender,€Jackson,€Tennessee€(at€trial€andÐ `° Ðon€appeal),€for€the€Appellant,€Stephanie€Renae€Person.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Laura€McMullen€Ford,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ $"t! ÐGeneral;€James€G.€Woodall,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Shaun€A.€Brown,€Assistant€DistrictÐ #`" ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÓZÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼©»XXꔉ#ÔÔ‡Xê”X»¼©ÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼©»XXê” #ÔÔ‡Xê”X»¼©ÔÓ  Óà@KK&ìàI.€€FACTSˆÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€was€indicted€by€the€Madison€County€Grand€Jury€for€misdemeanor€theft€ofÐ „)Ô$) Ðproperty,€with€the€owner€of€the€property€being€Fredððs€Dollar€Store.€€At€the€jury€trial,€Tim€McGeeÐ p*À%* Ðtestified€that€he€is€the€manager€for€Fredððs€Dollar€Store€in€Jackson,€Tennessee.€€Mr.€McGee€identifiedÐ \+¬&+ Ðthe€Defendant€as€a€person€with€whom€he€had€come€in€contact€in€the€store€on€September€3,€1999.€€OnÐ H,˜', Ðthat€date,€the€Defendant€activated€alarms€when€she€exited€the€store€with€several€items€ofÐ 4-„(-ý Ðmerchandise€in€her€purse€that€had€not€been€ð ðdeactivated.ðð€€(When€items€are€purchased,€they€areÐ ° Ðð ðdeactivatedðð€and€then€presumably€do€not€set€off€the€alarm).€€The€items€of€merchandise€in€theÐ œì ÐDefendantððs€purse€that€had€not€been€deactivated€included€Murine€eye€drops€and€four€hair€extensions,Ð ˆØ Ðthe€total€value€of€which€was€$10.88.€€Mr.€McGee€asked€the€Defendant€if€she€had€paid€for€the€items,Ð tÄ Ðand€she€said€she€did€not.€€The€cashier€reported€to€Mr.€McGee€that€the€items€had€not€been€presentedÐ `° Ðto€her€when€the€Defendant€checked€out.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendantððs€seven„year„old€daughter€testified€that€she€was€six€years€old€at€the€time€ofÐ $ t Ðthe€theft€and€that€she€had€put€the€Ô_ÔMurineÔ_Ô€eye€drops€and€other€items€in€her€motherððs€purse€without€herÐ  ` Ðmotherððs€knowledge.€€The€Defendantððs€eight„year„old€son€testified€that€he€was€with€his€motherÐ ü L  Ðshopping€at€Fredððs€on€the€day€of€the€incident,€along€with€his€two€sisters.€€He€testified€that€he€saw€hisÐ è 8  Ðð ðlittle€sisterðð€put€the€eye€drops€in€his€motherððs€purse€without€his€mother€seeing.€€He€didnððt€tell€hisÐ Ô$  Ðmother,€although€he€did€know€that€what€his€little€sister€had€done€was€wrong.€€The€Defendantððs€olderÐ À  Ðdaughter€testified€that€she€was€also€present€on€the€day€of€the€alleged€theft,€and€she€stated€that€she€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðthere€to€buy€a€clipboard€for€school.€€She€testified€that€the€Person€family€had€a€ð ðbuggyðð€that€containedÐ ˜è  Ðher€ð ðmamaððs€purse€and€some€lotion€and€some€Cocoa€Butter€and€my€clipboard.ðð€€The€older€sister€sawÐ „Ô  Ðher€younger€sister€putting€the€eye€drops€ð ðand€that€stuff€that€goes€on€your€hairðð€into€the€purse.€€SheÐ pÀ Ðalso€did€not€tell€her€mother€what€she€had€seen.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€that€she€was€shopping€in€Fredððs€with€her€three€children.€€She€firstÐ 4„ Ðbecame€aware€that€there€was€a€problem€when€she€was€leaving€the€store€and€the€alarm€went€off.€€TheÐ  p ÐDefendant€testified€that€she€had€placed€the€Murine€eye€drops€in€the€buggy,€but€not€in€her€purse.€Ð  \ ÐConcerning€the€Murine€eye€drops,€the€Defendant€testified,€ð ðI€didnððt€even€think€about€it€when€I€gotÐ øH Ðup€to€the€counter.ðð€€She€agreed€that€the€hair€extensions€were€in€her€purse€when€she€was€confrontedÐ ä4 Ðby€the€manager.€€She€testified€that€when€the€alarm€went€off€and€the€manager€called€her€back€over€toÐ Ð  Ðcheck€her€purse,€her€son€ð ðbusted€out€with€ððÔ_ÔBrandiÔ_Ô€did€itðð€and€then€thatððs€when€my€daughter€saidÐ ¼  ÐððÔ_ÔBrandiÔ_Ô€did€it.ðððð€€The€Defendant€further€testified€that€even€though€she€had€to€open€her€purse€to€getÐ ¨ø Ðher€money€to€pay€for€other€items,€she€did€not€see€the€eye€drops€or€hair€extensions€in€her€purse,Ð ”ä Ðbecause€her€money€was€ð ðsitting€right€on€top€of€it,€so€I€just€grabbed€it€out.€€I€didnððt€even€dig€orÐ €Ð Ðanything€in€the€purse.ðð€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€rebuttal,€Tim€McGee,€the€manager€of€Fredððs€Dollar€Store,€testified€that€after€the€incident,Ð D!” Ðhe€took€photographs€of€the€items€that€had€been€found€in€the€Defendantððs€purse.€€The€photographsÐ 0"€  Ðwere€admitted€into€evidence.€€Mr.€McGee€testified€that€the€Murine€eye€drops€for€sale€at€Fredððs€wereÐ #l! Ðdisplayed€on€a€shelf€situated€sixty„eight€inches€above€the€floor.Ð $X" ÐÌà@yy$ìàII.€€ANALYSISˆÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà@˜˜ìàA.€€Sufficiency€of€EvidenceˆÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€first€contends€that€insufficient€evidence€was€presented€to€support€herÐ )à$( Ðconviction.€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€courtððsÐ |*Ì%) Ðstandard€of€review€is€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ h+¸&* Ðprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÐ ° Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2dÐ œì Ð63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€applies€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€directÐ ˆØ Ðevidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€Ð tÄ ÐòòState€v.€Pendergrassóó,€13€S.W.3d€389,€392„93€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000).Ð `° ÐÌà  àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€should€not€re„weigh€or€re„evaluateÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Nor€may€thisÐ $ t ÐCourt€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,Ð  ` Ð286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(Tenn.€1956);€òòState€v.€Buggsóó,€995€S.W.2d€102,€105€(Tenn.€1999).€€QuestionsÐ ü L  Ðconcerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€allÐ è 8  Ðfactual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòLiakasóó,€286€S.W.2d€at€859.òòóó€Ð Ô$  ÐòòóóThis€Court€must€afford€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceÐ À  Ðcontained€in€the€record,€as€well€as€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€Ð ¬ü  ÐòòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992).€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€against€a€defendantÐ ˜è  Ðremoves€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€convicted€criminalÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€sustain€a€guiltyÐ pÀ Ðverdict.€€òòId.óó€Ô#†¼©»XXê”k #ÔÔ‡Xê”X»¼©ÔÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€Defendant€basically€asserted€that€her€youngest€daughter€had€put€the€MurineÐ 4„ Ðeye€drops€and€hair€extensions€into€the€Defendantððs€purse€without€the€Defendantððs€knowledge.€€This€Ð  p Ðtheory€was€supported€by€the€testimony€of€the€Defendantððs€three€minor€children€and€by€the€testimonyÐ  \ Ðof€the€Defendant.€€However,€there€were€several€discrepancies€in€the€testimony€of€the€defenseÐ øH Ðwitnesses.€€The€State€presented€ample€evidence,€both€direct€and€circumstantial,€from€which€the€juryÐ ä4 Ðcould€have€reasonably€inferred€that€the€Defendant€put€the€stolen€items€in€her€purse€herself,Ð Ð  Ðknowingly€failed€to€pay€for€the€items,€and€attempted€to€leave€the€store.€€The€Defendant,€who€hadÐ ¼  Ðtwice€been€convicted€of€forgery,€testified€that€although€she€obtained€money€from€her€purse€to€payÐ ¨ø Ðfor€her€purchases,€she€did€not€see€the€Murine€eye€drops€or€the€hair€extensions€in€her€purse.€€As€theÐ ”ä ÐState€points€out€in€its€brief,€it€is€obvious€that€the€jury€did€not€find€the€defense€testimony€persuasive.€Ð €Ð ÐWe€conclude,€as€did€the€trial€court,€that€the€evidence€presented€by€the€state€was€sufficient€to€convictÐ l¼ Ðthe€Defendant€of€misdemeanor€theft.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà@¤¤#ìàB.€€SentencingˆÐ 0"€  Ðà  àÌà  àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€her€sentence€is€excessive.€€As€previously€stated,€the€trial€courtÐ $X" Ðimposed€a€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€to€be€served€in€the€local€jail.€€The€trialÐ ô$D # Ðcourt€ordered€that€the€Defendant€serve€seventy„five€percent€of€the€sentence€before€being€eligible€forÐ à%0!$ Ðwork€release,€furlough,€trusty€status,€and€rehabilitative€programs.€€Ô#†¼©»XXꔲ'#ÔÔ‡Xê”X»¼©ÔÐ Ì&"% ЀÌà  àOur€analysis€begins€with€well„settled€principles€that€govern€our€review€of€a€sentenceÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdetermination€imposed€under€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€Ô#†¼©»XXꔉ/#ÔÔ‡Xê”X»¼©ÔIn€making€its€sentencingÐ )à$( Ðdetermination,€the€trial€court,€at€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€determines€the€range€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðsentence€and€then€determines€the€specific€sentence€and€the€propriety€of€sentencing€alternatives€byÐ h+¸&* Ðconsidering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€theÐ ° Ðpresentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)Ð œì Ðthe€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved,€(5)€evidence€and€information€offeredÐ ˆØ Ðby€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€(6)€any€statements€the€defendant€wishesÐ tÄ Ðto€make€in€the€defendant's€behalf€about€sentencing,€and€(7)€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€orÐ `° Ðtreatment.€òòóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„210(a),€(b),€„103(5);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€920€S.W.2d€247,€258Ð L œ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÔ#†¼©»XXꔡ0#ÔÔ‡Xê”X»¼©Ôà  àIn€misdemeanor€sentencing,€a€separate€sentencing€hearing€is€not€mandatory,€but€the€trial€courtÐ  ` Ðis€required€to€allow€the€parties€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€be€heard€on€the€question€of€the€length€ofÐ ü L  Ðthe€sentence€and€the€manner€in€which€it€is€to€be€served.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(a).€€In€thisÐ è 8  Ðcase,€the€trial€court€did€so.€€Further,€the€sentence€imposed€must€be€specific€and€consistent€with€theÐ Ô$  Ðpurposes€and€principles€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€òòIdóó.€ðð€40„35„302(b).€€AÐ À  Ðpercentage€of€not€greater€than€seventy„five€percent€of€the€sentence€should€be€fixed€for€service,€afterÐ ¬ü  Ðwhich€the€defendant€becomes€eligible€for€ð ðwork€release,€furlough,€trusty€status€and€relatedÐ ˜è  Ðrehabilitative€programs.ðð€€òòIdóó.€ðð€40„35„302(d).€Ô#†¼©»XXê”5#ÔÔ‡Xê”X»¼©ÔÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€misdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€a€minimumÐ \¬ Ðsentence.€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€However,€in€determiningÐ H˜ Ðthe€percentage€of€the€sentence€to€be€served€in€actual€confinement,€the€court€must€considerÐ 4„ Ðenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€as€well€as€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€CriminalÐ  p ÐSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€and€the€court€should€not€impose€such€percentages€arbitrarily.€€Tenn.Ð  \ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d).Ð øH ÐÌà  àWhen€a€criminal€defendant€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,Ð Ð  Ðthe€reviewing€court€must€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ ¼  Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€Tennessee€SupremeÐ ¨ø ÐCourt€has€held€that€in€misdemeanor€sentencing€a€trial€court€is€not€required€to€place€specific€findingsÐ ”ä Ðon€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Troutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€271,€274€(Tenn.€1998).€€A€trial€court€need€onlyÐ €Ð Ðconsider€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€order€to€comply€withÐ l¼ Ðthe€legislative€mandates€of€the€misdemeanor€sentencing€statute.€òòId.óóÔ#†¼©»XXê”ã8#ÔÐ X ¨ ÐÌÔ€Xê”X»¼©Ôà  àAfter€a€careful€review,€we€conclude€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€supportedÐ V"¦  Ðby€the€appropriate€principles€of€sentencing.€€The€Defendant€has€an€extensive€criminal€historyÐ B#’! Ðinvolving€numerous€convictions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€The€convictions€includeÐ .$~" Ðboth€felonies€and€misdemeanors.€€The€record€also€indicates€that€the€Defendant€has€a€previous€historyÐ %j # Ðof€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€Ð &V!$ ÐòòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€Thus,€the€record€supports€the€application€of€two€enhancement€factors.€€AsÐ ò&B"% Ðfor€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€considered€the€needs€of€the€Defendantððs€children€and€theÐ Þ'.#& ÐDefendantððs€prospects€for€employment,€but€obviously€felt€that€the€enhancing€factors€far€outweighedÐ Ê($' Ðthe€mitigating€factors.Ð ¶)%( Ðâ âÐ ¢*ò%) Ðà  àA€sentence€of€confinement€is€justified€in€this€case€for€several€reasons.€€First,€confinement€isÐ ° Ðâ ânecessary€to€protect€society€from€this€Defendant,€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct.€€òòSeeóóÐ œì Ðòòid.óó€òòóóðð€40„35„103(1)(A).€€Next,€the€record€indicates€that€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinementÐ ˆØ Ðhave€frequently€and€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€Defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„Ð tÄ Ð103(1)(C).€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àWe€also€note€that€with€certain€exceptions,€a€defendant€is€eligible€for€probation€if€the€sentenceÐ 8 ˆ Ðactually€imposed€is€eight€years€or€less.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40-35-303(a).€€However,€"[Ô_Ôa]lthoughÔ_Ô€probation€'mustÐ $ t Ðbe€automatically€considered€as€a€sentencing€option€for€eligible€defendants,€the€defendant€is€notÐ  ` Ðautomatically€entitled€to€probation€as€a€matter€of€law.'"€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€940€S.W.2d€558,€559€(Tenn.Ð ü L  Ð1997)€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-303(b)€sentencing€Ô_Ôcomm'nÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcmtsÔ_Ô).€€In€determining€whetherÐ è 8  Ðto€grant€or€deny€probation,€the€trial€court€may€consider€the€circumstances€of€the€offense;€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant's€criminal€record,€background€and€social€history;€the€defendant's€physical€and€mentalÐ À  Ðhealth;€the€deterrent€effect€on€other€criminal€activity;€and€the€likelihood€that€probation€is€in€the€bestÐ ¬ü  Ðinterests€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.€òòState€v.€Parkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€945,€958€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ˜è  ÐApp.1996).€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð \¬ Ððð€40-35-303(b);€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€case,€the€Defendant€hasÐ H˜ Ðnot€met€that€burden.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€committed€no€error€in€sentencing€theÐ 4„ ÐDefendant.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€in€all€respects€AFFIRMED.Ð øH ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGE