ÿWPC ™©[ÏÔ;Šã¿òO¾L £ P¢øÕ× ñ\ICHl‹ã3²0½‰Á.è¾ÍQ9”éùL’¹þ3Ÿ ÝÁ 9ÿ’žm£²¬ÖD VÐäÑËÁZ˜(òÇ gÊ®¾pYêÿÑæƒoPcyÛÅGÏ ×œ1cªÑ$V’ƙߛ»2@ÿçøB%žà"%E*ÁÚH,º‡Èk‚( ¥›åQ¥:¨Uy”òŽ­Ú59¼aà ¥4°Íb­¦Û¦:>ý¬åp“(X&/wß<¦{3¬$õNvŒHCý17(š»‘G0,™Ôa‹2+¨¯ŒáÉç‡DrïŸÿ¤ÞÚ:³ŽžS‰&Ÿ8ùº߸hÒ&´‘PÊúÍ_ôV»ã ý=±ZáãÂ!l%&˜ÚÃtxˆ·7 ™…¬mX¦Xˆ‘ä^EâIo=)v}aL5ÃñË•Ba-q_+eœ)û ã[ÿ•}NHGÊ\»Â]ßû¦>ubí"n,§6.éS{÷X¼‰‰z´97^ƒÍ¼ì¿·gb%à`âÚ‚wRâº"À].ê½å—]fš±ÄÌt_d­#œ-)ùwއR"öÈ.£9 ¨€ ŒWæSÊ[:uflL’áÂbÈòÐÃSb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz N‘ Æ“ ÆY Æ Æå å N«« 0D­Eññóûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûb 0ë B 0¤  D3Ä D-÷ 0K$$ ASoÆÂ 0¤ˆ 0D, A«p˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»5­*-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularüPH,˜C}.bk¬©£ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  Ý ƒRÇÆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôï5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendantððs€first€DUI€conviction€was€in€Ô_ÔMeigsÔ_Ô€County,€unlike€the€others€which€were€all€in€Marion€County,Ð ° Ðand€was€not€included€in€the€listing€of€the€defendantððs€prior€DUI€convictions€in€the€indictment.€€Accordingly,€theÐ tÄ Ðconviction€upon€which€this€appeal€is€based€actually€is€the€defendantððs€fourth€DUI€conviction.- ù-(|G2ÇÆ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôï5ò»»Ô d(|3‚$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‚$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I}»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼I}»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î[LI}ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼I}»îî[L #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€June€19,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼I}ÔÌò òÔ#†¼I}»XX#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€HAROLD€D.€ROBERTSòòóóÔ‡XX»¼I}Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Marion€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€5013€€€€€€Thomas€W.€Graham,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02291„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€10,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€driving€under€the€influence,€third€offense;€driving€on€a€revokedÐ xÈ  Ðlicense;€felonious€evading€arrest;€and€violating€the€open€container€law.€€The€trial€court€granted€aÐ d´ Ðmotion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€as€to€the€felonious€evading€arrest€conviction€and€Ô#†¼I}»XX—#ÔÔ‡XX»¼I}Ôimposed€theÐ P  Ðfollowing€sentences:€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days,€suspended€after€serving€ten€months€inÐ <Œ Ðcontinuous€confinement,€for€DUI,€third€offense;€four€months€in€the€county€jail,€plus€six€monthsððÐ (x Ðprobation,€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license;€and€thirty€days€for€violating€the€open€container€law,€withÐ d Ðall€sentences€to€be€served€concurrently.€€The€defendant€appealed,€arguing€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ P Ðby€denying€his€request€to€give€the€jury€the€missing€witness€instruction€and€by€improperly€sentencingÐ ì< Ðhim.€€We€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court€but€remand€for€entry€of€a€corrected€judgment€as€toÐ Ø( ÐCount€2€reflecting€that€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€third€offense€DUI.Ô#†¼I}»XX*#ÔÔ‡XX»¼I}ÔÐ Ä ÐÓ¼ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgments€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€andÐ œì ÐRemanded€for€Entry€of€Corrected€Judgmentó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼I}»àX£ #ÔÔ‡XX.¼I}ÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòRobert€W.Ð `° ÐWedemeyer,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð L œ ÐÌPhilip€A.€Condra,€District€Public€Defender,€for€the€appellant,€Harold€D.€Roberts.Ð $"t! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Angele€M.€Gregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ü#L# ÐJames€Michael€Taylor,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Julia€N.€Oliver,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ è$8 $ ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÓ– ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼I}»XXÅ #ÔÔ‡XX»¼I}ÔÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌÔ#†¼I}»XXw #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XX»¼I}Ôò òòòÓ  ÓFACTSó óóóÐ „)Ô$) ÐÓÓÌà  àAt€trial,€Officer€Scott€Hampton€of€the€South€Pittsburg€Police€Department€testified€that€onÐ \+¬&+ ÐOctober€2,€1999,€he€was€working€the€6:00€p.m.€to€6:00€a.m.€shift.€€He€received€a€dispatch€betweenÐ H,˜', Ð7:00€and€8:00€p.m.€to€look€for€a€brown€Ford€Fairmont€with€an€Alabama€license€plate€bearing€CY018Ð 4-„(-ýG Ðas€its€last€five€digits,€and€located€this€vehicle€behind€the€Amoco€Deli€at€Sixth€and€Cedar€Streets.€Ð ° ÐWhen€he€saw€the€defendant€get€into€the€car€and€leave€the€deli,€Hampton€followed€the€vehicle€in€hisÐ œì Ðpatrol€car.€€The€vehicle€turned€right€onto€Sixth€Street€without€the€brakes€being€applied€and,€then,Ð ˆØ Ðturned€right€onto€Railroad€Avenue.€€At€that€time,€Officer€Hampton€tried€to€stop€the€vehicle€byÐ tÄ Ðactivating€all€of€his€flashing€lights€but€not€his€siren.€€When€the€vehicle,€which€was€weaving€back€andÐ `° Ðforth,€did€not€stop,€Hampton€turned€on€his€siren.€€The€vehicle,€driven€by€the€defendant,€finallyÐ L œ Ðstopped€at€the€intersection€of€East€Eighth€Street€and€Railroad€Avenue.€€Hampton€turned€off€his€siren,Ð 8 ˆ Ðradioed€dispatch€to€inform€them€of€his€location,€and€walked€toward€the€defendantððs€car.€€He€againÐ $ t Ðchecked€the€vehicleððs€license€plate€to€make€certain€that€it€contained€the€dispatched€five€digits.€€AsÐ  ` ÐHampton€reached€the€rear€fender€of€the€defendantððs€vehicle,€the€defendant€€ð ðsped€away.ðð€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àHampton€got€back€into€his€vehicle,€turned€on€the€siren,€and€followed€the€defendantððs€vehicleÐ Ô$  Ðuntil€it€turned€into€a€residence€on€East€Eighth€Street.€€Hampton€exited€his€patrol€car€and€ordered€theÐ À  Ðdefendant€out€of€his€vehicle.€€Hampton€said€ð ð[i]t€took€[the€defendant]€a€second€to€get€the€door€open,ððÐ ¬ü  Ðand€the€defendant€ð ðhad€to€hold€on€to€the€door€and€the€frame€of€the€car€or€the€roof€of€the€carðð€toÐ ˜è  Ðsteady€himself€as€he€was€getting€out.€€Hampton€ordered€him€to€get€down€on€the€ground,€but€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€walked€toward€the€back€door€of€the€house.€€He€said€the€defendant€had€ð ða€staggering€typeÐ pÀ Ðof€gait.€€He€kept€looking€over€his€shoulder€every€time€I€would€holler€at€him€and€tell€him€to€get€onÐ \¬ Ðthe€ground.€€Heððd€look€over€his€shoulder€and€continue€to€walk.ðð€€Hampton€approached€the€defendantÐ H˜ Ðjust€as€Sergeant€Tim€Allison€and€another€officer€arrived€on€the€scene,€and€they€assisted€him€ð ðinÐ 4„ Ðputting€[the€defendant]€on€the€ground,€ððcause€he€wasnððt€going€to€cooperate€any€other€way.ðð€€HeÐ  p Ðdescribed€the€defendantððs€appearance€at€that€point:€€Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àHe€was€kind€of€red€faced.€€His€eyes€were€kind€of€blood€shot€andÐ ä4 Ðglassy,€ððcause€we€had€flashlights€and€we€were€looking€at€him€and€alsoÐ Ð  Ðwe€had€the€lights€still€on€in€our€vehicles.€€He€had€a€very€very€bad€odorÐ ¼  Ðof€alcohol€all€about€him.Шø` x` x ÐÌà  àHampton€said€the€defendantððs€speech€was€slurred€when€he€asked€why€he€was€being€stopped.€Ð €Ð ÐHampton€did€not€administer€any€field€sobriety€tests€because€the€defendant€was€uncooperative€andÐ l¼ Ðwas€already€handcuffed.€€The€officers€found,€in€the€defendantðð€car,€a€cold,€open€container€of€beer€thatÐ X ¨ Ðhad€spilled€onto€the€passengerððs€side€floorboard.€€Hampton€arrested€the€defendant€and€took€him€toÐ D!” Ðthe€station,€where€he€refused€to€sign€the€implied€consent€form€and€refused€to€submit€to€a€breathalyzerÐ 0"€  Ðtest.€€Hampton€checked€the€defendantððs€driving€record€and€discovered€that€his€license€had€beenÐ #l! Ðrevoked.€€In€Hamptonððs€opinion,€the€defendant€was€intoxicated€at€the€time€he€was€arrested.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àDuring€cross„examination,€Officer€Hampton€said€he€and€the€other€officers€put€the€defendantÐ à%0!$ Ðfacedown€on€the€ground.€€However,€he€denied€putting€his€knee€in€the€defendantððs€back€as€he€triedÐ Ì&"% Ðto€get€him€on€the€ground.€€€€€€€€€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àShannon€Youvette€Smith,€a€jailer€at€the€Marion€County€Sheriffððs€Department€on€October€2,Ð )à$( Ð1999,€testified€that€she€placed€the€defendantððs€telephone€call€for€him,€since€he€could€not€see€to€dialÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€numbers€after€two€or€three€attempts.€€€She€described€the€defendant€as€having€ð ðvery€slow€slurredÐ h+¸&* Ðspeechðð€and€being€ð ðunstableðð€and€ð ðunsteady.ðð€€She€said,€as€had€Hampton,€that€the€defendant€refusedÐ ° Ðto€take€a€breathalyzer€test€or€sign€the€implied€consent€form.€€Smith€acknowledged€that€she€is€notÐ œì Ðcertified€to€give€a€breathalyzer€test.€€She€also€said€that€the€breathalyzer€machine€is€not€checked€to€seeÐ ˆØ Ðif€it€is€operative€until€the€arrested€person€agrees€to€take€the€test.€€She€noted€that€the€defendant€neverÐ tÄ Ðsaid€anything€about€refusing€to€take€the€breathalyzer€test€because€he€thought€the€machine€wasÐ `° Ðbroken.€€Smith€said€that,€in€her€opinion,€the€defendant€was€intoxicated€when€he€was€brought€in€onÐ L œ ÐOctober€2,€1999.€€Following€Smithððs€testimony,€the€prosecution€rested€its€case€in€chief.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant,€testifying€as€the€only€defense€witness,€said€that€he€had€lived€at€214€EastÐ  ` ÐEighth€Street€for€almost€four€years,€and€had€left€his€home€on€the€evening€of€October€2,€1999,€to€buyÐ ü L  Ðcigarettes.€€He€drove€to€the€Amoco€Deli,€bought€his€cigarettes,€and€drove€back€home.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€said€it€was€not€unusual€to€see€police€cars€with€their€blue€lights€on€going€towardÐ À  Ðthe€housing€project€near€his€home.€€He€first€became€aware€of€blue€lights€behind€him€the€night€of€hisÐ ¬ü  Ðarrest€when€he€was€on€Railroad€Avenue.€€When€he€saw€the€lights,€he€ð ðjust€kept€movingðð€because€heÐ ˜è  Ðdid€not€think€the€officer€was€trying€to€pull€him€over.€€He€said€that€he€wanted€to€get€home€and€out€ofÐ „Ô  Ðthe€way€so€that€the€officer€could€go€on€to€the€projects.€€He€said€that€after€he€pulled€into€his€driveway,Ð pÀ ÐOfficer€Hampton€put€a€knee€in€his€back€and€ð ðslammedðð€him€facedown€to€the€ground€beside€his€car.€Ð \¬ ÐHe€heard€another€officerððs€voice€and€then€heard€the€officers€say€that€they€found€an€open€containerÐ H˜ Ðof€beer€in€his€car.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€did€not€buy€beer€at€the€Amoco€Deli€that€night€and€neverÐ 4„ Ðsaw€the€open€container€that€the€police€were€talking€about€when€they€arrested€him.€€He€wasÐ  p Ðimmediately€handcuffed€and€taken€to€jail:€€Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Officer€Hampton]€took€me€into€the€booking€room€and€said€he€wasÐ ä4 Ðbooking€me.€€The€jailer,€at€the€time,€told€me€that€the€[breathalyzer]Ð Ð  Ðmachine€was€broke€[sic],€it€would€not€work€and€they€went€on€toÐ ¼  Ðproceed€to€tell€me€sign€something€[sic]€about€admitting€that€I€wasÐ ¨ø ÐDUI€or€drinking€and€I€wouldnððt€sign€it.Дä` x` x ÐÌThe€defendant€explained€that€he€needed€help€using€the€phone€at€the€jail€because€he€was€hurt€and€hisÐ l¼ Ðð ðblood€pressure€might€have€been€up€so€bad€that€[he]€couldnððt€even€see€the€numbers.ðð€€In€addition,Ð X ¨ Ðhe€said€that€he€had€drunk€a€glass€of€wine€with€his€lunch€between€11:00€and€11:30€a.m.€that€day,Ð D!” Ðwhich€explained€why€Officer€Hampton€thought€he€smelled€like€alcohol.€€He€said€he€had€nothing€elseÐ 0"€  Ðto€drink€that€day€and€could€not€explain€the€open€container€that€the€police€found€in€his€car€the€nightÐ #l! Ðof€his€arrest.€€He€said€that€he€came€to€a€complete€stop€at€the€stop€sign€at€Eighth€Street,€put€his€turnÐ $X" Ðsignal€on,€turned€left€across€the€railroad€tracks,€and€pulled€into€his€driveway.€€He€said€that€the€firstÐ ô$D # Ðtime€he€saw€the€blue€lights€of€the€patrol€car,€he€had€no€idea€that€he€was€supposed€to€stop.€€HeÐ à%0!$ Ðacknowledged€that€he€did€not€have€a€valid€driverððs€license€at€the€time€he€was€arrested.€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  à€During€cross„examination,€the€defendant€said€the€car€he€was€driving€that€night€had€beenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðgiven€to€him€a€few€days€earlier€by€a€man€he€had€met€a€couple€of€times€but€whose€name€he€could€notÐ )à$( Ðremember.€€He€testified€that€he€did€not€notice€that€the€police€car,€with€its€lights€and€siren€activated,Ð |*Ì%) Ðdid€not€actually€pass€him€en€route€to€another€location.€€He€also€said€that€he€did€not€see€OfficerÐ h+¸&* ÐHampton€get€out€of€the€patrol€car€and€walk€toward€him€when€he€stopped€at€the€stop€sign€at€EighthÐ ° ÐStreet.€€The€defendant€said€he€did€not€recognize€the€implied€consent€form€or€remember€OfficerÐ œì ÐHampton€reading€it€to€him€at€the€jail.€€When€asked€whether€Hampton€offered€him€a€breathalyzer€test,Ð ˆØ Ðthe€defendant€stated,€ð ðOfficer€Hampton€did€not€offer€me€a€breathalyzer€test€on€the€machine,€becauseÐ tÄ Ðthe€jailer€had€already€told€him€the€machine€was€tore€up€[sic].ðð€€He€testified,€further,€that€HamptonÐ `° Ðnever€offered€him€a€blood€test€to€determine€his€blood„alcohol€content.€€Following€this€testimony,€theÐ L œ Ðdefense€rested.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€State€recalled€Officer€Scott€Hampton,€who€testified€that€he€and€Shannon€Smith€neverÐ  ` Ðdiscussed€whether€the€breathalyzer€machine€was€operative€on€the€night€of€October€2,€1999.€€He€saidÐ ü L  Ðhe€asked€the€defendant€if€he€would€allow€his€blood€to€be€drawn€and€tested€for€its€alcohol€content,Ð è 8  Ðbut€the€defendant€refused.€€Hampton€then€asked€the€defendant€to€submit€to€a€breathalyzer€test,€andÐ Ô$  Ðthe€defendant€again€refused.€€He€denied€telling€the€defendant€that€if€he€signed€the€implied€consentÐ À  Ðform,€he€would€be€admitting€to€driving€under€the€influence.€€Instead,€he€read€the€form€verbatim,Ð ¬ü  Ðwhich€was€his€usual€practice€when€making€a€DUI€arrest.Ð ˜è  Ѐ€€€Ð „Ô  Ðò òÓ  ÓòòANALYSISóóÐ pÀ ÐÌI.€€Missing€Witness€ChargeÐ H˜ ÐÓ8Óó óÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€giving€a€ð ðmissing€witnessððÐ  p Ðinstruction€as€a€result€of€the€Stateððs€not€calling€Sergeant€Tim€Allison€to€testify€during€the€trial.€€HeÐ  \ Ðasserts€that:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[T]he€predicate€for€this€missing€witness€instruction€clearly€wasÐ Ð  Ðestablished.€€Tim€Allison€was€a€police€officer€with€the€City€of€SouthÐ ¼  ÐPittsburg.€€So,€too,€was€Scott€Hampton,€the€primary€arresting€officer.Ð ¨ø ÐOfficer€Allison€gave€substantial€assistance€to€his€fellow€officer€in€theÐ ”ä Ðtake€down€and€arrest€of€the€Defendant.€€He€had€ample€opportunity€toÐ €Ð Ðobserve€the€Defendant€up€close€and€personal.€€He€was€in€a€position€toÐ l¼ Ðsee,€feel,€smell€and€hear€the€Defendant€and,€therefore,€would€haveÐ X ¨ Ðpossessed€knowledge€of€the€most€material€fact€in€this€case€ð!ð€theÐ D!” ÐDefendantððs€state€of€sobriety€or€lack€thereof.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà  àAlthough€counsel€apparently€made€a€ð ðstandard€requestðð€as€to€instructions€at€the€conclusionÐ $X" Ðof€the€proof€and€just€before€the€trial€court€began€its€instructions,€the€ð ðmissing€witnessðð€instructionÐ ô$D # Ðwas€not€requested€by€the€defense€until€the€trial€court€had€concluded€its€instructions€to€the€jury.€€TheÐ à%0!$ Ðcourt€denied€the€request,€saying,€ð ð[A]s€long€as€both€sides€know€the€existence€[of€the€witness]€andÐ Ì&"% Ðhave€the€ability€to€get€them,€.€.€.€you€really€canððt€make€that€charge.ðð€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àDefense€counsel€brought€up€the€issue€of€the€missing€witness€charge€a€second€time€during€theÐ )à$( Ðdefendantððs€sentencing€hearing€when€he€requested€time€to€file€his€motion€for€a€new€trial:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[DEFENSE€COUNSEL]:€€Your€Honor,€may€I€request€of€the€Court€myÐ ° Ðopportunity€to€file.€.€.€.€€I€requested€the€Court€charge€in€this€caseÐ œì Ðmissing€witness,€and€the€Court€may€recall€the€conversation€we€had€atÐ ˆØ Ðthe€bench€when€the€Court€overruled€that.ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€I€believe€that€was€one€where€everybody€really€knewÐ L œ Ðof€the€witness,€so€it€was€hard€to€make€that€argument.Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[DEFENSE€COUNSEL]:€Well,€you€know,€Iððll€bring€this€up€in€myÐ  ` Ðmotion€for€new€trial,€but€I€actually€have€some€case€law€on€that€andÐ ü L  Ðwhat€the€rule€is,€and€as€a€matter€of€fact,€Mr.€Paineððs€comments€aboutÐ è 8  Ðthe€extension€of€the€rule€to€include€a€part€thatððs€not€part€of€the€rule,Ð Ô$  Ðand€I€would€ask€the€Court,€because€I€think€there€was€that€issue€andÐ À  Ðmaybe€a€couple€of€others€that€I€would€like€to€bring€back€to€theÐ ¬ü  ÐCourtððs€attention€in€my€motion€for€new€trial,€I€think€they€may€haveÐ ˜è  Ðhad€an€impact€on€this.€€At€least,€Iððm€going€to€try€to€convince€the€CourtÐ „Ô  Ðthey€did,€and€Iððd€like€to€have€my€time€to€file€my€motion€and€have€thatÐ pÀ Ðheard€before€[the€defendant]€is€required€to€report.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€law€regarding€the€giving€of€the€ð ðmissing€witnessðð€instruction€was€explained€by€ourÐ 4„ Ðsupreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Francisóó,€669€S.W.2d€85€(Tenn.€1984):Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ à€€à0  àÐ \(#(# Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[T]his€Court€has€held€that€a€party€may€comment€about€anÐ øH Ðabsent€witness€when€the€evidence€shows€that€ð ð[1]€the€witness€hadÐ ä4 Ðknowledge€of€material€facts,€[2]€that€a€relationship€exists€between€theÐ Ð  Ðwitness€and€the€party€that€would€naturally€incline€the€witness€to€favorÐ ¼  Ðthe€party€and€[3]€that€the€missing€witness€was€available€to€the€processÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€Court€for€trial.ðð€€òòDelk€v.€Stateóó,€590€S.W.2d€435,€440€(Tenn.Ð ”ä Ð1979).€.€.€.€€The€mere€fact€that€a€party€fails€to€produce€a€particularÐ €Ð Ðperson€who€may€have€some€knowledge€of€the€facts€involved€does€notÐ l¼ Ðjustify€application€of€the€inference€against€him.€€However,€when€itÐ X ¨ Ðcan€be€said€ð ðwith€reasonable€assurance€that€it€would€have€beenÐ D!” Ðnatural€for€a€party€to€have€called€the€absent€witness€but€for€someÐ 0"€  Ðapprehension€about€his€testimony,ðð€an€inference€may€be€drawn€by€theÐ #l! Ðjury€that€the€testimony€would€have€been€unfavorable.€€òòBurgess€v.Ð $X" ÐUnited€Statesóó,€440€F.2d€226,€237€(D.C.€Cir.€1970).Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€88„89€(footnote€omitted).Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àAs€the€defendant€argues€on€appeal,€part€of€the€trial€courtððs€rationale€for€not€giving€thisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinstruction,€that€Sergeant€Allison€was€available€to€both€sides,€has€been€criticized€by€Neil€P.€CohenÐ )à$( Ðet€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€4.01[14][b]€(4th€ed.€2000),€asserting€that€ð ðthis€exception,€whenÐ |*Ì%) Ðtaken€to€its€logical€conclusion,€would€virtually€eliminate€the€missing€witness€inference€since,€in€mostÐ h+¸&* Ðcases€where€the€inference€is€permissible,€the€party€requesting€it€could€have€secured€the€attendanceÐ ° Ðof€the€witness€by€the€use€of€process.ðð€€Even€if€we€accept€the€defendantððs€argument€that€the€trial€courtÐ œì Ðcould€not€decline€to€give€the€ð ðmissing€witnessðð€instruction€because€the€witness€was€known€to€andÐ ˆØ Ðavailable€to€both€sides,€there€clearly€were€other€reasons€why€this€instruction€was€not€justified.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðburden€of€proof€was€on€the€defendant,€the€party€seeking€the€instruction,€to€establish€that€SergeantÐ `° ÐAllison€was,€in€fact,€a€ð ðmissing€witness.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hodgeóó,€989€S.W.2d€717,€723€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð L œ ÐApp.€1998).€€As€explained€in€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€4.01[14][e],€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðparty€seeking€the€instruction€must€establish€a€foundation€for€doing€so.€€The€testimony€of€OfficerÐ $ t ÐHampton€established€only€that€Sergeant€Allison€was€employed€by€the€South€Pittsburg€PoliceÐ  ` ÐDepartment€at€the€time€of€the€defendantððs€arrest€some€two€years€before€the€trial.€€However,€there€wasÐ ü L  Ðno€proof€that€he€was€so€employed€at€the€time€of€the€trial€or€even€that€he€was€still€living.€€Since€theÐ è 8  Ðrequest€for€the€missing€witness€instruction€was€not€made€until€after€both€sides€had€rested,€made€theirÐ Ô$  Ðfinal€arguments,€and€the€trial€court€had€instructed€the€jury,€no€hearing€could€be€held€so€that€the€courtÐ À  Ðcould€ascertain€whether€the€requested€instruction€was€justified.€€Had€the€missing€witness€instructionÐ ¬ü  Ðbeen€given€under€those€circumstances,€it€would€have€unjustifiably€highlighted€Sergeant€AllisonððsÐ ˜è  Ðrole€in€the€matter.€€Likewise,€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€that€Sergeant€Allison€naturally€wouldÐ „Ô  Ðhave€favored€the€State€or€that€he€was€not€presented€as€a€witness€because€the€State€was€apprehensiveÐ pÀ Ðthat€his€testimony€would€be€unfavorable€to€it.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€867€S.W.2d€330,€337€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð \¬ ÐApp.€1992)€(missing€witness€instruction€unnecessary€when€police€officer€who€wrote€the€report€didÐ H˜ Ðnot€testify€since€ð ð[t]he€officers€who€did€testify€provided€overwhelming€evidence€against€theÐ 4„ Ðdefendant,€and€there€[was]€no€indication€that€the€[missing]€officerððs€testimony€would€have€set€forthÐ  p Ðanything€differentðð).Ð  \ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€this€assignment€is€without€merit.€Ð ä4 ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Ten€Monthsðð€Continuous€Confinement€€ó óÐ ¼  ÐÌÓYÓòòóóà  àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€him€to€ten€months€ofÐ ”ä Ðconfinement€for€his€DUI,€third€offense.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àMisdemeanor€sentencing€is€controlled€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„302.€Ð X ¨ ÐThis€courtððs€review€of€a€misdemeanor€sentence€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòStateÐ D!” Ðv.€Troutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€271€(Tenn.€1998).€€Although€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€typically€treatsÐ 0"€  Ðmisdemeanants€and€felons€the€same,€misdemeanants€are€not€given€the€presumption€of€a€minimumÐ #l! Ðsentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Seatonóó,€914€S.W.2d€129,€133€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Our€supreme€courtÐ $X" Ðoutlined€the€procedures€for€misdemeanor€sentencing€in€òòTroutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€at€273„74:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€€€€€The€sentencing€considerations€generally€used€in€determining€theÐ Ì&"% Ðmanner€of€service€for€both€misdemeanors€and€felony€sentences€areÐ ¸'#& Ðcodified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ ¤(ô#' ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„102€(noting€considerations€used€in€determining€whetherÐ )à$( Ðconfinement€shall€be€imposed);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103Ð |*Ì%) Ð(setting€forth€considerations€to€be€used€when€issuing€sentencing€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðconfinement).€€In€addition€to€the€statutory€considerations€for€issuingÐ ° Ðsentences€of€confinement,€the€misdemeanor€sentencing€statute€merelyÐ œì Ðrequires€a€trial€judge€to€consider€enhancement€and€mitigating€factorsÐ ˆØ Ðwhen€calculating€the€percentage€of€a€misdemeanor€sentence€to€beÐ tÄ Ðserved€in€confinement.€€òòCompareóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302€(ð ðtoÐ `° Ðconsider€the€purpose€of€this€chapter,€the€principles€of€sentencing,€andÐ L œ Ðthe€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€set€forth€hereinðð)€òòwithóó€Tenn.Ð 8 ˆ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(f)€(stating€court€shall€place€on€record€eitherÐ $ t Ðorally€or€in€writing€what€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€it€found).€Ð `` x` x ÐÌà  àAlthough€a€separate€sentencing€hearing€is€not€required€in€misdemeanor€sentencing,€the€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourt€must€ð ðallow€the€parties€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€be€heard€on€the€question€of€the€length€ofÐ Ô$  Ðany€sentence€and€the€manner€in€which€the€sentence€is€to€be€served.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð À  Ð302(a)€(1997).€€A€misdemeanor€sentence,€unlike€a€felony€sentence,€has€no€sentence€range.€€òòState€v.Ð ¬ü  ÐBakeróó,€966€S.W.2d€429,€434€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Since€trial€judges€are€able€to€assess€theÐ ˜è  Ðcredibility€of€a€defendant€firsthand,€they€must€be€given€considerable€discretion€in€determining€theÐ „Ô  Ðproper€sentence€for€a€misdemeanor€offense.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àA€trial€court€has€great€flexibility€in€fashioning€a€misdemeanor€sentence.€€A€trial€court€mayÐ H˜ Ðplace€a€defendant€on€probation€after€a€term€of€continuous€confinement,€after€a€term€of€periodicÐ 4„ Ðconfinement,€or€immediately€after€sentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(e)€(1997).€€TennesseeÐ  p ÐCode€Annotated€section€40„35„103(1)€governs€whether€a€trial€court€should€impose€a€sentence€ofÐ  \ Ðconfinement:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àSentences€involving€confinement€should€be€based€on€the€followingÐ Ð  Ðconsiderations:м ` x` x ÐÌÓ-°,XƒX× N h•X°œX-Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà × à(A)à N àConfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restrainingÐ ”ä Ða€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà × à(B)à N àConfinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÐ X ¨ Ðseriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€toÐ D!” Ðprovide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similarÐ 0"€  Ðoffenses;€or€Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà × à(C)à N àMeasures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequentlyÐ ô$D # Ðor€recently€have€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant[.]€€€€Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)€(1997).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àWhen€a€trial€court€imposes€a€sentence,€it€must€set€a€percentage€of€the€sentence€to€be€servedÐ )à$( Ðby€the€defendant;€once€the€defendant€serves€this€percentage,€then€he€or€she€is€eligible€forÐ |*Ì%) Ðrehabilitative€programs.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d)€(1997).€€In€setting€the€percentage€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðsentence€to€be€served€in€confinement,€the€trial€court€considers€the€sentencing€principles€and€purposesÐ ° Ðof€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€as€well€as€the€relevant€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€Ð œì ÐòòId.óó€€The€mandatory€sentence€for€a€DUI,€third€offense,€is€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days.€Ð ˆØ ÐòòTroutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€at€273.€€A€trial€court€can€require€a€defendant€to€serve€100%€of€his€sentenceÐ tÄ Ðin€a€DUI€case.€€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€391,€393„94€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àHere,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days,€with€tenÐ 8 ˆ Ðmonths€to€be€served€in€continuous€confinement,€for€his€DUI,€third€offense,€applying€the€followingÐ $ t Ðenhancement€factors€and€no€mitigating€factors:Ð  ` ÐÌÓ9°,XƒX× –X°,XƒX× N h•X9Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)à × àThe€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€orÐ è 8  Ðcriminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÐ Ô$  Ðappropriate€range;€[and]ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(8)à × àThe€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€complyÐ ˜è  Ðwith€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(8)€(1997).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€presentence€report,€the€defendantððs€prior€record€included€the€followingÐ 4„ Ðconvictions:Ð  p ÐÌÓ6°,X…XÒÀ”X°,XƒX× –X6Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à3/23/99à0Ò` x` xàDUIÐøHÒxÒx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à10/20/98à0Ò` x` xàPublic€IntoxicationÐä4ÒxÒx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à7/22/97à0Ò` x` xàDUIÐÐ ÒxÒx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à7/22/97à0Ò` x` xàReckless€Endangerment€(No€Weapon€Involved)м ÒxÒx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à7/01/96à0Ò` x` xàPublic€IntoxicationШøÒxÒx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à11/9/95à0Ò` x` xàDUI׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ДäÒxÒx ÐÌThe€presentence€report€also€included€details€of€the€two€times€the€defendant€violated€previousÐ l¼ Ðprobations:€€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àOn€7/22/97€the€defendant€was€placed€on€probation€after€receiving€twoÐ 0"€  Ðconsecutive€11/29€sentences€for€DUI€and€reckless€endangerment€inÐ #l! Ðthe€Marion€County€General€Sessions€Court€Cases€26807€and€26809.€Ð $X" ÐWhile€on€probation,€the€defendant€was€arrested€and€charged€withÐ ô$D # ÐDUI,€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€and€violation€of€[the]€registrationÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âlaw.€€A€violation€of€probation€warrant€was€issued€for€the€defendantððsÐ Ì&"% Ðarrest.€€On€3/23/99€the€defendantððs€probation€was€revoked€for€120Ð ° Ðdays€and€he€was€returned€to€probation.Мì` x` x Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àOn€3/6/99€the€defendant€received€an€11/29€sentence€suspended€afterÐ tÄ Ðserving€120€days€upon€a€conviction€for€DUI€in€the€Marion€CountyÐ `° ÐCircuit€Court€Case€33176.€€While€the€defendant€was€on€thisÐ L œ Ðsuspended€sentence,€the€defendant€committed€the€instant€offense€onÐ 8 ˆ Ð10/2/99.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà  àIn€his€brief,€the€defendant€argues€generally€that€the€trial€court€improperly€sentenced€him€toÐ ü L  Ðten€months€of€continuous€confinement€by€failing€to€follow€the€requirements€of€Tennessee€CodeÐ è 8  ÐAnnotated€sections€40„35„102,€„103,€and€„302.€€However,€our€review€makes€it€clear€that€the€trialÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€considered€the€relevant€factors€and€information€before€sentencing€the€defendant€to€ten€monthsÐ À  Ðof€confinement€at€100%.€€òòóóGiven€the€defendantððs€lengthy€record€of€alcohol€offenses,€his€failure€toÐ ¬ü  Ðcomply€with€probation€on€two€different€occasions,€and€the€fact€that€he€had€been€convicted€of€DUIÐ ˜è  Ðonly€six€months€prior€to€this€offense,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€sentenceÐ „Ô  Ðhim€to€ten€months€for€DUI,€third€offense,€was€improper.€€Ð pÀ Ðà  àÌÓ  Óòòò òCONCLUSIONÐ H˜ Ðóóó óÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà  àBased€on€the€foregoing€authorities€and€reasoning,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÐ  p Ðbut€remand€for€entry€of€a€corrected€judgment€in€Count€2€to€reflect€that€the€defendant€was€convictedÐ  \ Ðof€DUI,€third€offense.€€The€judgment€should€conform€with€the€uniform€judgment€document€requiredÐ øH Ðby€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€17€and€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„209(e)€and€(f).€Ð ä4 ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà Ò àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ”ä Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà Ò àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE