ÿWPCà ©w,3*×OxvØw€ÓúGy}×wöš|Ê·ô~ÇO²¸5ë‹qãD¡ŠŠA%qÌ Mªcô–dÛl!ÆtG%dêj‡X#zˆÉǘ(w8 däf«Ïÿ(+É£Ùà[°"FŠRv—õ{@¹çÓÌ— ±¤ÕÔÓœ]§r>ù×#'•ÄF®cVï ŠkÏmæ ïfïDF5 û,Õ$S~~`ÀÇŒ&ÃE À¥WÄ@ÚÃõúèšutH`Õ~=D¦‰Î÷§©‰›šqlªy2Ìûpö½ö É2*ˆ¯¼¡ ¬W¯ç`eá¶Nœð¿ÖJ#“¶læ´÷)}}0ÿµ]ËÒøiœ¢@Æt°"ºÃ.:ýÞ3dÑ BÔç0¥w@3QÐèkµé©'s ~j‹Ž†k”ý“tC¨CœQ›^£k8K«AÌûˆ5 †A '¼äØ,k“3fçò<ãÌ®ù›A¬Un‘G$øZHÙZ8pw ¹xnš‚îî&•Ÿ¥MòõØV–\>-ô åK¤ šÈ-ìQ±Ã,U}1+:Úw·êI=îgdìç°´-£i„*¾ =žTh7d¢ž_ì¾ÃòŽˆOúüCá­SLmMy°Qlߺ|VàkZí÷b#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% U N­ UNû û zI Òà z• Ò ^ á wí Æñ Æ· Æ}ÆC4 N.E0 m22 0DIU%@ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍbÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕ 0ëÝÝÝÝ BÈÈ 0¤å D3‰ D-¼ 0Kéé AS4Ƈ 0¤M 0Dñ A«5˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptòjA-s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53j1,¢Ø+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman  - ù-(|G2ă$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôã5ò»»Ô d(|3‡{$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡{$¢¢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€!XXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼_»»¼_Ôà@ttìàÔ‡îÖû_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼_»îîÖû+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€20,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡X!X»¼_ÔÌò òÔ#†¼_»XX!?#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JONATHAN€THORNTONòòóóÔ‡X!X»¼_Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Greene€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00„CR„167C€€€€€€James€Edward€Ô_ÔBecknerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02491„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐSeptember€30,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Jonathan€Thornton,€was€convicted€of€one€count€of€theft€of€property€valued€at€moreÐ xÈ  Ðthan€$1,000€but€less€than€$10,000€and€one€count€of€theft€of€property€valued€at€less€than€$500.€€TheÐ d´ Ðtrial€court€imposed€concurrent€sentences€of€two€years€and€11€months€and€29€days,€respectively.€€InÐ P  Ðthis€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€asserts€(1)€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ <Œ Ðconvictions,€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instructions€to€the€jury,€and€(3)€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ (x Ðby€denying€an€alternative€sentence.€€Because€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€an€alternative€sentence,Ð d Ðthe€defendantððs€sentence€is€modified€to€a€sentence€of€split€confinement€with€nine€months€to€beÐ P Ðserved€in€confinement€and€the€balance€to€be€served€on€probation.Ð ì< ÐÓ ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed€as€Modifiedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼_»àX!¸#ÔÔ‡X!X.¼_ÔGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.óó,€andÐ œì ÐòòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌSusanna€L.€Thomas,€Newport,€Tennessee€(on€appeal),€and€Richard€Ô_ÔTalleyÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔDandridgeÔ_Ô,€TennesseeÐ `° Ð(at€trial)Ô#†¼_»XX!_ #ÔÔ‡X!X»¼_Ô,€for€the€appellant,€Jonathan€Thornton.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Thomas€E.€Williams,€III,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ $"t! ÐGeneral;€and€Cecil€Mills,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€the€State€ofÐ #`" ÐTennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÓ0 ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼_»XX!“ #ÔÔ‡X!X»¼_ÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼_»XX!A #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X!X»¼_Ôà  àOn€October€5th,€2000,€Robert€Ô_ÔThornburgÔ_Ô€of€Mohawk€discovered€that€his€2000€Honda€300Ð ¬'ü"' ÐFour€Ô_ÔTraxÔ_Ô€all„terrain€vehicle€had€been€stolen€from€the€back€porch€of€his€residence.€€He€estimated€thatÐ ˜(è#( Ðthe€vehicle€had€a€fair€market€value€at€the€time€of€the€theft€of€$5,000.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àNine€days€later,€Steve€Ô_ÔSaucemanÔ_Ô€discovered€that€his€2000€Honda€Rancher€ES€Ô_ÔATVÔ_Ô€wasÐ \+¬&+ Ðstolen€from€the€back€of€his€truck.€€The€four„wheeler€had€a€fair€market€value€of€$5,000.Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ýà ÐÔ_Ôà  àJoshua€Allen€Anderson,€who€lived€with€the€defendant€in€October€of€2000,€testified€that€he,Ð ° Ðthe€defendant,€and€Eric€Frias€had€taken€ATVs€from€the€Thornburg€and€Sauceman€residences€duringÐ œì Ðthat€month.€€According€to€Anderson,€the€defendant€borrowed€his€fatherððs€truck€the€day€before€theÐ ˆØ ÐThornburg€theft€and€supplied€hand„held€radios€to€be€used€during€the€theft.€€The€three€men€dressedÐ tÄ Ðin€dark€clothing,€gathered€tools€into€a€red€ð ðbookbag,ðð€and€put€on€gloves€in€preparation€for€the€crime.€Ð `° ÐThey€drove€the€truck€to€the€Thornburg€residence€and€pushed€a€red€Honda€Four€Trax€2000€ATV€downÐ L œ Ða€hill€and€hid€it€in€the€woods.€€Anderson€testified€that€in€preparation€for€the€Sauceman€theft,€the€threeÐ 8 ˆ Ðmen€again€dressed€in€dark€clothing,€gathered€their€tools,€and€borrowed€the€defendantððs€fatherððs€truck.€Ð $ t ЀThey€lifted€an€ATV€out€of€the€back€of€Saucemanððs€truck€and€drove€it€to€the€location€of€the€hiddenÐ  ` Ðfour„wheeler.€€There€they€placed€one€ATV€in€the€back€of€their€truck€and€the€other€in€a€trailer€that€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendant€had€borrowed€from€a€man€named€Carlos.€€Later,€they€sold€one€of€the€four„wheelers.€€TheÐ è 8  Ðother€was€stolen€from€them€before€they€could€sell€it.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAnderson€admitted€that€he€had€previously€entered€pleas€of€guilt€to€eight€felony€theftÐ ¬ü  Ðconvictions€in€relation€to€the€theft€of€a€number€of€ATVs.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€he€was€incarceratedÐ ˜è  Ðin€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€boot€camp.€€Anderson€also€conceded€that€the€defendantÐ „Ô  Ðhad€informed€the€police€about€his€involvement€and€that€of€Eric€Frias.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€hadÐ pÀ Ðfled€to€Illinois€after€being€confronted€by€the€police€in€November€of€2000.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€Alichia€Frias€testified€that€she€lived€with€Eric€Frias,€Anderson,€the€defendant,€andÐ 4„ Ðthe€defendantððs€girlfriend,€Ashley€Evans,€in€October€of€2000.€€Ms.€Frias€stated€she€did€not€participateÐ  p Ðin€the€Thornburg€and€Sauceman€thefts,€but€acknowledged€that€she€had€pled€guilty€to€one€count€ofÐ  \ Ðfacilitation€of€aggravated€burglary€and€one€count€of€theft€over€$1,000€in€relation€to€an€unrelated€theft.€Ð øH ÐAccording€to€Ms.€Frias,€she€saw€the€defendant,€Anderson,€and€Eric€Frias€dress€in€dark€clothing€andÐ ä4 Ðgather€tools€in€preparation€for€the€theft€of€four„wheelers€in€October€of€2000.€€According€to€Ms.€Frias,Ð Ð  Ðthe€defendant€provided€hand„held€radios€and€gloves€to€be€used€during€the€crimes.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àDetective€James€Randolph€of€the€Greene€County€Sheriffððs€Department€testified€that€heÐ ”ä Ðquestioned€the€defendant€in€November€of€2000€about€the€theft€of€a€number€of€four„wheelers€in€theÐ €Ð Ðarea.€€The€defendant€directed€him€to€the€residence€shared€by€Anderson€and€the€Friases.€€WhenÐ l¼ ÐDetective€Randolph€arrived€at€the€residence€with€another€cruiser,€Anderson€and€Eric€Frias€fled€andÐ X ¨ ÐAlichia€Frias€attempted€to€drive€away€in€a€car.€€Alichia€Frias€was€arrested€at€the€scene€and€AndersonÐ D!” Ðand€Eric€Frias€were€later€arrested€in€Illinois.€€The€ATVs€taken€from€Thornburg€and€Sauceman€wereÐ 0"€  Ðnever€recovered.€€Detective€Randolph€acknowledged€that€the€defendant€was€very€cooperative€duringÐ #l! Ðthe€investigation.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àCarlos€Bachtel,€who€lived€behind€Ashley€Evans'€mother,€was€a€defense€witness.€€WhileÐ à%0!$ Ðadmitting€that€he€had€loaned€his€trailer€to€the€defendant€on€at€least€two€occasions,€he€testified€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðhe€had€not€done€so€in€October€of€2000.€€According€to€Bachtel,€the€trailer€was€at€his€daughterððsÐ ¸'#& Ðresidence€from€October€1,€2000,€until€the€time€of€trial.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àJoy€Covington,€Ashley€Evans'€mother,€testified€that€Anderson€telephoned€her€house€a€numberÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€times€after€his€arrest.€€While€she€initially€refused€to€accept€the€charges€for€his€collect€calls,€Ms.Ð h+¸&* ÐCovington€relented€on€one€occasion.€€She€claimed€that€during€their€conversation,€Anderson€informedÐ ° Ðher€that€ð ðif€[the€defendant]€did€not€start€taking€his€calls€and€helping€him€out,€he€would€take€[theÐ œì Ðdefendant]€down€with€him.ððÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àDefense€witnesses€Chris€Hickman€and€Phillip€Ashley€testified€that€they€had€never€purchasedÐ `° Ðfour„wheelers€from€the€defendant.€€Ashley€admitted€purchasing€an€ATV€from€Eric€Frias€for€$800.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant,€who€testified€in€his€own€behalf,€conceded€that€he€had€borrowed€BachtelððsÐ $ t Ðtrailer€but€denied€using€it€to€take€four„wheelers.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€owned€hand„held€radiosÐ  ` Ðbut€claimed€that€he€had€gotten€them€from€his€fatherððs€pawn€shop.€€The€defendant€denied€participationÐ ü L  Ðin€either€of€the€crimes.Ð è 8  ÐÌÓ  Óò òIÐ À  Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€first€asserts€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction.€Ð ¬ü  ÐSpecifically,€he€complains€that€there€is€no€evidence,€other€than€the€testimony€of€accomplices,€thatÐ ˜è  Ðhe€participated€in€the€thefts.€€On€appeal,€of€course,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÐ „Ô  Ðview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.Ð pÀ ÐCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€beÐ \¬ Ðgiven€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€juryÐ H˜ Ðas€the€trier€of€fact.€€€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€When€theÐ 4„ Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€is€whether,€after€reviewing€theÐ  p Ðevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÐ  \ Ðessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòState€v.Ð øH ÐWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,Ð ä4 Ðthe€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolvedÐ Ð  Ðby€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).€€Because€a€verdictÐ ¼  Ðof€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€convictedÐ ¨ø Ðcriminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€sustainÐ ”ä Ða€guilty€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIt€is€well€settled€that€a€defendant€cannot€be€convicted€solely€upon€the€uncorroboratedÐ X ¨ Ðtestimony€of€an€accomplice.€€An€accomplice€has€traditionally€been€defined€as€one€who€knowingly,Ð D!” Ðvoluntarily,€and€with€common€intent€with€the€principal€offender,€joins€in€the€commission€of€a€crime.€Ð 0"€  ÐòòClapp€v.€Stateóó,€94€Tenn.€186,€30€S.W.€214,€216€(1895).€€Only€slight€circumstances€are€sufficientÐ #l! Ðcorroboration.€€Those€circumstances€must,€however,€be€entirely€independent€of€the€accomplice'sÐ $X" Ðtestimony€and€lead€to€an€inference€that€not€only€has€a€crime€been€committed€but€also€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendant€is€implicated€in€that€crime.€€òòGarton€v.€Stateóó,€206€Tenn.€79,€332€S.W.2d€169,€175€(1960).€Ð à%0!$ ÐWhether€a€witness's€testimony€has€been€sufficiently€corroborated€is€a€function€entrusted€to€the€juryÐ Ì&"% Ðas€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSherrill€v.€Stateóó,€204€Tenn.€427,€434,€321€S.W.2d€811€(1959);€òòStanley€v.€Stateóó,Ð ¸'#& Ð189€Tenn.€110,€222€S.W.2d€384,€386€(1949).Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àð ðA€person€commits€theft€of€property€if,€with€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€property,€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðperson€knowingly€obtains€or€exercises€control€over€the€property€without€the€ownerððs€effectiveÐ h+¸&* Ðconsent.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103.€€Theft€of€property€valued€at€more€than€$1,000€but€less€thanÐ ° Ð$10,000€is€a€Class€D€felony.€€òòId.óó€ðð€39„14„105(3).€€Theft€of€property€valued€at€less€than€$500€is€aÐ œì ÐClass€A€misdemeanor.€€òòId.óó€ðð€39„14„105(1).€€ð ðValueðð€is€defined€as€follows:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  à(i)€The€fair€market€value€of€the€property€.€.€.€at€the€time€and€place€of€the€offense;€orÐ`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(ii)€If€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€cannot€be€ascertained,€the€cost€of€replacingÐ L œ Ðthe€property€within€a€reasonable€time€after€the€offense.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-11-106(35)(A).€Ô‡X!XXX!Ô€Owners€are€competent€by€fact€of€ownership€to€testify€to€theÐ  ` Ðvalue€of€the€property€stolen.€€òòState€v.€Hammóó,€611€S.W.2d€826€(Tenn.€1981);€òòReaves€v.€Stateóó,€523Ð ü L  ÐS.W.2d€218,€220€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).Ô#†X!XXX!j5#ÔÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àHere,€Anderson€testified€that€the€defendant€participated€in€each€of€the€two€thefts.€€He€claimedÐ À  Ðthat€the€defendant€borrowed€his€fatherððs€truck€and€provided€hand„held€radios€which€were€used€inÐ ¬ü  Ðeach€of€the€two€crimes.€€Alichia€Frias,€who€was€not€involved€in€either€theft,€claimed€to€have€seen€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant,€Anderson,€and€Eric€Frias€dress€in€dark€clothing,€gather€tools,€and€put€on€gloves€inÐ „Ô  Ðpreparation€for€the€thefts.€€There€was€testimony€that€a€trailer€which€had€been€borrowed€from€BachtelÐ pÀ Ðwas€used€in€the€second€theft.€€The€defendant€knew€Bachtel,€who€did€indeed€own€a€trailer€at€the€timeÐ \¬ Ðof€the€Sauceman€theft.€€Corroboration€of€an€accompliceððs€testimony€need€only€be€slight.€€In€our€view,Ð H˜ Ðthe€corroborative€testimony€met€that€standard.Ð 4„ ÐÌÓ  Óò òIIó óÐ  \ ÐÓ  Óà  àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€correctly€instruct€the€juryÐ øH Ðas€to€the€law€governing€accomplice€testimony.€€In€a€related€claim,€he€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ ä4 Ðby€denying€his€requested€jury€instruction€on€accomplice€testimony.€€The€defendant€also€complainsÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€the€jury€that€Alichia€Frias€was,€as€a€matter€of€law,€anÐ ¼  Ðaccomplice€to€the€crimes.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€has€a€duty€ð ðto€give€a€complete€charge€of€the€law€applicable€to€the€facts€of€aÐ €Ð Ðcase.ðð€€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.€1986);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30.€€ð ð[The]Ð l¼ Ðdefendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€a€correct€and€complete€charge€of€the€law.ðð€€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€1990).€€Our€law€requires€that€all€of€the€elements€of€each€offense€beÐ D!” Ðdescribed€and€defined€in€connection€with€that€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cravensóó,€764€S.W.2d€754,€756Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€1989).€€Jury€instructions€must,€however,€be€reviewed€in€the€context€of€the€overall€chargeÐ #l! Ðrather€than€in€isolation.€€òòSeeóó€òòSandstrom€v.€Montanaóó,€442€U.S.€510€(1979);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,Ð $X" Ð883€S.W.2d€138,€142€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€A€charge€is€prejudicial€error€ð ðif€it€fails€to€fairlyÐ ô$D # Ðsubmit€the€legal€issues€or€if€it€misleads€the€jury€as€to€the€applicable€law.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€944Ð à%0!$ ÐS.W.2d€346,€352€(Tenn.€1997).Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àWhile€the€defendant€may€request€special€instructions,€the€jury€charge€provided€by€the€trialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðjudge€is€sufficient€where€it€adequately€states€the€law.€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Tysonóó,€603€S.W.2d€748Ð )à$( Ðâ â(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€When€a€trial€court's€charge€to€the€jury€is€accurate€and€complete,€it€needÐ |*Ì%) Ðnot€give€additional€special€instructions€requested€by€the€defendant.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Storyóó,€608€S.W.2dÐ ° Ð599,€603€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àHere,€neither€the€jury€instructions€nor€the€order€denying€the€defendantððs€special€requestÐ tÄ Ðappears€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€The€record€contains€nothing€from€which€this€court€could€determineÐ `° Ðthe€content€of€the€instruction€on€accomplice€testimony.€€Moreover,€while€the€record€does€contain€aÐ L œ Ðcopy€of€the€defendantððs€requested€jury€instruction€regarding€the€testimony€of€accomplices,€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðrequest€does€not€suggest€that€Ms.€Frias€should€be€declared€an€accomplice.€€In€consequence,€theÐ $ t Ðrecord€is€inadequate€for€a€review€on€the€merits.€€It€is€the€duty€of€the€appellant€to€prepare€a€completeÐ  ` Ðand€accurate€record€on€appeal.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€The€failure€to€prepare€an€adequate€record€forÐ ü L  Ðreview€results€in€the€waiver€of€that€issue.€€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€172€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð è 8  ÐApp.€1997).Ð Ô$  ÐÌÓ  Óò òIIIÐ ¬ü  Ðó óÓ  Óà  àAs€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€an€alternativeÐ ˜è  Ðsentence.€€The€state€disagrees.€€Ô‡X!XXX!ÔWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÐ „Ô  Ðof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€de€novo€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ pÀ Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d).€€ThisÐ \¬ Ðpresumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÐ H˜ Ðconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð 4„ ÐS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€600€(Tenn.€1994).€€"If€the€trialÐ  p Ðcourt€applies€inappropriate€factors€or€otherwise€fails€to€follow€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€theÐ  \ Ðpresumption€of€correctness€falls."€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€Ð øH ÐThe€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€theÐ ä4 Ðimpropriety€of€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencingÐ ¨ø Ðhearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counselÐ ”ä Ðrelative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigatingÐ €Ð Ðor€enhancing€factors;€(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-102,€-103,€-210;Ð X ¨ ÐòòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€calculating€the€sentence€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D,€or€E€felony€conviction,€the€presumptiveÐ #l! Ðsentence€is€the€minimum€in€the€range€if€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ $X" ÐAnn.€ðð€40-35-210(c).€€If€there€are€enhancement€but€no€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€may€set€theÐ ô$D # Ðsentence€above€the€minimum,€but€still€within€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(d).€€AÐ à%0!$ Ðsentence€involving€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€requires€an€assignment€of€relativeÐ Ì&"% Ðweight€for€the€enhancement€factors€as€a€means€of€increasing€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-Ð ¸'#& Ð210(e).€€The€sentence€must€then€be€reduced€within€the€range€by€any€weight€assigned€to€the€mitigatingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfactors€present.€€òòId.óóÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€arriving€at€a€sentence€of€two€years,€the€minimum€within€the€range,€the€trial€court€foundÐ ° Ðâ âenhancement€factor€(2),€that€the€defendant€was€Ô#†X!XXX!XH#Ôthe€leader€in€the€commission€of€an€offense€involvingÐ œì Ðtwo€or€more€criminal€actors,€applicable.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(2).€€In€mitigation,€theÐ ˆØ Ðtrial€court€concluded€that€the€defendantððs€criminal€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€seriousÐ tÄ Ðbodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€The€trial€court€ordered€a€sentence€of€eleven€months€andÐ `° Ðtwenty„nine€days€for€the€misdemeanor€theft€conviction,€to€be€served€concurrently€with€the€felonyÐ L œ Ðsentence€of€two€years.€€The€defendant€does€not€quarrel€with€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factorsÐ 8 ˆ Ðapplied€by€the€trial€court,€nor€does€he€complain€that€the€sentences€were€excessive.€€He€simply€assertsÐ $ t Ðthat€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€an€alternative€sentence.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àÔ‡X!XXX!ÔAn€alternative€sentence€is€any€sentence€that€does€not€involve€total€confinement.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ è 8  Ðv.€Fieldsóó,€40€S.W.3d€435€(Tenn.€2001).€€As€a€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€D€felony,€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð À  Ððð€40-35-102(6).€€In€addition,€because€the€sentence€imposed€is€eight€years€or€lessÔ#†X!XXX!¶W#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô,€the€trial€courtÔ#†X!XXX!»Y#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðrequired€to€consider€probation€as€a€sentencing€option.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-303(b).Ô#†X!XXX!Z#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!ÔÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€determination€of€whether€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€an€alternative€sentenceÐ pÀ Ðand€whether€the€defendant€is€a€suitable€candidate€for€full€probation€are€different€inquiries€withÐ \¬ Ðdifferent€burdens€of€proof.€€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,€477€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€When,Ð H˜ Ðas€here,€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumption€favoring€alternative€sentencing,€theÐ 4„ Ðstate€must€overcome€the€presumption€by€the€showing€of€ð ðevidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€òòAshbyóó,€823Ð  p ÐS.W.2d€at€169;€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€òòoverruled€in€partÐ  \ Ðon€other€grounds€byóó€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€2000);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð øH Ððððð40-35-102(6),€-103€(1997).€€Conversely,€it€is€the€defendant€who€has€the€burden€of€demonstratingÐ ä4 Ðhis€suitability€for€total€probation.€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€455;€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-303(b)Ð Ð  Ð(1997).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àWhile€recognizing€that€the€defendant€was€entitled€to€the€presumption€in€favor€of€alternativeÐ ”ä Ðsentencing€and€that€probation€should€automatically€be€considered,€the€trial€court€denied€both€andÐ €Ð Ðordered€a€fully€incarcerative€sentence.€€The€trial€court,€observing€that€Anderson,€Alichia€Frias,€andÐ l¼ ÐEric€Frias€had€been€given€sentences€of€incarceration,€concluded€that€confinement€was€necessary€toÐ X ¨ Ðavoid€disparate€sentences.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(2)(1997).€€One€of€the€purposes€of€theÐ D!” ÐSentencing€Act€is€to€ð ðassure€fair€and€consistent€treatment€of€all€defendants€by€eliminating€unjustifiedÐ 0"€  Ðdisparity€in€sentences.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-102(2).Ô#†X!XXX!ÍZ#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô€€Our€supreme€court€has€held€that€ð ðsomeÐ #l! Ðdisparity€[in€sentencing]€is€justified,€depending€on€the€particular€crime€and€the€individual€criminal.ðð€Ð $X" ÐòòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€235€(Tenn.€1986).Ô#†X!XXX!Ãb#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô€€Moreover,€this€court€has€determinedÔ#†X!XXX!úc#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô€that€ð ðeachÐ ô$D # Ðcase€must€be€bottomed€upon€its€own€facts,ðð€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð à%0!$ Ð1987),€and€that€individualized€punishment€is€the€essence€of€alternative€sentencing,€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,Ð Ì&"% Ð894€S.W.2d€301,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)Ô#†X!XXX!ad#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô.€€In€consequence,€alternative€sentences€are€to€beÐ ¸'#& Ðconsidered€on€a€case-by-case€basis.€€While€this€approach€may€result€in€some€disparity,€each€case€willÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbe€treated€fairly€and€consistently€based€on€the€procedures€and€principles€that€guide€all€sentencingÐ )à$( Ðdeterminations€and€an€assessment€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€presented.€€òòMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€atÐ |*Ì%) Ð235.Ô#†X!XXX!ïe#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô€€In€our€view,€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€a€fully€incarcerative€sentence€because€othersÐ h+¸&* Ðinvolved€were€sentenced€to€confinement.€€The€record€is€devoid€of€any€indication€of€whether€the€otherÐ ° Ðsentences€were€negotiated,€what€proof€was€presented€at€the€sentencing€hearings,€and€what€findingsÐ œì Ðwere€made€by€the€trial€court€judge€who€imposed€the€sentences.€€A€proportionality€analysis€underÐ ˆØ Ðthese€circumstances€is€not€possible.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAs€indicated,€this€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€presumption€in€favor€of€an€alternative€sentenceÐ L œ Ðð ðabsent€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€What€constitutes€suchÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence€can€be€found€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103,€which€provides,€in€pertinentÐ $ t Ðpart,€as€follows:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àSentences€involving€confinement€should€be€based€on€the€following€considerations:Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àÔ#†X!XXX!èg#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendantÐ Ô$  Ðwho€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;ÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðoffense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€toÐ ˜è  Ðothers€likely€to€commit€similar€crimes;Ð„Ô Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recentlyÐ pÀ Ðbeen€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant[.]Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1).Ô#†X!XXX!kl#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!ÔÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àInitially,€we€note€that€neither€subsection€(A)€nor€subsection€(C)€are€applicable.€€TheÐ  \ Ðdefendant€has€no€criminal€record.€€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€not€frequentlyÐ øH Ðor€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.€€While€the€trial€court€quoted€subsection€(B)Ð ä4 Ðin€its€denial€of€an€alternative€sentence,€it€is€unclear€from€the€record€whether€the€court,€in€fact,Ð Ð  Ðconcluded€that€the€section€was€applicable.€€Certainly,€the€trial€court€made€no€factual€findingsÐ ¼  Ðpertaining€to€that€section.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àBefore€a€trial€court€may€deny€an€alternative€sentence€based€upon€the€circumstances€of€theÐ €Ð Ðoffense,€those€circumstances€ð ðmust€be€ððespecially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,Ð l¼ Ðoffensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree,ðð€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€mustÐ X ¨ Ðoutweigh€all€factors€favoring€[an€alternative€sentence].ðð€€òòState€v.€Cleavoróó,€691€S.W.2d€541,€543Ð D!” Ð(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€374-75€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ô#†X!XXX!bo#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô€€While€seriousÐ 0"€  Ðcrimes,€the€circumstances€of€the€offenses€in€this€case€do€not€rise€to€the€"exaggerated€degree"€level.€Ð #l! ÐTo€the€extent€that€the€trial€court€relied€on€this€factor€to€deny€an€alternative€sentence,€the€decision€wasÐ $X" Ðin€error.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àOur€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€10€(Tenn.€2000)Ô#†X!XXX!€t#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô,€held€that:€Ð Ì&"% Ðà8  àwe€will€presume€that€a€trial€court's€decision€to€incarcerate€a€defendant€based€on€aÐ ¸'#& Ðneed€for€deterrence€is€correct€so€long€as€any€reasonable€person€looking€at€the€entireÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrecord€could€conclude€that€(1)€a€need€to€deter€similar€crimes€is€present€in€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âparticular€community,€jurisdiction,€or€in€the€state€as€a€whole,€and€(2)€incarcerationÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€the€defendant€may€rationally€serve€as€a€deterrent€to€others€similarly€situated€andÐ ° Ðlikely€to€commit€similar€crimes.Ô#†X!XXX!Sv#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!ÔМìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌOur€high€court€also€suggested€several€guiding€factors€for€determining€whether€a€need€for€deterrenceÐ tÄ Ðis€present€and€whether€incarceration€is€ð ðparticularly€suitedðð€to€achieve€that€goal:Ð `° ÐÌà8  à(1)€Whether€other€incidents€of€the€charged€offense€are€increasingly€present€in€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcommunity,€jurisdiction,€or€in€the€state€as€a€whole;€Ð$ tÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€whether€the€defendant's€crime€was€the€result€of€intentional,€knowing,€or€recklessÐ  ` Ðconduct€or€was€otherwise€motivated€by€a€desire€to€profit€or€gain€from€the€criminalÐ ü L  Ðbehavior;€Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€whether€the€defendant's€crime€and€conviction€have€received€substantial€publicityÐ Ô$  Ðbeyond€that€normally€expected€in€the€typical€case;€ÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(4)€whether€the€defendant€was€a€member€of€a€criminal€enterprise,€or€substantiallyÐ ¬ü  Ðencouraged€or€assisted€others€in€achieving€the€criminal€objective;€Ð˜è Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(5)€whether€the€defendant€has€previously€engaged€in€criminal€conduct€of€the€sameÐ „Ô  Ðtype€as€the€offense€in€question,€irrespective€of€whether€such€conduct€resulted€inÐ pÀ Ðprevious€arrests€or€convictions.Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€10-12.€Ô#†X!XXX!÷x#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô€Our€supreme€court€cautioned€that€ð ðbecause€the€ððscienceðð€of€deterrence€is€imprecise€atÐ 4„ Ðbest,€the€trial€courts€should€be€given€considerable€latitude€in€determining€whether€a€need€forÐ  p Ðdeterrence€exists€and€whether€incarceration€appropriately€addresses€that€need.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Our€high€courtÐ  \ Ðnoted€that€Ð øH ÐÌà8  à[d]eterrence€is€a€complex€psychological€process,€and€the€focus€on€deterrence€throughÐ Ð  Ðchanges€in€the€penalty€structure€or€sentencing€behavior€represents€but€one€part€of€theÐ ¼  Ðcalculus.€€Section€40-35-103(1)(B)€recognizes€this€reality€as€the€language€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðstatute€requires€only€that€confinement€be€ð ðparticularly€suitedðð€to€provide€a€deterrentÐ ”ä Ðeffect,€and€it€does€not€require€proof€that€incarceration€ð ðwillðð€or€ð ðshouldðð€deter€othersÐ €Ð Ðfrom€committing€similar€crimes.Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€9.€€Here,€the€trial€court€failed€to€consider€whether€there€existed€a€need€to€deter€similar€crimesÐ D!” Ðor€whetherÔ#†X!XXX!Ý~#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô€incarceration€of€the€defendant€was€particularly€suited€to€that€need.€€Further,€the€recordÐ 0"€  Ðdoes€not€support€the€presenÔ#†X!XXX!¥ƒ#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ôce€of€either€of€these€factors.€€No€evidence€was€presented€that€wouldÐ #l! Ðsupport€a€finding€of€any€of€the€five€factors€enumerated€in€òòHooperóó.€€In€our€view,€there€is€insufficientÐ $X" Ðproof€to€support€deterrence€as€a€basis€for€the€denial€of€an€alternative€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€at€170.Ô#†X!XXX!q„#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!ÔÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€trial€court€observed€that€ð ðfrom€the€juryððs€finding€in€the€case,€[the€defendant]Ð ¸'#& Ðtestified€falsely€under€oathðð€and€denied€an€alternative€sentence€based€upon€the€defendantððs€lack€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcandor.€€ð ðA€defendantððs€truthfulness€or€mendacity€while€testifying€on€his€own€behalf,€almost€withoutÐ )à$( Ðexception,€has€been€deemed€probative€of€his€attitudes€toward€society€and€prospects€for€rehabilitationÐ |*Ì%) Ðand€hence€relevant€to€sentencing.ðð€òòUnited€States€v.€Graysonóó,€438€U.S.€41,€51€(1978).€€ð ððð[A]€fact€likeÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€defendantððs€readiness€to€lie€under€oath€before€the€judge€who€will€sentence€him€would€seem€toÐ ° Ðbe€among€the€more€precise€and€concrete€of€the€available€indicia.ðððð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.Ð œì ÐHendrixóó,€505€F.2d€1233,€1236€(2nd€Cir.€1974)).Ô#†X!XXX!†#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!ÔÐ ˆØ ÐÔ#†X!XXX!&Š#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!ÔÌà  àHere,€the€trial€court€apparently€determined€that€because€the€defendant€testified€on€his€ownÐ `° Ðbehalf,€but€was€found€guilty,€Ô#†X!XXX!}Š#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ôhe€necessarily€lied€under€oath.€€Otherwise,€the€trial€court€did€not€makeÐ L œ Ðany€factual€finding€that€the€defendant€had€indeed€offered€untrue€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòGraysonóó,€438€U.S.Ð 8 ˆ Ðat€51€(concluding€that€when€a€trial€court€finds€a€defendantððs€lie€to€be€flagrant€it€ð ðmay€be€deemedÐ $ t Ðprobative€of€his€prospects€for€rehabilitationðð).òòóóÔ#†X!XXX!Z‹#Ô€€While€lack€of€candor€is€an€appropriate€considerationÐ  ` Ðin€this€instance,€it€is€our€view€that€lack€of€candor€standing€alone€would€not€altogether€eliminate€theÐ ü L  Ðprospect€of€an€alternative€sentence.€€The€defendant's€lack€of€candor€is,€however,€sufficient€to€denyÐ è 8  Ðof€a€sentence€of€full€probation.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àBecause€the€state€failed€to€overcome€the€presumption€in€favor€of€an€alternative€sentence,€itÐ ¬ü  Ðis€our€view€that€the€defendantððs€sentence€must€be€modified.€€The€twenty„year„old€defendant€has€noÐ ˜è  Ðcriminal€record,€a€steady€employment€history,€and€is€currently€working€on€his€post„secondaryÐ „Ô  Ðeducation.€€The€proof€established€that€the€circumstances€of€the€offenses,€while€not€sufficientlyÐ pÀ Ðreprehensible€to€justify€the€denial€of€an€alternative€sentence,€were€serious.€€Under€theseÐ \¬ Ðcircumstances,€a€period€of€incarceration€is€appropriate.€€The€defendantððs€felony€sentence€is,Ð H˜ Ðtherefore,€modified€for€an€effective€sentence€of€split€confinement€with€nine€months€to€be€served€inÐ 4„ Ðthe€Department€of€Correction€and€the€balance€to€be€served€on€probation.Ð  p ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE