ÿWPC3 [ó wK8LBôd¹p?FÉî%C xî`"“ ꃺQ}#ª–nætt¾=ÎuWYŽ&‹•Ák½Í©Ñ”Ù+F½«6i{z¬ÈýQÿÏ<ä§ê3еJ^!% Ðthinking€that€he€would€kill€both€of€them,€and€then€the€defendant€fired€the€gun.€€She€could€not€sayÐ Ô&$"& Ðwhat€the€bullet€hit,€if€anything.€They€got€off€the€interstate€and€called€the€sheriffððs€department.€Ð º' #' ÐÌà  àDavid€Beard,€a€detective€with€the€Williamson€County€Sheriffððs€Department,€testified€that€heÐ †)Ö$) Ðwas€assigned€to€the€case€of€the€shooting€on€I„65€involving€the€victims€and€the€defendant.€€DetectiveÐ l*¼%* ÐBeard€searched€the€defendantððs€jeep€and€found€three€hand€guns,€a€.9mm€Rutger€semi„automatic,€aÐ R+¢&+ Ð380€semi„automatic€and€a€Colt€45€automatic€pistol.€€The€Colt€45€was€used€in€the€shooting€on€I„65.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐOn€January€29,€1999,€Detective€Beard€obtained€statements€from€the€defendant,€the€defendantððs€wife,Ð ° Ðthe€defendantððs€brother€and€the€defendantððs€employee,€all€of€whom€were€in€the€jeep€at€the€time€ofÐ –æ Ðthe€shooting.€€Detective€Beard€identified€a€tape€recording€and€transcription€of€the€defendantððsÐ |Ì Ðstatement€which€were€played€for€the€jury.€€In€his€statement,€the€defendant€related:Ð b² ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àHe€was€going€northbound€in€the€left€lane€on€I„65€at€about€70€mph€in€his€1993€Jeep.Ð . ~ ÐHis€wife€was€in€the€front€seat€and€his€brother,€Michael€Yancey€was€in€the€rear€withÐ  d Ðan€employee,€Will.€€A€car€in€front€of€him€was€going€slow€and€a€car€to€his€right€wasÐ ú J Ðgoing€slow.€€The€defendant€estimated€that€the€cars€were€going€about€58€to€64€mph.€Ð à 0 ÐThe€defendant€backed€off€and€blinked€his€lights€so€the€car€in€front€would€pull€over.€Ð Æ   ÐInstead€the€driver€of€the€car€slammed€on€his€brakes€hard€and€the€defendant€slammedÐ ¬ ü  Ðhis€brakes.€€The€defendant€pulled€into€the€right€lane€and€while€parallel€with€the€car,Ð ’â  Ðthe€driver€flipped€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€got€a€camera€from€the€console€andÐ xÈ  Ðattempted€to€take€some€pictures€of€the€car,€so€he€could€show€the€police€about€this€carÐ ^®  Ðdriving€so€slow.€€The€defendant€believed€it€was€a€man€driving€the€car,€but€could€seeÐ D”  Ða€female€on€the€passenger€side.€€The€defendant€stated€that€he€got€his€Colt€1911€45Ð *z  Ðauto,€rolled€the€window€down€and€jacked€a€shell€into€the€chamber.€€Also,€he€knewÐ ` Ðthat€there€were€no€homes€on€the€other€side€of€the€interstate.Ô#†¼UP»XX/Ìe#ÔÔ‡X/ÌX»¼UPÔÔ#†X/ÌXXX/̧#ÔÔ‡X/ÌXXX/ÌÔ€€While€even€with€theÐ öF Ðtrunk€of€the€car,€the€defendant€fired€one€shot€across€the€trunk€of€the€car,€and€acrossÐ Ü, Ðthe€interstate€toward€the€mountain.€€The€defendant€stated€that€he€did€it€to€scare€theÐ Â Ðdriver,€but€he€had€no€intent€to€strike€the€car.€€Evidently,€the€driver€heard€the€shot€asÐ ¨ø Ðhe€pulled€off€the€interstate€at€the€Franklin/Murfreesboro€exit.€€The€defendantÐ ŽÞ Ðconcluded€the€statement€by€saying€he€was€very€sorry,€he€had€a€baby€coming.€ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌÓ  Óò òÔ% € ÔSENTENCING€HEARINGÐ @ ÐÌÔ_Ôó óÓ  ÓÔ_Ôà  àOn€November€24,€1999,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing€and€a€request€for€fullÐ  \ Ðprobation.€€The€pre„sentence€report€was€introduced€as€an€exhibit€and€the€defendant€agreed€to€itsÐ òB Ðcontents.€€Also,€a€letter€from€the€defendantððs€supervisor€in€Illinois€was€admitted€as€an€exhibit.€Ð Ø( ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àMs.€Teresa€Lovett€testified€that€she€is€presently€employed€at€the€Cumberland€Nursing€HomeÐ ¤ô Ðin€Nashville,€Tennessee.€€She€has€a€six„month€old€son€and€at€the€time€of€the€incident,€she€was€fourÐ Š Ú Ð(4)€months€pregnant.€€Ms.€Lovett€was€upset€that€the€defendant,€even€in€court,€had€never€apologizedÐ p!À  Ðfor€his€actions,€and€she€felt€that€he€certainly€needed€to€do€so.€€Ô% € ÔShe€stated€that€she€is€paranoid€aboutÐ V"¦! Ðdriving€on€I„65€and€has€moved€from€Maury€County€because€the€defendant€still€lives€in€that€county.€Ð <#Œ" ÐMs.€Lovett€stated€that€she€believes€the€defendant€should€do€some€jail€time€for€the€stupid€thing€he€didÐ "$r# Ðon€I„65.€Ð %X $ ÐÌà  àMs.€Sandra€Martin€testified€that€since€the€incident€she€is€very€scared€about€driving€on€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðinterstate€and€is€paranoid.€€She€never€thought€that€anything€like€that€would€happen€on€a€highway.Ð º' #' ÐLike€Ms.€Lovett,€Ms.€Martin€believes€the€defendant€should€do€some€jail€time€and€should€apologizeÐ  (ð#( Ðfor€what€he€has€done.€€Ms.€Martin€believes€that€the€defendantððs€temper€got€the€best€of€him.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌà  àOn€behalf€of€the€defendant,€Ed€R.€Hurt,€a€mental€health€therapist,€testified€that€he€first€sawÐ R+¢&+ Ðthe€defendant€in€March,€1999.€€The€defendant€was€stressed€over€the€incident,€suffered€headaches,€Ð 8,ˆ', Ðloss€of€appetite,€loss€of€sleep,€and€suffered€from€intense€anxiety.€€Mr.€Hurt€saw€the€defendant€on€fiveÐ ° Ðoccasions,€in€which€he€taught€the€defendant€certain€techniques€in€anger€management€to€help€him€dealÐ –æ Ðwith€stress€and€handle€confrontational€situations.€€Mr.€Hurt€was€aware€that€the€defendant€was€aÐ |Ì Ðhunter€and€owned€guns€and€believes€that€the€defendant€should€not€own€any€gunsÔ#†X/ÌXXX/Ì>)#ÔÔ‡X/ÌXXX/ÌÔÔ#†¼UP»XX/Ìü(#ÔÔ‡X/ÌX»¼UPÔ€in€the€future€dueÐ b² Ðto€his€anger€potentiality.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àMrs.€Melinda€Yancey,€wife€of€the€defendant,€testified€that€they€have€an€eight€month€oldÐ  d Ðchild,€who€underwent€surgery€at€the€age€of€five€months.€€She€works€for€her€husband€who€is€in€theÐ ú J Ðcabinet€installation€business,€and€takes€care€of€their€son.€€The€child€has€special€medical€needs€thatÐ à 0 Ðrequires€her€full„time€attention.€€She€stated€that€they€are€presently€working€in€the€Midwest€for€threeÐ Æ   Ðweeks€at€a€time.€€Their€home€in€Columbia,€Tennessee€is€presently€85€percent€complete€and€if€herÐ ¬ ü  Ðhusband€goes€to€jail,€she€could€not€meet€the€house€payments€or€their€apartment€rent.€€SheÐ ’â  Ðacknowledged€that€there€were€three€guns€in€the€vehicle,€one€of€which€belonged€to€her.€€They€keptÐ xÈ  Ðthe€guns€because€of€€the€large€amount€of€money€they€carried€to€pay€their€employees.€€Mrs.€YanceyÐ ^®  Ðagreed€that€the€victims€did€not€deserve€to€be€fired€at.€€She€was€not€aware€that€her€husband€pulled€theÐ D”  Ðgun€because€she€did€not€see€it.€€She€told€her€husband,€ð ðjust€pass€them,€they€are€endangering€ourÐ *z  Ðlives.ðð€Ð ` ÐÌà  àJerry€Yancey,€age€34,€testified€that€he€is€a€sub„contractor€for€Ô_ÔMillprideÔ_Ô€in€Illinois€installingÐ Ü, Ðcabinets.€€He€has€about€four€employees.€€He€stated€that€he€told€his€supervisor€about€the€incident€andÐ Â Ðis€still€working€for€the€company.€€Mr.€Yancey€corroborated€his€wifeððs€testimony€about€their€homeÐ ¨ø Ðand€financial€condition.€€He€stated€that€after€the€incident,€he€was€seen€by€Mr.€Hurt.€€The€defendantÐ ŽÞ Ðadmitted€having€problems€with€controlling€his€anger€because€of€his€stressful€job,€his€homeÐ tÄ Ðcompletion,€and€the€pending€birth€of€their€first€child.€€The€defendant€apologized€to€the€victims€forÐ Zª Ðhis€actions,€describing€them€as€wrong€and€stupid,€ð ðit€was€just€stress.ðð€€During€cross„examination,€theÐ @ Ðdefendant€admitted€that€he€did€not€want€to€go€to€jail.€€However,€if€he€had€been€the€victims,€as€wellÐ &v Ðas€his€family,€he€thought€that€the€individual€should€do€some€jail€time.€€The€defendant€believes€heÐ  \ Ðshould€not€do€any€jail€time€since€he€has€served€some€time€after€his€arrest.€Ð òB ÐÌà  àIn€its€sentencing€ruling,€the€trial€court€found€one€enhancement€factor,€(1)€the€defendant€hadÐ ¾ Ða€previous€record€of€criminal€conviction€or€behavior€in€addition€to€what€is€required€to€establish€theÐ ¤ô Ðappropriate€range,€applicable.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)(1997).€€The€trial€court€rejectedÐ Š Ú Ðthe€Stateððs€request€to€consider€enhancement€factors€(4),€(10),€and€(16).€€In€mitigation,€the€trial€courtÐ p!À  Ðfound€that€factor€(10)€was€applicable€in€that€the€defendant€cooperated€with€the€police€in€theÐ V"¦! Ðinvestigation€of€the€offense.€€However,€the€trial€court€rejected€mitigating€factors€(2),€(3),€and€(11).Ð <#Œ" ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113€(1997).€€The€trial€court€found€that€a€four€(4)€year€sentence€wasÐ "$r# Ðappropriate€for€the€offenses€of€aggravated€assault€and€considering€one€mitigation€factor,€the€trialÐ %X $ Ðcourt€reduced€the€sentences€to€three€and€one„half€(3„€ðð)€years.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððsÐ î%>!% Ðrequest€for€full€probation,€placing€the€defendant€on€probation€for€four€(4)€years,€with€certain€specialÐ Ô&$"& Ðconditions:€(1)€the€defendant€would€maintain€employment;€(2)€he€would€continue€anger€managementÐ º' #' Ðtreatment;€(3)€he€would€obtain€a€GED;€(4)€he€would€possess€no€weapons;€(5)€he€would€have€noÐ  (ð#( Ðcontact€with€the€victims;€and€(6)€he€would€serve€sixty€(60)€days,€day€for€day,€in€the€WilliamsonÐ †)Ö$) ÐCounty€Jail.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€sentences€be€served€concurrently.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌÓ  Óò òLEGAL€ANALYSISÐ 8,ˆ', Їó óà0 @ àò òPRE„TRIAL€DIVERSIONÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óó óà  àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ |Ì Ðdid€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€the€defendantððs€request€for€pre„trial€diversion.€€The€StateÐ b² Ðcontends€that:€(1)€the€defendant€has€waived€this€issue€for€failure€to€raise€this€matter€in€a€motion€forÐ H˜ Ða€new€trial,€as€required€in€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e)Ô#†¼UP»XX/̤5#ÔÔ‡X/ÌX»¼UPÔÔ#†X/ÌXXX/Ìb5#ÔÔ‡X/ÌXXX/ÌÔ;€and€(2)€the€trial€record€supports€the€trial€courtððsÐ . ~ Ðdecision€in€finding€that€the€District€Attorney€General€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€pre„trialÐ  d Ðdiversion.€Ð ú J ÐÌà  àWhether€the€denial€of€a€District€Attorney€Generalððs€pre„trial€diversion,€prior€to€and€after€a€Ð Æ   Ðtrial€on€the€merits,€should€be€raised€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€is€of€first€impression€in€this€state.€€WeÐ ¬ ü  Ðhold€that€the€defendant€is€not€required€to€present€this€issue€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€after€aÐ ’â  Ðconviction.€€Further,€the€defendant€complained€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€finding€that€theÐ xÈ  ÐDistrict€Attorney€General€abused€his€discretion€in€denying€pre„trial€diversion.€€We€believe€it€isÐ ^®  Ðnecessary€to€set€forth€the€factual€history€of€this€issue.€Ð D”  ÐÌà  àThe€record€established€that€the€defendant,€on€June€4,€1999,€filed€a€petition€for€certiorari€withÐ ` Ðthe€trial€court€requesting€that€the€trial€court€review€the€District€Attorney€Generalððs€denial€of€hisÐ öF Ðapplication€for€pre„trial€diversion.€€In€support€of€the€petition,€the€defendant€filed€a€copy€of€hisÐ Ü, Ðapplication€for€pre„trial€diversion€and€a€copy€of€the€District€Attorney€Generalððs€denial.€€In€his€denial,Ð Â Ðthe€District€Attorney€General€set€forth€five€grounds€for€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion:Ð ¨ø ÐÌÓ€ (¶Ù83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£jOÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTheÔ_Ô€circumstances€of€this€offense€does€not€favor€pre„trial€diversion.€€The€defendant,Ð tÄ Ðwhile€traveling€northbound€on€I„65,€placed€Ms.€Lovett,€Ms.€Martin,€and€north€andÐ Zª Ðsouthbound€traffic€in€grave€danger.€€A€weapon€being€fired€out€of€a€vehicle€that€isÐ @ Ðbeing€driven€on€the€interstate€is€a€recipe€for€horror€and€danger.€€The€defendantððsÐ &v Ðinitial€statement€made€no€mention€of€discharging€a€weapon,€but€he€just€took€a€coupleÐ  \ Ðof€pictures€with€a€camera.€€This€fact€coupled€with€the€fact€that€the€defendant€had€theÐ òB Ðpresence€of€mind€to€have€his€brother€throw€the€shell€casing€out€the€window€showsÐ Ø( Ðthe€defendant€immediately€knew€that€what€he€had€done€was€wrong€and€took€steps€toÐ ¾ Ðcover€it€up.€€The€defendant€did€not€stop€until€pulled€over€by€the€police.€€These€factsÐ ¤ô Ðshow€that€the€defendant€sustained€his€intent€to€violate€the€law€up€to€the€point€whereÐ Š Ú ÐDetective€Beard€confronted€him€with€the€true€facts€from€the€defendantððs€brother.€Ýƒ3£jO£OÝŒÐp!À ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌÓ€ (ÆÙ88ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àÝ‚3£ŠUÝÔ2ÆÙÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝDefendantððs€Social€History.€€The€defendant€is€married€to€his€second€wife€and€has€aÐ <#Œ" Ð15€year€old€daughter€that€lives€with€his€parents.€€The€defendant€is€self„employed€inÐ "$r# Ðan€apparently€successful€construction€business,€without€a€high€school€diploma€orÐ %X $ ÐGED.€€The€defendant€does€not€explain€why€his€15€year€old€child€lives€with€hisÐ î%>!% Ðparents.€Ýƒ3£ŠUãUÝŒÐÔ&$"&` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àà0 ` àAs€to€the€defendantððs€mental€health,€the€defendant€does€not€mention€how€long€he€hasÐ  (ð#( Ðbeen€attending€Cumberland€Associates€or€what€progress,€if€any,€has€been€made.Ð †)Ö$) ÐEither€the€sessions€were€and€are€a€monumental€failure€as€evidenced€by€this€incidentÐ l*¼%* Ðor€he€began€after€the€incident.€€This€leaves€this€Assistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ R+¢&+ Ðwithout€necessary€information€to€make€an€informed€decision.€€The€defendantððsÐ 8,ˆ', Ðfailure€to€explain€why€his€daughter€lives€with€his€parents€and€the€specifics€about€hisÐ ° Ðstress€control€indicate€the€defendant€does€not€wish€to€discuss€the€same.€Ð–æ` (#` (# ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àà0 ` àAs€to€question€#29,€the€defendant€listed€five€references€who€has€known€him€for€10Ð b² Ðyears,€and€were€aware€of€the€facts€of€this€case.€€Three€of€the€persons€who€wereÐ H˜ Ðcontacted€had€not€discussed€the€facts€with€the€defendant,€but€spoke€very€favorablyÐ . ~ Ðof€the€defendant.€€This€lack€of€discussion€with€these€references€indicates€that€theÐ  d Ðdefendant€does€not€want€to€take€responsibility€for€his€actions€and€failed€to€followÐ ú J Ðinstructions€on€his€application.€€Additional€evidence€that€the€defendant€refuses€toÐ à 0 Ðaccept€responsibility€for€his€actions€is€that€in€question€#46€the€defendant€refused€toÐ Æ   Ðgive€a€recitation€of€the€facts€and€instead€refers€to€his€statement€given€to€DetectiveÐ ¬ ü  ÐBeard.€€For€these€reasons,€the€defendantððs€social€history€is€considered€neutral.€Ð’â ` (#` (# ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌÓ€ (ÖÙ88ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àÝ‚3£`ÝÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝCriminal€History.€€The€defendant€indicated€that€he€was€convicted€of€reckless€drivingÐ ^®  Ðin€1996.€€However,€the€defendant€was€arrested€for€DUI.€€The€fact€that€the€defendantÐ D”  Ðchose€not€to€say€that€he€was€arrested€for€DUI€and€it€was€reduced€weighs€against€him.Ð *z  ÐThe€offense€is€very€recent€and€shows€that€the€defendant€has€been€the€beneficiary€ofÐ ` Ðleniency€in€the€recent€past€from€our€court€system.€€This€factor€is€neutral€at€best.€Ýƒ3£`x`ÝŒÐöF` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÓ€ "(æÙ88 ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£®cÝÔ2æÙÔ(Ú  Ú4Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝDefendantððs€Physical€and€Mental€Condition.€€The€defendantððs€application€states€hisÐ Â Ðmental€and€physical€condition€is€normal€and€that€the€defendant€has€never€beenÐ ¨ø Ðevaluated€for€psychological€abnormalities.€€However,€the€defendant€has€attendedÐ ŽÞ Ðstress€sessions.€€This€factor€played€no€significant€part€to€deny€the€defendantððs€requestÐ tÄ Ðfor€pre„trial€diversion.€Ýƒ3£®cçcÝŒÐZª` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌÓ€ $(öÙ88"ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àÝ‚3£gÝÔ2öÙÔ(Ú  Ú5Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝWhether€a€Pre„Trial€Diversion€Agreement€Would€Meet€the€Ends€of€Justice.€€Pre„trialÐ &v Ðdiversion€would€not€be€proper€in€this€case,€the€defendant€has€not€expounded€on€someÐ  \ Ðvery€important€areas€of€this€application.€€The€defendant€Ô_ÔhasÔ_Ô€been€arrested€for€DUIÐ òB Ðresulting€in€a€conviction€for€reckless€driving€in€1996.€€The€defendant€has€alreadyÐ Ø( Ðreceived€leniency€in€our€criminal€justice€system.€€The€defendant€initially€attemptedÐ ¾ Ðto€conceal€the€truth€about€this€incident€and€enlisted€his€wife€to€go€along€with€theÐ ¤ô Ðstory.€€It€was€not€until€Detective€Beard€confronted€the€defendant€with€the€truth€thatÐ Š Ú Ðhe€told€what€really€happened.€€This€evidence€sustains€an€intent€to€violate€the€law.€Ð p!À  ÐHis€actions€endangered€everyone€on€the€interstate.€Ýƒ3£g\gÝŒÐV"¦!` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àà0 ` àThe€defendant€does€not€state€in€his€application€his€involvement€in€the€case.€€Instead,Ð "$r# Ðhe€refers€to€the€statement€he€gave€Detective€Beard.€€This€indicates€he€has€refused€toÐ %X $ Ðaccept€full€responsibility€for€his€actions,€and,€thus€a€poor€candidate€for€pre„trialÐ î%>!% Ðdiversion.€€Additionally,€deterrence€may€be€considered€when€determining€whetherÐ Ô&$"& Ðpre„trial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€of€justice.€€Clearly,€this€is€a€situation€where€theÐ º' #' Ðnature€and€gravity€of€the€circumstances€and€the€great€interest€of€the€public€demandÐ  (ð#( Ðthat€this€type€of€activity€be€deterred.€€The€ends€of€justice€demands€this€application€beÐ †)Ö$) Ðdenied.€Ðl*¼%*` (#` (# Ðâ âÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÐ R+¢&+ Ðà  àOn€July€26,€1999,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€to€resolve€any€factual€dispute€betweenÐ ° Ðâ âthe€defendant€and€the€State€concerning€the€denial€of€the€application.€€In€essence,€the€defendantÐ –æ Ðcontends€that€he€was€available€to€answer€any€questions€by€the€District€Attorney€General€as€to€theÐ |Ì Ðmerits€of€this€application.€€However,€the€District€Attorney€General€did€not€respond.€€Further,€theÐ b² Ðdefendant€asserts€that€the€District€Attorney€Generalððs€response€is€inadequate€and€not€a€basis€for€aÐ H˜ Ðdenial€of€pre„trial€diversion.€€The€State€disagrees€citing€òòState€v.€Carr,€óó861€S.W.2d€850,€855€(Tenn.Ð . ~ ÐCrim.€App.€1993).€Ð  d ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€held:Ð à 0 ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àà0 ` àð ðI€do€not€find€evidence€that€the€State€has€grossly€or€patently€abused€its€discretion€inÐ ¬ ü  Ðthis€case€given€the€nature€of€this€case€and€the€facts€or€at€least€the€facts€that€have€beenÐ ’â  Ðreported€and€supported€by€your€clientððs€statement,€too,€Mr.€Colley.€€This€does€seemÐ xÈ  Ðto€be€a€case€where€the€circumstances€of€the€crime€and€the€need€for€deterrenceÐ ^®  Ðoutweigh€any€other€relative€factors€that€would€justify€pretrial€diversion.€€And€I€findÐ D”  Ðtherefore€that€the€State€has€not€abused€its€discretion€in€this€case€and€deny€the€motionÐ *z  Ðfor€certiorari€in€the€Ô_Ôcaseð8ðððÔ_ÔÐ`` (#` (# ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌà  à€First,€we€address€the€Stateððs€position€that€this€issue€is€waived€for€failure€to€raise€the€sameÐ Ü, Ðin€a€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e)Ô#†X/ÌXXX/ÌÈH#ÔÔ‡X/ÌXXX/ÌÔÔ#†¼UP»XX/̆H#ÔÔ‡X/ÌX»¼UPÔ€in€pertinent€part€states:Ð Â ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àà0 ` àProvided,€however,€that€in€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€for€reviewÐ ŽÞ Ðshall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€the€admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence,€juryÐ tÄ Ðinstructions€granted€or€refused,€misconduct€of€jurors,€parties€or€counsel,€or€otherÐ Zª Ðaction€committed€or€Ô_ÔoccurringÔ_Ô€during€the€trial€of€the€case,€or€other€ground€uponÐ @ Ðwhich€a€new€trial€is€sought,€unless€the€same€was€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€forÐ &v Ða€new€trial;€otherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived.€Ð \` (#` (# ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌà  àFurther,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€38,€Appeal€of€Denial€of€Pre„Trial€Diversion,€provides:€Ð Ø( ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà0  àà0` (#(#àA€defendant€who€seeks€and€is€denied€pre„trial€diversion€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„15„Ð ¤ô Ð105€shall€have€the€right€to€petition€for€a€writ€of€certiorari€to€the€trial€court€for€anÐ Š Ú Ðabuse€of€prosecutorial€discretion.€€If€the€trial€court€finds€that€the€prosecuting€attorneyÐ p!À  Ðhas€not€committed€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€failing€to€grant€pre„trial€diversion,€theÐ V"¦! Ðdefendant€may€pursue€an€interlocutory€appeal€pursuant€to€Ô_Ôeither€RuleÔ_Ô€9€or€Rule€10Ð <#Œ" Ðof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€In€the€event€that€the€defendant€doesÐ "$r# Ðnot€pursue€an€interlocutory€appeal,€the€defendant€shall€have€the€right€to€appeal€theÐ %X $ Ðdecision€of€the€trial€court€denying€the€petition€for€Ô_Ôwrit€of€certiorariÔ_Ô€pursuant€toÐ î%>!% ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€3(b)€following€Ô_Ôthe€entryÔ_Ô€of€the€final€judgmentÐ Ô&$"& Ðin€the€trial€court.€(1997).€Ðº' #'` (#` (# ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Vanderford,€óó980€S.W.2d€390€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€Ð †)Ö$) Ðâ âÐ l*¼%* Ðà  àThe€record€established€that€the€defendant,€upon€the€denial€by€the€trial€court,€filed€anÐ ° Ðinterlocutory€appeal€with€this€Court.€€On€October€19,€1999,€this€Court€denied€the€petitionerððsÐ –æ Ðapplication€for€extraordinary€appeal,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€10,€Ô_Ôholding:Ô_ÔÐ |Ì Ðâ âÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà0  àð ðshould€the€petitioner€be€convicted,€he€may€raise€the€issue€on€direct€appeal€pursuant€toÐ H˜ ÐT.R.A.P.€3(b).ððÐ. ~(#(# ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌà  àWe€disagree€with€the€State€that€a€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion€by€the€District€AttorneyÐ ú J ÐGeneral,€at€the€conclusion€of€a€trial,€necessitates€this€denial€be€raised€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€WeÐ à 0 Ðare€convinced,€from€the€clear€language€in€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€38€and€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(b),€that€aÐ Æ   Ðdefendant€may€raise€a€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion€without€alleging€the€same€issue€in€a€motion€forÐ ¬ ü  Ða€new€trial.€€We€fail€to€see€how€a€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion€by€a€District€Attorney€General€affectsÐ ’â  Ðtrial€action€or€conduct€resulting€in€trial€errors€as€contemplated€by€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(b).€Ð xÈ  ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€trial€courtððs€finding€the€District€Attorney€General€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÐ D”  Ðdenying€pre„trial€diversion,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€address€the€total€reasonsÐ *z  Ðoffered€by€the€State€in€denying€diversion.€Ð ` ÐÌà  àOne€who€is€statutorily€eligible€is€not€presumptively€entitled€to€diversion.€Ô_ÔòòóóÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€The€decisionÐ Ü, Ðwhether€to€grant€pre„trial€diversion€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€District€Attorney€General.€Ð  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(b)(3)€(Supp.€1999);€Ô_ÔòòState€v.€Pinkham,€óó955€S.W.2d€956€(Tenn.€1997);Ô#†¼UP»XX/ÌÌv#ÔÔ‡X/ÌX»¼UPÔÔ#†X/ÌXXX/ÌŠv#ÔÔ‡X/ÌXXX/ÌÔòòÐ ¨ø ÐStateÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHammersleyÔ_Ô,€óó650€S.W.2d€353,€355€(Tenn.€1983).€€However,€it€is€the€obligation€of€theÐ ŽÞ Ðdefendant€to€ð ðprovide€the€prosecuting€attorney€with€sufficient€background€information€and€data€toÐ tÄ Ðenable€that€officer€to€make€a€reasoned€decision€to€grant€or€deny€the€relief€sought.ðð€òò€State€v.€Ô_ÔHerronÔ_Ô,Ð Zª Ðóó767€S.W.2d€151,€156€(Tenn.€1989).€€Likewise,€the€defendant€must€ð ðprovide€a€prosecutor€with€asÐ @ Ðcomplete€an€application€as€circumstances€may€warrant.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔWinsettÔ_Ô,€óó882€S.W.2d€806,€810Ð &v Ð(Tenn.€1993).€€While€the€defendant€has€the€obligation€to€demonstrate€his€eligibility€and€suitabilityÐ  \ Ðfor€pre„trial€diversion,€the€prosecutor€has€specific€duties€and€responsibilities,Ô#†¼UP»XX/Ìè‡#ÔÔ‡X/ÌX»¼UPÔ€especially€when€theÐ òB ÐDistrict€Attorney€General€is€denying€the€application.€€In€òòState€v.€Curry,€óó988€S.W.2d€153,€157€(Tenn.Ð Ø( Ð1999),€the€Supreme€Court€set€forth€the€considerations€to€be€applied€by€the€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ ¾ Ðin€determining€suitability€for€pre„trial€diversion:Ð ¤ô ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà0  àWhen€deciding€whether€to€enter€into€a€memorandum€of€understanding€under€the€pre„trialÐ p!À  Ðdiversion€statute€a€prosecutor€should€focus€on€the€defendantððs€amenability€to€correction.€Ð V"¦! ÐAny€factors€which€tend€to€accurately€reflect€whether€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔaÔ_Ô€particular€defendant€will€or€will€notÐ <#Œ" Ðbecome€Ô_Ôa€repeatÔ_Ô€offender€should€be€considered.€€Such€factors€must,€of€course,€be€clearlyÐ "$r# Ðarticulable€and€stated€in€the€record€in€order€that€meaningful€appellate€review€may€be€had.Ð %X $ ÐAmong€the€factors€to€be€considered€in€addition€to€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€are€theÐ î%>!% Ðdefendantððs€criminal€record,€social€history,€the€physical€and€mental€condition€of€a€Ô_ÔdefendantÔ_ÔÐ Ô&$"& Ðwhere€appropriate,€and€the€likelihood€that€pre„trial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€of€justiceÐ º' #' Ðand€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.€Ð (ð#((#(# ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌCiting€òòState€v.€Patterson,€óó955€S.W.2d€at€959„60.€Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âÐ R+¢&+ Ðà  àOnce€the€District€Attorney€General€denies€pre„trial€diversion,€the€burden€shifts€to€theÐ ° Ðâ âdefendant€of€proving€that€the€District€Attorney€General€abused€its€discretion.€òò€State€v.€Ô_ÔWinsettÔ_Ô,€óó882Ð –æ ÐS.W.2d€806,€810€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrim.€App.€1993).Ô_Ô€€ð ðThe€record€must€show€an€absence€of€any€substantialÐ |Ì Ðevidence€to€support€the€refusal€of€the€District€Attorney€General€to€grant€Ô_Ôpre„Ô_Ôtrial€Ô_Ôdiversion.Ô_Ô€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ b² Ðv.€Houston,€óó900€S.W.2d€712,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Upon€a€writ€of€certiorari,€the€trial€courtÐ H˜ Ðmust€limit€its€consideration€to€the€evidence€which€was€before€the€prosecutors€and€to€the€reasonsÐ . ~ Ðgiven€by€the€prosecutor€in€denying€diversion.€òò€State€v.€Winsett,€óó882€S.W.2d€at€809.€€The€trial€courtÐ  d Ðmust€also€adhere€to€the€same€balancing€procedure€(as€is€imposed€upon€a€prosecutor),€which€must€beÐ ú J Ðfollowed€on€a€caseÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔÔ_Ôby„Ô_ÔÔ_ÔcaseÔ_Ô€basis.€òò€State€v.€Herron,€óó767€S.W.2d€at€156.€€The€trial€court€must€state€itsÐ à 0 Ðfindings€in€writing.€€òòId.€óó€A€denial€by€the€trial€court€is€reviewed€by€this€Court€as€to€whether€the€trialÐ Æ   Ðcourtððs€determination€is€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€òò€State€v.€Curry,€óó988€S.W.2dÐ ¬ ü  Ðat€158.€Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€the€District€Attorney€Generalððs€rejection€of€the€defendantððs€application,€theÐ ^®  ÐDistrict€Attorney€General€did€not€mention€or€refer€to€the€defendantððs€prospect€for€amenability€forÐ D”  ÐÔ_Ôcorrection,Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔnorÔ_Ô€did€the€trial€court€in€its€oral€ruling.€€However,€the€District€Attorney€General€did€referÐ *z  Ðto€the€other€factors€in€considering€an€application€for€pre„trial€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Curry,€óó988Ð ` ÐS.W.2d€at€157.€€The€focus€on€amenability€to€correction€is€not€an€exclusive€one,€though.€òò€State€v.Ð öF ÐCarr,€óó861€S.W.2d€850,€855€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€appropriate€case,€the€instances€of€the€crimeÐ Ü, Ðand€the€need€for€deterrence€may€outweigh€relevant€factors€and€justify€a€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion.€Ð  ÐòòId.€€óóð ðThe€circumstances€of€the€offense€and€the€need€for€deterrence€may€alone€justify€a€denial€ofÐ ¨ø Ðdiversion,€òòbut€only€if€all€of€the€relevant€factors€have€been€considered€as€well.ðð€óó€€òòState€v.€Curry,€óó988Ð ŽÞ ÐS.W.2d€at€158.€€(Emphasis€in€original).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€M.€Lane,€Jr.,€óóNo.€E1999„00615„CCA„R9„Ð tÄ ÐCD,€Ô_Ô2000€WL€709152,€at€*3€(Tenn.Ô_Ô€Crim.€App.€June€1,€2000).€€Since€the€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ Zª Ðand€the€trial€court€found€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€deterrence€as€a€valid€basis€for€denial€ofÐ @ Ðpre„trial€diversion,€we€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€their€conclusions€are€correct.€Ð &v ÐÌà  àOrdinarily,€the€review€of€these€facts€and€conclusions€of€law€may€be€determined€in€anÐ òB Ðinterlocutory€appeal,€but€in€this€case€the€defendant€proceeded€to€trial€on€the€merits€of€the€twoÐ Ø( Ðoffenses€of€aggravated€assault€and€reckless€endangerment€of€the€public€at€large.€€The€record€revealsÐ ¾ Ðthat€the€defendant€entered€pleas€of€guilty€to€reckless€endangerment,€in€counts€three€and€four,€whichÐ ¤ô Ðthe€trial€court€merged€with€the€aggravated€assault€verdicts.€€We,€as€well€as€the€trial€court,€have€theÐ Š Ú Ðbenefit€of€trial€testimony€to€determine€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses€and€its€affect€on€the€jury.Ð p!À  ÐWould€the€facts€adduced€at€trial€assist€this€Court€in€determining€whether€the€trial€court€was€correctÐ V"¦! Ðin€upholding€the€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion?Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà  àWe€find€this€case€analogous€to€a€similar€question€in€òòState€v.€Henning,€óó975€S.W.2d€290€(Tenn.Ð %X $ Ð1998).€€In€òòHenning,€óóthe€trial€court€commented€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€the€only€substantialÐ î%>!% Ðissue€raised€by€the€motion€to€suppress€was€the€sufficiency€of€the€search€warrant€affidavit.€€BecauseÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€sufficiency€of€a€search€warrant€affidavit€is€to€be€determined€from€the€allegations€contained€in€theÐ º' #' Ðaffidavit€alone,€the€State€offered€no€proof€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€The€defendant€testified€thatÐ  (ð#( Ðofficer€Caldwell€did€not€ð ðknock€and€announce,ðð€but€simply€ð ðbargedðð€into€his€home.€€At€trial,€theÐ †)Ö$) ÐState€offered€testimony€of€Officer€Caldwell€who€related€the€circumstances€of€the€defendantððs€arrestÐ l*¼%* Ðand€the€execution€of€the€search€warrant.€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ R+¢&+ Ðerred€by€considering€the€proof€offered€by€the€State€at€trial€when€evaluating€the€correctness€of€the€trialÐ 8,ˆ', Ðcourtððs€ruling€on€the€motion€to€suppress.€€According€to€the€defendant,€when€evaluating€a€trial€courtððsÐ ° Ðdenial€of€a€pre„trial€motion€to€suppress,€an€appellate€court€must€only€consider€the€evidence€that€wasÐ –æ Ðbefore€the€trial€court€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion.€€The€State€argues€that€an€appellate€court€may€andÐ |Ì Ðshould€consider€the€entire€record,€including€evidence€at€trial.€Ð b² ÐÌà  àThe€Supreme€Court€held:Ð . ~ ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àà0 ` àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€are€to€ð ðbe€construed€to€secure€the€just,Ð ú J Ðspeedy,€and€inexpensive€determination€of€every€proceeding€on€its€merits.ðð€€Rule€1,Ð à 0 ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€€To€that€end,€the€appellate€courts€of€this€State€are€authorized€toÐ Æ   Ðð ðgrant€relief€on€the€law€and€facts€to€which€the€party€is€entitled€or€the€proceedingÐ ¬ ü  Ðotherwise€Ô_Ôrequires....ððÔ_Ô€Rule€36(a),€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€€In€our€view,€these€rulesÐ ’â  Ðcontemplate€that€allegations€of€error€should€be€evaluated€in€light€Ô_ÔofÔ_Ô€the€entireÔ#†¼UP»XX/ÌŒ#Ô€Ô‡X/ÌX»¼UPÔrecord.Ð xÈ  ÐAccordingly,€we€hold€that€in€evaluating€the€correctness€of€Ô_ÔaÔ_Ô€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€Ô_ÔaÔ_ÔÐ †Ö  Ðpre„trial€motion€to€suppress,€appellate€courts€may€consider€the€proof€adduced€bothÐ l¼  Ðat€the€suppression€hearing€and€at€trial.€ÐR¢ ` (#` (# ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àà0 ` àOur€holding€with€regard€to€the€evidence€which€may€be€considered€by€an€appellateÐ n Ðcourt€does€not€modify€the€applicable€standard€of€review,€which€we€recently€clarifiedÐ T Ðin€òòState€v.€Odom,€óó928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€We€reiterate€that€an€appellateÐ ê: Ðcourt€should€uphold€a€trial€courtððs€decision€on€a€motion€to€suppress,€unless€theÐ Ð  Ðevidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€finding.€ð ðQuestions€of€credibility€ofÐ ¶ Ðwitnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€and€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔresolutionÔ_Ô€of€conflicts€in€theÐ œì Ðevidence€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€trial€Ô_ÔjudgeÔ_Ô€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòId.€€óóThe€partyÐ ‚Ò Ðprevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence,Ð h¸ Ðas€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€theÐ Nž Ðevidence.€€òòId.€€óóUpon€consideration€of€the€entire€record€in€this€case,€we€conclude€forÐ 4„ Ðthe€reasons€that€follow,€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÐ j Ðcourtððs€denial€of€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.€ÐP` (#` (# ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌòòState€v.€Henning,€óó975€S.W.2d€at€299.€Ð Ì ÐÌà  àWe€hold€that€in€evaluating€the€correctness€of€a€trial€courtððs€finding€in€a€writ€of€certiorari,€inÐ ˜!è  Ðwhich€the€District€Attorney€General€has€denied€pre„trial€Ô_Ôdiversion,Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔappellateÔ_Ô€courts€may€consider€theÐ ~"Î! Ðproof€adduced€at€both€the€hearing€on€the€writ€of€certiorari€and€at€trial.€€Upon€consideration€of€theÐ d#´" Ðentire€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€denialÐ J$š# Ðof€the€defendantððs€writ€of€certiorari.€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€facts€in€this€case€wouldÐ 0%€ $ Ðsupport€a€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion.€The€defendant,€while€proceeding€northbound€on€an€interstate,Ð &f!% Ðbecomes€frustrated€with€the€actions€of€the€victim€driving€slow€in€the€left€lane.€€The€testimony€at€Ô_ÔtrialÔ_ÔÐ ü&L"& Ðwould€establish€that€the€speed€of€both€vehicles€was€65€to€70€mph.€€The€defendant€attempts€to€takeÐ â'2#' Ðphotographs€of€the€car€he€claims€deliberately€blocks€his€attempt€to€pass.€€Mutual€gestures€areÐ È($( Ðexchanged€between€the€drivers.€€There€are€indications€in€the€proof€that€the€defendant€had€theÐ ®)þ$) Ðopportunity€to€pass€this€vehicle€and€avoid€the€incident.€€However,€the€defendant€obtained€his€ColtÐ ”*ä%* Ð.45€automatic,€ð ðjacked€a€shell,ðð€and€fired€across€the€trunk€of€the€victimððs€car€to€scare€the€occupants.€Ð z+Ê&+ ÐThe€bullet€proceeded€across€the€southbound€lanes€and€into€a€wooded€section€of€I„65.€€Both€womenÐ ° Ðin€the€victimððs€car€became€very€frightened,€€pulled€off€the€interstate,€and€called€911.€€The€proofÐ –æ Ðreveals€that€the€driver€of€the€victimððs€car€was€four€months€pregnant€and€that€the€defendantððs€wife€wasÐ |Ì Ðeight€months€pregnant.€Ð b² ÐÌà  àAlthough€not€adduced€at€trial,€the€record€established€that€the€defendant€had€his€brother,Ð . ~ ÐMichael€Yancey,€throw€the€ejected€shell€casing€out€the€jeepððs€window.€€This€gave€some€credenceÐ  d Ðto€the€Stateððs€concern€that€the€defendant€was€avoiding€responsibility€for€this€offense.€Ð ú J ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court,€as€well€as€the€District€Attorney€General,€€that€the€facts€in€thisÐ Æ   Ðcase€are€very€serious.€€The€operation€of€vehicles€at€high€speeds,€the€firing€of€a€pistol€in€extreme€angerÐ ¬ ü  Ðor€frustration,€the€potential€for€the€loss€of€human€Ô_ÔlifeÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô,Ô_Ô€and€some€avoidance€of€responsibility€by€theÐ ’â  Ðdefendant€until€confronted€with€the€true€facts€Ô_ÔindicateÔ_Ô€that€this€incident€was€a€classic€example€ofÐ xÈ  Ðð ðroad€rage.ðð€€The€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€District€Attorney€General€did€notÐ ^®  Ðabuse€its€discretion€in€denying€pre„trial€diversion.€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.€Ð D”  ÐÔ#†¼UP»XX/Ìê¬#ÔÌÓ  Óò òÔ‡X/ÌX»¼UPÔFULL€PROBATIONÐ 8ˆ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€him€full€probation€solely€upon€theÐ T Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense.€€The€imposition€of€a€sixty€(60)€day€period€of€confinement€is€notÐ ê: Ðwarranted.€€The€State€contends€that€the€record€supports€the€sentence€imposed.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àA€defendant€is€eligible€for€probation€if€the€sentence€to€be€imposed€is€eight€(8)€years€or€lessÐ œì Ðand€the€trial€court€is€required€to€consider€probation€as€an€alternative.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð ‚Ò Ð303(a)„(b)€(1997).€€However,€even€if€the€probation€must€be€considered,€ð ðthe€defendant€is€notÐ h¸ Ðautomatically€entitled€to€probation€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hartely,€óó818€S.W.2d€370,€373€(Tenn.Ð Nž ÐCrim.€App.€1991).€€A€defendant€seeking€full€probation€bears€the€burden,€on€appeal,€of€showing€thatÐ 4„ Ðthe€sentence€imposed€is€improper€and€that€full€probation€will€be€in€both€the€best€interest€of€theÐ j Ðdefendant€and€the€public.€òò€State€v.€Bingham,€óó910€S.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€WhenÐ P Ðconsidering€a€defendantððs€suitability€for€probation,€the€trial€court€considers€the€following€factors:€(1)Ð æ6 Ðthe€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(2)€the€defendantððs€potential€or€lackÐ Ì Ðof€potential€for€rehabilitation,€including€the€risk€Ô_ÔthatÔ_Ô€during€the€period€of€probation,€the€defendantÐ ²  Ðwill€commit€another€crime;€(3)€whether€a€sentence€of€full€probation€would€unduly€depreciate€theÐ ˜!è  Ðseriousness€of€the€offense;€and€(4)€whether€a€Ô_ÔsentenceÔ_Ô€other€than€full€Ô_ÔprobationÔ_Ô€would€provide€anÐ ~"Î! Ðeffective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(4),Ð d#´" Ð40„35„103(5),€40„35Ô_Ô„103(1)(B)Ô_Ô€(1997€&€Supp.€1998);€òòState€v.€Baker,€óó966€S.W.2d€429,€434€(Tenn.Ð J$š# ÐCrim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Bingham,€óó910€S.W.2d€at€456.€€Ð 0%€ $ ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€noted€that€the€defendant€was€a€self„employed€individual,Ð ü&L"& Ðmarried€with€an€eight„month€old€son€who€has€special€needs,€and€another€child,€age€16.€€The€trialÐ â'2#' Ðcourt€acknowledged€that€the€defendant€had€taken€personal€responsibility€for€his€actions,€that€he€wasÐ È($( Ðsorry,€apologetic,€remorseful,€and€did€recognize€the€stupidity€of€his€conduct.€€Also,€the€trial€courtÐ ®)þ$) Ðnoted€that€the€defendant€passed€a€drug€test€the€morning€of€the€hearing€and€was€amenable€toÐ ”*ä%* Ðrehabilitation.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€if€the€defendant€would€be€confined€for€a€lengthy€period€ofÐ z+Ê&+ Ðtime,€his€wife€and€son€would€endure€financial€hardships.€€However,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€wasÐ ° Ðshocked€by€the€defendantððs€conduct€and€that€it€could€not€totally€ignore€the€danger€of€the€defendantððsÐ –æ Ðconduct,€and€that€some€confinement€was€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÐ |Ì Ðoffense.€€The€trial€court€believed€it€was€necessary€to€send€a€message€to€society€that€a€person€couldÐ b² Ðnot€act€in€such€a€manner.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€three€and€one„half€(3„ðð)€years,€withÐ H˜ Ðfour€(4)€years€probation,€but€required€the€defendant€to€serve€sixty€(60)€days€of€continuousÐ . ~ Ðconfinement€in€the€Williamson€County€Jail.€Ð  d ÐÌà  à€In€order€to€deny€an€alternative€sentence,€which€includes€full€probation,€based€on€theÐ à 0 Ðseriousness€of€the€offense,€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B),€ð ðthe€circumstances€of€theÐ Æ   ÐÔ_Ôoffense,Ô_Ô€as€Ô_Ôcommitted,Ô_Ô€Ô_Ô[must€be]Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€especially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensive,Ð ¬ ü  Ðor€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree,€and€the€Ô_Ônature€of€the€offenseÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔoutweighsÔ_Ô€allÐ ’â  Ðfactors€favoring€a€sentence€other€than€confinement.ðð€òò€State€v.€Bingham,€óó910€S.W.2d€at€455.€Ð xÈ  ÐÔ_ÔAlthough,Ô_Ô€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€may€not€be€sufficient€in€themselves€to€deny€an€alternativeÐ ^®  Ðsentence,€the€facts€may€still€be€sufficient€to€deny€full€probation.€€òòId.€óóÐ D”  ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€facts€in€the€present€case€are€sufficient€for€the€trial€court€to€deny€fullÐ ` Ðprobation€and€that€the€defendant€has€not€met€his€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€full€probation.Ð öF ÐThere€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.€Ð Ü, ÐÌÔ#†¼UP»XX/Ì|Â#Ôà  àÔ‡X/ÌX»¼UPÔThe€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.€Ô#†¼UP»XX/Ì@×#ÔÐ ¨ø ÐÔ_ÔÔ#†¼UP»»¼UP*ˆ#ÔÔ€X/ÌX»¼UPÔÔ_ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð &v Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àL.€TERRY€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGE