ÿWPC 6UN %R 0(Xw@€4ÀÔ 0†ã 0Di­ 0Dµ 0Jù 0TC 0^— 0hõ 0r] 0|Ï 0†K 0Ñ 1ua 0dÖ AQ: Æ‹ BQ 0@n 0D® D/ò B! D3> U>q U*¯ B)Ù DC AME ’ E• ²Ú°Œv~<vÓº(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ DDDD D D D D Ó€¸LË$3|x(6(2Ä:$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd!#.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ùÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌò òJune€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€,ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ;Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Effective€June€2,€1995,€vehicular€homicide€by€driver€intoxication€was€elevated€toÏa€Class€B€felony.€€Public€Act€1995,€ch.€415€ðð€2.Ì ¨Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€trial€court€stated,€ð ð[w]e›€might€need€to€discuss€œTCA›€ðð€40„35„113,€mitigatingÏfactors,€the€defendant€has€under€subsection€thirteen€put€forward,€and€the€Court€wouldÏaccept€those,€at€least€some€of€them€as€mitigating€factors€.€.€.ððÌ ¦Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Under€current€law,€vehicular€homicide€by€intoxication€is€a€Class€B€felony.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„213(b).€€Therefore,€one€convicted€of€this€offense€is€no€longerÏpresumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÙ€!ÙÓ  ÓÔ€,ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€/0.A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àOCTOBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€03C01„9703„CR„00101ó óÌà àAppellee,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òSULLIVAN€COUNTYó óÌò òVS.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHON.€R.€JERRY€BECK,ÌJAMES€THOMAS€TANNER,€III,ó óà@ à)à àò òJUDGEó óÌà@ à)Ìà àAppellant.à@ à)à à(Sentencing)ÌÌÌÌÒ†„èyÒò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:ÌÌNAT€H.€THOMASÌó ó317€Shelby€StreetÌSuite€304ÌKingsport,€TN€€37660„3617Éò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òSANDY€C.€PATRICKó óÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCordell€Hull€Building,€2nd€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òH.€GREELEY€WELLS,€JR.ó óÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òROBERT€H.€MONTGOMERY,ÏJR.ó óÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌP.O.€Box€526ÌBlountville,€TN€€37617„0526ÉÒÒÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,ÌJUDGEÇÓÓó óÑ7€– XXdìXXdì7Ñà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendant,€James€Thomas€Tanner,€III,€pled€guilty€in€the€SullivanÏCounty€Criminal€Court€to€one€(1)€count€of€vehicular€homicide,€a€Class€C€felony.× ƒ1 ××  ×€ÏThe€trial€court€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€three€(3)€yearsÏand€denied€alternative€sentencing.€€On€appeal,€he€claims€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€refusing€to€sentence€him€as€an€especially€mitigated€offender€and€inÏdenying€alternative€sentencing.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€beforeÏthis€Court,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óóóÌÌà àOn€December€26,€1994,€defendant€was€driving€on€Interstate€181€whenÏhis€vehicle€collided€with€a€truck€parked€in€the€emergency€lane/paved€shoulderÏarea€of€the€interstate.€€The€driver€of€the€truck,€Lawrence€Peters,€had€pulled€off€ofÏthe€traveled€portion€of€the€interstate€because€of€car€problems.€€Peters€died€as€aÏresult€of€injuries€received€in€the€accident.€€Approximately€two€hours€after€theÏaccident,€defendantððs€blood€was€tested.€€The€test€revealed€defendantððs€bloodÏalcohol€content€to€be€0.26%.Ìà àDefendant€entered€a€guilty€plea€to€vehicular€homicide,€a€Class€C€felonyÏat€that€time.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„213(b)€(1991).€The€trial€court€was€toÍdetermine€the€length€and€manner€of€defendantððs€sentence.Ìà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€defendant€testified€that€he€was€38€years€oldÏand€single.€€He€had€a€Ph.D.€in€chemistry€and€had€worked€for€the€TennesseeÏEastman€Company€as€a€technical€service€representative€for€approximately€sixÏyears.€€He€had€no€prior€criminal€record,€a€good€work€history€and€a€stable€familyÏenvironment.€€He€denied€using€drugs€and€reported€ð ðinfrequentðð€alcohol€use.€€AtÏthe€time€of€the€hearing,€he€had€been€under€a€psychiatristððs€care€for€depressionÏfor€approximately€five€and€one„half€(5€ðð)€years.€€He€acknowledged€that,€afterÏthe€accident,€he€erroneously€told€an€officer€that€he€drank€ð ðthree€shots€of€scotch,ððÏwhen€he€actually€consumed€three€to€four€ð ðglasses.ðð€€He€also€expressed€remorseÏto€the€court€and€to€the€victimððs€family.Ìà àDefendantððs€father,€a€friend€of€defendantððs€and€a€former€employer€ofÏdefendantððs€testified€on€his€behalf€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€All€requested€thatÏthe€trial€court€grant€alternative€sentencing.Ìà àThe€trial€court€imposed€defendantððs€sentence€at€the€hearing€andÏadditionally€filed€extensive€findings€in€a€subsequent€written€order.€€The€trialÏcourt€determined€that€defendant€would€be€sentenced€as€a€Range€I,€standardÏoffender,€and€not€as€an€especially€mitigated€offender.€€In€determining€the€lengthÏof€defendantððs€sentence,€the€trial€court€found€that€no€factors€were€applicable€toÏenhance€defendantððs€sentence€within€Range€I.€€The€trial€court€did€find€thatÏmitigating€factors€were€applicable,€but€did€not€enumerate€those€specific€factors.œ× ƒ2 ××  ×›€ÍThe€trial€court€then€sentenced€defendant€to€three€(3)€years,€the€minimum€for€aÏClass€C€felony€within€Range€I.Ìà àIn€determining€whether€alternative€sentencing€would€be€appropriate,€theÏtrial€court€noted€that€defendant€had€an€ð ðexcellentðð€social€history,€educationalÏhistory€and€no€prior€convictions.€€However,€the€trial€court,€relying€on€several€pre„1989€cases,€determined€that€because€defendantððs€actions€resulted€in€the€deathÏof€another,€exceptional€circumstances€must€be€shown€in€order€to€supportÏprobation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€622€S.W.2d€588,€590€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.ÏWindhorstóó,€635€S.W.2d€706,€708€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòKilgore€v.€Stateóó,€588ÏS.W.2d€567,€568€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€The€trial€court€further€found€thatÏvehicular€homicide€by€driver€intoxication€mandated€the€application€of€theÏð ðexceptional€circumstancesðð€test.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€defendant€hadÏnot€demonstrated€that€exceptional€circumstances€existed€which€would€requireÏthe€court€to€grant€alternative€sentencing,€and€thus,€denied€alternativeÏsentencing.Ìà àFrom€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€defendant€brings€this€appeal.ÌÌà@ àò òòòESPECIALLY€MITIGATED€OFFENDERó óóóÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏsentencing€him€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender.€€He€argues€that€because€heÏhas€no€prior€convictions€and€the€trial€court€found€mitigating€but€no€enhancementÏfactors,€he€should€have€been€sentenced€as€an€especially€mitigated€offender.Ìà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„109(a)€provides€that€a€trial€court€ððmay€find€theÏdefendant€is€an€especially€mitigated€offender,€if:€(1)€[œt]he›€defendant€has€no€priorÏfelony€convictions;€and€(2)€[œt]he›€court€finds€mitigating,€but€no€enhancementÏfactors.ðð€€However,€whether€a€defendant€is€sentenced€as€an€especially€mitigatedÏoffender€is€a€determination€that€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€868€S.W.2d€729,€730„31€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.ÏBradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€750,€762„63€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€This€provision€is€notÏmandatory.€€òòBradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€762„63.€€Indeed,€especially€mitigated€statusÏis€reserved€for€ð ðinstances€where€the€trial€judge€may€desire€to€depart€from€evenÏthe€minimum€sentence€for€a€Range€I€offender€and€impose€lesser€penalties.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„109,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ìà àConsidering€the€nature,€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€offense,€we€findÏthat€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€sentencing€defendant€as€aÏRange€I,€standard€offender.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòALTERNATIVE€SENTENCINGóóó óÌÌà àDefendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€alternativeÏsentencing.€€He€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€the€ð ðexceptionalÏcircumstancesðð€doctrine€to€deny€probation€in€this€case.€€He€argues€that€the€stateÏdid€not€overcome€the€presumption€that€defendant€was€a€favorable€candidate€forÏalternative€sentencing.€€He€further€claims€that€he€qualifies€for€communityÏcorrections€under€the€ð ðspecial€needsðð€provision€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106(c).Ìà@ àò òA.ó óÌà àThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóóÏwith€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€ThisÏpresumption€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€theÏtrial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€trialÏcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€and€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96Ï(Tenn.€1997).Ìà àThe€burden€is€upon€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€isÏimproper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments.€€In€conducting€our€review,€we€are€required,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210,€to€consider€the€following€factors€in€sentencing:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€[œt]he›€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencingÏhearing;ÌÌà8 à(2)€[œt]he›€presentence€report;ÌÌà8 à(3)€[œt]he›€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÏalternatives;ÌÌà8 à(4)€[œt]he›€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;ÌÌà8 à(5)€[œe]vidence›€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€andÌÌà8 à(6)€[œa]ny›€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€theÏdefendantððs€own€behalf€about€sentencing.ÌÌÓÓà àUnder€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€trial€judges€areÏencouraged€to€use€alternatives€to€incarceration.€€An€especially€mitigated€orÏstandard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€aÏfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€ofÏevidence€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).Ìà àIn€determining€if€incarceration€is€appropriate,€a€trial€court€may€considerÏthe€need€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€having€a€long€history€ofÏcriminal€conduct,€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,Ïwhether€confinement€is€particularly€appropriate€to€effectively€deter€others€likelyÏto€commit€similar€offenses,€and€whether€less€restrictive€measures€have€often€orÏrecently€been€unsuccessfully€applied€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.Ìà àAlthough€a€defendant€may€be€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€forÏalternative€sentencing,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€suitabilityÏfor€total€probation.€€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,€477€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1996);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b).€€Even€though€probation€must€beÏautomatically€considered,€ð ðthe€defendant€is€not€automatically€entitled€toÏprobation€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€SentencingÏCommission€Comments;€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1991).Ìà àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€or€deny€probation,€a€trial€court€shouldÏconsider€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendant's€criminal€record,€theÍdefendantððs€social€history€and€present€condition,€the€need€for€deterrence,€andÏthe€best€interest€of€the€defendant€and€€the€public.€€òòState€v.€Grearóó,€568€S.W.2dÏ285,€286€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€925€S.W.2d€237,€244€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€924€S.W.2d€912,€917€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ìà àThere€is€no€mathematical€equation€to€be€utilized€in€determiningÏsentencing€alternatives.€€Not€only€should€the€sentence€fit€the€offense,€but€itÏshould€fit€the€offender€as€well.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2);€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,Ï932€S.W.2d€467€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Indeed,€individualized€punishment€isÏthe€essence€of€alternative€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€305Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€In€summary,€sentencing€must€be€determined€on€aÏcase„by„case€basis,€tailoring€each€sentence€to€that€particular€defendant€basedÏupon€the€facts€of€that€case€and€the€circumstances€of€that€defendant.€€òòState€v.ÏMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€235€(Tenn.€1986).Ìà@ àò òB.ó óÌà àInitially,€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€theÏð ðexceptional€circumstancesðð€theory€to€support€the€denial€of€probation.€€In€òòKilgoreÏv.€Stateóó,€this€Court€held€that€where€death€of€another€results€from€a€defendantððsÏcriminal€conduct,€the€defendant€must€show€that€exceptional€circumstances€existÏto€support€probation.€€588€S.W.2d€at€568.€€This€case€was€decided€prior€to€theÏ1989€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act.Ìà àHowever,€under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€a€defendant€convicted€of€aÏClass€C,€D€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternativeÏsentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€CodeÍAnn.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€There€was€no€similar€provision€under€the€1982ÏSentencing€Act.€€At€the€time€this€offense€was€committed,€the€legislatureÏclassified€vehicular€homicide€as€a€Class€C€felony.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€Vehicular€homicide,€by€itsÏvery€nature,€involves€the€death€of€another€as€a€result€of€the€defendantððs€actions.€ÏTherefore,€ð ð[œt]o›€apply€a€different€standard€solely€because€a€death€is€involvedÏððwould€fail€to€comply€with€the€mandates€of€the€1989€[Sentencing]€Act€and€wouldÏcondone€inconsistency€and€unjustified€disparity€in€sentencing€unrelated€to€theÏpurposes€of€the€Act.ðððð€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€454„55€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€at€374).€€The€fact€that€deathÏresults€cannot,€by€itself,€justify€a€denial€of€probation€ð ðnor€can€it€be€viewed€asÏsufficient€evidence€to€overcome€the€presumptionðð€as€stated€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„102(6).€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€880€S.W.2d€395,€400„01€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994).Ìà àOther€panels€of€this€Court€have€held€that€the€ð ðexceptional€circumstancesððÏdoctrine€did€not€survive€the€1989€Sentencing€Act.€€òòState€v.€Bradley€JoeÏHousewrightóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9705„CR„00195,€Sullivan€County€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€filed€December€16,€1997,€at€Knoxville);€òòState€v.€McKinzie€Monroe€Blackóó,ÏC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9401„CC„00006,€Robertson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filedÏJuly€14,€1995,€at€Nashville);€òòbut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Ramseyóó,€903€S.W.2d€709,€714Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Roger€D.€œHipsheróó,›€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9111„CC„00332,€Hickman€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€October€8,€1992,€atÍNashville).Ìà àWe,€therefore,€find€that€the€ð ðexceptional€circumstancesðð€theory€is€notÏapplicable€to€offenses€occurring€after€the€inception€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act.€ÏThus,€the€trial€court€erred€in€relying€upon€this€doctrine€to€support€the€denial€ofÏprobation.€€Our€review€is,€therefore,€òòde€novoóó€without€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness.Ìà@ àò òC.ó óÌà àNevertheless,€under€our€power€of€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€find€that€a€denial€ofÏprobation€was€warranted€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€€Probation€mayÏbe€denied€based€solely€upon€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€offense.€€òòStateÏv.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€456;€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€at€374.€€However,Ïthe€circumstances€of€the€offense€as€committed€must€be€especially€violent,Ïhorrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€orÏexaggerated€degree;€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€must€outweigh€all€factorsÏfavoring€probation.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€455;€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó€818ÏS.W.2d€at€374„75.Ìà àApproximately€two€hours€after€the€accident€causing€the€victimððs€death,Ïdefendantððs€blood€alcohol€content€registered€0.26%.€€Defendant€testified€that€heÏwas€aware€of€the€dangers€and€consequences€of€driving€while€under€theÏinfluence.€€Yet,€he€chose€to€drive€while€his€blood€alcohol€level€was€over€two€andÏone„half€(2€ðð)€times€the€permissible€inference€for€driving€under€the€influence.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408.€€We€consider€these€facts€to€be€shocking,Ïreprehensible,€offensive€and€of€an€exaggerated€degree.Ìà àWe€acknowledge€that€defendant€has€no€criminal€record€and€has€anÏadmirable€work€history€and€social€history.€€However,€we€can€not€overlook€thatÏdefendant€was€38€years€old€and€held€a€Ph.D.€in€chemistry.€€A€person€of€his€ageÏand€education€should€recognize€the€implications€of€consuming€an€excessiveÏamount€of€alcohol€and€driving€on€public€streets,€endangering€the€lives€of€others.€ÏWhile€we€commend€defendantððs€positive€attributes,€we€find€that€theÏcircumstances€of€this€offense€outweigh€the€other€factors€in€favor€of€probation.€€InÏorder€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€we,€therefore,€findÏthat€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€probation€in€this€case.Ìà@ àò òD.ó óÌà àDefendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€placed€him€inÏcommunity€corrections.€€Defendant€is€ineligible€for€community€corrections€underÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„36„106(a)(3)€since›€œvehicular€homicide€is›€a€crime€ofÏœviolence.›€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€765.€€However,€he€contends€thatÏhe€qualifies€for€the€ð ðspecial€needsðð€provision€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(c).€€He€maintains€that€he€has€been€under€psychiatric€care€since€1990,€butÏposes€no€threat€to€the€community.€€He€further€claims€that€his€depression€couldÏbest€be€treated€under€his€present€psychiatristððs€care€rather€than€in€a€correctionalÏinstitution.Ìà àThe€Community€Corrections€Act€establishes€a€program€of€community„based€alternatives€to€incarceration€for€certain€eligible€offenders.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„36„103.€€A€defendant€is€eligible€for€participation€in€a€communityÏcorrections€program€if€the€defendant€satisfies€several€minimum€eligibility€criteriaÍset€forth€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(a)(1)„(7).€€The€Act€does€not€provideÏthat€all€offenders€who€meet€these€requirements€are€entitled€to€such€relief.€€òòStateÏv.€Grandberryóó,€803€S.W.2d€706,€707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€Indeed,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(d)€provides€that€the€eligibility€criteria€shall€beÏinterpreted€as€minimum€standards€to€guide€the€court's€determination€ofÏeligibility€of€offenders€under€the€Act.Ìà àAn€offender€who€does€not€meet€the€minimum€criteria€under€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„36„106(a)€òòandóó€is€considered€unfit€for€probation€due€to€substanceÏabuse€or€mental€problems€may€still€be€eligible€for€community€corrections€underÏthe€special€needs€provision€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(c).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏGrigsbyóó,€957€S.W.2d€541,€546€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€However,€before€aÏdefendant€may€be€sentenced€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(c),€heÏor€she€must€be€found€eligible€for€probation.€€òòState€v.€Grigsbyóó,€957€S.W.2d€atÏ546;€òòState€v.€Statenóó,€787€S.W.2d€934,€936€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€The€trialÏcourt€must€also€find€that:€(1)€the€offender€has€a€history€of€chronic€alcohol€abuse,Ïdrug€abuse,€or€mental€health€problems;€(2)€these€factors€were€reasonablyÏrelated€to€and€contributed€to€the€offender's€criminal€conduct;€(3)€the€identifiableÏspecial€need(s)€are€treatable;€and€(4)€the€treatment€of€the€special€need(s)€couldÏbe€best€served€in€the€community€rather€than€in€a€correctional€institution.€€òòState€v.ÏGrigsbyóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€546„47;€òòState€v.€Bostonóó,€938€S.W.2d€435,€439€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1996).Ìà àAt€first€blush,€it€would€appear€that€defendant€is€suited€for€communityÏcorrections€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(c).€€However,€there€is€noÍevidence,€nor€does€defendant€contend,€that€his€depression€reasonably€relatedÏto€and€contributed€to€his€criminal€conduct.€€Defendantððs€criminal€conduct€wasÏcaused€by€his€alcohol€use,€which€defendant€contends€is€merely€ð ðsocialðð€andÏð ðinfrequent.ðð€€Because€defendantððs€mental€status€did€not€contribute€to€hisÏcriminal€conduct,€a€community€corrections€sentence€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„36„106(c)€would€be€inappropriate.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€sentencingÏdefendant€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender.€€Furthermore,€we€conclude€that€theÏtrial€courtððs€denial€of€alternative€sentencing€was€not€improper€under€the€facts€ofÏthis€case.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìœ›ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€œJUDGE›ÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌÌòòœ›ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌœ›ÌòòÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEó ó