ÿWPCñ \ÈëHh$¸«Ý‘ãjNïªÁ¯¹o ¯ƒ¹°Y2¸ïâ¬w€cô|2ªöéZøþžSÒPÞ…¯kšDàLÖÆ<Éü·¿åµ„œñlãx œ?gקå…%èœ3‰äX©&6ãÁÍš¹“¬ì¸Ã…üjƒqKE`]x3MuDäKO Ý"‰GBRõˆøZ!ÍöeKŠsº ¶HK ñÕñÇÖMaMzÓí>HtѪó^$ à4_›© ƒš1—@û6z®;fÅ_[´U³þnòúi!…9‹F³aË«¯¯j[—­àŒÚòÙå5»…Ož€“„E É“Cêe™z‰TG®¹H Wñ¯_Eø{ìRÀë04)O…ÝY?«’Ù¼ðwßÂ+…Ÿü¸~í@¹?Ë %0œÍ×þi¿KkjcÔ8ü®wšB Þ SWC‚ßS¯p$^Þ |³L _"ré&ó7Û˜HI €7„»•7ÐêéûÆaªm ǽ¯~}mµ¸<7~|MY%3£)jÌreÄÅã¼ÃMf4Þ¾¸¿¹~ûÇ÷KêìE`"8·fa”s¸›v Ú‹4¨¶ vÌbÊ°ò *NCÑ‹Í¿î—ò€*ÿöb#Á\ % U N# 0ˆq UNù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1_÷NV 0DXGœEããååååååóííííí àààààààààààbææææææææææææææææææææææææææææææææææææ 0ëîîîî BÙÙ 0¤ö D3š D-Í 0Kúú ASEƘ 0¤^ 0D A«F˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regulart*+  ˜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.wptÖJ~'¬Ý ÷3|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 UÝ ƒR35$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôå½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôå½òòôå½ÔÔ‡X9Xòôå½ÔÔ#†ôå½òXX9#ÔWe€do€not€list€the€names€of€juvenile€victims,€but€refer€to€their€names€by€initialsÔ#†ôå½òòôå½~#Ô.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó =Ý ƒR35$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôå½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôå½òòôå½ÔÔ‡X9Xòôå½ÔÔ#†ôå½òXX9#ÔThe€pre„sentence€report€reflects€that€the€November€term€of€the€Wilson€County€grand€jury€returned€accusedÐ ° Ðthe€Defendant€of€three€counts€of€rape€and€three€counts€of€statutory€rape.€€These€charges€were€amended€by€the€DecemberÐ tÄ Ðsession€of€the€grand€jury€to€three€counts€of€incest.Ô#†ôå½òòôå½~#Ô  éÝ ƒR35$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôå½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôå½òòôå½ÔThe€pre„sentence€report€indicates€that€the€Department€of€Children€Services€interviewed€BBððs€sister,€with€theÐ ° Ðsame€initials,€who€described€an€unwanted€sexual€encounter€with€the€Defendant,€and€told€her€mother€who€responded,Ð tÄ Ðð ðpeople€do€make€mistakes.ððÔ#†ôå½òòôå½~#ÔH- ù-(|G235$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôå½ò»»Ô d(|3y$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3y$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q%»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Q%»»»ÔÑ8€9XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îAQ%ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Q%»îîA #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€19,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X9X»¼Q%ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Q%»XX9#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€RICHARD€L.€THOMPSONòòóóÔ‡X9X»¼Q%Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Wilson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„1945€€€€€€John€D.€Ô_ÔWootenÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„01429„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€7,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X9XXX9ÔÔ#†¼Q%»XX9Ž#ÔÔ€X9X»¼Q%ÔDefendant,€Richard€L.€Thompson,€was€accused€by€the€Wilson€County€grand€jury€of€incest€of€hisÐ xÈ  Ðstepdaughter,€in€three€counts,€all€occurring€between€May€and€August€1999.€€On€January€13,€2000,€Ð d´ ÐDefendant€agreed€to€plead€guilty€to€one€count€of€incest€for€a€sentence€of€six€(6)€years€in€theÐ P  ÐDepartment€of€Correction.€€As€part€of€the€plea€agreement,€Defendant€requested€a€sentencing€hearingÐ <Œ Ðfor€the€trial€court€to€consider€an€alternative€sentence€and€probation.€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÐ (x Ðsentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€Defendantððs€request€for€an€alternative€sentence€andÐ d Ðprobation€and€confined€Defendant€in€the€Department€of€Correction€for€six€(6)€years.€€On€directÐ P Ðappeal,€Defendant€raises€five€(5)€issues:€(1)€Whether€the€trial€court€improperly€considered€a€1989Ð ì< ÐPennsylvania€conviction€for€an€undetermined€offense€in€finding€Defendant€was€not€an€appropriateÐ Ø( Ðcandidate€for€full€probation€or€split€confinement;€(2)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€certainÐ Ä Ðstatutory€enhancement€factors€applicable€to€the€determination€of€how€the€sentence€should€be€served,Ð ° Ðwhere€length€of€sentence€was€determined€in€the€guilty€plea;€(3)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ œì Ðfinding€that€the€sentence€of€confinement€was€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðoffense;€(4)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€consider€whether€measures€less€restrictive€thanÐ tÄ Ðconfinement€had€been€applied€to€this€offender;€and€(5)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toÐ `° Ðconsider€Defendantððs€special€needs€into€consideration€as€a€factor€that€made€alternative€sentencingÐ L œ Ð(community€corrections)€particularly€appropriate€in€this€case.€€Upon€a€review€of€the€record,€legalÐ 8!ˆ  Ðarguments,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€applicable€law,€we€find€no€error.€€Thus,€the€judgment€of€theÐ $"t! Ðtrial€court€is€affirmed.€Ð #`" ÐÔ#†X9XXX9ß#ÔÓÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ è$8 $ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓL.€Terry€Lafferty,€Sr.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.,óó€andÐ À&"& ÐòòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌWilliam€K.€Cather,€Lebanon,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Richard€L.€Thompson.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð \+¬&+ Ðand€Robert€Ô_ÔHibbettÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð  H,˜',ý ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓZÓà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÓ  ÓÔ‡X9XXX9Ôà@,,%ìàBACKGROUNDˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àOn€January€13,€2000,€Defendant€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€in€cause€No.€99„1945,€count€one,€Ð `° Ðto€the€offense€of€incest€of€this€stepdaughter,€BB,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€age€14.€€Defendant€had€been€accused€of€thisÐ L œ Ðoffense€in€a€three€count€indictment.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Unfortunately,€a€transcript€of€the€guilty€plea€proceedings€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðnot€included€in€the€record.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing€of€May€22,€2000,€a€pre„sentence€report€wasÐ $ t Ðadmitted€as€an€exhibit€without€objection.€€As€to€how€these€offenses€originated,€we€quote€from€theÐ  ` Ðpre„sentence€report:€Ð ü L  ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àBarbara€Long€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Childrenððs€Services€was€assigned€asÐ Ô$  Ðcase€manager€in€this€case.€€The€following€are€paraphrases€and€quotes€from€interviewsÐ À  Ðwith€BB€and€BB.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à11/2/99€€€€€When€asked€by€the€interviewer€ð ðWhat€was€going€on€at€home,ðð€BBÐ „Ô  Ðinformed€her€that€her€dad,€ð ðthreatened€to€leave€unless€Iððd€go€to€bed€with€him.€€MomÐ pÀ Ðhad€gone€to€work.€€He€came€in€my€room€and€closed€the€door€and€locked€it.€€He€toldÐ \¬ Ðme€he€loved€me.€€He€pulled€the€sheets€down€and€down€[sic]€what€you€called€eat€meÐ H˜ Ðout.ðð€When€asked€how€many€this€happened,€BB€stated€about€three€or€four€times.€Ð 4„ ÐWhen€asked€what€would€happen€when€he€would€pull€the€sheets€down,€BB€stated,€ð ðheÐ  p Ðtook€off€my€pants€and€underwear.€€He€would€spread€my€legs€and€eat€me€out.€€He€putÐ  \ Ðme€on€my€knees.€€I€was€laying€on€my€stomach.€€He€put€his€penis€in€me.ðð€When€askedÐ øH Ðwhen€this€last€happened,€BB€stated€it€last€happened€about€two€months€ago.€€WhenÐ ä4 Ðasked€where€he€penetrated€her,€BB€said€ð ðon€my€breasts€and€vagina.ðð€€When€askedÐ Ð  Ðwhat€he€would€say€to€her€about€telling€any€one€else,€BB€stated€ð ðhe€would€threaten€toÐ ¼  Ðleave€if€I€told€or€anything.ðð€€When€asked€what€she€thought€of€her€dad,€BB€said,€ð ðIÐ ¨ø Ðdonððt€care€for€him€that€much€at€all.€€Heððs€just€a€weird€person.€€He€has€lots€ofÐ ”ä Ðproblems.€€Sometimes€whenever€he€gets€mad,€he€walks€through€the€house€slammingÐ €Ð Ðdoors€and€yelling.ðð€Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à12/13/99€Closing€Summary:€Ð D!” ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àThis€agency€received€a€report€that€BB€was€being€sexually€abused€by€RichardÐ #l! ÐThompson.€€This€worker€interviewed€BB€who€stated€that€her€step„dad€did€sexuallyÐ $X" Ðâ âabuse€her.€€BB€stated€that€her€step„dad€ð ðthreatened€to€leave€unless€Iððd€go€to€bed€withÐ ô$D # Ðhim.ðð€€BB€stated€that€Richard€Thompson€did€penetrate€her€with€his€penis€and€hisÐ ° Ðhand.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÐœìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àThe€following€is€a€narrative€from€the€Wilson€County€Sheriffððs€Department:ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àð ðMs.€Thompson€said€on€09„13€her€adopted€daughter,€BB,€showed€her€a€letter€wroteÐ L œ Ðto€her€by€Ms.€Thompsonððs€husband€Richard,€that€is€suggestive€of€sexual€activityÐ 8 ˆ Ðbetween€BB€and€Richard.€€BB€told€Ms.€Thompson€she€and€Richard€had€had€sexualÐ $ t Ðrelations€2„3€times.€€She€was€unsure€exactly€how€many.€€Ms.€Thompson€said€BB€didÐ  ` Ðadmit€that€Richard€did€enter€her€body€with€himself.€€Ms.€Thompson€also€said€BB€saidÐ ü L  Ðshe€did€these€sexual€acts€to€keep€Richard€from€leaving,€because€she€knew€RichardÐ è 8  Ðmade€her€mother€happy€being€around.ððÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€Jim€Holder,€a€probation€officer,€identified€the€pre„sentence€reportÐ ¬ü  Ðcompiled€by€himself.€€Although€he€requested€victim€impact€statements€from€the€victim€and€mother,Ð ˜è  Ðhe€did€not€receive€these€statements.€€Holder€testified€that€he€found€an€old€psychological€report€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthe€Ô_ÔDHSÔ_Ô€had€received€on€Defendant.€€The€report€showed€Defendant€had€been€evaluated€in€the€OfficeÐ pÀ Ðof€Rehabilitation€and€Vocational€Psychological€Services€in€Pennsylvania€in€July€1995.€€The€reportÐ \¬ Ðindicated€that€Defendant€had€an€indecent€exposure€conviction€in€1988.€€As€a€result,€Holder€statedÐ H˜ Ðthat€he€contacted€the€Allogamy€[sic]€County€Probation€Office€in€Pennsylvania€and€learned€thatÐ 4„ ÐDefendant€had€been€convicted€of€indecent€assault€against€another€person€on€December€7,€1989,€andÐ  p Ðgiven€two€years€of€supervised€probation.€€Defendant€had€some€minor€arrests€for€drinking.€€Mr.Ð  \ ÐHolder€determined€four€enhancement€factors€were€applicable:€(3)€the€offense€involved€more€thanÐ øH Ðone€victim;€(4)€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable€because€of€age;€(7)€the€offense€involved€aÐ ä4 Ðvictim€and€was€committed€to€gratify€the€Defendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement;€and€(15)€theÐ Ð  ÐDefendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust.€€Defendant€submitted€four€mitigating€factors:€(1)€thatÐ ¼  Ðthe€Defendantððs€criminal€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury;€(2)€theÐ ¨ø ÐDefendant€was€suffering€from€a€mental€condition€that€significantly€reduced€the€DefendantððsÐ ”ä Ðculpability€for€the€offense,€and€this€condition€was€not€the€result€of€the€voluntary€use€of€intoxicants;Ð €Ð Ð(3)€the€Defendant,€although€guilty,€committed€the€offense€under€such€unusual€circumstances€that€itÐ l¼ Ðis€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law€motivated€the€Defendantððs€conduct;€and€(4)€otherÐ X ¨ Ðfactors€consistent€with€the€purposes€of€the€sentencing€statutes,€to€wit:€a€through€j.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àMr.€Holder€testified€that€he€received€a€psychosexual€report€on€Defendant€which€indicated€that€Ð #l! ÐDefendant€would€need€intensive€supervision€to€make€sure€he€did€not€offend€and€that€he€would€beÐ $X" Ða€moderate€risk€for€re„offending.€€Holder€acknowledged€that€he€did€not€have€a€certified€copy€of€anyÐ ô$D # Ðconviction€concerning€Defendant€from€Pennsylvania.€Ð à%0!$ Ðâ âÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àAttached€to€the€pre„sentence€report€is€a€Comprehensive€Psychosexual€Evaluation€compiledÐ ° Ðâ âby€David€Ô_ÔOrvinÔ_Ô.€€This€report€was€requested€by€the€Board€of€Probation€and€Parole€and€not€by€defenseÐ œì Ðcounsel€as€suggested€in€the€report.€€The€report€indicates€that€Defendant€was€given€psychosexual€tests,Ð ˆØ Ðwhich€were€sent€to€Iowa€for€analysis€by€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔMolinderÔ_Ô.€€In€comparing€Defendantððs€historyÐ tÄ Ðwith€levels€of€nationally€standardized€samples€of€adult€male€sex€offenders,€Defendantððs€results€show:Ð `° Ð(1)€he€scored€more€than€one€standard€deviation€above€the€mean€on€the€Molester€Comparison€(MC)Ð L œ Ðscale€suggesting€that€the€level€of€commonality€in€thinking€and€behaving€between€the€client€and€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðreference€group€of€adult€males€who€molest€children€is€highly€similar;€and€(2)€he€scored€within€one.Ð $ t ÐStandard€deviation€of€the€mean€on€the€Rapist€Comparison€(RC)€scale€suggesting€that€the€level€ofÐ  ` Ðcommonality€in€thinking€and€behaving€between€the€client€and€the€reference€group€of€adult€rapistsÐ ü L  Ðof€both€children€and€adults€is€moderately€similar.€€The€report€set€forth€eight€recommendationsÐ è 8  Ðconcerning€Defendant,€commencing€with€him€receiving€sex„offender„specific€mental€healthÐ Ô$  Ðtreatment.€€This€program€may€be€pursued€at€an€out„patient€community€based€facility.€€Furthermore,Ð À  Ðthe€report€recommends€that€Defendant€have€no€contact€with€children€under€18€years€of€age,€unlessÐ ¬ü  Ðunder€the€supervision€of€a€responsible€adult€and€his€step„children€should€not€stay€overnight.€Ð ˜è  ÐDefendant€remains€at€risk€for€re„offense€and€is€in€need€of€sex„offender„specific€treatment.€€With€suchÐ „Ô  Ðtreatment€his€prognosis€is€fair,€without€treatment€his€prognosis€would€be€poor.€€Defendant€is€aÐ pÀ Ðmoderate€risk€for€re„offending€and€may€be€appropriate€for€intensive€probation€with€strict€conditionsÐ \¬ Ðand€intensive€supervision.€Ð H˜ ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌà  àOn€behalf€of€Defendant,€Dr.€Sandra€Phillips,€a€clinical€psychologist,€testified€that€sheÐ  p Ðexamined€Defendant€at€the€request€of€defense€counsel.€€Dr.€Phillips€interviewed€Defendant€over€fourÐ  \ Ðhours€between€May€5€and€May€19.€€Dr.€Phillips€also€had€telephone€interviews€with€Defendantððs€wifeÐ øH Ðand€two€sisters.€€In€addition,€Dr.€Phillips€had€Defendantððs€treatment€records€from€CumberlandÐ ä4 ÐMental€Health€Services.€€Dr.€Phillips€determined€that€Defendant€is€a€recovering€alcoholic€and€hasÐ Ð  Ðbeen€for€11€years.€€Dr.€Phillips€diagnosed€Defendant€as€suffering€from€Axis€I,€a€bipolar€disorder,Ð ¼  Ðwith€psychotic€features,€and€further,€Defendant€has€two€personality€disorders.€€Dr.€Phillips€was€awareÐ ¨ø Ðthat€Defendant€was€on€medication,€but€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€offenses,€Defendant€had€stoppedÐ ”ä Ðtaking€his€medication.€€Dr.€Phillips€opined€that€Defendant€needs€to€be€on€medication,€more€thanÐ €Ð Ðlikely€forever,€due€to€mood€disorder€and€the€psychosis€he€suffers;€he€would€have€to€remain€sober€andÐ l¼ Ðattend€a€sexual€treatment€program€which€could€be€out„patient.€€Defendant€needs€to€take€fullÐ X ¨ Ðresponsibility€for€creating€a€safe€sexual€environment€for€any€children€he€would€be€around.€€Dr.Ð D!” ÐPhillips€stated€that€Cumberland€Mental€Health€Services€has€a€sex€offender€treatment€program.€€It€wasÐ 0"€  ÐDr.€Phillips€conclusion€that€Defendant€is€not€a€pedophile.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àDuring€cross„examination,€Dr.€Phillips€agreed€that€if€Defendant€was€placed€in€the€sameÐ ô$D # Ðsituation€again,€as€far€as€young€girls€in€a€family€situation,€it€certainly€would€increase€the€risk€of€re„Ð à%0!$ Ðoffending.€€When€asked€if€itððs€important€that€Defendant€never€be€alone€with€children,€she€responded,Ð Ì&"% Ðð ðI€think€thatððs€important.ðð€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àMrs.€Diane€Thompson,€wife€of€Defendant,€testified€that€her€priority€is€to€her€daughters€andÐ )à$( Ðshe€has€them€in€counseling,€as€well€as€herself.€€Mrs.€Thompson€stated€that€her€husband€suffered€fromÐ |*Ì%) Ðmood€swings€and€would€lock€himself€in€the€bedroom€and€refuse€to€come€out.€€She€was€aware€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðher€daughter€said€that€Defendant€had€threatened€to€leave€home€if€the€daughter€did€not€have€sex€withÐ ° Ðhim.€€She€stated€that€her€husbandððs€mood€swings€have€intensified€since€his€brother€committedÐ œì Ðsuicide€in€May€of€1999.€€Mrs.€Thompson€testified€that€Defendant€admitted€to€this€offense,€and€sinceÐ ˆØ Ðhis€arrest,€Defendant€seems€more€calm,€settled€and€less€flighty.€€Mrs.€Thompson€acknowledged€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€children€could€not€be€in€the€home€with€Defendant.€€If€he€ever€was,€close€supervision€wasÐ `° Ðessential.€€Here,€Mrs.€Thompson€seems€to€indicate€that€after€counseling,€the€children€may€beÐ L œ Ðpermitted€to€be€around€Defendant.€€She€stated€this€was€her€and€Defendantððs€second€marriage€to€eachÐ 8 ˆ Ðother,€the€first€marriage€lasted€from€1974€to€1980.€€She€and€her€second€husband€adopted€the€two€girlsÐ $ t Ðin€1993.€€Mrs.€Thompson€stated€that€she€would€provide€emotional€support€for€Defendant,€as€far€asÐ  ` Ðshe€can,€but€she€must€look€out€for€the€children€first.€€As€to€any€further€incarceration,€Mrs.€ThompsonÐ ü L  Ðtestified€that€further€incarceration€would€not€do€any€good.€€ð ðTo€me€what€you€have€if€the€personÐ è 8  Ðserves€that€time,€the€rest€of€six€years€out,€you€have€the€same€problems.€€Only€the€person€is€six€yearsÐ Ô$  Ðolder.ðð€Ð À  ÐÌà  àDuring€cross„examination,€Mrs.€Thompson€affirmed€that€she€had€taken€the€girls€to€the€countyÐ ˜è  Ðjail€when€she€visited€Defendant.€€Mrs.€Thompson€stated€that€the€victimððs€biological€father€hadÐ „Ô  Ðabused€her€and€that€it€would€be€good€for€the€victim€to€see€that€ð ðthis€is€what€happens€when€youÐ pÀ Ðviolate€or€break€the€law.ðð€Also,€Mrs.€Thompson€stated€that€the€girls€became€friendly€withÐ \¬ ÐDefendantððs€cell„mate€which€caused€the€deputy€jailer€to€become€upset€with€her€.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àOn€his€own€behalf,€Defendant€testified€that€he€did€have€sexual€relations€with€his€14€year€oldÐ  p Ðstep„daughter.€€Since€he€has€been€on€his€medication,€his€head€is€much€clearer,€and€he€recognizes€thatÐ  \ Ðthe€victim€is€a€child€and€that€he€is€the€adult.€€As€to€the€offense€in€Pennsylvania,€Defendant€testifiedÐ øH Ðthat€he€was€drunk€and€got€naked,€and€ran€around€the€house€screaming€and€yelling.€€DefendantÐ ä4 Ðentered€a€21€day€rehabilitation€program€in€a€Veterans€Administration€hospital€in€Pittsburgh.Ð Ð  ÐDefendant€acknowledged€that€he€was€supposed€to€be€taking€medication€when€the€offense€with€theÐ ¼  Ðvictim€occurred.€€Defendant€stated€that€if€he€got€treatment€and€stayed€on€his€medication,€he€couldÐ ¨ø Ðconform€to€the€rules€of€society.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àReverend€Robin€C.€Hall,€pastor€at€the€Hermitage€United€Methodist€Church,€testified€that€heÐ l¼ Ðmet€Defendant€and€his€family€at€the€church.€€Reverend€Hall€stated€that€he€was€counseling€DefendantÐ X ¨ Ðand€the€family€prior€to€his€arrest€and€has€continued€to€do€so€since€the€arrest.€€Prior€to€his€arrest,Ð D!” ÐDefendant€was€confused,€would€slur€his€words€and€his€language€was€strange.€After€the€arrest,Ð 0"€  ÐReverend€Hall€saw€Defendant€in€jail.€€Defendant€was€disturbed,€blaming€everybody€else€and€wasÐ #l! Ðvery€upset€and€fidgety.€€After€three€to€four€months,€Reverend€Hall€began€to€see€a€change€inÐ $X" ÐDefendant,€he€was€taking€his€medication€and€made€a€real€improvement.€€Reverend€Hall€stated€thatÐ ô$D # ÐDefendantððs€social€security€benefits€for€mental€illness€had€been€suspended€while€he€was€in€jail.€Ð à%0!$ ÐReverend€Hall€testified€that€if€Defendant€were€given€probation,€he€and€the€church€would€controlÐ Ì&"% ÐDefendantððs€funds,€provide€housing€for€90€days€and€some€food€assistance.€€Also,€the€church€wouldÐ ¸'#& Ðassist€Defendant€in€making€his€psychological€meetings.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àIn€support€of€the€Defendantððs€application€for€probation,€the€Defendant€submitted€five€packetsÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€letters€from€various€church€members€and€church€groups.€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€recognized€that€Defendant€wasÐ ° Ða€candidate€for€probation,€but€the€trial€court€must€look€at€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€offense.Ð œì ÐIn€this€situation,€Defendant€abused€a€private€trust€in€engaging€his€stepdaughter€in€a€sexual€offense.Ð ˆØ ÐAlso,€the€trial€court€found€Defendant€had€incredible€support€from€his€church€members€and€churchÐ tÄ Ðgroups,€but€found€it€somewhat€difficult€to€reconcile€the€facts€of€the€offense€with€this€support.€€TheÐ `° Ðtrial€court€found€three€enhancement€factors€applicable€to€the€granting€of€full€probation€or€anÐ L œ Ðalternative€sentence€arising€from€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€offense.€€Likewise,€the€trial€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðfound€Defendant€was€not€a€first€offender.€€Defendant€had€been€convicted€in€Pennsylvania€of€a€sexualÐ $ t Ðcase€in€which€he€was€granted€two€years€probation.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€the€time€period€ofÐ  ` Ðprobation€indicated€in€the€offense€in€Pennsylvania€must€have€been€a€felony.€€As€to€DefendantððsÐ ü L  Ðrehabilitation,€the€trial€court€had€serious€reservations€based€upon€the€Pennsylvania€incident€andÐ è 8  ÐDefendant€re„offended€in€this€offense.€€The€trial€court€found€that€societyððs€interest€in€protection,€asÐ Ô$  Ðwell€as€the€protection€of€the€child,€required€a€denial€of€full€probation€due€to€the€seriousness€of€theÐ À  Ðoffense.€€Also,€the€trial€court€was€concerned€about€the€psychological€reports€of€the€State€and€Dr.Ð ¬ü  ÐPhillips,€that€there€is€some€evidence€that€Defendant€is€close€to€a€group€of€adult€males€who€mightÐ ˜è  Ðmolest€children€as€indicated€by€the€Stateððs€evidence.€€The€trial€court€commented,€ð ðbased€upon€theÐ „Ô  Ðwhole€record€before€me,€I€really€believe€that,€in€this€case,€that€I€donððt€really€have€much€choice€butÐ pÀ Ðto€sentence€him€to€six€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Thatððs€the€judgment€of€this€court.ðð€Ð \¬ ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌÓ  ÓLEGAL€ANALYSISÐ 4„ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€essence,€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€properly€consider€anÐ  \ Ðalternative€sentence,€with€split€confinement,€or€community€corrections,€or€full€probation.€€DefendantÐ øH Ðrequests€this€Court€to€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€to€reflect€split€confinement€of€one€yearÐ ä4 Ð(already€served)€and€place€Defendant€on€immediate€probation.€€The€State€counters€that€the€recordÐ Ð  Ðsupports€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumptionÐ ”ä Ðof€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€conditioned€upon€anÐ €Ð Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ l¼ Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔAshby,Ô_Ô€óó823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€trialÐ X ¨ Ðcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€and€ourÐ D!” Ðreview€is€òòde€novo.€€State€v.€Batey,€óó35€S.W.3d€585,€588€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000).€€The€burden€is€uponÐ 0"€  Ðthe€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ð #l! ÐSentencing€Commission€Comments.€€In€conducting€our€review,€we€are€required,€pursuant€toÐ $X" ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„210,€to€consider€the€following€factors€in€sentencing:€(1)€theÐ ô$D # Ðevidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€pre„sentence€report;€(3)€theÐ à%0!$ Ðprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€andÐ Ì&"% Ðcharacteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€partiesÐ ¸'#& Ðon€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€any€statementÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendantððs€own€behalf€about€sentencing.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€offense€of€incest€in€this€case€is€a€Class€C€felony,€thus,€Defendant€is€presumed€to€be€aÐ ° Ðâ âfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€in€the€absence€of€proof€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ œì ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€A€trial€court€must€presume€that€a€Defendant€sentenced€to€eight€years€or€lessÐ ˆØ Ðand€who€is€not€an€offender€for€whom€incarceration€is€a€priority€is€subject€to€alternative€sentencing.Ð tÄ ÐòòState€v.€Batey,€óó35€S.W.3d€at€588;€òòState€v.€Byrd,€óó861€S.W.2d€377,€379„80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Ð `° ÐÌà  àUnder€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€confinement€requirements€are€to€be€based€upon€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðfollowing€considerations:€(A)€confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendantÐ $ t Ðwho€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;€(B)€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÐ  ` Ðseriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€toÐ ü L  Ðothers€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€or€(C)€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€haveÐ è 8  Ðfrequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð Ô$  Ð103(1);€òòState€v.€Boston,€óó938€S.W.2d€435,€438€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Zeolia,€óó928€S.W.2dÐ À  Ð457,€461€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€In€determining€the€manner€of€service,€a€trial€court€may€considerÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðððð€40„35„113,€40„35„Ð ˜è  Ð114;€òòState€v.€Batey,€óó35€S.W.3d€at€588;€òòState€v.€Boston,€óó938€S.W.2d€at€438.€€The€trial€court€shouldÐ „Ô  Ðconsider€Defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation€when€determining€whether€an€alternative€sentenceÐ pÀ Ðwould€be€appropriate.€òò€State€v.€Zeolia,€óó928€S.W.2d€at€461.€Ð \¬ ÐÌÓ  ÓPRIOR€1989€CONVICTIONÐ 4„ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àDefendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€gave€too€much€emphasis€to€the€1989€conviction€ofÐ  \ ÐDefendant€for€indecent€exposure€or€indecent€assault€in€Pennsylvania€in€considering€probation€or€anÐ øH Ðalternative€sentence.€€The€record€reflects€that€Defendant€was€convicted€in€Pennsylvania€in€1989€forÐ ä4 Ðindecent€assault€on€a€person€as€verified€by€the€Tennessee€Board€of€Probation.€€Defendant€was€placedÐ Ð  Ðon€a€two€year€supervisory€program.€€Defendant€describes€this€incident€as€he€being€drunk€and€runningÐ ¼  Ðnaked€through€a€house€in€the€presence€of€other€persons.€€Whether€Defendant€was€convicted€of€aÐ ¨ø Ðfelony€or€misdemeanor,€Defendant€engaged€in€criminal€behavior€of€some€form€of€sexual€nature€toÐ ”ä Ðcause€his€arrest€and€being€placed€on€probation.€€Trial€courts€may€consider€prior€criminal€convictionsÐ €Ð Ðor€conduct€in€determining€a€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€as€long€as€the€consideration€does€notÐ l¼ Ðviolate€the€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€òòState€v.€Davis,€óó825€S.W.2d€109,€113Ð X ¨ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€We€cannot€say€the€trial€court€erred€in€considering€this€evidence€inÐ D!” Ðdetermining€an€alternative€sentence€or€if€Defendant€is€suitable€for€full€probation.€€We€find€no€meritÐ 0"€  Ðto€this€issue.€Ô_ÔÐ #l! ÐÔ_ÔÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ  ÓENHANCEMENT€FACTORSÐ ô$D # ÐÌÓ  Óà  àDefendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€considering€certain€enhancement€factors€inÐ Ì&"% Ðdetermining€the€manner€of€service€of€Defendantððs€sentence,€but€the€mitigating€factors€were€notÐ ¸'#& Ðappropriate€for€subject€matter€for€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€trial€court€adopted€the€pre„sentenceÐ ¤(ô#' Ðreport€listing€of€three€enhancement€factors:€(4)€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable;€(7)€the€offenseÐ )à$( Ðinvolved€a€victim€and€was€committed€to€gratify€the€defendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement;Ð |*Ì%) Ðand€(15)€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.€€€As€to€theÐ h+¸&* Ðmitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€commented,€ð ðWeððre€really€kind€of€over€that€part€because€that€hasÐ ° Ðto€do€with€our€setting€the€sentence.€€The€issue€here€is€how€that€sentence€is€to€be€served.€€I€mean,€IÐ œì Ðconsidered€those€and€I€understand€those€and€thatððs€part€of€the€record€but€the€issue€here€is€how€itððsÐ ˆØ Ðto€be€served.ðð€€Furthermore,€as€to€enhancement€factors,€the€trial€court€stated:Ð tÄ ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àThose€enhancement€factors€with€the€exception€of€perhaps€the€one€involving€moreÐ L œ Ðthan€one€victim,€that€the€probation€officer€suggested€do€apply,€I€don't€have€to€look€atÐ 8 ˆ Ðthose€in€assessing€the€sentence,€but€in€this€context€those€are€part€of€the€facts€andÐ $ t Ðcircumstances€surrounding€the€offense.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àTo€determine€a€proper€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€the€trial€court€shall€consider€theÐ è 8  Ðfollowing€criteria:€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€theÐ Ô$  Ðpre„sentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)Ð À  Ðòòthe€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductóó;€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€theÐ ¬ü  Ðparties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€anyÐ ˜è  Ðstatement€the€Defendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€Defendant's€own€behalf€about€sentencing.€€Tenn.Ð „Ô  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(a)(b);€òòState€v.€Bateyóó,€35€S.W.3d€at€588;€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169;Ð pÀ ÐòòState€v.€Michael€W.€Wassonóó,€No.€02C01„9708„CR„00323Ô#†X9XXX9d#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô,€1998€WL€264145€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð \¬ Ð1998);€òòState€v.€James€Frazieróó,€No.€01C01„9801„CC„00036,€1999€WL€810148€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð H˜ Ð1999),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2000).€€Clearly€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€are€appropriateÐ 4„ Ðconsiderations€for€determining€the€manner€of€a€service€of€a€sentence.Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€the€determination€of€the€manner€of€service€in€this€case,€we€have€serious€reservations€of€theÐ øH Ðapplicability€of€enhancement€factor€(4),€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable.€€In€sexual€offenses,Ð ä4 Ðthe€State€must€show€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable€because€of€age€or€physical€or€mentalÐ Ð  Ðdisability.€òò€State€v.€Kissinger,€óó922€S.W.2d€482,€487€(Tenn.€1996).€€This€factor€may€be€used€if€it€isÐ ¼  Ðestablished€that€the€victimððs€natural€physical€and€mental€limitations€renders€the€victim€particularlyÐ ¨ø Ðvulnerable€for€his€or€her€age€because€of€an€inability€to€resist,€a€difficulty€in€calling€for€help,€or€aÐ ”ä Ðdifficulty€in€testifying€against€the€perpetrator.€€òòId.€€State€v.€Hayes,€óó899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð €Ð ÐApp.€1995),€òòperm.€app.€denied,óó€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€record€is€silent€as€to€how€vulnerable€the€14„year„Ð l¼ Ðold€stepdaughter€may€be.€€We€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€finding€the€applicability€of€this€enhancementÐ X ¨ Ðfactor€was€error.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àHowever,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€findings€that€enhancement€factors€(7)€and€(15)€areÐ #l! Ðapplicable.€€Enhancement€factor€(7)€is€applicable€in€offenses€of€incest.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Walton,€óó958Ð $X" ÐS.W.2d€724€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Jones,€óó953€S.W.2d€695,€698€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),€òòperm.€app.Ð ô$D # Ðdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1997)€(Factor€(7)€is€neither€inherent€in€nor€an€essential€element€to€a€rape€conviction,Ð à%0!$ Ðciting€òòState€v.€Kissinger,€óó922€S.W.2d€482€(Tenn.€1996).).€€The€record€established€that€the€DefendantÐ Ì&"% Ðengaged€in€three€to€four€various€sexual€acts€with€his€14„year„old€stepdaughter€over€a€period€of€time.€Ð ¸'#& ÐThe€Defendant€ordered€the€victim€not€to€say€anything€or€he€would€leave€the€family.€€The€victimÐ ¤(ô#' Ðacquiesced€in€this€warning€to€enable€the€family€to€remain€intact.€€We€find€the€Defendant's€repeatedÐ )à$( Ðinvolvement€with€his€stepdaughter€meets€the€standard€of€objective€evidence€as€set€forth€in€òòState€v.Ð |*Ì%) ÐArnettóó,€No.€E1998„00051„SC„R11„CD€(Tenn.€2001)€in€applying€enhancement€factor€(7).Ô#†X9XXX9?{#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô€€Clearly,Ð h+¸&* Ðthe€enhancement€factor€(15),€an€abuse€of€a€private€trust€is€applicable.€€As€the€victimððs€stepfather,Ð ° ÐDefendant€occupied€a€position€of€trust.€€Children€trust€their€custodial€parents€to€care€for€and€protectÐ œì Ðthem.€€Defendant,€in€this€case,€abused€that€trust.€€Merely€because€Defendant€was€convicted€of€incestÐ ˆØ Ðdoes€not€entitle€him€to€any€largess.€€Enhancement€factor€(15)€was€appropriately€applied.€€òòState€v.Ð tÄ ÐJones,€óó953€S.W.2d€695€at€699.€Ô_ÔÐ `° ÐÌÔ_ÔÓ  ÓSERIOUSNESS€OF€OFFENSEÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àDefendant€contends€that€there€is€nothing€in€this€record€to€support€the€denial€of€an€alternativeÐ  ` Ðsentence€or€probation€based€upon€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€Citing€òòState€v.€Hartley,€óó818€S.W.2dÐ ü L  Ð370,€374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€òòóóFurther,€Defendant€asserts€that€his€long„standing€mental€illness,Ð è 8  Ðand€psychotic€state€during€this€affair€with€his€stepdaughter€favors€an€alternative€sentence,€if€not€fullÐ Ô$  Ðprobation.€€In€denying€probation,€the€trial€court€commented:Ð À  ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àð ðInterest€of€society€in€being€protected€from€possible€future€conduct€of€this€defendant.Ð ˜è  ÐThe€problem€is€he€re„offended€or€committed€another€act,€another€sexual€act.€€IððmÐ „Ô  Ðconcerned€that€if€I€place€him€on€full€probation,€indeed€itððs€his€burden€of€proof,€reallyÐ pÀ Ðto€establish€that€he€is€entitled€to€full€probation.€€And€that€it€would€be€in€his€bestÐ \¬ Ðinterest€and€that€of€the€public.€€I€think€to€do€so€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€ofÐ H˜ Ðthis€offense.ððÐ4„Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌà  à€As€to€an€alternative€sentence,€the€trial€court€stated:€ð ðI€think€that€if€in€this€case,€had€he€not€hadÐ  \ Ðthat€prior€offense,€I€would€be€inclined€to€put€him€on€split€confinement.€€But€with€this€child,€I€donððtÐ øH Ðsee€how€I€can€protect€her€or€society€or€indeed€give€assurance€of€anything.€€I€just€donððt€see€how€IÐ ä4 Ðwould€not€be€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€this€offense.€€I€just€donððt€see€how.ðð€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€have€initially€noted€Defendant€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€of€an€alternativeÐ ¨ø Ðsentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5).€€In€order€to€deny€an€alternative€sentence,€which€includesÐ ”ä Ðconsideration€of€probation,€based€on€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€ð ðthe€circumstances€of€the€offenseÐ €Ð Ðas€committed€must€beðð€especially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwiseÐ l¼ Ðof€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree,ðð€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€must€outweigh€all€factorsÐ X ¨ Ðfavoring€a€sentence€other€than€confinement.ðð€€òòState€v.€Zeolia,€óó928€S.W.2d€457,€462€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð D!” ÐApp.€1996);€òòState€v.€Bingham,€óó910€S.W.2d€448,€454€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€òòperm.€app.€denied,Ð 0"€  Ðóó(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Hartley,€óó818€S.W.2d€370,€374„75€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€We€believe€thatÐ #l! Ðmultiple€acts€of€incest€with€oneððs€own€daughter€or€stepdaughter,€in€the€minds€of€most€persons,€wouldÐ $X" ÐÔ_ÔmeetÔ_Ô€the€criteria€of€òòHartley.€óó€The€record€in€this€cause€established€Defendant€had€several€incestuousÐ ô$D # Ðacts€with€BB€over€a€period€of€months.€€Defendant€threatened€to€leave€home€if€the€child€refused€toÐ à%0!$ Ðhave€sex€with€him.€€The€child€acquiesced€so€that€her€mother€would€not€be€upset.€€Clearly,€DefendantÐ Ì&"% Ðabused€his€relationship€of€trust€with€his€stepdaughter€by€insisting€on€sexual€relations.€€We€concludeÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€Defendant's€incestuous€acts€over€a€period€of€months,€coupled€with€his€abuse€of€a€private€trust,€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðis€directly€relevant€to€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€weighs€in€favor€of€confinement.€Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  ÓTRIAL€COURTððS€FAILURE€TO€CONSIDER€MEASURES€LESS€RESTRICTIVE€THANÐ ° ÐCONFINEMENT€HAD€BEEN€ð ðFREQUENTLY€OR€RECENTLYðð€APPLIED€TO€THEÐ œì ÐOFFENDER.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àDefendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€take€into€account€whether€ð ðmeasures€lessÐ `° Ðrestrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€theÐ L œ ÐDefendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(C).€€Further,€the€trial€court€placed€too€much€emphasisÐ 8 ˆ Ðon€Defendantððs€prior€conviction€in€1989.€€Defendant€is€correct€that€measures€less€restrictive€thanÐ $ t Ðconfinement€have€not€been€frequently€or€recently€applied€to€Defendant.€€Defendant€has€no€arrestsÐ  ` Ðor€convictions€since€1989.€€We€are€somewhat€puzzled€as€to€how€a€trial€court€should€address€thisÐ ü L  Ðargument€when€there€has€been€no€immediate€arrests€or€convictions€in€which€this€confinementÐ è 8  Ðstandard€is€applicable.€€We€agree€with€the€State€that€the€trial€court€did€consider€the€conviction€andÐ Ô$  Ðplacement€of€Defendant€on€probation€in€relationship€to€the€question€of€rehabilitation€and€theÐ À  Ðpossibility€of€re„offending.€€We€find€no€merit€to€this€issue.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ  ÓCOMMUNITY€CORRECTIONS.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€consider€the€community€corrections€programÐ \¬ Ðas€an€alternative€sentence€in€view€of€Defendantððs€special€needs.€€At€the€time€of€this€offense,Ð H˜ ÐDefendant€was€suffering€from€a€severe€mental€illness€and€that€mental€illness€played€a€significant€roleÐ 4„ Ðin€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€The€State€argues€that€due€to€the€expertððs€evidence,€Defendant€hasÐ  p Ðnot€demonstrated€that€he€should€be€placed€in€the€community€corrections€program.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àFirst,€we€recognize€that€Defendant€would€not€be€eligible€for€community€correctionsÐ ä4 Ðsentencing€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„36„106(a)(2)(5)(6).€€However,€ðð€40„36„106(c)Ð Ð  Ðprovides€that€felony€offenders€not€otherwise€eligible€under€subsection€(a),€and€who€would€be€usuallyÐ ¼  Ðconsidered€unfit€for€probation€due€to€histories€of€chronic€alcohol,€drug€abuse,€or€mental€healthÐ ¨ø Ðproblems,€but€whose€special€needs€are€treatable€and€could€be€served€best€in€the€community€ratherÐ ”ä Ðthan€in€a€correctional€institution,€may€be€considered€eligible€for€punishment€in€the€community€underÐ €Ð Ðthe€provisions€of€this€chapter.€€òòState€v.€Boston,€óó938€S.W.2d€435,€437€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€ToÐ l¼ ÐÔ% €# Ôbe€eligible€for€community€corrections€under€subsection€(c),€the€Defendant€must€be€eligible€forÐ X ¨ Ðprobation.€€òòId.;€State€v.€Staten,€óó787€S.W.2d€934,€936€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€Defendant€is€eligibleÐ D!” Ðfor€probation,€thus€Defendant€is€eligible€for€community€corrections€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Boston,€óó938Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€at€439.€€If€a€Defendant€is€suitable€for€community€corrections€sentencing,€then€aÐ #l! Ðdetermination€must€be€made€on€the€following€facts:€(1)€the€offender€has€a€history€of€chronic€alcohol,Ð $X" Ðdrug€abuse,€or€mental€health€problems;€(2)€these€factors€were€reasonably€related€to€and€contributedÐ ô$D # Ðto€the€offenderððs€criminal€conduct;(3)€the€identifiable€special€need€(or€needs)€are€treatable;€and€(4)Ð à%0!$ Ðthe€treatment€of€the€special€need€could€be€served€best€in€the€community€rather€than€in€a€correctionalÐ Ì&"% Ðinstitution.€€òòId.€óó€òòState€v.€Wilson,€óóNo.€03C01„9209„CR„00305,€1993€WL€79626€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¸'#& Ð1993)€(ð ðIt€is€questionable€whether€the€defendantððs€needs€could€best€be€served€in€the€communityÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwhen€the€evidence€offered€at€the€sentencing€hearing€indicated€that€the€defendant€needed€to€be€strictlyÐ )à$( Ðsupervised€to€keep€him€away€from€young€children.ðð).€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àAlthough€the€trial€court€did€not€specifically€address€community€corrections,€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðexpressed€concern€about€the€Stateððs€psychological€report€indicating€Defendant€was€capable€of€beingÐ œì Ða€repeat€offender.€€Based€upon€the€entire€record,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€confinement€was€theÐ ˆØ Ðproper€decision.€€The€expert€evidence€of€both€the€State€and€Defendant€recommend€a€strict€sex„Ð tÄ Ðoffender€treatment€program€for€Defendant.€€This€can€be€accomplished€on€an€out„patient€basis,€butÐ `° Ðboth€experts€stress€that€Defendant€requires€strict€and€intensive€supervision.€€If€strict€supervision€isÐ L œ Ðnot€conducted€the€chances€for€repeating€the€offense€are€great.€€Also,€both€experts€agree€thatÐ 8 ˆ ÐDefendant€should€never€be€left€alone€with€minor€children€because€of€the€opportunity€of€repeating.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€conclusion,€we€find€Defendant€has€failed€to€establish€the€special€needs€requirements€ofÐ ü L  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„36„106(c)€for€community€corrections€sentencing.€€There€is€no€meritÐ è 8  Ðto€this€issue.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€Ô#†X9XXX9D†#ÔÐ ¬ü  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àL.€TERRY€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGE