ÿWPCü …U:V %–nX¦ 04þ2 U:2 w@l 4¬ n­À m 0Ju 0T¿ 0^ 0hq 0rÙ 0|K 0†Ç 0M 1uÝ 0dRU6¶U *ì BB)3DC\ AMŸ&ì D3fE« 0@Æv~vÓ„ AOWƦ 0Dl D/° Bß<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiX3|xŠ«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXôxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@3 ªHa`$2Line Printer 16.67cpi©©H ªH@Žú¥Ç;©@( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular kUlUmUnUoUpUqÓ€}U~îÓ€Úƒç"þ6«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@2 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< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òDecember€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó%%%%'ÿÿdxd \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òDecember€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€Â)XXdÈdÈ7ÑÔ€$ÔÙ€€ÙßR€()'A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÓ  ÓÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌà@ àMARCH€1996€SESSIONÌó óÌÌà€ àÌÒèyXI’ÒÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌÌ€€€€€Appellee,ÌÌV.ÌÌò òWESLEY€€CHRISTOPHERÏPITTMANÌÌ€€€€€ó óAppellant,ÌÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌJerry€H.€SummersÌAttorney€at€LawÌ500€Lindsay€StreetÌChattanooga,€Tn.€37403Ì€€€€ÉÌ)C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9510„CR„00316Ì)Ì)€Hamilton€CountyÌ)Ì)€Hon.€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€JudgeÌ)Ì)€(Voluntary€Manslaughter)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌDarian€B.€TaylorÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tn.€37243€€ÌÌWilliam€H.€CoxÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌH.€C.€BrightÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÌCourts€BuildingÌChattanooga,€Tn.€€37402ÉÒÒ€€€€€OPINION€FILED:€______________________€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€ò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€MODIFIED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌÌÌÌò ò€€€€€CHARLES€LEEó ó,€Special€Judgeà àÇÌà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓÓÌà àÌà àThe€defendant,€Wesley€Christopher€Pittman,€was€originally€indictedÏfor€first€degree€murder€in€the€shooting€death€of€the€victim€Johnny€LabronÏWalker.€Upon€agreement€with€the€state,€the€defendant€was€allowed€to€enterÏa€best€interest,€nolo€contendere€plea€to€a€reduced€charge€of€voluntaryÏmanslaughter.€€The€Defendant€was€sentenced€by€the€trial€court€to€theÏmaximum€sentence€of€six€years€as€a€Range€I€Standard€Offender.€€All€forms€ofÏalternative€sentencing€were€denied.€€The€defendant€now€appeals€both€theÏlength€of€his€sentence€and€the€denial€of€alternative€sentencing.ÌÌà@ àI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDÌÌà àThis€case€represents€one€of€many€instances€in€which€a€trial€judge€isÏplaced€in€the€unenviable€position€of€deciding€the€facts€of€a€case€in€aÏsentencing€hearing€without€the€benefit€of€a€full„blown€trial.€€The€result€is€aÏrecord€that€does€not€present€a€unified€set€of€facts,€but€instead€paints€twoÏdifferent€pictures€in€such€stark€contrast€that€they€could€have€arisen€fromÏentirely€separate€lawsuits.€ÌÌà àThe€state€by€its€indictment€and€its€position€during€the€sentencingÏhearing€presents€a€picture€of€perhaps€first€degree€murder€and€more€likelyÍsecond€degree€murder.€€The€defendant€presents€a€picture€of€at€best€anÏaccident€and€at€worse€a€reckless€homicide.€€Rather€than€flush€out€the€facts€inÏa€trial,€the€state€and€the€defendant€compromised€in€a€plea€bargain€therebyÏthrusting€upon€the€trial€judge€the€duty€of€"doing€justice"€in€a€sentencingÏhearing.ÌÌÌà àDuring€the€sentencing€hearing€,€the€trial€court€heard€from€only€oneÏwitness,€the€defendant,€regarding€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€deathÏof€the€victim.€The€defendant€testified€that€the€shooting€of€the€victim€was€anÏaccident.€€However,€the€parties€agreed€to€introduce€as€exhibits€statementsÏtaken€from€various€individuals€who€purported€to€witness€the€events€that€ledÏto€the€death€of€the€victim.€€From€these€statements€one€can€glean€that€theÏfacts€leading€to€the€death€of€the€victim€are€truly€tragic.ÌÌà àThe€victim€and€the€defendant€were€both€teenagers€on€February€12,Ï1994€and€had€been€friends.€€Each€were€not€living€under€any€direct€parentalÏsupervision.€€The€victim€had€been€asked€to€leave€his€home€and€had€noÏplace€to€live.€€The€defendant€was€living€with€several€other€young€people€inÏthe€home€of€his€slightly€older€sister€and€had€agreed€that€the€victim€could€stayÏin€the€house€until€he€could€find€a€more€permanent€home.€€On€the€tragic€nightÏof€February€12,€1994,€the€defendant€had€consumed€a€considerable€amountÏof€alcohol.€€During€the€late€evening€hours€several€young€peopleÍcongregated€at€the€residence€of€the€defendant.€€In€addition€to€alcohol,€otherÏdrugs€were€available€to€those€present.ÌÌà àDuring€the€course€of€the€evening,€at€least€two€firearms€wereÏdisplayed.€€The€defendant€had€a€hand€gun€which€he€had€acquiredÏapproximately€one€week€before.€€He€was€reported€to€have€pointed€this€gunÏat€several€persons€at€the€residence.€€Never€was€the€victim€reported€to€haveÏpossessed€either€of€the€firearms.€€With€several€other€persons€in€the€room€theÏdefendant€is€reported€to€have€aimed€the€firearm€directly€at€the€unarmedÏvictim.€€The€firearm€discharged€striking€the€victim€in€the€head.€€There€is€someÏdispute€as€to€whether€the€two€had€exchanged€words€before€the€shooting.€€€ÌÑ 4 ÑÑ  ÑÔ&  ÔÌÌà@ àII.€€LENGTH€OF€SENTENCEÌÌ€€€€€€€Appellate€review€of€a€sentence€is€de€novo,€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„401(d)€(1990€Repl.).€The€appellant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€thatÏthe€seÔ'  Ôntence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€erroneous.€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€786Í(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€In€determining€whether€the€appellant€has€carriedÏthis€burden,€this€court€must€consider:€(1)€The€evidence€received€at€theÏsentencing€hearing;€€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€andÏcharacteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€evidence€and€informationÏoffered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ððððÏ40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€any€statement€the€defendant€wishes€toÏmake€in€his€own€behalf€about€sentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210Ï(1995€Supp.).€€The€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€is€the€presumptiveÏsentence.€If€there€are€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€startÏat€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€asÏappropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sentenceÏwithin€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€ÌÔ&  Ôà àThe€trial€court€found€the€following€enhancing€factors€to€be€present:€€(1)Ïthat€the€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€to€gratify€theÏdefendant's€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement;€(2)€that€the€defendantÏpossessed€or€employed€a€firearm€during€the€commission€of€the€offense;€(3)Ïthat€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€riskÏto€human€life€was€high.€€ÌÔ'  ÔÌà àIn€finding€these€enhancing€factors€the€trial€court€implicitly€rejected€theÏdefendant's€theory€of€accidental€shooting.€€However,€the€trial€court€made€noÏexplicit€finding€of€fact€either€accepting€or€rejecting€the€defendant's€theory€ofÏreckless€homicide€or€the€state's€theory€of€murder.€ÌÌà àSince€the€defendant€pointed€a€firearm€at€not€only€the€victim€but€othersÏduring€the€evening,€a€logical€conclusion€to€explain€his€actions€was€theÏexcitement€such€actions€generated.€€ÌÌà àThe€use€of€a€firearm€was€not€an€element€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏSheltonóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòState€v.€Junior€Belcheróó,€Hamblen€County€No.Ï03„C„01„9110„CR„00352€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€April€10,€1992)Ï(shotgun€used€to€kill€the€victim);€òòState€v.€Christopher€Coffeeóó,€DavidsonÏCounty€No.€01„C„01„9103„CR„00066€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€OctoberÏ10,€1991)€(pistol€used€to€kill€the€victim);€òòState€v.€James€K.€Boykin,€Jr.óó.,ÏOverton€County€No.€01„C„01„9106„CC„00174€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÏOctober€2,€1991)€(assault€rifle€and€shotgun€used€to€kill€the€victim);€òòState€v.ÏJerry€E.€Cookóó,€Monroe€County€No.€117€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€August€ÌÌÌ16,€1989),€per.€app.€denied,€November€6,€1989€(butcher€knife€used€to€kill€theÏvictim).€€ÌÌà àFinally,€where€a€high€risk€to€human€life€is€established€with€factsÏseparate€from€those€necessary€to€establish€an€element€of€the€offense,€theÏenhancement€factor€is€not€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€and€may€beÏapplied€if€supported€by€the€facts.€òòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741€S.W.2d€127,€134Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Several€other€individuals€were€in€close€proximityÏto€the€victim€at€the€time€the€firearm€was€discharged.€€ÌÌà àThe€facts€of€this€case€fully€support€the€trial€court's€finding€as€to€eachÏenhancement€factor.ÌÌà àAs€mitigating€factors€the€trial€court€found€(1)€that€because€of€theÏdefendant's€youth€he€lacked€substantial€judgment€in€committing€the€offense;Ï(2)€the€defendant€had€no€criminal€record€and€(3)€the€defendant€displayedÏremorse€for€his€actions.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€inappropriately€weighedÏthe€enhancing€factors€in€relation€to€the€mitigating€factors€in€meting€out€theÍmaximum€sentence.€€It€is€apparent€from€the€record€that€the€trial€court€gaveÏgreat€weight€to€the€circumstances€of€the€use€of€a€firearm€in€this€case.€€TheÏweight€to€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€òòStateÏv.€Sheltonóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229€(Tenn.€1986).ÌIn€determining€an€appropriate€sentence,€the€court€is€not€bound€by€theÏoffense€for€which€the€defendant€was€convicted,€except€as€to€the€possibleÏrange,€and€may€look€to€the€"nature€and€characteristics"€of€the€defendant'sÏactual€Ô&  Ômisconduct€in€setting€a€sentence€within€that€range.€òòState€v.ÏHollingsworthóó,€647€S.W.2d€937,€939€(Tenn.€1983).€€Ô'  ÔÌÌà àWe€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€court's€decision€that€theÏenhancing€factors€present€in€this€case€so€far€outweigh€the€mitigating€factorsÏas€to€warrant€the€maximum€sentence€of€six€years.ÌÌà@ àIII.€€DENIAL€OF€ALTERNATIVE€SENTENCEÌÌà àWhile€the€trial€court€explained€its€reasons€for€setting€the€range€ofÏsentence€on€the€record€the€same€cannot€be€said€for€explaining€its€rationaleÏfor€denying€all€forms€of€alternative€sentencing.€€Regarding€alternativeÏsentencing€the€trial€court€stated:Ì€ÓÓÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  Òà àI€have€considered,€as€I€must€under€the€law,€alternative€forms€ofÏpunishment€and€I€agree€with€Mr.€Barry€that€we€do€have€to€educateÏpeople,€but€first€we€have€to€have€these€people€accept€theirÏpunishment€for€what€they've€done.ÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü Òà àÔ& Ü ÔEarlier€the€trial€court€noted:ÓÓÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÌà àAnd€the€one€that€Mr.€Bright€has€touched€on€is€the€one€that€doesÏcome€closest€of€what€has€to€be€done€by€the€courts€of€this€state€if€weÏare€going€to€get€a€handle€on€the€use€of€guns€by€young€people€andÏthat€Ô'  Ôis€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense,€and€also€confinement€in€these€type€casesÏwhere€young€people€use€guns€is€to€provide€an€effective€deterrent€toÏothers€likely€to€carry€guns.€€So€it€is€„„€that€is€the€thing€that€this€court€hasÏto€consider.ÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü Òà àHowever,€regarding€the€defendant€the€court€observed:ÓÓÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÌà àI€don't€really€think€we€have€to€lock€him€up€today€to€restrain€him.€ÏI€don't€think€that€he'll€hurt€anybody€else,€and€as€I€say,€its€notÏnecessary€to€restrain€him€but€I€do€believe€that€it€is€necessary€toÏconfine€him.ÓÓÌÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÌà àFrom€its€comments,€clearly€the€trial€court€found€the€need€for€generalÏdeterrence€alone€was€justification€for€the€denial€of€alternate€sentencing.€€It€isÏhowever€what€the€trial€court€did€not€say€which€creates€difficulty€for€thisÏreviewing€court.Ìà àÌà àDeterrence€can€rarely€be€the€sole€reason€for€the€denial€of€an€alternateÏsentence.€òòState€v.€Cummingsóó,€868€S.W.2d€661€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);ÏòòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€Because€it€is€aÏfactor€in€every€criminal€case,€the€denial€of€probation€or€any€other€alternativeÏsentence€based€upon€deterrence€alone€must€be€supported€by€evidenceÏindicating€some€special€need€or€consideration€relative€to€that€jurisdictionÏwhich€would€not€be€addressed€by€the€normal€deterrence€inherent€in€anyÏcriminal€penalty.€òòState€v.€Jenkinsóó,€733€S.W.2d€528,€535€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1987);€òòState€v.€Vanceóó,€626€S.W.2d€287,€290€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981);€òòStateÏv.€Horneóó,€612€S.W.2d€186,€187€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).ÌÌà àDenial€of€probation€is€occasionally€justified€solely€upon€theÏcircumstances€of€the€offenses€when€they€are€of€such€a€nature€as€to€outweighÏall€other€factors€favoring€probation.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)Ï(1991);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€òòsupraóó.€€Before€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€theÏoffense€alone€may€justify€the€denial€of€probation,€the€crime€must€beÏ"especially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€orÏotherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree."€òòState€v.€Travisóó,€622ÏS.W.2d€at€534.€€ÌÌà àIn€making€sentencing€decisions€trial€judges€may€look€to€the€offense€as€ÌÌÌit€was€committed,€not€to€textbook€definitions€of€the€crime,€òòState€v.€Fordóó,€643ÏS.W.2d€913,€915€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982),€and€may€"look€behind€[a]€pleaÏbargain€and€consider€the€true€nature€of€the€offenses€committed."€òòState€v.ÏHollingsworthóó,€òòsupraóó.ÌÌà àThe€record€is€silent€regarding€some€special€need€or€considerationÏrelative€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€trial€court.€€Further€the€trial€court€made€noÏfinding€that€this€offense€was€especially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,Ïreprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggeratedÏdegree.€€Nor€did€it€suggest€that€it€accepted€the€state's€theory€of€the€offenseÏthereby€giving€it€the€authority€to€look€behind€the€plea€bargain.€€ÌÌà àBecause€the€record€does€not€affirmatively€show€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances,€our€review€of€the€sentence€as€it€relates€to€alternativeÏsentencing€is€de€novo€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ïòòsupraóó.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€has€been€convicted€of€a€Class€C€Felony.€€Relying€onÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(1991€Supp.),€he€argues€that€he€isÏpresumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€a€sentencing€alternative€toÏconfinement,€absent€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€However,€he€fails€to€takeÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5)€into€account.€€ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€reads€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓA€defendant€òòwho€does€not€fall€within€the€parameters€of€subdivision€(5)óóÏand€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€ÌÌÌClass€C,€D€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€forÏalternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€theÏcontrary.€(emphasis€added)ÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü Ò€Ìà àIt€is€apparent€from€the€plain€language€of€the€statute€that€not€allÏmitigated€or€standard€offenders€who€have€committed€a€Class€C,€D,€or€EÏfelony€are€presumed€candidates€for€alternative€sentencing.€€If€the€offenderÏfalls€within€the€parameters€of€subdivision€(5),€he€or€she€does€not€enjoy€theÏpresumption.€ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5)€reads€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌÌIn€recognition€that€state€prison€capacities€and€the€funds€to€build€andÏmaintain€them€are€limited,€convicted€felons€committing€the€mostÏsevere€offenses,€possessing€criminal€histories€evincing€a€clearÏdisregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€failure€ofÏpast€efforts€at€rehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priority€regardingÏsentencing€involving€incarceration.ÓÓÌÌà àIn€considering€whether€one€falls€into€the€parameters€ofÏsubsection€(5),€Judge€Hayes€noted,"This€means€that€the€defendantÏcannot€have€a€criminal€history€evincing€either€"clear€disregard€for€theÏlaws€and€morals€of€society"€or€"failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation."ÏòòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€453€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),Ïperm.€to€appeal€denied,€(Tenn.€1995)(citing€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871ÏS.W.2d€163,€167€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€addition€to€the€twoÏfactors€cited€by€òòBinghamóó€the€statute€provides€that€those€offendersÏcommitting€"the€most€severe€offenses"€may€not€be€eligible€for€theÏpresumption.€€Therefore,€if€an€offender€has€committed€(1)€a€mostÏsevere€offense€or€(2)€possesses€a€criminal€history€evincing€a€clear€ÌÌdisregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society€or€(3)€a€history€evincingÍfailure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation,€he€or€she€is€not€statutorilyÏpresumed€to€be€eligible€for€alternative€sentence.ÌÌà àThe€question€of€what€constitutes€a€most€severe€offense€forÏpurposes€of€determining€if€an€offender€is€entitled€to€the€presumption€ofÏalternative€sentencing€has€not€been€addressed€by€this€court.€€TheÏstate€has€previously€argued€that€in€certain€cases,€an€offender€shouldÏautomatically€be€denied€alternative€sentencing€because€of€theÏserious€nature€of€an€offense€absent€a€showing€of€exceptionalÏcircumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòBinghamóó,€òòsupraóó;€€òòState€v.€Robert€AllenÏTorgesonóó,€Giles€County€No.€01„C„01„9312„CC„00415€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Nashville,€October€25,€1994);€òòState€v.€Michael€T.€Sullivan€andÏSimone€T.€Summersóó,€Davidson€County€No.€01C01„9302„CR„00053Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€October€16,€1993;)€òòState€v.€BeverelyÏWannel€Georgeóó,€Knox€County€No.€03C01„9207„CR„00248€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€January€7,€1993.€€These€and€other€cases€standÏfor€the€proposition€that€an€offender€may€not€in€most€cases€be€deniedÏprobation€based€solely€on€the€nature€of€offense.€€They€do€not,Ïhowever,€address€the€question€of€whether€the€offender€may€beÏdenied€the€presumption€for€alternative€sentencing€based€upon€theÍnature€of€the€offense.ÌÌà àSome€guidance€may€be€found€in€determining€what€mayÏconstitute€a€severe€offense€in€the€context€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5)€from€other€cases€in€which€complete€alternative€sentencing€hasÏbeen€denied.€€In€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€880€S.W.2d€395€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€ÌÌ1994)€a€case€similar€to€appellant's€case,€Judge€Tipton€observed€thatÏ"[T]he€voluntary€combining€of€intoxication€with€dangerousÏinstrumentalities€is€a€matter€of€serious€public€concern€and€theÏdefendant's€conduct€created€sufficiently€serious€circumstances€so€asÏto€deny€full€probation."€€One€may€conclude€that€the€taking€of€a€lifeÏwhich€resulted€from€the€combining€of€intoxicants€and€deadly€weaponsÏis€a€most€severe€offense.ÌÌà àIn€his€dissent€in€òòState€v.€Robert€Allen€Torgesonóó,€òòsupraóó,€JudgeÏWade€seemed€to€go€even€further:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ Ü ÒÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓEven€though€our€current€statute€was€enacted€in€1989,€the€case€lawÏestablished€prior€to€that€date€has€consistently€been€used€forÍguidance.€Among€the€most€important€of€those€principles€is€thatÏextraordinary€circumstances€must€be€shown€in€order€to€justify€a€grantÏof€probation€when€a€human€life€has€been€taken€as€the€result€of€aÏcriminal€offense.€The€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€crime,€even€if€aÏClass€E€felony,€are€often€so€reprehensible€as€to€militate€against€theÏgrant€of€probation.€Denial€of€probation€may€be€based€solely€upon€theÏcircumstances€of€the€offense€when€they€are€of€such€a€nature€as€toÏoutweigh€all€other€factors€favoring€the€grant.ÓÓ€(citations€omitted)ÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÌà àThe€defendant€in€this€case€intentionally€used€a€deadly€weapon€whileÏunder€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€that€resulted€in€the€senseless€loss€ofÏhuman€life.€€While€we€do€not€find€this€to€be€an€intentional€killing,€we€do€findÏthe€circumstances€of€this€tragedy€to€be€such€as€to€go€beyond€mere€criminalÏnegligence.€€This€is€a€most€severe€offense€as€envisioned€by€the€legislatureÏin€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5).€€Even€though€the€defendant€has€noÏappreciable€criminal€record€and€neither€are€there€indications€of€failure€ofÏpast€efforts€at€rehabilitation,€because€he€has€committed€a€most€severeÏoffense,€he€is€not€presumed€to€be€a€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€ÌÌ€€€€€€€The€burden€of€proof€in€establishing€suitability€for€probation€remains€withÏthe€defendant.€òòState€v.€Russellóó,€773€S.W.2d€913€(Tenn.€1989);€òòFrazier€v.ÏStateóó,€556€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„303(b).€Among€the€factors€to€be€considered€are:€(1)€the€nature€andÍcircumstances€of€the€offense;€(2)€the€defendant's€criminal€record,€socialÏhistory€and€present€condition;€and€(3)€the€deterrent€effect€upon€and€bestÏinterest€of€the€defendant€and€the€public.€òòState€v.€Grearóó,€568€S.W.2d€285Ï(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌÌà àMilitating€in€favor€of€alternative€sentencing€are€the€facts€that€theÏdefendant€is€nineteen€years€old€and€has€no€prior€criminal€history€either€asÏan€adult€or€as€a€juvenile.€€Although€he€dropped€out€of€school,€he€has€takenÏthe€initiative€of€obtaining€a€G.E.D.€and€expressed€a€desire€to€continue€hisÏeducation€through€vocational€training.€€He€is€in€fair€health€but€he€hasÏreceived€some€mental€health€counseling€because€of€this€offense.€€HisÏemployment€history€is€sporadic.€€However,€because€of€his€age€he€has€hadÏinsufficient€time€to€display€any€stability€associated€with€an€employmentÏhistory.€€He€appears€extremely€remorseful€over€his€actions.€€He€hasÏdemonstrated€his€ability€to€conform€his€conduct€consistent€with€any€orders€ofÏthe€court€in€that€he€has€been€on€house€arrest€as€a€condition€of€his€bondÏwithout€event.€€€€ÌÌà à€€Although€the€defendant€presents€proof€that€he€is€amenable€toÍrehabilitation,€still€we€can€not€ignore€that€his€acts€resulted€in€the€senselessÏloss€of€human€life.€€Accordingly,€we€determine€that€the€defendant€shall€be€ÌÌÌconfined€in€the€County€Workhouse€for€nine€months€and€the€remainder€of€hisÏsentence€shall€be€suspended€and€served€upon€supervised€probation€for€aÏperiod€of€ten€years.€€The€first€two€years€of€probation€is€to€be€intensiveÏprobation€should€that€program€be€available.€€In€addition€to€any€otherÏreasonable€conditions€of€probation€imposed€by€the€trial€court,€the€defendantÏshall€not€consume€alcohol€in€any€form€during€his€probation€and€shall€beÏresponsible€for€the€reasonable€funeral€expenses€of€the€victim€as€determinedÏby€the€trial€court.€€Furthermore,€the€defendant€shall€perform€two€hundredÏhours€of€public€service€work.€€We€suggest€but€do€not€make€a€condition€thatÏthis€public€service€work€be€in€the€form€of€presentations€to€youth€groups€onÏthe€dangers€of€combining€alcohol€and€firearms.€€€Eligibility,€if€any,€for€otherÏprograms€or€work€release€during€confinement€or€for€earlier€release€fromÏconfinement€shall€be€determined€by€the€trial€court€upon€proper€motion.€ÌÌ€€€€€€€The€sentence€is€affirmed,€but€modified€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€entry€of€an€appropriate€judgment€in€accordance€with€thisÍopinion.€Ô€#ÔÌÓÓÔ€$ÔÌÒ À ÒÒ Ü Ò_____________________________ÌCharles€Lee,€Special€JudgeÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÑ€+ÑÇÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓ›Ñ7€ Ž XXdæXXdÈ7ÑœßJ€(,;+'b| ` Å `€@ÿJß›€à8 àà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€MARCH€1996€SESSIONó óÌÌÓÓò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9510„CR„00316Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Hamilton€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€Judge€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òWESLEY€CHRISTOPHER€PITTMANó ó,à à)à à€œ(Voluntary€Manslaughter)›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àò òòòCONCURRING€OPINIONóóó óÌÌà àI€concur€in€all€respects,€save€one,€with€the€majority€opinion.€€The€majorityÏopinion€indicates€that€there€is€not€a€presumption€for€alternative€sentencing€if,€to€beginÏwith,€the€offense€is€a€ð ðmost€severeðð€one€or€if€the€defendant€possesses€a€criminal€historyÏevincing€ð ðclear€disregard€for€the€lawsðð€or€ð ðfailure€of€past€efforts€at€œrehabilitation.ðð€€òòSeeóó›€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102(5).€€I€acknowledge€that€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€reads€that€way€whenÏviewed€only€in€conjunction€with€subsection€(5).€€However,€given€the€developed€caseÏlaw€relying€on€the€very€similar€factors€provided€for€imposing€confinement€under€T.C.A.Ïðð€40„35„103(1)€to€rebut€the€presumption,€there€is€no€reason€to€change€the€analysisÍpresently€being€used.€€ÌÌà àIn€fact,€the€majority€opinionððs€analysis€changes€nothing€in€practice.€€This€isÏbecause€whether€the€factors€are€viewed€to€foreclose€the€use€of€the€presumption€or€toÏrebut€the€presumption€already€applied,€the€burden€of€going€forward€with€the€relevantÏproof€and€the€ultimate€result€will€always€be€the€same.€€That€is,€the€state€is€always€goingÏto€have€to€show€that€the€evidence€proves€one€or€more€of€the€confinement€factors€„„Ïwhether€viewed€under€„102(6)€or€„103.€€And€once€such€is€proved,€alternativeÏsentencing,€as€a€presumption,€is€not€going€to€exist.€€ÌÌà àThus,€I€believe€that€òòState€v.€œAshby›óó,€823€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991),€provides€theÏproper€means€by€which€the€trial€court€should€determine,€and€the€appellate€courtÏshould€review,€whether€alternative€sentencing€is€appropriate€in€any€given€case.€ÏOtherwise,€I€concur€in€the€majority€opinion.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€€à àÌà àà àà àà àÌÌœ