ÿWPCç ô\ٲ䙬1u{û0¥ûDIbK¾HƒˆÚzé6B–Ï­…?Z8bùAËQÒ›'ŸLvIˆ] }tPmŒç<¾ú FÏ• „9˜g·N†M}‘v‚zŠ’§îm´»‚pë`Rë%CA:H+¤™Ãc $³Âw¨)û°·7©[Ð÷ø¼ ˜wâLÛÿ6¾ BëG]¡`>îr߬¯Ö*=>Ï粊¼¬+{5 #¦5Lø ÒAÁ·$¯b²eРßã3©Ë÷ ‰gÄWòFæ^!È*Ä"à™h±)ˆ,á½lØøbîß´6¬2¨6EäHåN&ÎÔèr:äËvçƒQpíU Yæ-QWÀÓ¹?2”¿Òþ:Ò¢céÕÌØ؃ï÷Pðö„ªçÒ€ï[à»bK£ZÒ‚òØ«¶3†Úî¹íñ9î¤Ñ³ î„¡õ$B/}ÒÍRä-Oñø¬s?¬d­‹KQ¼i?a·mCsó™sê&ûóÒÆThÌ@P='Ê"/õ‹R{ s=„ò&¬ýŠzO´ºÓÇò:õÄ3 ºWÇéÊÎZÉ[¡b %\U@b 0ˆ¢U N*^ x 0D„wÈ zÌÒF 4 , ; m= ÆT Æ Æà Ʀ #Ál N-/h7EŸŸí¡UNŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽbÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ 0ëääää BÏÏ 0¤ì D3 D-à 0Kðð AS;ÆŽ 0¤T 0Dø A«<»(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular©+â (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptYo†)1'¯¡ œ3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0  ^Ý ƒRõÝ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔDefendant€spells€his€last€name€ð ðÔ_ÔWoollsÔ_Ô;ðð€however,€we€utilize€ð ðWoolsðð€since€it€is€our€policy€to€follow€theÐ ° Ðspelling€in€the€charging€instrument.€€ ãÝ ƒRõÝ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔDefendantÔ_Ô€in€his€brief€on€this€issue€alleges€that€ð ðit€is€impossible€for€this€court€to€determine€whether€the€trialÐ ° Ðjudge€convicted€the€defendant€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„202(a)(2)€[relating€to€food,€water€and€care]€or€Tenn.€CodeÐ tÄ ÐAnn.€ðð€39„14„202(a)(4)€[relating€to€confinement€of€an€animal€in€a€cruel€manner].ðð€€We€consider€this€outside€the€issueÐ 8ˆ Ðframed€for€our€review.€€Nevertheless,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€the€merits€of€this€issue.€Ð üL Ð(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G2õÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨­ò»»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_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€L9XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»¼Ôà@ttìàÔ‡îÊåÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼»îîÊå;#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€July€11,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XL9X»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XXL93#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€RICHARD€WOOLSÔ‡XL9X»¼Ôó ó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Ô_ÔHaywoodÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€4308€€€€€€Mark€Agee,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„01979„CCA„R3„CD€€„€Filed€August€16,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDefendant€appeals€his€conviction€at€a€bench€trial€for€the€offense€of€cruelty€to€animals.€€The€trial€courtÐ xÈ  Ðsentenced€him€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€with€all€but€ten€days€suspended.€€He€raises€theÐ d´ Ðfollowing€issues€for€our€review:€€(1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction;Ð P  Ð(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€evidence€outside€the€facts€alleged€in€the€chargingÐ <Œ Ðinstrument;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€three€witnesses€to€give€opinion€testimony;Ð (x Ðand€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suspend€the€entire€sentence.€€We€affirm€theÐ d Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð P ÐÓ3ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼»àXL9¢#ÔÔ‡XL9X.¼ÔJoe€G.€Riley,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòAlan€E.€Glennóó,Ð ° ÐJJ.,€joined.€€Ð œì ÐÌDavid€M.€Ô_ÔLivingstonÔ_Ô,€Brownsville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Richard€Wools.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€J.€Ross€Dyer,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð L œ ÐÔ_ÔClayburnÔ_Ô€L.€Ô_ÔPeeplesÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Edward€L.€Ô_ÔHardisterÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ 8!ˆ  ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð $"t! ÐÌÌÓÆÓò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»XXL9õ#ÔÔ‡XL9X»¼ÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼»XXL9 #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XL9X»¼Ôà  àDefendant€was€originally€tried€in€the€General€Sessions€Court€pursuant€to€an€arrest€warrant.€Ð À&"& ÐAfter€conviction,€he€appealed€to€the€Criminal€Court€where,€again,€he€was€convicted€at€a€bench€trial.€Ð ¬'ü"' ÐHe€duly€perfected€an€appeal€to€this€court.€€Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌÐ p*À%*ýC ÐÔ_Ôà@¥¥(ìàò òFACTSó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àSeveral€witnesses€testified€for€the€state€concerning€the€conditions€observed€at€the€defendantððsÐ ˆØ Ðresidence.€€There€was€no€material€conflict€in€their€testimony,€and€we€will€summarize€the€testimonyÐ tÄ Ðin€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state.€€The€defendant€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àOn€June€24,€1999,€a€Department€of€Human€Services€worker€along€with€several€lawÐ 8 ˆ Ðenforcement€officers€went€to€defendantððs€Haywood€County€residence€to€investigate€a€complaintÐ $ t Ðabout€the€condition€of€the€premises.€€Only€the€defendantððs€sixteen„year„old€son€was€present.€€UponÐ  ` Ðentry,€they€found€the€condition€of€the€premises€to€be€filthy€and€deplorable.€€Clothes,€garbage,€animalÐ ü L  Ðfeces€and€animal€urine€were€all€over€the€floor€in€various€parts€of€the€residence.€€Plates€with€dried,Ð è 8  Ðmolded€food€on€them€were€also€found€in€various€parts€of€the€residence.€€It€was€apparent€to€thoseÐ Ô$  Ðpresent€that€these€conditions€had€existed€for€a€substantial€period€of€time.€€Much€of€the€animal€fecesÐ À  Ðwas€ð ðstarting€to€dry€outðð€and€was€ð ðcaked€to€the€floor.ðð€€The€condition€and€odor€in€the€residence€wereÐ ¬ü  Ðso€putrid€that€at€least€two€officers€became€ill€and€left€the€premises.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àNumerous€dogs€were€found€inside€the€residence.€€One€dog€was€chained€to€a€piano€leg€withÐ pÀ Ða€chain€so€short€he€could€not€stand.€€There€was€no€food€or€water€available€to€him.€€Another€dog€wasÐ \¬ Ðfound€chained€to€a€board€in€the€wall€with€a€foot„long€chain.€€He€had€no€food€or€water€available€toÐ H˜ Ðhim.€€Several€other€dogs€were€found€in€a€room€filled€with€animal€feces€and€urine.€€Furthermore,Ð 4„ Ðmany€of€these€dogs€had€feces€and€urine€on€them.€€There€were€several€kittens€in€a€cage€with€ð ðcatÐ  p Ðwaste€all€in€the€cage.ðð€€Again,€no€food€or€water€was€available€to€the€kittens.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€next€day€the€defendant€admitted€to€the€Department€of€Human€Services€worker€that€heÐ ä4 Ðresided€in€the€premises€and€ð ðhad€been€in€Memphis€related€to€workðð€the€previous€day.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àTwo€of€the€dogs€were€examined€by€a€veterinarian€the€day€after€the€discovery.€€One€was€foundÐ ¨ø Ðto€have€ear€mites€and€lesions€on€the€back€of€both€ears.€€His€weight€was€in€the€low€normal€range,€andÐ ”ä Ðother€aspects€of€the€physical€examination€appeared€to€be€normal.€€The€other€dog€was€modestlyÐ €Ð Ðunderweight€but€ð ðwas€covered€with€dried€body€fluids€believed€to€be€urine.ðð€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àBased€upon€this€proof,€the€trial€court€convicted€the€defendant€of€cruelty€to€animals.€€Ð D!” ÐÌÌà@Š Š ìàò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ $X" ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction€for€animalÐ à%0!$ Ðcruelty.€€We€respectfully€disagree.€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌò òA.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àIn€a€bench€trial,€the€verdict€of€the€trial€judge€is€entitled€to€the€same€weight€on€appeal€as€a€juryÐ |*Ì%) Ðverdict.€€òòState€v.€Holderóó,€15€S.W.3d€905,€911€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€A€finding€of€guilt€by€theÐ h+¸&* Ðtrial€court€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€factÐ ° Ðof€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€our€standard€ofÐ tÄ Ðreview€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€anyÐ `° Ðrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð L œ ÐòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560€(1979).€€QuestionsÐ 8 ˆ Ðconcerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence€as€well€asÐ $ t Ðall€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.Ð  ` ÐTuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€926,€932€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Nor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€re„evaluateÐ ü L  Ðthe€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitledÐ è 8  Ðto€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòId.óó€€Because€a€verdictÐ Ô$  Ðof€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€theÐ À  Ðaccused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÐ ¬ü  Ðverdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Ð ˜è  Ðò òó óà  àÌò òB.€€Cruelty€to€Animalsó óÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„202(a)(2)€provides€that€a€person€commits€the€offense€of€crueltyÐ H˜ Ðto€animals€when€he€ð ðintentionally€or€knowingly€.€.€.€[f]ails€unreasonably€to€provide€necessary€food,Ð 4„ Ðwater,€care€or€shelter€for€an€animal€in€the€personððs€custody.ðð€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àViewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€we€can€only€conclude€that€theÐ øH Ðevidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€guilty€finding.€€The€condition€of€the€premises€where€theÐ ä4 Ðanimals€were€kept€was€filthy€and€deplorable€with€animal€feces€and€urine€throughout€the€premises.€Ð Ð  ÐThe€animals€had€feces€and€urine€all€around€them€and€on€them.€€There€was€also€evidence€that€theyÐ ¼  Ðdid€not€have€food€and€water€available€to€them.€€The€affidavit€of€complaint€in€the€arrest€warrant,Ð ¨ø Ðwhich€is€the€charging€instrument€in€this€case,€specifically€alleged€that€the€cruelty€related€to€the€dogÐ ”ä Ðchained€to€the€piano,€the€dog€chained€to€the€wall,€and€the€kittens€in€the€cage.€€The€evidence€wasÐ €Ð Ðsufficient€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€conclude€that€the€defendant€unreasonably€failed€to€provide€theÐ l¼ Ðnecessary€food,€water€and€care€for€these€animals.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð X ¨ ÐÌÌà@Y Y ìàò òEVIDENCE€OUTSIDE€ALLEGATIONS€IN€WARRANTó óˆÐ #l! ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€testimony€relating€to€animals€notÐ ô$D # Ðmentioned€in€the€affidavit€of€complaint.€€The€affidavit€of€complaint€only€listed€the€two€chained€dogsÐ à%0!$ Ðand€the€kittens.€€This€issue€is€waived€since€the€defendant€has€failed€to€make€appropriate€referencesÐ Ì&"% Ðto€the€record.€€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b);€òòState€v.€Schalleróó,€975€S.W.2d€313,€318€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¸'#& Ðâ â1997);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7)€and€(g).€€Regardless,€we€conclude€that€the€questionedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðevidence€was€relevant€to€show€the€overall€condition€of€the€premises€and€the€defendantððs€treatmentÐ ° Ðof€the€animals€specifically€charged€in€the€affidavit€of€complaint.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌÌà@¹¹"ìàò òOPINION€TESTIMONYó óˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€two€witnesses€to€give€an€opinion€asÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€the€suitability€or€acceptability€of€the€premises€for€animal€habitation.€€He€further€contends€the€trialÐ $ t Ðcourt€erred€in€allowing€one€witness€to€give€an€opinion€as€to€ð ðwhether€the€condition€of€the€houseÐ  ` Ðwould€be€more€or€less€objectionable€if€the€animals€had€not€been€tied€or€caged.ðð€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àÔ‡XL9XXXL9ÔLay€witnesses€may€give€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€where€the€testimony€is€"(1)Ð Ô$  Ðrationally€based€on€the€perception€of€the€witness€and€(2)€helpful€to€a€clear€understanding€of€theÐ À  Ðwitness's€testimony€or€the€determination€of€a€fact€in€issue."€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€701(a).€The€testimony€isÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€objectionable€merely€because€it€embraces€an€ultimate€issue€before€the€trier€of€fact.€€Tenn.€R.Ð ˜è  ÐEvid.€704.€€However,€the€admission€of€lay€opinion€testimony€is€limited€to€those€situations€where€theÐ „Ô  Ðtrier€of€fact€could€not€readily€draw€its€own€conclusions€on€the€ultimate€issue,€without€the€aid€of€theÐ pÀ Ðwitness's€opinion€testimony.€òòBlackburn€v.€Murphyóó,€737€S.W.2d€529,€533€(Tenn.€1987).€€When€theÐ \¬ Ðadmission€or€exclusion€of€evidence€is€challenged€on€appeal,€it€is€reviewable€only€for€abuse€ofÐ H˜ Ðdiscretion.€òòState€v.€Grayóó,€960€S.W.2d€598,€606€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àTo€the€extent€that€the€two€witnesses€testified€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€about€the€suitabilityÐ  \ Ðof€the€premises€for€animal€habitation,€the€testimony€was€based€upon€their€perception€and€was€helpfulÐ øH Ðto€an€understanding€of€their€testimony.€€As€to€the€other€witness€who€testified€that€the€premises€wouldÐ ä4 Ðhave€been€worse€if€the€animals€had€not€been€confined,€the€trial€court€sustained€defendantððs€objection.€Ð Ð  ÐThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌÌà@WW%ìàò òSENTENCINGó óˆÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suspend€his€entire€sentence€and€requiringÐ X ¨ Ðhim€to€serve€ten€days€of€incarceration.€€Again,€we€disagree.€€Ð D!” ÐÌò òA.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óÐ #l! ÐÌÔ#†XL9XXXL9L.#Ôà  àMisdemeanor€sentencing€is€controlled€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302,€which€provides€inÐ ô$D # Ðpart€that€the€trial€court€shall€impose€a€specific€sentence€consistent€with€the€purposes€and€principlesÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€1989€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.Ð Ì&"% Ð1995).€€We€further€note€that€the€trial€court€has€more€flexibility€in€misdemeanor€sentencing€than€inÐ ° Ðfelony€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Troutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€271,€273€(Tenn.€1998).€€One€convicted€of€aÐ œì Ðmisdemeanor,€unlike€one€convicted€of€a€felony,€is€not€entitled€to€a€presumption€of€a€minimumÐ ˆØ Ðsentence.€€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€966€S.W.2d€429,€434€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Ô‡XL9XXXL9ÔÐ `° ÐÌÔ#†XL9XXXL9…9#Ôà  àThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€total€probation.€€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð932€S.W.2d€467,€477€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b).€€Even€thoughÐ $ t Ðprobation€must€be€automatically€considered,€ð ðthe€defendant€is€not€automatically€entitled€to€probationÐ  ` Ðas€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments;€òòState€v.Ð ü L  ÐHartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€A€defendant€seeking€full€probation€bearsÐ è 8  Ðthe€burden€on€appeal€of€showing€the€sentence€imposed€is€improper,€and€that€full€probation€will€beÐ Ô$  Ðin€the€best€interest€of€the€defendant€and€the€public.€€òòBakeróó,€966€S.W.2d€at€434.€€Ð À  ÐÌò òB.€€Analysisó óÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€defendantððs€testimony€at€his€sentencing€hearing€indicated€that€he€had€a€college€degree,Ð pÀ Ðhad€six€children€and€two€stepchildren,€and€was€presently€employed€in€the€computer€field.€Ð \¬ ÐPreviously,€he€had€experienced€trouble€in€keeping€approximately€twenty€horses€confined.€€AfterÐ H˜ Ðnumerous€complaints,€he€moved€the€horses€to€another€location€but€continued€to€have€the€sameÐ 4„ Ðproblem.€€He€appeared€before€the€general€sessions€court€and€was€convicted€of€ð ðallowing€my€horsesÐ  p Ðto€run€at€large.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€44„8„401.€€Defendant€also€had€driving€on€revoked€licenseÐ  \ Ðand€worthless€check€offenses,€both€of€which€were€dismissed€upon€payment€of€costs.€€Although€theÐ øH Ðdefendant€was€never€specifically€asked,€he€never€accepted€responsibility€or€expressed€remorseÐ ä4 Ðconcerning€the€present€offense.€€ò òó óÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€decline€to€disturb€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€The€defendant€has€failed€toÐ ¨ø Ðestablish€that€he€is€entitled€to€full€probation.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àBased€upon€our€examination€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌÔ‡XL9XXXL9ÔÌÔ#†XL9XXXL9ÕB#ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE