ÿWPC{ ²{ACbÇ9\/¦®åPÈŸá>d"akŽ5Ë‚á¥iáR&A8d¡ÿ1ÿ€*A¹ÞSÄê²jOŽJ*)Ãå¡ôõ¿\²±ñõ÷‹E·’ºf àÊ”¢`rѦS›…‰Ä¼¡q7-­$C)®A#µîU -±I쯟ç=mÜ4 žì<Ñ‘ãjv8hNÖ™‚Ô, RÝŠû$ÑJÏù}#H­ø0:lцæÚSê‚SÂ^^l“œåŸDÜylPÓ¢ÔÛ2sy.ÿIÊHIá¶0ˆY÷n®Žo=y?¸néÁÿ„lE,u‚p¿'¥£¹&ë Uˆ²nHÄÎv\´”Ç{ öí垘» Ô×gIsù¨•û¬¶aôøNäÂÜ"aBLWë7M±µ“u‹ï¯1œS°Ž©Óƒ×›X Œóó…ÈbT3UÂþÇ‹KKYt^+Õ=Ú¶FÔð_<¾¹ÇÎòÝÎçÝ_:~÷“4wùÇI„ÁCQAŽ/9ê²쮩î*>þâ@|BMöjéNšå+ Gg Áõ¾ßæ0Jy{7Í”ö?Øôl¢gþŽqáüÿd‹!ÕÜsu)áÖ$8´±÷£í°tçpÈM¥¥b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ 1‡‘ Æ ÆÞ Ƥ Æj 720Nb 1ud 72ÙE  0c                       bpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 0ëxxxx Bcc 0¤€ D3$ D-W 0K„„ ASÏÆ" 0¤è 0DŒ A«Ð»p-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular3j1,bk2ð¼¦3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 I.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à- ù-(|G2×^$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¸…ò»»Ô d(|3a$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3a$¢¢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€N!XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î ,-ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼-»îî , #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€May€21,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XN!X»¼-ÔÌò òÔ#†¼-»XXN!#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€RICHARD€Ô_ÔVANOVERÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡XN!X»¼-Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Washington€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€25701,€26392€€€€€€Robert€E.€Ô_ÔCuppÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„01671„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐAugust€27,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDefendant€pled€guilty€to€seventeen€offenses€and€was€subsequently€sentenced€to€fourteen€years€inÐ xÈ  Ðconfinement.€€On€appeal,€defendant€alleges€that€trial€court€committed€error€in€(1)€applying€certainÐ d´ Ðenhancing€factors,€(2)€denying€any€form€of€alternative€sentencing,€and€(3)€ordering€consecutiveÐ P  Ðsentencing.€€We€affirm€the€judgment.€€Ð <Œ ÐÓ ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼-»àXN!´#ÔÔ‡XN!X.¼-ÔJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ôóó€andÐ ì< ÐòòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌFrederick€M.€Lance,€Ô_ÔJonesboroughÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€and€Ô_ÔKristiÔ_Ô€M.€Davis,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ ° Ðappellant,€Richard€Ô_ÔVanoverÔ_Ô.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Thomas€E.€Williams,€III,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ tÄ ÐGeneral;€Joe€C.€Ô_ÔCrumleyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Steven€R.€Finney,€Assistant€DistrictÐ `° ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ЀÌÓ1ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼-»XXN!`#ÔÔ‡XN!X»¼-ÔÐ #`" ÐÌÓ  Óà  àDefendant€Richard€Ô_ÔVanoverÔ_Ô€was€found€guilty€by€a€Washington€County€jury€on€seventeenÐ è$8 $ Ðcounts,€òòto€witóó:€nine€counts€of€auto€burglary,€Class€E€felonies€in€violation€of€Tennessee€CodeÐ Ô%$!% ÐAnnotated€section€39„14„402;€two€counts€of€theft€over€$1,000,€Class€B€felonies€in€violation€ofÐ À&"& ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„14„103;€one€count€of€burglary,€a€Class€D€felony€in€violationÐ ¬'ü"' Ðof€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„14„402;€one€count€of€theft€over€$500,€a€Class€E€felony€inÐ ˜(è#( Ðviolation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„14„103;€three€counts€of€theft€under€$500,€ClassÐ „)Ô$) ÐA€misdemeanors€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„14„103;€and€one€count€ofÐ p*À%* Ðvandalism€under€$500,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ \+¬&+ Ð39„14„408.Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ýà ÐÔ_Ôà  àDefendant€pled€guilty,€on€May€19,€2000,€to€one€count€of€theft€over€$1,000,€a€Class€B€felony;Ð ° Ðone€count€of€non„habitation€burglary,€a€Class€D€felony;€one€count€of€theft€over€$500,€a€Class€EÐ œì Ðfelony;€eight€counts€of€auto€burglary,€Class€E€felonies;€one€count€of€vandalism€over€$500,€a€ClassÐ ˆØ ÐA€misdemeanor;€and€four€counts€of€theft€under€$500,€Class€A€misdemeanors.€€Defendant€receivedÐ tÄ Ðconsecutive€sentences€of€two€years€for€burglary,€two€years€for€theft€over€$1,000,€one€year€for€autoÐ `° Ðburglary,€and€one€year€for€theft€over€$500.€€The€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€concurrentlyÐ L œ Ðwith€seven€sentences€of€one„year€each€for€auto€burglary,€four€sentences€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„Ð 8 ˆ Ðnine€days€for€theft€under€$500,€and€one€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€forÐ $ t Ðvandalism€under€$500.€€Defendantððs€effective€sentence€is€six€years.€€The€trial€court€ordered€defendantÐ  ` Ðreleased€on€bond€without€entering€a€final€judgment€until€June€26,€2001.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€a€separate€case,€the€Washington€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€defendant€on€one€count€ofÐ Ô$  Ðvandalism€over€$10,000,€a€Class€C€felony€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„14„Ð À  Ð408.€€The€offense€was€committed€while€defendant€was€on€bond€for€the€previous€vandalism,€autoÐ ¬ü  Ðburglary,€and€theft€convictions.€€Defendant€pled€guilty€on€April€16,€2001€to€this€charge€in€exchangeÐ ˜è  Ðfor€a€sentence€of€eight€years,€to€be€served€consecutively€to€his€prior€sentences.€€The€trial€court€deniedÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€any€form€of€alternative€sentencing€and€entered€final€judgments€on€June€26,€2001.€€Ð pÀ Ðà  àò òòò¹Ó  ÓFactsóóó óÐ H˜ ÐÌÓ¬Óà  àThis€appeal€involves€convictions€for€offenses€that€occurred€as€a€result€of€two€separateÐ  p Ðincidents,€one€in€April€of€1999€and€one€in€April€of€2000.€€The€evidence€shows€that€on€three€nightsÐ  \ Ðdefendant€served€as€a€ð ðlookoutðð€while€two€other€men€burglarized€six€cars€at€Carpenterððs€Auto€RepairÐ øH Ðin€Johnson€City,€stealing€stereos€and€other€valuables.€€They€also€stole€a€car€from€J.€Sweeney€AutoÐ ä4 ÐSales€in€Johnson€City.€€Defendant€and€the€others€returned€to€Carpenterððs€Auto€Repair€and€burglarizedÐ Ð  Ða€building€and€two€other€vehicles.€€Defendant€was€ultimately€arrested€and€charged€with€vandalismÐ ¼  Ðand€various€counts€of€burglary€and€theft.€€Defendant€subsequently€admitted€his€involvement€inÐ ¨ø Ðcommitting€the€offenses.€€Though€defendant€was€seventeen€years€old€at€the€time,€jurisdiction€wasÐ ”ä Ðtransferred€from€juvenile€court€to€the€Washington€County€Criminal€Court€where€he€was€laterÐ €Ð Ðindicted.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àWhile€defendant€was€released€on€bond,€he€and€another€underage€person€were€using€marijuanaÐ D!” Ðand€alcohol.€€While€under€the€influence,€defendant€caused€damages€totaling€$10,000€to€graves€andÐ 0"€  Ðgrave€markers€in€the€historic€Oak€Hill€Cemetery€in€Johnson€City.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€record€reflects€that€while€defendant€was€on€bond,€he€failed€drug€screening€tests€andÐ ô$D # Ðrefused€to€submit€to€a€drug€screen€test.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àTestimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing€reveals€that€approximately€thirty€to€thirty„fiveÐ ¸'#& Ðtombstones€were€damaged€at€the€cemetery€where€defendant€committed€vandalism.€€DefendantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtestified€that€he€has€had€a€drug€problem€since€he€was€thirteen€and€that€he€had€been€hanging€aroundÐ )à$( Ðâ âa€group€of€people€who€were€bad€influences€on€him.€€He€stated€that€he€had€never€been€in€a€drugÐ |*Ì%) Ðrehabilitation€program€and€that€he€needed€help€with€his€drug€problem.€€He€stated€that€he€hadÐ ° Ðemployment€lined€up€with€his€father€and€that€he€was€sorry€for€what€happened.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àDefendantððs€mother€testified€that€her€child€had€a€difficult€childhood€but€that€he€did€not€haveÐ tÄ Ðany€problems€during€the€period€when€they€moved€to€a€different€part€of€town.€€She€stated€that€ifÐ `° Ðreleased,€defendant€could€live€at€home€and€that€he€had€several€job€prospects.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€presentence€report€shows€that€defendant€was€adjudicated€delinquent€in€1995€forÐ $ t Ðaggravated€burglary€and€also€shows€that€defendant€was€helpful€in€the€investigation€of€the€crimes€forÐ  ` Ðwhich€defendant€was€convicted.€€Lastly,€it€shows€that€defendant€was€in€special€education€classes€andÐ ü L  Ðperforms€academically€on€a€third€or€fourth€grade€level.€€Defendant€is€also€willing€to€make€restitutionÐ è 8  Ðin€the€amount€of€$50€to€$100€a€month.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓAnalysisóóó óÐ ¬ü  ÐÓa#ÓÌòòóóÔ#†¼-»XXN! #ÔÔ€XN!X»¼-Ôà  àWhen€a€defendant€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€CourtÐ „Ô  Ðconducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€theÐ pÀ Ðsentencing€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-401(d),€40-35-402(d)€(1997).€€If€our€reviewÐ \¬ Ðð ðreflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentenceÐ H˜ Ðafter€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principles€set€out€underÐ 4„ Ðthe€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€thenÐ  p Ðwe€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.€Pikeóó,Ð  \ Ð978€S.W.2d€904,€926-27€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð øH Ð1991).€€On€the€other€hand,€if€the€trial€court€failed€to€comply€with€the€statutory€guidelines,€our€reviewÐ ä4 Ðis€òòde€novoóó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ¨ø Ððð€40-35-401(d),€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€In€determining€whether€the€defendant€hasÐ ”ä Ðcarried€this€burden,€this€Court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€and€the€sentencingÐ €Ð Ðhearing;€(b)€the€presentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing;€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel;Ð l¼ Ð(e)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€and€(f)€the€defendantððs€potential€or€lack€of€potentialÐ X ¨ Ðfor€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-103(5),€-210(b)€(1997).€Ð D!” ÐÌÓ€ (5h83ÓòòI.€€Enhancement€and€Mitigating€FactorsÐ #l! ÐÌà  àóóDefendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€enhancement€factor€(2)€of€Tennessee€CodeÐ ô$D # ÐAnnotated€section€40„35„114€in€finding€that€defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðoffenses.€€The€record€indicates€that€defendant€served€as€a€ð ðlookoutðð€for€the€others€involved€in€theÐ Ì&"% Ðburglaries€and€thefts.€€Regarding€the€vandalism€of€the€grave€sites,€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¸'#& Ðassertion€that,€ð ð[Defendant]€again€got€up€with€his€buddies€to€go€out€and€destroy€one€of€the€mostÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhistorical€things€that€we€have€within€this€community.ðð€€€Defendant€did€not€have€to€be€the€òòsoleóó€leader,Ð )à$( Ðjust€òòa€óóleader.€€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€868€S.W.2d€729,€731€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€record€supportsÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€application€of€this€factor.€€òòòòóóóóÐ h+¸&* Їà  àDefendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€applying€mitigating€factor€(4)€ofÐ ° ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„113òòóó€and€again€alleges€that€he€played€a€minor€role€in€the€offenses.€Ð œì ÐHowever,€for€the€same€reasons€supporting€the€abovementioned€enhancement€factor,€the€record€doesÐ ˆØ Ðnot€support€the€application€of€this€mitigating€factor.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€failing€to€apply€thisÐ tÄ Ðfactor.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àDefendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€enhancement€factor€(3)€when€the€trialÐ 8 ˆ Ðcourt€found€that€the€offense€of€vandalism€in€a€cemetery€involved€a€victim.€€This€Court€has€previouslyÐ $ t Ðstated€that€ð ðvictimðð€as€used€in€enhancement€factor€(3)€ð ðis€limited€in€scope€to€a€person€or€entity€thatÐ  ` Ðis€injured,€killed,€had€property€stolen,€or€had€property€destroyed€by€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime.ðð€Ð ü L  ÐòòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€384€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Such€was€not€the€case€here€as€theÐ è 8  Ðð ðvictimsðð€were€tombstones€and€grave€sites€and€those€buried€within€the€graves.€€In€òòRainesóó,€we€statedÐ Ô$  Ðthe€following:Ð À  Ðà8  àà ` à.€.€.€the€term€does€not€include€a€person€who€has€lost€a€loved€one.€.€.€Moreover,Ð ¬ü  Ðgiving€the€term€a€generic€meaning€would€deprecate€this€factor€and€render€itÐ ˜è  Ðmeaningless.€€Every€time€a€person€is€murdered,€a€spouse,€child,€parent,€sibling€orÐ „Ô  Ðcollateral€relative€loses€a€loved€one.€€Thus,€this€enhancement€factor€would€be€appliedÐ pÀ Ðby€operation€of€law;€and,€if€a€serious€injury€was€inflicted,€the€same€would€be€true.€€Ð\¬Ð Ð  ЀòòId.óó€€€If€application€of€this€factor€cannot€be€meant€to€apply€when€a€person€loses€a€loved€one,€how€canÐ H˜ Ðit€possibly€be€meant€to€apply€in€a€case€such€as€this?€€Though€this€Court€certainly€appreciates€theÐ 4„ Ðsense€of€loss€and€frustration€that€the€community€of€Johnson€City€feels€in€this€case,€we€believe€ourÐ  p ÐCourt€has€spoken€on€the€issue€of€the€applicability€of€this€factor.€€Therefore,€to€avoid€giving€the€termÐ  \ Ðð ðvictimðð€a€generic€meaning€as€contemplated€in€òòRainesóó,€we€conclude€the€trial€court€erred€in€applyingÐ øH Ðthis€factor.€€We€do€conclude,€however,€that€although€application€of€this€factor€was€error,€whenÐ ä4 Ðviewed€in€light€of€the€remaining€five€applicable€enhancement€factors€that€defendant€does€not€contest,Ð Ð  Ðthe€error€was€harmless€beyond€reasonable€doubt.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àFinally,€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€applying€the€catchall€mitigatingÐ ”ä Ðfactor€(13)€and€should€have€considered€defendantððs€age€at€the€time€of€the€offenses,€education,Ð €Ð Ðwillingness€to€make€restitution,€and€expression€of€remorse€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€We€conclude,Ð l¼ Ðhowever,€that€the€record€is€replete€with€evidence€rebuffing€defendantððs€assertion€that€he€is€entitledÐ X ¨ Ðto€mitigation.€€The€evidence€shows€that€defendant€failed€drug€screens€and€was€guilty€of€vandalismÐ D!” Ðover€$10,000,€as€well€as€evading€arrest€and€possession€of€marijuana€while€out€on€bond.€€The€recordÐ 0"€  Ðcertainly€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€defendant€demonstrated€little€or€no€potential€forÐ #l! Ðrehabilitation.€€Further,€the€record€shows€that€defendant€was€at€times€less€than€truthful€whenÐ $X" Ðtestifying€and€speaking€with€his€presentence€investigator.€€Lack€of€truthfulness€is€probative€on€theÐ ô$D # Ðissue€of€a€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation€and€should€be€considered€in€granting€or€denyingÐ à%0!$ Ðan€alternative€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Neeleyóó,€678€S.W.2d€48,€49€(Tenn.€1984);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Gennoeóó,Ð Ì&"% Ð851€S.W.2d€833,€834€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€with€respect€toÐ ¸'#& Ðmitigating€factor€(13).€€€€€òòòòóóÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌII.€€Denial€of€Alternative€Sentencing€óóÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€him€alternative€sentencing€such€asÐ ° Ðprobation€or€Community€Corrections.€€He€asserts€that€his€sentence€to€total€confinement€is€unjust.€Ð œì ÐWe€disagree€and€affirm.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àA€defendant€who€ð ðis€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,Ð `° Ðor€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absenceÐ L œ Ðof€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-102(6);€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€3€S.W.3d€456,€462Ð 8 ˆ Ð(Tenn.€1999).€€In€the€instant€case,€defendant€pled€to€Class€C,€D,€and€E€felonies.€€He€is€thereforeÐ $ t Ðpresumed€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentences.€€However,€the€presumption€can€be€rebuttedÐ  ` Ðif€Ð ü L  ÐÓ$°–, X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓà0 4 àà  à(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€hasÐ è 8  Ða€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;€ÐÔ$ 4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€orÐ À  Ðconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€othersÐ ¬ü  Ðlikely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€or€Ð˜è 4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€beenÐ „Ô  Ðapplied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant[.]€ÐpÀ4Ð 4Ð  ÐÓ( °œX°–, XîD(ÓÓ XEÓÓ X EÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-103(1);€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€5€(Tenn.€2000);€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð \¬ ÐS.W.2d€166,€170€(Tenn.€1991).€€Finally,€in€determining€if€a€defendant€is€suitable€for€alternativeÐ H˜ Ðsentencing,€a€court€should€consider€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„Ð 4„ Ð113,€„114;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(5).€€Ð  p Ðà  àÌà  àAs€one€option€of€alternative€sentencing,€defendant€contends€that€he€should€have€been€placedÐ øH Ðon€probation.€€A€defendant€seeking€full€probation€bears€the€burden€on€appeal€of€showing€that€theÐ ä4 Ðsentence€imposed€is€improper€and€that€full€probation€will€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€defendant€andÐ Ð  Ðthe€public.€€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€966€S.W.2d€429,€434€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€In€determining€whetherÐ ¼  Ðto€grant€or€deny€probation,€a€trial€court€should€consider€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendantððs€criminal€record,€the€defendantððs€social€history€and€present€condition,€and€the€need€forÐ ”ä Ðdeterrence.€€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€925€S.W.2d€237,€244€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€defendantððs€lack€ofÐ €Ð Ðcredibility€is€also€an€appropriate€consideration€and€reflects€on€a€defendantððs€potential€forÐ l¼ Ðrehabilitation.€€€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€306€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Although€probationÐ X ¨ Ðmust€be€considered,€ð ðthe€defendant€is€not€automatically€entitled€to€probation€as€a€matter€of€law.ððÐ D!” ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-303(b),€Sentencing€Commission€Comments;€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2dÐ 0"€  Ð370,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àDefendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€allowed€him€to€serve€his€sentence€inÐ ô$D # Ðthe€Community€Corrections€Program.€€The€Tennessee€Community€Corrections€Act€was€developedÐ à%0!$ Ðto€ð ðpunish€selected,€nonviolent€felony€offenders€in€front-end€community€based€alternatives€toÐ Ì&"% Ðincarceration,€thereby€reserving€secure€confinement€facilities€for€violent€felony€offenders.ðð€€Tenn.Ð ¸'#& ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40-36-103(1).€The€program€is€available€for€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ$”,È’X°œX$Óà0 4 àà  à(1)€persons€who,€without€this€option,€would€be€incarcerated€in€a€correctionalÐ )à$( Ðâ âinstitution;€Ð|*Ì%)4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(2)€persons€who€are€convicted€of€property-related,€or€drug/alcohol-related€felonyÐ ° Ðâ âoffenses€or€other€felony€offenses€not€involving€crimes€against€the€person€.€.€.;€Ðœì4Ð 4Ð  Ð(3)€persons€who€are€convicted€of€nonviolent€felony€offenses;€Ð ˆØ Ðà0 4 àà  à(4)€persons€who€are€convicted€of€felony€offenses€in€which€the€use€or€possession€ofÐ tÄ Ða€weapon€was€not€involved;€€Ð`°4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(5)€persons€who€do€not€demonstrate€a€present€or€past€pattern€of€behavior€indicatingÐ L œ Ðviolence;€[and]€Ð8 ˆ4Ð 4Ð  Ð(6)€persons€who€do€not€demonstrate€a€pattern€of€committing€violent€offenses€.€.€.€.€Ð $ t ÐÓ XšQÓÓ X¨QÓÓ( °œX”,È’X¶Q(ÓòòId.óó€ðð€40-36-106(a)(1)-(6).€€Those€who€are€sentenced€to€incarceration€or€are€on€escape€at€the€time€ofÐ  ` Ðsentencing€are€not€eligible€for€the€program.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40-36-106(a).€€No€defendant€has€the€absolute€rightÐ ü L  Ðto€be€sentenced€pursuant€to€the€Community€Corrections€Act.€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€922Ð è 8  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAs€previously€noted,€the€evidence€indicates€that€defendant€was€less€than€truthful€inÐ ¬ü  Ðstatements€to€his€presentence€investigator€and€testimony€to€the€court€regarding€his€drug€use.€Ð ˜è  ÐAdditionally,€defendantððs€criminal€record€included€a€felony€conviction€for€aggravated€burglary€whenÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€was€a€juvenile.€€For€purposes€of€the€cemetery€vandalism€charges,€the€offenses€ofÐ pÀ Ðvandalism,€auto€burglary,€and€thefts€committed€while€defendant€was€out€on€bond€were€consideredÐ \¬ Ðas€part€of€his€criminal€record.€€The€record€also€reflects€that€defendant€has€abused€drugs€and€alcohol.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€court€found€that€confinement€was€necessary€to€keep€from€depreciating€the€seriousnessÐ  p Ðof€the€offense€„€damage€to€numerous€100+€year„old€grave€markers.€€Indeed,€the€evidence€reveals€thatÐ  \ Ðthe€cemetery€contained€the€graves€of€the€designer€of€the€Tennessee€state€flag,€the€founder€of€JohnsonÐ øH ÐCity,€the€first€female€mayor€of€Johnson€City,€many€veterans€of€the€Civil€War,€and€many€children.€Ð ä4 ÐThis€Court€has€stated€that€in€order€for€alternative€sentencing€to€be€denied€on€the€basis€of€theÐ Ð  Ðseriousness€of€the€offense,€the€circumstances€must€be€ð ðððespecially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,Ð ¼  Ðreprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree,ðð€and€the€nature€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðoffense€must€outweigh€all€factors€favoring€a€sentence€other€than€confinement.ðð€€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,Ð ”ä Ð910€S.W.2d€448,€454€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(quoting€òòHartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€at€374)€(citationsÐ €Ð Ðomitted)).€€Defendantððs€actions€were€certainly€reprehensible€and€shocking,€and€confinement€isÐ l¼ Ðwarranted€so€as€to€both€keep€from€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€to€provide€anÐ X ¨ Ðeffective€deterrent€to€others.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€also€showed€that€defendant€had€previously€committed€criminal€offenses€whileÐ #l! Ðeither€on€probation€or€out€on€bond.€€Finally,€application€of€the€aforementioned€enhancing€factorsÐ $X" Ðsupport€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion.€€We€affirm.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌòòIII.€€Consecutive€SentencingóóÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà  àDefendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€consecutive€sentences.€€A€court€mayÐ ¤(ô#' Ðorder€multiple€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€it€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€theÐ )à$( Ðdefendant€fits€into€one€of€the€categories€established€in€the€statute.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-115(b).€Ð |*Ì%) ÐIt€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€whether€or€not€an€offender€should€be€sentencedÐ h+¸&* Ðconsecutively€or€concurrently.€€òòState€v.€Jamesóó,€688€S.W.2d€463,€465€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€Ð ° ÐHowever,€as€the€State€points€out€and€the€record€indicates,€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencesÐ œì Ðwas€the€product€of€negotiated€plea€bargaining€and€not€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€As€such,€defendantÐ ˆØ Ðwill€receive€that€for€which€he€bargained.€€We€affirm.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌÌÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÐ ü L  ÐÓçdÓÌà  àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Ó________________________________€Ð \¬ Ðà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À àà @ àJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE