ÿWPCD îNqGÄ/] €x\2Пtœ3®,lñb̾÷ Îï^D‚ûåê[ê.ÛZí“È¿¢¥±`"NŽúÑÃ&vm¸ÙÜ Ø¡cÜÖEJKlÏÓW9 ´ep?á_†-à° # =T1Õø/ת©²[1ËdÄѶ›ˆ4sû§)ÖBE¤¾œèñÍ#Ûrô¾jo'>yr‡ì†]¸©V¤‘Þâíq¸¬Å7ÀW†ñœ±H‡éàLñseÛ­Š(rÝ/ðÆ“˜:€1ˆv×úéÙ –8ÚÕh+KÐXÉnÆûÜ?ì1>JÇÇàÍmUË0 ŽDÏ€Ÿ»Ë. #®÷½œ–a«wV‰Ê0«‘ƒ5>^¹Á%… }ÉÍ%UF¶Ì¢ÆÑM§Ò¼‘oÿôî(Û=@Ÿƒ›ÑŠP„e«ûüÄå Êæ¾¨AL²;?íjGS™_ÃsKOöxèP„$cC·‰|âÆy†fÛð2¥–ŽÔ¦’°YŠGhDvIV ·Í“© aͨ¸\ÉŠji0s4rh~ÏÝ2ÊtØ>¯½¸÷½$åXWôXáõd…78\>O„Ø2Ap@õMW³¡+*…¿ÿ3ØvP°y˜.›‚SÕ…ý«Ùå$"¥Éè™â™8)ÉõW°<Úb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ ¹ 0DÐ Æ ÆÚ Æ  Æf #Á, NíU@ïïE//1111111111111111111111b999999999999999999999999999999999999 0ëAAAA B,, 0¤I D3í D-  0KMM AS˜Æë 0¤± 0DU A«™»bv-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular3j1,1'¯¡Backup3|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(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  - ù-(|G2º$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»Uò»»Ô d(|3ÿf$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿf$¢¢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  ÑÔ€¼-»»»ÔÑ8€T!XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î<-ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼-»îî< #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€October€29,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XT!X»¼-ÔÌò òÔ#†¼-»XXT! #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€òòóóv.€OLIVIA€WILLIAMSÔ‡XT!X»¼-Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌò òDirect€ó óà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔCockeÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€8422à0 @ à€€€€€€Ben€W.€Hooper,€II,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„00687„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐNovember€22,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€pled€guilty€to€one€count€of€Class€D€felony€theft€over€$10,000,€received€an€agreedÐ xÈ  Ðthree„year€sentence,€and€agreed€to€allow€the€trial€court€to€determine€the€manner€in€which€herÐ d´ Ðsentence€would€be€served.€€The€trial€court€ordered€the€sentence€to€be€served€in€incarceration.€€In€thisÐ P  Ðappeal,€the€defendant€argues€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€alternative€sentencing.€€We€affirm€theÐ <Œ Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð (x ÐÓÙÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€ó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼-»àXT!z#ÔÔ‡XT!X.¼-ÔJoe€G.€Riley,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€and€òòRobert€W.Ð Ø( ÐÔ_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌSusanna€L.€Thomas,€Newport,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Olivia€Williams.€Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Ô_ÔAngeleÔ_Ô€M.€Gregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð tÄ ÐAl€C.€Ô_ÔSchmutzerÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Ronald€C.€Ô_ÔNewcombÔ_Ô,€Assistant€DistrictÐ `° ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÌÓqÓÌò òOPINIONÐ #`" ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óOn€October€4,€2001,€the€defendant€pled€guilty€to€taking€over€$10,000€worth€of€furniture€andÐ è$8 $ Ðother€items€from€the€home€of€the€victim,€her€Ô_ÔfiancÔ_Ô,€in€November€2000.€€As€part€of€the€pleaÐ Ô%$!% Ðagreement,€she€received€a€three„year€sentence.€€The€parties€agreed€the€trial€court€would€hold€aÐ À&"& Ðsentencing€hearing€to€determine€the€manner€in€which€she€would€serve€the€sentence.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€the€defendant€incarceratedÐ „)Ô$) Ðfor€the€term€of€her€sentence.€€The€trial€court€found€the€defendant€had€made€ð ðconstantÐ p*À%* Ðmisrepresentationsðð€to€the€court€and€stated€the€defendant€had€ð ðabsolutely€no€credibility.ðð€€The€trialÐ \+¬&+ Ðcourt€also€noted€she€failed€to€cooperate€with€the€court€during€the€pendency€of€her€case€and€furtherÐ H,˜', Ðfailed€to€cooperate€in€the€preparation€of€her€Ô_ÔpresentenceÔ_Ô€report.€€Ð 4-„(-ýà ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àThe€trial€court€further€found€the€offense€to€be€ð ðterribly€seriousðð€because€she€used€aÐ ° Ðrelationship€of€trust€to€take€advantage€of€the€victim,€which€caused€the€victim€great€emotionalÐ œì Ðdistress.€€The€lower€court€stated,€ð ðThe€deviousness€of€this€whole€situation€.€.€.€goes€far€beyond€theÐ ˆØ Ðacts€of€an€ordinary€criminal€and€thief.ðð€€It€found€the€defendant€had€ð ðbeen€in€trouble€beforeðð€andÐ tÄ Ðnoted€that€none€of€the€stolen€property€had€been€returned€to€the€victim.€€Ð `° ÐÌò òó óà  àÔ‡XT!XXXT!ÔThe€trial€court€denied€any€form€of€alternative€sentencing,€and€the€defendant€challenges€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðdenial€on€appeal.€€We€reject€defendant's€arguments.Ð $ t ÐÌÌà@dd!ìàò òSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWˆÐ è 8  Ðó óÌà  àThis€courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumptionÐ À  Ðof€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€conditioned€upon€anÐ ¬ü  Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ ˜è  Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Pettusóó,€986€S.W.2d€540,€543€(Tenn.€1999).€€If€the€trialÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€and€ourÐ pÀ Ðreview€is€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€burden€is€upon€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ 4„ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€In€conducting€our€review,€we€areÐ  p Ðrequired,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„210,€to€consider€the€following€factorsÐ  \ Ðin€sentencing:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€[t]he€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencingÐ Ð  Ðhearing;€(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€of€sentencingÐ ¼  Ðand€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€[t]he€nature€andÐ ¨ø Ðcharacteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€[e]vidence€andÐ ”ä Ðinformation€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÐ €Ð Ðfactors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]ny€statement€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendantððs€own€behalf€aboutÐ X ¨ Ðsentencing.ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà  àUnder€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€trial€judges€are€encouraged€to€useÐ #l! Ðalternatives€to€incarceration.€€An€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,Ð $X" ÐD€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€theÐ ô$D # Ðabsence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àIn€determining€if€incarceration€is€appropriate,€a€trial€court€may€consider€the€need€to€protectÐ ¸'#& Ðsociety€by€restraining€a€defendant€having€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct,€the€need€to€avoidÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€whether€confinement€is€particularly€appropriate€toÐ )à$( Ðâ âeffectively€deter€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses,€and€whether€less€restrictive€measures€haveÐ |*Ì%) Ðoften€or€recently€been€unsuccessfully€applied€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1);Ð ° Ðòòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àA€court€may€also€consider€the€mitigating€and€enhancing€factors€set€forth€in€Tennessee€CodeÐ tÄ ÐAnnotated€sections€40„35„113€and€114€as€they€are€relevant€to€the€section€40„35„103€considerations.€Ð `° ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(5);€òòState€v.€Bostonóó,€938€S.W.2d€435,€438€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Ð L œ ÐAdditionally,€a€court€should€consider€the€defendantððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitationÐ 8 ˆ Ðwhen€determining€if€an€alternative€sentence€would€be€appropriate.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5);Ð $ t ÐòòBostonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€438.€€The€trial€court€may€consider€the€defendant's€untruthfulness€and€lack€ofÐ  ` Ðcandor€as€they€relate€to€the€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòState€v.€Nunleyóó,€22€S.W.3d€282,€289€(Tenn.Ð ü L  ÐCrim.€App.€1999).Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThere€is€no€mathematical€equation€to€be€utilized€in€determining€sentencing€alternatives.€€NotÐ À  Ðonly€should€the€sentence€fit€the€offense,€but€it€should€fit€the€offender€as€well.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ¬ü  Ð40„35„103(2);€òòState€v.€Bateyóó,€35€S.W.3d€585,€588„89€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000).€€Indeed,Ð ˜è  Ðindividualized€punishment€is€the€essence€of€alternative€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2dÐ „Ô  Ð301,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€In€summary,€sentencing€must€be€determined€on€a€case„by„caseÐ pÀ Ðbasis,€tailoring€each€sentence€to€that€particular€defendant€based€upon€the€facts€of€that€case€and€theÐ \¬ Ðcircumstances€of€that€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€235€(Tenn.€1986).Ð H˜ ÐÌÌà@òò&ìàò òANALYSISˆÐ  \ Ðó óÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€proof€in€the€record€shows€the€defendant€was€involved€in€a€closeÐ ä4 Ðrelationship€with€the€victim.€€Although€the€defendant€denied€she€was€engaged€to€the€victim,€sheÐ Ð  Ðadmitted€she€accepted€an€engagement€ring€from€him€and€ð ðwent€along€with€itðð€when€he€told€othersÐ ¼  Ðthey€were€engaged.€€Ô#†XT!XXXT!—#ÔÔ#†¼-»XXT! #ÔÔ‡XT!X»¼-ÔAccording€to€the€victimððs€statements€included€in€the€presentence€report,€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€asked€the€victim€to€wait€until€9:00€p.m.€to€return€home€on€the€date€of€the€offense€becauseÐ ”ä Ðshe€had€a€surprise€for€him.€€When€he€arrived€home,€he€discovered€his€furniture,€big€screen€television,Ð €Ð Ðand€numerous€other€household€items€were€missing.€€The€victimððs€mother€testified€that€virtuallyÐ l¼ Ðeverything€in€the€house€was€taken€except€the€dining€room€table€and€four€chairs.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€testified€at€sentencing€that€she€was€at€the€victimððs€house€when€the€theftÐ 0"€  Ðoccurred,€but€her€live„in€boyfriend,€Shawn€Meeks,€actually€committed€the€offense.€€The€victimððsÐ #l! Ðmother€testified€she€confronted€the€defendant€about€the€theft;€the€defendant€said€she€took€theÐ $X" Ðfurniture€to€a€relativeððs€house€and€promised€to€return€it.€€The€proof€indicated€none€of€the€stolenÐ ô$D # Ðproperty€was€returned.€€At€the€plea€hearing,€the€defendantððs€counsel€said€the€items€might€be€returnedÐ à%0!$ Ðshortly.€€At€sentencing,€the€defendant€testified€she€tried€to€contact€the€man€who€purchased€the€stolenÐ Ì&"% Ðproperty,€and€she€provided€all€the€information€she€had€about€the€location€of€the€stolen€property.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€victim,€in€his€written€statement,€indicated€he€was€ð ðseverelyðð€depressed€and€in€greatÐ )à$( Ðâ âemotional€distress€as€a€result€of€the€offense.€€The€victimððs€mother€testified€the€victim€was€ð ðabsolutelyÐ |*Ì%) Ðan€emotional€wreck,ðð€had€to€seek€counseling,€did€not€leave€the€house€for€three€months€following€theÐ ° Ðoffense,€and€was€in€a€ð ðdeep,€deep€depression.ðð€€Ð œì Ðâ  €€€€€à  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ˆØ Ðà  àThe€record€indicates€the€defendant€made€misstatements€to€the€trial€court€regarding€hiring€anÐ tÄ Ðattorney.€€Further,€the€record€shows€the€defendant€failed€to€keep€her€appointment€or€make€contactÐ `° Ðwith€the€presentence€investigator€who€was€preparing€her€presentence€report.€€The€presentence€reportÐ L œ Ðquoted€the€defendant€as€saying€she€received€bad€advice€from€a€person€whom€the€defendant€declinedÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€identify.€€The€report€also€showed€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€misdemeanor€theft€in€April€2001.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€Ô‡XT!XXXT!Ôthe€trial€court€considered€the€appropriateÐ ü L  Ðsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€Therefore,€our€review€of€the€sentenceÐ è 8  Ðimposed€will€be€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€that€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€were€correct.€€WeÐ Ô$  Ðconclude€the€state€overcame€the€defendantððs€presumption€of€being€a€favorable€candidate€forÐ À  Ðalternative€sentencing€and€further€conclude€the€defendant€has€failed€to€meet€her€burden€of€showingÐ ¬ü  Ðher€sentence€was€improper.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€presented€through€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€at€the€sentencing€hearing,Ð pÀ Ðincluding€the€defendant,€and€the€information€contained€in€the€presentence€report€supported€the€trialÐ \¬ Ðcourtððs€€finding€that€incarceration€was€necessary€in€order€to€avoid€the€depreciation€of€the€seriousnessÐ H˜ Ðof€the€offense.€€Further,€the€trial€courtððs€implicit€consideration€of€enhancement€factor€(15),€theÐ 4„ Ðdefendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust,€òòsee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(15),€was€appropriate.€Ð  p ÐFinally,€the€trial€court€properly€considered€the€defendantððs€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€asÐ  \ Ðdemonstrated€by€her€misrepresentations€to€the€trial€court,€her€total€lack€of€credibility€with€the€trialÐ øH Ðcourt,€her€failure€to€cooperate€in€the€preparation€of€her€presentence€report,€and€her€broken€promisesÐ ä4 Ðto€restore€the€victimððs€property.€€Given€the€facts€contained€in€the€record,€we€cannot€conclude€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendantððs€sentence€is€improper.€€In€this€regard,€the€trial€court€was€in€a€much€better€position€thanÐ ¼  Ðthis€court€to€judge€the€defendant's€credibility€and€rehabilitation€prospects.€€We€affirm€the€judgmentÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€trial€court.Ô#†XT!XXXT!Y1#ÔÔ#†¼-»XXT! '#ÔòòóóÔ€XT!X»¼-ÔÐ ”ä ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________________€Ð D!” Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE