ÿWPC F:w{™.Ú³Ù»˜@»X.â¸ÑYžNáø³ä(övTg&d°:ÿJrW¾§i½ÂãtŽœeÔ)fðeuDüa¬Y¿ŒXëÿÙ˜‘þt5Ù²BÄ­@ ´¡1HÙ({kÖÒ'»Ó…¥ )$°FEãýRwEA#ë=$È9¨ãîW·ò<,b¹87á êF%Š$cþþËü>Çþi ÕøßúùŸÏÈ6×£ÿ+Ë»²œ„’’§¹îÐ>EñÑÄ%uœüùÌ ÙbÄ“nŠÄáï……ûpã¡?eo÷¥ëuêõ/‹'±Ä.1š™‹æÒ·œö ™]l¿±Š«>Ջ̵ï`ÌòŠóœéH“TÐk¤2 …jj-VCvš›áe¼#<-÷øï—‘Ïæ´·åmý­;·"ëªíyMþ_oº±3F¦¿Îýâ×¾È#ú …ü#Ђp z4ožŒQ×YÜൊFuE!ú§‹, b’*ƒngÊiÉ?–íÆJ›‘çöã³z`}ßžeݵ0Bõ;2»õçäc&Ã÷,õØ7Q=õì*qb¶\»cà#**³àºŒõäýÎ?9:¿ƒÞ¬;®Ïß…¶™ ïék SVÿ¨WÄë%Õ;•Ä®[Iïb#Á\ % U N# 0ˆq UNù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1÷NÿÿÿEb 0ë     Böö 0¤ D5· D-ì 0K ASdÆ· 0¤} 0D! A«e˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÛ{2)â  ˜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.wptûr')Øçk1ìØ3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - ù-(|G2Ùf$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\t»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô9ˆò»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\t»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\t»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€RÜ»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ìÌ»»»ÔÑ8€?\XXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îèý ìÌÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ìÌ» îîèý #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X¢X»¼ìÌÔÌò òÔ#†¼ìÌ»XX¢#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JUSTIN€VICTORYòòóóÔ‡X¢X»¼ìÌÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„C„1756€€€€€€Steve€R.€Dozier,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„00015„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€15,€2000Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ìÌ»XX¢‡#ÔÔ€X¢X»¼ìÌÔThe€defendant,€Justin€Victory,€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€to€the€offense€of€aggravated€burglary€beforeÐ xÈ  Ðthe€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court.€€Pursuant€to€the€plea€agreement,€the€defendant€was€to€receiveÐ d´ Ða€sentence€of€four€(4)€years,€with€the€manner€of€service€to€be€determined€by€the€trial€court.€Ð P  ÐFollowing€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððs€request€for€an€alternativeÐ <Œ Ðsentence€and€ordered€the€defendant€to€serve€the€sentence€in€the€Davidson€County€CCA.€€Also,€theÐ (x Ðtrial€court€advised€the€defendant€that€upon€completion€of€the€Life€Lines€Substance€Abuse€Program,Ð d Ðthe€trial€court€would€suspend€the€balance€of€the€sentence€and€determine€proper€restitution.€€In€thisÐ P Ðappeal€of€right,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€him€supervisedÐ ì< Ðprobation.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€of€parties€and€applicable€law,€we€modify€theÐ Ø( Ðmanner€of€the€service€of€the€defendantððs€sentence€to€214€days€incarceration€with€the€remainderÐ Ä Ðserved€on€supervised€probation.Ð ° ÐÓ“ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Modified.ó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓL.€Terry€Lafferty,€Sr.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smith,€J.,€óóandòòóó€òòJoeÐ `° ÐG.€Riley,€J.,óó€€joined.Ð L œ ÐÌJames€Holt€Walker,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Justin€Victory.Ð $"t! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter€and€Elizabeth€T.€Ryan,€for€the€appellee,€State€ofÐ ü#L# ÐTennessee.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ À&"& ÐÌòòóóÓ  Óò òÔ‡¼ìÌ»XX¢Ôà@%ìàÔ#†X¢X»¼ìÌ5 #ÔBACKGROUNDˆÐ ˜(è#( ÐÌó óà  àThe€record€reflects€that€on€October€28,€1999,€the€defendant€entered€a€negotiated€plea€of€guiltyÐ p*À%* Ðto€the€offense€of€aggravated€burglary€and€agreed€to€the€sentence€of€four€(4)€years€incarceration€withÐ \+¬&+ Ða€request€for€a€sentencing€hearing.€€As€part€of€the€plea€agreement,€the€State€would€dismiss€a€secondÐ H,˜', Ðcount€of€theft€over€sixty€thousand€dollars€($60,000).€€However,€the€record€does€not€contain€aÐ 4-„(-ý Ðtranscript€of€the€guilty€plea€proceedings.€€The€underlying€facts€surrounding€the€aggravated€burglaryÐ ° Ðcharge€are€set€forth€in€the€pre„sentence€report,€Exhibit€1:Ð œì ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àOn€4/22/99,€Jeffrey€Mendelsohn€drove€the€defendant,€Justin€Victory,€to€the€residenceÐ tÄ Ðof€Carolyn€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô,€211€Ô_ÔRiverstoneÔ_Ô€Court,€Nashville.€€The€defendant€had€been€advisedÐ `° Ðby€Hugo€Ô_ÔSaledoÔ_Ô€that€Ms.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€had€a€large€amount€of€jewelry€in€her€house.€€Mr.Ð L œ ÐÔ_ÔSaledoÔ_Ô€told€the€defendant€that€the€jewelry€would€be€in€a€clear€plastic€container€in€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðdownstairs€closet.€€The€defendant€kicked€in€the€door€and€stole€the€jewelry.€€Mr.Ð $ t ÐMendelsohn€drove€the€defendant€to€an€unknown€location€in€Hermitage€and€thenÐ  ` Ðdrove€home.€€The€defendant€was€arrested€on€5/27/99€and€charged€with€aggravatedÐ ü L  Ðburglary€and€theft.€€He€did€not€make€bond€on€this€offense.€Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌÓ  Óò òSENTENCING€HEARINGÐ À  ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€Ms.€Carolyn€A.€Lender,€testified€that€her€home€was€burglarizedÐ ˜è  Ðand€over€$150,000€in€jewelry€was€taken€from€a€bedroom€closet.€€Some€jewelry€was€recovered,€butÐ „Ô  Ðapproximately€$150,000€in€jewelry€was€not€recovered.€€At€the€time€of€the€burglary,€the€victimððsÐ pÀ Ðnineteen€year€old€daughter€and€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔhandicappedÔ_Ô€sister€lived€in€the€home.€€Ms.€Lender€described€theÐ \¬ Ðburglary€as€being€very€emotional€and€it€caused€her€a€lot€of€emotional€stress.€As€a€result€of€theÐ H˜ Ðburglary,€the€victim€has€difficulty€leaving€her€home€even€to€the€extent€of€walking€her€dog.€€BecauseÐ 4„ Ðof€the€burglary,€her€handicapped€sister€who€suffers€with€Ô_Ôseizures,Ô_Ô€has€been€in€and€out€of€the€hospitalÐ  p Ðfive€times.€€She€stated€that€she€can€no€longer€live€in€her€home€and€that€she€will€be€re„locating.€€Ms.Ð  \ ÐLender€testified€Ô_Ôthat€sheÔ_Ô€did€not€have€insurance€to€cover€the€loss€of€her€jewelry.€Ð øH ÐÌà  à€Mr.€James€Victory,€father€of€the€defendant,€testified€that€he€is€presently€a€sales€person€forÐ Ð  ÐMid„South.€€He€served€as€a€police€officer€for€three€years€in€Rutherford€County.€€He€stated€that€he€andÐ ¼  Ðthe€defendantððs€mother€were€married€for€ten€years€before€their€divorce.€€He€testified€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€was€a€good€child€although€the€defendant€had€a€learning€disability.€€Mr.€Victory€stated€thatÐ ”ä Ðthe€defendant€was€a€good€student€and€excelled€at€basketball€in€high€school.€€He€stated€that€his€sonÐ €Ð Ðattended€Ô_ÔMcGavockÔ_Ô€High€School,€where€the€defendant€began€associating€with€gang€members€andÐ l¼ Ðusing€drugs.€€The€father€believes€that€he€is€to€blame€for€not€taking€a€stronger€hand€in€dealing€withÐ X ¨ Ðhis€sonððs€problems€in€high€school.€€At€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€Mr.€Victory€stated€that€hisÐ D!” Ðson€has€spent€Ô_Ôtwo€hundred€fourteen€(214)Ô_Ô€days€in€the€Davidson€County€jail,€where€he€saw€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€every€Saturday.€Upon€his€sonððs€arrest,€the€defendant€portrayed€himself€as€a€victim€andÐ #l! Ðblamed€others€for€his€predicament.€€However,€over€time,€the€defendant€has€matured€and€takenÐ $X" Ðresponsibility€for€his€part€in€the€offense.€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àMr.€Victory€testified€that€if€given€probation,€he€has€arranged€for€his€son€to€enter€and€completeÐ Ì&"% Ða€drug€treatment€program€at€Buffalo€Valley€Inpatient€Drug€&€Alcohol€Center.€€Further,€his€son€wouldÐ ¸'#& Ðhave€employment€upon€release€and€that€the€defendant€Ô_ÔwouldÔ_Ô€live€with€him€as€a€condition€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðprobation.€€Mr.€Victory€identified€other€family€members€who€were€present€and€in€support€of€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âdefendantððs€application€for€supervised€probation.€€The€father€assured€the€trial€court€that€he€wouldÐ |*Ì%) Ðbe€the€first€person€to€report€any€violation€of€probation€committed€by€his€son.€€Mr.€Victory,€on€behalfÐ ° Ðof€the€family,€apologized€to€Ms.€Lender€for€the€crime.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àOn€his€own€behalf,€the€defendant€testified€that€he€met€Mr.€Ô_ÔSaledoÔ_Ô,€who€advised€him€of€theÐ tÄ Ðhome€and€the€jewelry€therein.€€The€defendant€solicited€the€help€of€Jeffrey€Mendelsohn€in€committingÐ `° Ðthe€burglary.€€The€day€before€the€burglary,€the€defendant€and€Mendelsohn€went€by€the€victimððsÐ L œ Ðhome,€but€they€got€scared€and€ð ðchickened„out.ðð€€The€defendant€was€up€all€night€after€consumingÐ 8 ˆ ÐLSD.€€The€next€morning,€the€defendant€and€Mendelsohn€went€to€the€Ô_Ôvictim's€house.Ô_Ô€€The€jewelry€wasÐ $ t Ðin€the€place€where€it€was€supposed€to€be,€as€told€to€him€by€Saledo.€€Ô_ÔAfterwards€theyÔ_Ô€met€Saledo€andÐ  ` Ðgave€him€the€jewelry.€€Ô_ÔThey€laterÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€met€at€the€apartment€of€Amy€Ô_ÔLovetteÔ_Ô.€€The€following€day,€theyÐ ü L  Ðpawned€some€of€the€jewelry€for€money€to€travel€to€Texas.€€Saledo€told€the€defendant€about€going€toÐ è 8  ÐTexas,€how€to€dispose€of€the€jewelry,€how€much€fun€it€would€be,€and€about€women€and€drugs.€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€stated€that€he€was€arrested€in€Texas.€€As€to€his€drug€use,€the€defendant€testified€that€heÐ À  Ðbegan€using€drugs€around€age€fourteen€(14).€€He€started€out€using€marijuana€and€progressed€toÐ ¬ü  Ðcocaine€and€the€heavy€use€of€alcohol.€€He€stated€that€he€had€used€marijuana€and€cocaine€on€the€dayÐ ˜è  Ðof€his€arrest€in€Texas.€€At€the€time€of€the€hearing,€the€defendant€had€been€incarcerated€for€214€days.€Ð „Ô  ÐThe€defendant€testified:Ð pÀ ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àð ðIððve€learned€that€this€really€wasnððt€me€the€whole€time.€€I€mean,€I€Ô_Ô„„€Ô_ÔIððve€reflected€onÐ H˜ Ðit,€the€upbringing€my€parents€have€given€me€and€taught€....€I€mean,€I€„„€the€whole€timeÐ 4„ ÐIððve€been€acting€like,€really,€a€big€kid.€€And,€being€in€jail,€being€incarcerated€theseÐ  p Ðtwo€hundred€and€fourteen€days,€is€kind€of€a€wake€up€call.€€Itððs€time€for€me€to€stop€andÐ  \ Ðto€step€up€and€be€a€man.ððÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌà  àThe€defendant€stated€how€sorry€he€was€for€the€burglary€and€for€what€he€had€put€the€victimÐ Ð  Ðand€her€sister€through.€€The€defendant€offered€to€work€two€jobs€to€make€complete€restitution.€€TheÐ ¼  Ðdefendant€testified€that€he€would€enter€a€drug€treatment€program€at€Buffalo€Valley€and€hopes€to€getÐ ¨ø Ðback€into€basketball€by€attending€school.€€Also,€the€defendant€has€a€job€waiting€for€him€upon€hisÐ ”ä Ðrelease€with€Southern€Hospitality€Corporation.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àDuring€cross„examination,€the€defendant€stated€that€he€could€not€get€into€Starting€PointÐ X ¨ Ðbecause€they€were€full€at€the€time.€€Also,€the€defendant€stated€that€if€he€had€known,€he€could€haveÐ D!” Ðsigned€up€for€New€Avenues€and€did€it€when€he€was€bound€over.€€As€to€any€NA€or€AA€meetings,€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€stated€that€they€had€just€started€the€Ô_Ôsign„up€sheet€two€weeks€prior,€and€that€classes€had€notÐ #l! Ðyet€started.€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àWhen€questioned€by€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€testified€that€he€got€approximately€twoÐ à%0!$ Ðthousand€dollars€($2,000)€from€the€burglary.€€As€to€his€juvenile€record,€the€defendant€related€that€heÐ Ì&"% Ðwas€arrested€at€age€fourteen€(14)€for€shoplifting,€and€did€forty„eight€(48)€hours€on€weekends€inÐ ¸'#& ÐWilliamson€County.€€He€also€did€six€(6)€months€on€probation€for€passing€bad€checks€at€age€sixteenÐ ¤(ô#' Ð(16).€€The€defendant€denied€being€a€member€of€the€Gangster€Disciples,€but€admitted€he€was€guiltyÐ )à$( Ðof€hanging€around€with€them.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€trial€court,€in€its€ruling,€sentenced€the€defendant€to€the€agreed€upon€four€year€sentence,Ð ° Ðprovided€that€if€the€defendant€completed€the€Life€Lines€Program,€the€trial€court€would€let€him€out.Ð œì ÐIn€denying€supervised€release,€the€trial€court€expressed€concern€that€Buffalo€Valley€could€not€satisfyÐ ˆØ Ðthe€defendantððs€significant€drug€problem.€€Also,€the€trial€court€expressed€concern€over€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendantððs€involvement,€the€seriousness€of€this€particular€burglary,€and€that€persons€have€beenÐ `° Ðkilled€in€home€burglaries,€but€not€in€this€case.€Ð L œ ÐÌÓ  Óò òLEGAL€ANALYSISÐ $ t ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€confinement€for€the€convictionÐ ü L  Ðof€aggravated€burglary;€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€confining€the€defendant€in€the€absence€of€proofÐ è 8  Ðto€rebut€the€presumption€that€a€sentence€other€than€incarceration€would€result€in€successfulÐ Ô$  Ðrehabilitation;€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€confining€the€defendant€despite€mitigating€factors€andÐ À  Ðthe€trial€courtððs€reliance€on€an€inappropriate€enhancement€factor.€€The€State€counters€that€the€trialÐ ¬ü  Ðcourt€correctly€imposed€a€sentence€of€confinement.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  à€When€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€CourtÐ pÀ Ðhas€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòde€novo€óóreview€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÐ \¬ Ðmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€isÐ H˜ Ðð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÐ 4„ Ðprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔAshbyÔ_Ô,€óó823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð  p Ð1991).€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àWhen€conducting€a€òòde€novo€óóreview€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,Ð ä4 Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€the€pre„sentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€ofÐ Ð  Ðsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€€theÐ ¼  Ðcriminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€mitigating€and€statutory€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementsÐ ¨ø Ðmade€by€the€defendant€regarding€sentencing;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÐ ”ä Ðrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòSeeóó€òòThomas€v.€State,€óó755€S.W.2d€838,€844€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);Ð €Ð ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102,„103,„210.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court,€by€following€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€Ð D!” Ðimposed€a€lawful€sentence,€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€andÐ 0"€  Ðprinciples€which€are€set€out€under€the€act,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€adequatelyÐ #l! Ðsupported€in€the€record,€then€we€may€not€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÐ $X" Ðdifferent€result.€òò€State€v.€Fletcher,€óó805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€òòóó€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àAfter€a€review€of€the€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€deniedÐ Ì&"% Ðan€alternative€sentence€in€that€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€justified€incarceration€and€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdefendant€had€a€significant€drug€problem€that€could€not€be€handled€by€Buffalo€Valley.€€However,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthe€record€does€not€reveal€that€the€trial€court€considered€any€of€the€other€sentencing€factors.Ð )à$( ÐAccordingly,€we€review€the€sentencing€decision€òòde€novo€óówithout€the€presumption€of€correctness.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€defendant€contends€on€appeal€that€he€is€exactly€the€type€of€individual€for€whom€theÐ ° Ðrebuttal€presumption€was€enacted.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„101.€€The€State€counters€that€theÐ œì Ðdefendant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€establishing€his€suitability€for€probation.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ˆØ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„303(b).€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àIn€his€request€for€an€alternative€sentence,€the€defendant€points€out€that€he€was€nineteen€(19)Ð L œ Ðyears€old€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€had€two€juvenile€findings€of€delinquency€for€misdemeanorÐ 8 ˆ Ðoffenses,€and€no€adult€convictions.€€The€defendant€has€no€history€of€violence,€but€developed€aÐ $ t Ðserious€drug€abuse€problem€at€an€early€age,€and€he€associated€with€the€ð ðwrong€crowd.ðð€€TheÐ  ` Ðdefendant€submitted€a€drug€treatment€program€for€the€trial€courtððs€consideration€and€had€full„timeÐ ü L  Ðemployment€awaiting€him€upon€supervised€release.€€Likewise,€the€defendantððs€genuine€remorse€atÐ è 8  Ðthe€sentencing€hearing€and€offer€to€make€restitution€supports€his€candidacy€for€some€form€ofÐ Ô$  Ðsupervised€release.€Against€this€evidence,€the€trial€court€believed€that€incarceration€was€the€properÐ À  Ðremedy.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àA€defendant€who€ð ðis€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€DÐ „Ô  Ðor€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absenceÐ pÀ Ðof€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€Our€sentencing€law€also€providesÐ \¬ Ðthat€ð ðconvicted€felons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminal€histories€evincingÐ H˜ Ða€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€past€efforts€atÐ 4„ Ðrehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priority€regarding€sentencing€involving€incarceration.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÐ  p ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„102(5).€€Thus,€a€defendant€sentenced€to€eight€(8)€years€or€less€who€is€not€an€offenderÐ  \ Ðfor€whom€incarceration€is€a€priority,€is€presumed€eligible€for€alternative€sentencing€unless€sufficientÐ øH Ðevidence€rebuts€the€presumption.€€Because€the€defendant€is€a€Range€I€offender,€who€has€pled€guiltyÐ ä4 Ðto€aggravated€burglary,€a€Class€C€felony,€he€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternativeÐ Ð  Ðsentencing.€€òòSeeóó€òòId.€óó€ðð€40„35„102(6).€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àTennessee.€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103(1)€sets€forth€guidance€as€to€what€ð ðconstitutesÐ ”ä Ðevidence€to€the€contrary.ðð:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  à(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€hasÐ X ¨ Ða€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€orÐ #l! Ðconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likelyÐ $X" Ðto€commit€similar€offenses;€orÐô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recently€beenÐ Ì&"% Ðapplied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.€Ð¸'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ashby,€óó823€S.W.2d€at€170;€òòState€v.€Neely,€óó1€S.W.3d€679,€685€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð )à$( Ð1999).€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àWith€respect€to€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€playedÐ ° Ða€lead€role€in€the€commission€of€the€burglary,€a€large€amount€of€valuable€jewelry€was€taken,€and€thatÐ œì Ðpeople€have€been€killed€in€home€burglaries.€€However,€this€Court€in€òòState€v.€Bingham:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àóóIn€order€to€deny€an€alternative€sentence€based€on€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€ð ðtheÐ `° Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€as€committed€must€be€especially€violent,€horrifying,Ð L œ Ðshocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggeratedÐ 8 ˆ Ðdegree,ðð€and€the€nature€of€the€offense€must€outweigh€all€factors€favoring€a€sentenceÐ $ t Ðother€than€confinement.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌ910€S.W.2d€at€454€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Here,€the€defendant€did€commit€an€invasion€into€theÐ è 8  Ðhome€of€the€victim€and€took€a€large€amount€of€valuable€jewelry.€€However,€nobody€was€injured€andÐ Ô$  Ðapparently€the€home€was€not€vandalized.€€Accordingly,€we€do€not€find€that€the€presumption€of€anÐ À  Ðalternative€sentence€has€been€rebutted€by€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€As€to€the€trial€courtððs€denialÐ ¬ü  Ðof€an€alternative€sentence€based€on€Buffalo€Valleyððs€inability€to€cope€with€the€defendantððs€seriousÐ ˜è  Ðdrug€problem,€the€trial€court€did€not€state€specific€reasons€as€to€why€this€treatment€program€was€notÐ „Ô  Ðadequate.€€Thus,€we€do€not€find€the€presumption€of€an€alternative€sentence€has€been€rebutted€by€thisÐ pÀ Ðfinding.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àHaving€found€that€the€presumption€of€alternative€sentence€has€not€been€rebutted,€we€mustÐ 4„ Ðnow€determine€which€sentencing€alternative€is€appropriate.€€Because€the€defendantððs€sentence€wasÐ  p Ðunder€eight€(8)€years€and€because€the€defendant€is€not€otherwise€disqualified,€he€is€eligible€forÐ  \ Ðprobation€under€our€statutory€system.€€òòSeeóó€òòId.€óó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303.€€Probation€is€to€beÐ øH Ðautomatically€considered€as€a€sentence€alternative€for€eligible€defendants;€however,òò€óóð ðthe€defendantÐ ä4 Ðis€not€automatically€entitled€to€probation€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€òòState€v.€Hartley,€óó818€S.W.2d€370,€373Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€(quoting€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303€sentencing€Ô_ÔcommððnÔ_Ô€comments).Ð ¼  ÐThe€burden€of€proving€probation€rests€with€the€defendant.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b).€Ð ¨ø ÐIf€the€trial€court€determines€that€a€period€of€probation€is€appropriate,€it€shall€sentence€the€defendantÐ ”ä Ðto€a€specific€sentence€but€shall€suspend€that€sentence€and€place€the€defendant€on€supervised€orÐ €Ð Ðunsupervised€probation€either€immediately€or€after€a€service€of€a€period€of€confinement.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ l¼ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„303(c).€€Placement€on€probation€following€the€service€of€a€period€of€confinement€isÐ X ¨ Ðan€alternative€to€a€ð ðstraight€timeðð€sentence€and€is€commonly€referred€to€as€ð ðsplit€confinement.ðð€òò€StateÐ D!” Ðv.€Lane,€óó3€S.W.3d€456,€464€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€probation,€the€trial€court€must€consider:€(a)€the€defendantððsÐ $X" Ðcriminal€record;€(b)€his€background€and€social€history;€(c)€his€present€condition,€including€hisÐ ô$D # Ðphysical€and€mental€condition;€(d)€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense;€(e)€the€deterrentÐ à%0!$ Ðeffect€on€other€criminal€activity;€and€(f)€the€likelihood€that€probation€is€in€the€best€interest€of€bothÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€public€and€the€defendant.€òò€State€v.€Ô_ÔBonestelÔ_Ô€óó871€S.W.2d€163,€169€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Ð ¸'#& ÐAlso,€the€trial€court€is€obligated€to€consider€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendant€in€determining€the€sentence€alternative.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àAt€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€was€nineteen€(19)€years€old.€€He€had€noÐ ° Ðâ âother€criminal€history€except€for€two€juvenile€offenses.€€Upon€release,€the€defendant€has€a€twenty„Ð œì Ðeight€(28)€day€in„house€treatment€program€at€Buffalo€Valley€Drug€Treatment€Center€and€full„timeÐ ˆØ Ðemployment.€€The€defendant€has€strong€family€support€and€expressed€complete€remorse€for€theÐ tÄ Ðburglary€of€the€victimððs€home.€€Also,€the€defendant€has€expressed€his€desire€to€make€completeÐ `° Ðrestitution€by€working€two€jobs.€€The€defendant€has€no€history€of€violent€acts,€other€than€his€self„Ð L œ Ðdestruction€through€the€use€of€drugs.€€To€counter€this€evidence,€the€defendant€has€a€long€history€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðdrug€abuse,€no€past€indication€of€an€attempt€at€treatment,€little€employment€history,€was€on€LSD€atÐ $ t Ðthe€time€of€the€burglary,€and€pawned€the€jewelry€to€obtain€funds€to€go€to€Texas€to€live€the€good€life,Ð  ` Ðð ðdoing€drugs€and€women.ðð€€The€defendant€received€two€thousand€dollars€($2,000)€for€his€part€in€theÐ ü L  Ðburglary,€and€convinced€a€friend€to€become€involved€in€this€criminal€offense.€€The€defendant€has€notÐ è 8  Ðreceived€or€taken€advantage€of€any€drug€treatment€programs€while€in€custody.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€from€our€review€of€the€record,€that€the€defendant€should€be€placed€on€probationÐ ¬ü  Ðin€that€he€has€served€two€hundred€fourteen€plus€(214+)€days€in€incarceration€since€the€commissionÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€offense.€€This€amounts€to€split€confinement.€€We€believe€that€this€sentence€is€the€least€severeÐ „Ô  Ðmeasure€necessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€of€punishment€and€rehabilitation,€and€it€also€conservesÐ pÀ Ðresources€because€the€defendant€will€not€serve€his€entire€sentence€in€incarceration.€€See€òòState€v.Ð \¬ ÐBingham,€óó910€S.W.2d€at€457.€€We€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€an€alternative€sentence,€basedÐ H˜ Ðon€his€completing€a€drug€program,€Life€Lines,€while€in€custody,€intriguing.€€The€trial€court€failed€toÐ 4„ Ðset€out€in€the€record€as€to€just€what€this€drug€treatment€program€is,€what€the€consequences€are€andÐ  p Ðhow€such€drug€treatment€would€benefit€the€defendant.€€In€the€absence€of€such€record,€we€mustÐ  \ Ðmodify€the€defendantððs€four€year€sentence€to€be€served€in€split€confinement€for€two€hundred€fourteenÐ øH Ð(214)€days€followed€by€supervised€probation.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€to€determineÐ ä4 Ðthe€terms€and€conditions€of€probation.€Ð Ð  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð €Ð Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àL.€TERRY€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGE