ÿWPC3 '# 2UN= %‹ 0(‘4¹ÍbÜäw@ì 0l, 0D˜ 0JÜ 0T& 0^z 0hØ 0r@ 0|² 0†. 0´ 1uD 0d¹U> U*[ @… BÅ v~â vÓ` ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡n~<$ @ d3|x´ - ù- « ¬ D­ U® U¯ D° ± D² ³ U´ D((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  Ýà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€!ôÔThe€appellantððs€other€convictions€occurred€in€Stewart€County,€Tennessee€on€November€22,€1988Ìà à€€€€€€€and€in€Lyon€County,€Kentucky€on€June€19,€1992.Ì dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€œTENNESSEEÌ›ÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ܆XDp”X ÓœAT€JACKSON›€€œÌÌ€€€€€€€€MAY€1998€SESSION›€€€€€€€€ÌÓ  ÓœÌÓ` °‡XDp”XÓó óÌ›ÌÓ ` ®DÓò òàQ àÌÓ` cÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€€œ02C01„9708„CC„00295›à àœAppellee,›à à)Ìà àà à)€œHenry›€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€œHonorable€Julian€P.€Guinn,›€JudgeÌò òà àà àó ó)ò òÌœTIMOTHY€TODD€WEBB,ó ó›à àœ)€(Sentencing€„€Third€Offense€DUI)›Ìà àà àœ)›€à àœAppellant.›à à)Ìœà àà àÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌVicki€H.€Hooverà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAinley€&€Hoover€Law€Officesà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€Ì123€N.€Poplar€Street,€Suite€AÌParis,€TN€38242à àMarvin€E.€Clements,€Jr.Ìà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àCordell€Hull€Bldg.,€2d€FloorÌà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà àNashville,€TN€37243Ìà àÌà àRobert€ð ðGusðð€RadfordÌà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àTodd€A.€RoseÌà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àP.O.€Box€686Ìà àHuntingdon,€TN€38344Ìà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌò òÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÓ ` pÓò òÔ  ÔÌÌÌÌÌÑ  ÑÑ#€åXÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÓ  ÓÌO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓ ` ¸ pÓÓÓà àOn€August€10,€1996,€the€appellant,€Timothy€Todd€Webb,€was€arrested€forÏdriving€under€the€influence€in€Henry€County.€€In€March€1997,€he€was€convictedÏby€a€jury€of€driving€under€the€influence€(DUI)€of€an€intoxicant€in€violation€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€55„10„401€(Supp.€1996),€which€is€a€Class€AÏmisdemeanor.€€The€state€and€the€appellant€stipulated€that€the€conviction€was€forÏa€third€offense€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.× ƒ# ××  ×€€€At€the€sentencingÏimmediately€following€the€trial,€the€court€imposed€a€fine€of€$1,100,€suspendedÏthe€appellantððs€driverððs€license€for€a€minimum€of€three€years,€and€sentenced€theÏappellant€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days.€€The€trial€court€ordered€theÏappellant€to€serve€120€days€in€continuous€confinement€and€then€enter€anÏalcohol€rehabilitation€program.€€The€court€also€noted€its€intention€to€suspend€theÍremainder€of€the€appellantððs€sentence,€if€he€successfully€completed€theÏrehabilitation€program.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellantððs€sole€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏordering€ð ða€sentence€that€is€harsh,€unfair,€prejudicial€and€much€greater€than€theÏnormal€sentence€imposed€in€like€cases€by€imposing€the€minimum€sentence€plusÏrehabilitation€and€then€to€report€back€to€jail€for€release€by€Circuit€Court.ðð€€WeÏaffirm.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€that€wasÏexcessive€and€harsh.€€He€contends€that€after€he€serves€120€days,€he€may€haveÏto€wait€while€incarcerated€for€ð ða€bed€to€openðð€at€a€rehabilitation€facility€if€one€isÏnot€available€on€the€121st€day.€€He€further€asserts€that€€upon€completion€of€theÏalcohol€rehabilitation€program,€he€may€have€to€remain€incarcerated€until€theÏcourt€can€hear€a€motion€for€release.€€€Additionally,€he€maintains€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€not€considering€him€for€probation€because€the€trial€court€imposedÏthe€sentence€immediately€after€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€and€without€the€benefitÏof€a€presentence€report€ð ðor€consider[ation]€any€of€the€other€factors€necessary€toÏimpose€a€fair€and€impartial€sentence.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€properly€sentenced€the€appellant.€ÏFirst,€it€notes€that€the€appellant€first€challenged€his€sentence€in€his€writtenÏmotion€for€new€trial,€which€was€filed€on€April€24,€1997.€€However,€later€that€sameÍday,€and€before€the€court€had€even€ruled€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€theÏappellant€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€challenging€only€his€sentencing.€€Then,€at€theÏmotion€for€new€trial€hearing€on€May€20,€1997,€the€appellant€struck€the€secondÏground€of€the€motion,€which€dealt€with€sentencing.€€€Although€the€stateÏacknowledges€that€sentencing€issues€are€not€required€to€be€raised€in€a€motionÏfor€new€trial,€it€maintains€that€because€the€issue€of€sentencing€was€raised€inÏopen€court€and€then€stricken€from€the€motion,€the€issue€should€be€consideredÏwaived.ÌÌà àSecond,€the€state€argues€that€the€appellant€is€not€entitled€to€aÏpresumptive€minimum€sentence.€€It€asserts€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏenhancement€and€mitigation€factors€in€determining€the€appellantððs€sentence.€€ItÏmaintains€that€not€only€was€the€120„day€period€of€confinement€the€mandatoryÏminimum€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1)€(Supp.€1996),Ïbut€also€that€the€$1,100€fine€and€the€three„year€suspension€of€the€appellantððsÏdriverððs€license€were€also€the€minimum€punishments€as€well.ÌÌà àThird,€the€state€asserts€that€rehabilitation€of€an€offender€is€one€purpose€ofÏthe€sentencing€provisions€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€€ðð€40„35„102Ï(Supp.€1996).€€€It€€further€argues€that€because€the€appellant€had€not€beenÏthrough€a€rehabilitation€program€for€alcohol€abuse€and€because€this€was€hisÏthird€conviction€for€the€same€offense,€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€courtÍwas€therefore€consistent€with€the€purpose€and€principles€of€the€CriminalÏSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.ÌÌà àFirst,€although€we€are€inclined€to€agree€with€the€stateððs€argument€that€theÏappellant€waived€his€right€to€challenge€his€sentence€at€the€motion€for€new€trialÏhearing,€we€will€nonetheless€address€the€merits€of€the€appellantððs€appeal.ÌÌà àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€ofÏa€sentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€However,€this€presumption€is€conditioned€on€an€affirmativeÏindication€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÏand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€The€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentenceÏwas€improper.€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àOur€Supreme€Court€outlined€the€procedure€for€sentencing€misdemeanorÏoffenders€under€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€in€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,Ï902€S.W.2d€391€(Tenn.€1995):€ÌÓÓà à[T]he€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€requires€three€thingsÌà àof€trial€judges€sentencing€misdemeanor€offenders.€€First,€allÌà àmisdemeanor€offenders€must€be€sentenced€in€accordance€withÌà àthe€principles,€purposes,€and€goals€of€the€Act.€€It€naturally€follows,Ìà àthen,€that€the€sentence€must€be€within€the€penalty€provided€for€the€Ìà àoffense.€€Second,€the€court€must€either€conduct€a€sentencing€Ìà àhearing€or€provide€an€opportunity€for€the€parties€to€be€heardÌà àon€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€the€sentence.€€Third,Ìà àin€addition€to€setting€the€sentence€based€on€the€principles,Ìà àpurposes,€and€goals€of€the€Act,€the€court€must€set€a€releaseÌà àeligibility€percentage€which€cannot€exceed€seventy„five€percentÌà àof€the€imposed€sentence.€€Alternatively,€the€court€can€grantÌà àprobation€immediately€or€after€a€period€of€split€or€continuousÌà àconfinement.ÌÓ` ¸ pÓà àÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€393€(citations€omitted).€€€ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„302€(Supp.€1996)€governsÏsentencing€for€misdemeanor€offenses.€€A€misdemeanant€is€not€entitled€to€theÏpresumption€of€a€minimum€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Seatonóó,€914€S.W.2d€129,€133Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€€Also,€a€presentence€report€is€not€mandatory€inÏmisdemeanor€sentencing€as€it€is€in€felony€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€SentencingÏCommission€Comments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302€(Supp.€1996);€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„205(a)€(1990).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€trial€court€when€itÏconducted€the€sentencing€hearing€immediately€after€the€appellantððs€trial.€€TheÏrecord€reveals€that€appellantððs€counsel€did€not€request€that€the€court€conduct€aÏseparate€sentencing€hearing€.€€Following€the€trial,€the€appellant€and€his€counselÏwere€afforded€an€opportunity€to€be€heard,€and€at€that€time,€appellantððs€counselÏstated:€ð ðYour€Honor,€we€would€at€this€time€just€request€the€minimum€sentenceÏfor€a€DUI,€third€offense.€€Of€course,€weððve€stipulated€to€the€DUI,€third€offense.€ÏWe€would€ask€the€Court€for€the€minimum€sentence€and€the€minimum€fine.ðð€€€€AsÏwe€observed€earlier,€a€misdemeanant€is€entitled€to€be€heard€before€sentencing,Íand€the€trial€court€provided€the€appellant€with€that€opportunity.€€We€concludeÏthat€the€appellant€was€not€prejudiced€because€his€sentencing€occurredÏimmediately€after€his€trial€or€because€the€court€did€not€have€the€benefit€of€aÏpresentence€report.ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€guidelines€regarding€misdemeanor€sentencing,€theÏsentence€in€a€DUI€case€must€adhere€to€the€requirements€provided€in€the€DUIÏstatute.€€òòPalmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€at€394.€€Furthermore,€the€DUI€statute€provides€thatÏð ð[n]othing€in€.€.€.€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€shall€be€construed€asÏaltering,€amending€or€decreasing€the€penalties€established€in€this€section€forÏthe€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ55„10„403(m)€(Supp.€1996).€€€Therefore,€the€release€eligibility€percentagesÏrelevantÌfor€other€misdemeanors€are€not€applicable€to€DUI€sentences,€if€such€anÏapplication€would€alter,€amend,€or€decrease€the€penalties€provided€by€the€DUIÏstatutes.€€òòPalmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€at€394.€€€For€example,€a€DUI€offender€can€beÏsentenced€to€serve€one€hundred€percent€of€his€sentence.€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€third€offenseÏdriving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€in€violation€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Ìðð€55„10„401€(Supp.€1996).€€€The€penalty€for€violation€of€this€statute€is€providedÏat€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1)€(Supp.€1996).€€The€relevantÏpart€of€the€statute€follows:ÌÓÓà àFor€the€third€or€subsequent€conviction,€there€shall€be€imposedÌà àa€fine€of€not€less€than€one€thousand€one€hundred€dollars€($1,100)Ìà ànor€more€than€ten€thousand€dollars€($10,000)€and€the€person€orÌà àpersons€shall€be€confined€in€the€county€jail€or€workhouse€for€notÌà àless€than€one€hundred€twenty€(120)€days€nor€more€than€eleven€(11)Ìà àmonths€and€twenty„nine€(29)€days,€and€the€court€shall€prohibit€suchÌà àconvicted€person€or€persons€from€driving€a€vehicle€in€the€state€ofÌà àTennessee€for€a€period€of€time€of€not€less€than€three€(3)€yearsÌà ànor€more€than€ten€(10)€years.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€serve€eleven€months€andÏtwenty„nine€days€for€a€third€offense€driving€under€the€influence€conviction.€€TheÏcourt€ordered€the€appellant€to€serve€120€days€in€continuous€confinement,€whichÏwas€the€minimum€permitted€by€statute,€and€then€enter€an€alcohol€rehabilitationÏprogram,€with€the€remainder€of€his€sentence€to€be€suspended€upon€successfulÏcompletion€of€the€rehabilitation€program.€€Also,€the€trial€court€fined€the€appellantÏ$1,100€and€suspended€his€driverððs€license€for€a€minimum€of€three€years,€which€Ïwere€the€mimumum€punishments.€Ìà àÌà àTherefore,€from€our€review€of€the€record,€the€trial€court€followed€theÏstatute€in€sentencing€the€appellant.€€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà ààQ àà à______________________________Ìà àà ààQ àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________›ÌœTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÔ€!Ô›Ìà àÌà àÌÌÔ  Ôœ