ÿWPC¿ ±{Ô•AEAMm}ú²ù¶…'ÜéÂì¿æoÞ­ö$ ƒyhLUóÁ¿»!Õã ‘fC[sÞºVP¯›,WÀ‡~ζJÌ•ãˆu *£®jµ(5|ÆÐ€rÌ0e]øcUÐT²M8'G5½ÙN¥R^²Zz4ýÍŒY‹‹?Õ~9 Ö¦‚BÈ 2é:H™s¬9Àç{ÿB¾&šöµ“êpÛ¸ ª•bæ?ð«õúéQïÑ®;aÂKÒì:<•M5±Œö3XFÿ—Jlå þR³~[OÍàÂE÷PÔ@z}%Ös+±¤Þð/@h !mþh}è§Ùãoë5­,EiÝ#XƒqR~]_^}©Lnm„žþð¨Q§ò ûgÏVDØÂÊÅî™R`ÿ‹ùøÙ4@R–«Ò¹¥ŽZ7…6VúQFŸwªGÊœB:‚cÊ¿7ÑÉ­‚·•a›1}ÃT™`TŒ1“;­›Š PL™EVB•l„6Â]›°¬øçb…^îmnò£„K@®¯´$̺V?ŸÌ{ZÍ‚†¬Ê”‘Ó¶ÏbôZ›Åí&{Ì9Pm~ ÌßRŒêÉå²ô5êØ¿ê}â£w—dùèsØ7È>Îo?Æù´–æà…q%gì’ÍŽ¥b %\U@b 0ˆ¢U!N*Æx> ¥W zü ÒvtH=¼UNù^ GÆSÆÆßÆ¥wkNo4q…E”– m˜#Á¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ 0Dppb´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´ 0ë¼¼¼¼ B§§ 0¤Ä D3h D-› 0KÈÈ ASÆf 0¤, 0DÐ A«»(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ¼Ý ƒR?“$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€identify€the€minor€victims€of€sex€crimes€by€their€initials. Ý ƒR?“$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôn]oÔ_Ô€person€.€.€.€shall€be€compelled€inÐ ° Ðany€criminal€case€to€be€a€witness€against€himself.ðð€€Similarly,€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€providesÐ tÄ Ðthat€a€criminal€defendant€ð ðshall€not€be€compelled€to€give€evidence€against€himself.ðð ›Ý ƒR?“$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔS.P.ððs€mother€filed€a€victim€impact€statement€which€provides,€in€relevant€part,€that€S.P.€ð ðhas€had€to€deal€withÐ ° Ða€lot€of€emotional€issuesðð€as€a€result€of€the€Defendantððs€conduct,€that€she€was€ð ðsad€and€afraid,ðð€and€that€S.P.ððs€motherÐ tÄ Ðtook€her€to€counseling.€€€S.P.ððs€mother€also€expressed€concern€for€other€children€in€the€neighborhood,€and€explained€thatÐ 8ˆ  Ðthe€family€felt€it€necessary€to€sell€their€house€because€they€lived€next€door€to€the€Defendant.€€€ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt jÝ ƒR?“$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€Defendantððs€prior€misdemeanor€conviction€was€not€the€basis€for€the€Defendantððs€beingÐ ° Ðsentenced€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender;€rather,€he€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€as€part€of€his€pleaÐ tÄ Ðagreement.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€was€entitled€to€rely€on€the€prior€conviction€as€one€ð ðin€addition€to€those€necessaryÐ 8ˆ Ðto€establish€the€appropriate€range.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€ 3Ý ƒR?“$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€referenced€the€Defendantððs€military€service,€his€employment€history,€his€schooling,€his€limitedÐ ° Ðprior€record,€his€health€problems€and€his€age.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regularžo-s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53j1,ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2?“$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹%ò»»Ô d(|3ÿq$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿq$¢¢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€]ÁXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼»îî #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€24,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X]ÁX»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XX]Á#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€JERRY€W.€Ô_ÔSOUDERÔ_ÔÔ‡X]ÁX»¼Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€S44,088€€€€€€R.€Jerry€Beck,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½ ` AßÐ ¾   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02658„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¹  ÐNovember€15,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant,€Jerry€W.€Ô_ÔSouderÔ_Ô,€pled€nolo€contendere€to€one€count€of€attempted€aggravated€sexualÐ ŒÜ  Ðbattery.€€As€part€of€the€plea€agreement,€the€Defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender€to€sixÐ xÈ  Ðyears,€with€the€manner€of€service€to€be€determined€by€the€trial€court.€€After€a€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ d´ Ðordered€the€Defendant€to€serve€his€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€Defendant€nowÐ P  Ðappeals€as€of€right,€alleging€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€him€an€alternative€sentence,Ð <Œ Ðspecifically€probation.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð (x ÐÓ¶ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼»àX]Á‹#ÔÔ‡X]ÁX.¼ÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€and€òòAlan€E.Ð Ø( ÐGlenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌWayne€Ô_ÔCulbertsonÔ_Ô,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jerry€W.€Ô_ÔSouderÔ_Ô.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð tÄ ÐGreeley€Wells,€District€Attorney€General;€and€James€Goodwin,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð `° Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÓÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»XX]Á6#ÔòòóóÔ‡X]ÁX»¼ÔÐ $"t! ÐÓ  ÓÓÓÔ#†¼»XX]Á_ #ÔÔ€X]ÁX»¼ÔòòÔ‡X]ÁXXX]ÁÔóóÌÓÓà  àThe€Defendantððs€conviction€arose€out€of€allegations€by€S.P.,׃×Ý ƒ,#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€a€nine„year€old€female€neighbor,Ð è$8 $ Ðthat€the€Defendant€had€fondled€her€breasts.€€When€initially€contacted€by€the€police,€the€DefendantÐ Ô%$!% Ðadmitted€the€allegations.€€At€the€plea€and€sentencing€hearings,€however,€the€Defendant€contendedÐ À&"& Ðthat€the€allegations€were€false€and€that€he€was€pleading€guilty€to€save€the€victim€from€furtherÐ ¬'ü"' Ðembarrassment.€€Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€of€sentencing,€the€Defendant€was€sixty„seven€years€old.€€He€has€a€singleÐ p*À%* Ðconviction€of€indecent€exposure,€which€conviction€occurred€in€1977€and€involved€a€victim€underÐ \+¬&+ý7 ÐÔ_Ôthirteen€years€of€age.€€He€has€been€married€for€over€forty€years€and€has€a€high€school€educationÐ ° Ðfollowed€by€military€service€and€steady€employment.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€criminal€conduct€at€issue€was€alleged€to€have€occurred€on€or€about€May€1,€2000.€€OnÐ tÄ ÐMay€9,€2000,€the€Defendant€gave€a€statement€about€the€incident€to€the€Department€of€ChildrenððsÐ `° ÐServices€and€to€the€Kingsport€Police€Department.€€In€both€statements€the€Defendant€admitted€toÐ L œ Ðhaving€touched€S.P.ððs€breasts.€€He€also€admitted€to€having€sexually€molested€young€girls€many€yearsÐ 8 ˆ Ðago.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€conjunction€with€the€Defendantððs€presentence€investigation,€he€was€evaluated€byÐ ü L  ÐTennessee€Sex€Offender€Board€Approved€Providers€Thomas€R.€Herington,€M.A.,€and€J.€MichaelÐ è 8  ÐAdler,€PhD.,€of€Counseling€and€Consultation€Services,€Inc.€€The€evaluation€was€performed€for€theÐ Ô$  Ðpurpose€of€assessing€the€Defendantððs€risk€to€re„offend,€his€treatment€needs,€and€his€amenability€toÐ À  Ðsex€offender€treatment.€€This€evaluation€states€in€part€that€the€Defendantððs€ð ðlevel€of€honesty€is€low,ððÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€he€ð ðpresents€a€[h]igh€risk€to€re„offend,ðð€and€that€he€is€ð ða€poor€candidate€for€Sex€OffenderÐ ˜è  ÐTreatment.ðð€€In€a€letter€summarizing€the€evaluation€of€the€Defendant,€the€examining€clinicians€stateÐ „Ô  Ðthat€the€Defendant€ð ðis€not€considered€a€candidate€for€treatment€in€a€community€base[d]€program,ððÐ pÀ Ðand€that€he€ð ðshould€be€referred€to€the€Special€Needs€Prison€for€Sex€Offender€Treatment.ððÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Contrary€to€his€earlier€statements,€theÐ 4„ ÐDefendant€testified€that€upon€further€reflection,€he€ð ðrealized€there€is€no€way€in€the€world€that€[he]Ð  p Ðcould€have€touched€that€girlððs€breasts€that€high€up€on€her€shoulder.ðð€€The€Defendant€continued,Ð  \ Ðstating€that€€ð ðevery€bit€of€this€is€a€lie,ðð€that€he€had€been€ð ðcharged€wrongfully,ðð€and€thought€he€ð ðoughtÐ øH Ðto€be€vindicated€of€this€thing.ðð€€The€Defendant€admitted€that€he€ð ðhad€done€a€lot€of€bad€thingsðð€overÐ ä4 Ðtwenty€years€ago,€but€averred€that€he€had€since€ð ðgot[ten]€[his]€life€straightened€out,ðð€and€hadÐ Ð  Ðð ðgot[ten]€out€of€that.ððÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€the€prosecutor€asked€the€Defendant,€ð ð[s]o,€youððre€not€into€this€kindÐ ”ä Ðof€thing€now?ðð€to€which€the€Defendant€replied,€ð ð[t]hatððs€right.€I€left€that€stuff€years€ago.ðð€€TheÐ €Ð Ðprosecutor€then€asked,€ð ð[b]ut€you€have€molested€other€children€in€the€past?ðð€€The€Defendant€refusedÐ l¼ Ðto€answer€this€question€and€invoked€his€right€not€to€incriminate€himself€under€the€Fifth€AmendmentÐ X ¨ Ðto€the€United€States€Constitution.׃×Ý ƒ,#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€denied€the€Defendant€an€alternative€sentence€and€ordered€him€to€serve€hisÐ #l! Ðsentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Taking€the€victim€impact€statement€into€account,׃Ü×Ý ƒ,#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€theÐ $X" Ðcourt€found€that€ð ðto€grant€probation€would€diminish€the€seriousness€of€the€crime.ðð€€The€court€alsoÐ ° Ðplaced€heavy€reliance€on€the€Defendantððs€prior€conviction.€€With€respect€to€the€Defendantððs€refusalÐ œì Ðto€answer€the€Stateððs€question,€the€court€ð ðconsidere[d]€that€as€not€putting€his€best€foot€forward€andÐ ˆØ Ðallowing€the€Court€to€make€a€rational€decision.ðð€€Finally,€the€court€noted€the€ð ðvery€negativeððÐ tÄ Ðevaluation€as€a€basis€for€denying€probation.€€€€€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€contends€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€him€to€confinementÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€that€it€improperly€weighed€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€When€a€convicted€defendantÐ $ t Ðchallenges€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€reviewÐ  ` Ðof€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€òòSeeóóÐ ü L  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showingÐ è 8  Ðin€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÐ Ô$  Ðcircumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€record€in€this€caseÐ À  Ðsupports€the€presumption€of€correctness.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWhen€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,Ð „Ô  Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€the€presentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€ofÐ pÀ Ðsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€theÐ \¬ Ðcriminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÐ H˜ Ðmade€by€the€defendant€regarding€sentencing;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÐ 4„ Ðrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210Ô#†X]ÁXXX]Áö #ÔÔ‡X]ÁXXX]ÁÔ;€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€875Ð  p ÐS.W.2d€298,€302€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€844€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð  \ ÐApp.€1988).Ð øH ÐÌà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€that€theÐ Ð  Ðcourt€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€theÐ ¼  Ðfactors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€areÐ ¨ø Ðadequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€haveÐ ”ä Ðpreferred€a€different€result.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904,€926„27€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.Ð €Ð ÐFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€the€Defendantððs€complaints€about€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancementÐ D!” Ðand€mitigating€factors,€the€State€responds€that,€because€the€Defendant€is€not€challenging€the€lengthÐ 0"€  Ðof€his€sentence,€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€these€factors€is€irrelevant.€€However,€this€Court€hasÐ #l! Ðrecently€recognized€that€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€are€relevant€to€the€trial€courtððsÐ $X" Ðdetermination€of€the€manner€in€which€a€felony€sentence€is€to€be€served.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bollingóó,€75Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.3d€418,€421€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€Accordingly,€we€will€review€the€trial€courtððs€findingsÐ à%0!$ Ðin€this€regard.Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àThe€trial€court€found€as€an€enhancement€factor€that€the€Defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÐ ° Ðâ âcriminal€convictions€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð œì ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€Indeed,€the€trial€court€weighed€this€factor€ð ðheav[ily]ðð€in€denying€anÐ ˆØ Ðalternative€sentence.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€placed€too€much€weight€on€this€factorÐ tÄ Ðbecause€the€Defendantððs€single€prior€conviction€occurred€in€1977.׃ ×Ý ƒ,#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð `° ÐÌà  àProvided€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€Criminal€SentencingÐ 8 ˆ ÐReform€Act€of€1989€and€its€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€the€weight€afforded€toÐ $ t Ðenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€is€left€to€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Alderóó,€71Ð  ` ÐS.W.3d€299,€306€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001);€€òòState€v.€Kelleyóó,€34€S.W.3d€471,€479€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ü L  Ð2000).€€In€this€case,€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretionÐ è 8  Ðin€the€weight€it€placed€on€the€enhancement€factor€for€previous€criminal€convictions.€€Although€theÐ Ô$  Ðprior€conviction€is€old,€it€arises€from€conduct€similar€to€that€for€which€the€Defendant€now€standsÐ À  Ðconvicted.€€òòóóFurthermore,€the€enhancement€factor€applies€not€only€where€there€is€a€history€of€previousÐ ¬ü  Ðcriminal€convictions,€but€also€where€there€is€a€history€of€previous€criminal€òòbehavioróó.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ˜è  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€The€Defendantððs€statements€include€confessions€to€multiple€incidentsÐ „Ô  Ðof€molesting€children€sometime€in€the€past.€€Accordingly,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€theÐ pÀ ÐDefendantððs€history€of€criminal€convictions€and€criminal€behavior€lends€support€to€the€denial€of€anÐ \¬ Ðalternative€sentence.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð H˜ ÐÌÔ#†X]ÁXXX]Á&#ÔÔ‡X]ÁXXX]ÁÔà  àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€enhancement€factor€(7),Ð  p Ðthat€he€committed€the€offense€to€gratify€his€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð  \ Ððð€40„35„114(7).€€However,€the€trial€court€did€not€rely€on€this€factor€in€determining€how€theÐ øH ÐDefendant€should€serve€his€sentence.€€This€issue€is,€therefore,€without€merit.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€did€not€consider€as€mitigating€factors€thatÐ ¼  Ðthe€Defendantððs€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„113(1),Ð ¨ø Ðand€that€he€cooperated€with€the€authorities.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€He€further€contends€that€theÐ ”ä Ðtrial€court€gave€insufficient€weight€to€the€mitigating€factors€that€the€trial€court€did€recognize.׃  ×Ý ƒ,#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р€Ð ÐHowever,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€negative€factors€adduced€in€conjunction€with€theÐ l¼ ÐDefendantððs€sentencing€hearing€far€outweigh€any€and€all€mitigating€factors€that€might€otherwiseÐ X ¨ Ðsupport€an€alternative€sentence.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€the€Defendantððs€challenge€to€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€he€shouldÐ #l! Ðserve€his€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction,€we€first€note€that€the€Defendant€is€eligible€forÐ $X" Ðprobation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a).€€Because€he€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender,Ð ô$D # Ðhowever,€the€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€a€statutory€presumption€in€favor€of€an€alternative€sentence.€Ð ° ÐòòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€Ô#†X]ÁXXX]ÁÓ5#ÔÔ‡ X]ÁXXX]ÁÔTo€be€entitled€to€a€sentence€of€probation,€the€Defendant€must€demonstrateÐ œì Ðthat€probation€would€ð ðsubserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant.ðð€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)€(quoting€òòHooper€v.€Stateóó,Ð tÄ Ð297€S.W.2d€78,€81€(Tenn.€1956)),€òòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó,€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.Ð `° Ð2000).€€Furthermore,€in€determining€whether€to€grant€probation,€the€trial€court€must€consider€theÐ L œ Ðnature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense;€the€defendantððs€criminal€record;€his€or€her€background€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðsocial€history;€his€or€her€present€condition,€including€physical€and€mental€condition;€and€theÐ $ t Ðdeterrent€effect€on€the€defendantòòóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kendrickóó,€10€S.W.3d€650,€656€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  ` Ð1999).€€The€court€should€also€consider€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment€of€the€defendantÐ ü L  Ðin€determining€the€appropriate€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).Ô#†X]ÁXX X]Á®=#ÔÔ‡X]ÁXXX]ÁÔÐ è 8  ÐÔ#†X]ÁXXX]ÁŠB#ÔÔ‡ X]ÁXXX]ÁÔÌà  àThe€principles€of€sentencing€reflect€that€the€sentence€should€be€no€greater€than€that€deservedÐ À  Ðfor€the€offense€committed€and€should€be€the€least€severe€measure€necessary€to€achieve€the€purposesÐ ¬ü  Ðfor€which€the€sentence€is€imposed.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2),€(4).€€Ô#†X]ÁXX X]ÁáB#ÔÔ‡ X]ÁXXX]ÁÔHowever,€probationÐ ˜è  Ðis€properly€denied€under€the€following€circumstances:Ð „Ô  Ðà8  à(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€hasÐ pÀ Ða€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;Ð\¬Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€orÐ H˜ Ðconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likelyÐ 4„ Ðto€commit€similar€offenses;€or€Ð pÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€beenÐ  \ Ðapplied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant[.]ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€40„35„103(1).€€Ô#†X]ÁXX X]ÁqD#ÔÔ‡ X]ÁXXX]ÁÔòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€5€(Tenn.€2000);€òòState€v.Ð Ð  ÐAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€170€(Tenn.€1991).€òòÔ#†X]ÁXX X]ÁÖG#ÔóóÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€probation€on€the€grounds€that€toÐ ”ä Ðdo€so€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€because€it€was€not€ð ðespecially€violent,Ð €Ð Ðhorrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree,ððÐ l¼ Ðand€of€such€a€nature€as€to€outweigh€all€other€factors€favoring€a€sentence€other€than€confinement.€Ð X ¨ ÐòòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€374„75€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€We€agree€that€the€criminalÐ D!” Ðconduct€at€issue€was€not€so€reprehensible€as€to€justify,€in€and€of€itself,€the€denial€of€probation.€Ð 0"€  ÐHowever,€this€was€only€one€factor€relied€upon€by€the€trial€court€in€its€decision.€€Other€evidence€inÐ #l! Ðthe€record€is€more€than€sufficient€to€justify€the€denial€of€probation,€and€this€issue€is,€therefore,Ð $X" Ðwithout€merit.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€when€it€relied€on€hisÐ Ì&"% Ðassertion€of€his€rights€against€self„incrimination€in€denying€probation.€€The€trial€court€characterizedÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€Defendantððs€refusal€to€answer€the€prosecutorððs€question€about€whether€he€had€molested€childrenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€the€past,€as€ð ðnot€putting€his€best€foot€forward.ððÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€recently€made€clear€that€a€criminal€defendant€retainsÐ ° Ðâ âhis€or€her€right€to€assert€the€Fifth€Amendment€privilege€against€self„incrimination€during€sentencing.€Ð œì ÐòòSeeóó€òòMitchell€v.€United€Statesóó,€526€U.S.€314,€119€S.Ct.€1307,€143€L.Ed.€2d€424€(1999).€€Moreover,Ð ˆØ Ðthe€sentencing€court€may€draw€no€adverse€inference€from€the€defendantððs€silence€in€determining€factsÐ tÄ Ðabout€the€crime€which€bear€upon€the€severity€of€the€sentence.€€òòId.óó,€526€U.S.€at€316„17.€€However,€theÐ `° ÐCourt€specifically€declined€to€opine€as€to€whether€the€defendantððs€silence€may€bear€upon€his€or€herÐ L œ Ðlack€of€remorse€or€acceptance€of€responsibility€for€the€crime€in€setting€the€defendantððs€sentence.€€òòId.óó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð526€U.S.€at€330.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€trial€court€did€not€draw€any€adverse€inferences€about€the€facts€ofÐ ü L  Ðthe€crime€from€the€Defendantððs€refusal€to€answer€the€Stateððs€question.€€Rather,€the€trial€courtÐ è 8  Ðincluded€the€Defendantððs€silence€in€its€overall€calculus€for€determining€whether€the€Defendant€wasÐ Ô$  Ða€suitable€candidate€for€probation.€€As€set€forth€above,€a€criminal€defendantððs€rehabilitative€potentialÐ À  Ðis€a€factor€to€be€considered€in€the€grant€or€denial€of€probation.€€Candor€is€a€relevant€factor€inÐ ¬ü  Ðassessing€a€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€306€(Tenn.Ð ˜è  ÐCrim.€App.€1994),€and€the€lack€of€candor€militates€against€the€grant€of€probation.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòStateÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Kendrickóó,€10€S.W.3d€at€656.€€The€burden€of€proving€suitability€for€probation€rests€with€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b).€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€notÐ \¬ Ðinfringe€upon€the€Defendantððs€rights€under€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution,Ð H˜ Ðor€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€when€it€relied,€in€part,€on€the€DefendantððsÐ 4„ Ðassertion€of€those€rights€at€sentencing,€in€order€to€deny€probation.€€This€issue€is,€therefore,€withoutÐ  p Ðmerit.€€€€€€€à ` àÐ  \ ÐÌà  àThe€record€in€this€case€overwhelmingly€supports€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€probation.€€In€spiteÐ ä4 Ðof€his€confessions€to€authorities€shortly€after€committing€the€criminal€conduct€at€issue,€the€DefendantÐ Ð  Ðclaimed€complete€innocence€at€his€sentencing€hearing,€blamed€the€victim,€refused€to€accept€anyÐ ¼  Ðresponsibility€for€his€actions,€and€was€profoundly€unrepentant.€€While€acknowledging€past€criminalÐ ¨ø Ðconduct€of€a€like€nature,€the€Defendant€steadfastly€maintained€that€such€behavior€was€behind€him.€Ð ”ä ÐThe€evaluation€performed€on€the€Defendant€indicated€him€to€be€at€high€risk€for€re„offending€and€aÐ €Ð Ðpoor€candidate€for€sex€offender€treatment.€€The€evaluation€further€recommended€against€theÐ l¼ ÐDefendantððs€release€into€the€community.€€The€trial€judge€rightly€concluded€that€incarceration€is€theÐ X ¨ Ðproper€manner€in€which€the€Defendant€should€serve€his€agreed„upon€sentence.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€€€€Ð #l! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE