ÿWPCV, …# VU:a %› 0 (¡w@É4  0D, 0Jp 0Tº 0^ 0hl 0rÔ 0|F 0†Â 0H 1uØ 0dM U*± lÛ B)Gbp 0 §xDC Bb AMÌÏìì2Ø D3 é=Ò& 0@øª8«âÓ!v~`#vÓÞ$ AO±*Æ+ 0DÆ+ D/ , B9,˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ 7D8e9«:D;<D=>D?@Ó€·‚^! 0"+$3|xK(#Ã$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`(ArialAshbyS.W.2d N.W.N.W.2dN.E.2dRILEY% Line 7 d- ù-(W(2Êå$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ôÈàôXXÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 7Border 1dd d€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ùÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMarch€10,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ann€Lawson€was€a€co„defendant€in€this€case.€€She€was€convicted€but€did€not€appeal.Ì âÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„408€(1992).€€Vandalism€is€punished€under€the€provisions€forÏgrading€theft.€€Thus,€the€classification€for€an€act€of€vandalism€causing€damage€totaling€more€thanÏ$1,000€but€less€than€$10,000,€is€a€class€D€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„105(3)€(1992).Ì (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€applicable€range€of€punishment€was€two€to€four€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(4)€(1991).Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd ßÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€deterrence€factor€has€been€universally€viewed€as€a€legitimate€purpose€ofÏsentencing€in€criminal€cases.€€òòSeeóó€Miller,€òòPurposes€of€Sentencingóó,€66€So.€Cal.€L.€Rev.€43€(1992);ÏVon€Hirsch,€òòRecent€Trends€in€American€Criminal€Sentencing€Theoryóó,€42€Md.€L.€Rev.€6€(1983).€ÏOne€commentator€has€defined€general€deterrence€as€imposing€ð ðpunishment€as€a€symbolic€act€toÏcommunicate€the€threat€of€punishment€to€other€offenders.ðð€€Blumstein,€òòThe€Search€for€theÏElusive€Common€ð ðPrincipleððóó,€82€N.W.€L.€Rev.€43,€44€(1987).Ì ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€has€affirmed€judgments€in€which€an€order€of€restitutionÏaccompanied€a€custodial€sentence;€however,€the€propriety€of€such€a€sentence€was€not€raised€asÏan€issue€in€those€cases.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Anthony€Horneróó,€No.€01C01„9406„CC„00225€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€March€22,€1995,€Nashville);€òòState€v.€Andrew€Earlsóó,€No.€03C01„9202„CR„00052Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Dec.€16,€1992,€Knoxville);€òòState€v.€Pam€Wisemanóó,€No.€89„263„III€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€April€18,€1990,€Nashville).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€recognize€that,€effective€July€1,€1996,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c)(2)€wasÏamended€to€include€the€following€sentencing€alternative:€€ð ðPayment€of€restitution€to€the€victim€orÏvictims€either€alone€or€in€addition€to€any€other€sentence€authorized€by€this€subsection.ðð€€ThisÏstatutory€authorization€for€restitution€as€a€sentencing€alternative€was€not€available€at€the€time€of€theÏappellantððs€sentencing,€and€it€does€not,€therefore,€affect€our€holding€in€this€opinion.Ì ¡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€making€this€concession€in€its€supplemental€brief,€the€State€abandoned€the€argument,Ïwhich€it€had€raised€in€a€petition€to€rehear€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„20„116€authorized€restitution€in€this€case.€€This€statute€provides€in€part€that€ð ð[w]henever€aÏfelon€is€convicted€of€stealing€or€feloniously€taking€or€receiving€property,€or€defrauding€anotherÏthereof,€the€jury€shall€ascertain€the€value€of€such€property,€.€.€.€and€the€court€shall€.€.€.€order€theÏrestitution€of€the€property,€and,€in€case€this€cannot€be€done,€that€the€party€aggrieved€recover€theÏvalue€assessed€against€the€prisoner.€.€.€.ðð€€The€State€now€concedes€that€the€statute€does€notÏexpressly€apply€to€the€offense€of€vandalism.Ì ÉÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Two€states€provide€that€an€order€of€restitution€is€enforceable€during€imprisonment€if€aÏdefendant€has€sufficient€assets€to€pay€all€or€part€of€the€amount€ordered€at€the€time€of€sentencing.€ÏMiss.€Code€Ann.€ðð€99„37„5€(1995);€Or.€Rev.€Stat.€ðð€161.675(1)€(1995).ÌPtPtHHÚ(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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ€!ÑÑ7€7øXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&ÓÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€%&#A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Ìà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONóóó óÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àò òòòFiled:€€€March€10,€1997ó óóóÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€œHAWKINS›€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌœVs›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JAMES€E.€œBECKNER›,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JUDGEÌSHANNON€RENEEÏDAVIS,à àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€03„S„01„9603„CC„00023€ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòò òFor€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€Appelleeóó:ó óÌÌR.€Russell€Mattocksà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌMorristown,€Tennesseeà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€W.€CatalanoÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Berkeley€Bell,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Douglas€GodbeeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRogersville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€°Ôà0 àà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€XÔÌÌÌÌÌ€AFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€J.ÓÓÇÑ  Ñà àWe€granted€the€appeal€in€this€case€to€answer€a€question€of€firstÏimpression:€whether€the€trial€court€had€the€statutory€authority€to€order€theÏdefendant€to€pay€restitution€in€addition€to€ordering€a€sentence€of€incarcerationÏfor€the€offense€of€vandalism,€and€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdenying€the€defendant€probation.ÌÌà àAfter€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€vandalism,€the€trial€court€deniedÏprobation,€sentenced€the€defendant€to€serve€two€years€and€one€day,€andÏordered€the€payment€of€restitution€to€the€victim€of€$625.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€statutory€presumption€in€favor€of€probation€for€this€first€offense€wasÏovercome€by€the€evidence€that€confinement€was€necessary€to€avoidÏdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€to€provide€an€effective€deterrentÏto€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€the€trial€court€correctlyÏdenied€probation,€but€that€the€trial€court€lacked€the€statutory€authority€to€imposeÏrestitution€with€a€sentence€of€incarceration.€€€We€agree€and€affirm€for€theÏreasons€discussed€below.ÌÌà@ àò òòòBACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àIn€August€of€1992,€contract€negotiations€failed€between€Assured€Casting,Ïa€manufacturing€facility€in€Rogersville,€Tennessee,€and€its€labor€union.€€TheÍunion€voted€to€strike€and€established€a€picket€line.€€Some€workers,€including€theÏvictim€Regina€Kleeper,€decided€to€cross€the€picket€line€and€continue€working.€ÏOn€August€15,€1992,€when€Regina€Kleeper€crossed€the€picket€line,€theÏdefendant€Shannon€Davis€and€Ann€Lawson€told€her€that€ð ðthey€would€get€evenÏwith€[her]€one€way€or€the€other.ðð× ƒ' ××  ×ÌÌà àOn€September€3,€1992,€at€approximately€3:30€a.m.,€David€Ogle,€ReginaÏKleeperððs€neighbor,€was€on€his€front€porch€preparing€to€go€to€work.€€He€sawÏthree€individuals€ð ðmessing€aroundðð€with€an€automobile€belonging€to€ReginaÏKleeper€and€her€husband,€Ronald.€€Ogle€saw€the€individuals€throw€somethingÏon€the€car€and€he€heard€what€sounded€like€keys€hitting€the€concrete.€€€A€streetÏlight€gave€Ogle€a€clear€view€of€two€of€the€individuals€at€the€scene„„€ShannonÏDavis€and€Ann€Lawson.€€The€third€person€was€never€identified.€€ÌÌà àLater€that€morning€Ronald€Kleeper€noticed€a€ð ðsubstanceðð€on€their€car.€ÏWhen€he€attempted€to€wash€it€off,€he€discovered€that€the€substance€had€eatenÏthe€paint€down€to€the€base€metal.€€Later€in€the€day,€he€returned€home€andÏdiscovered€that€their€daughterððs€bedroom€window€had€been€broken€and€that€aÏquantity€of€roofing€nails€had€been€scattered€over€their€driveway.€€At€trial,€KleeperÍestimated€that€the€damage€to€the€car€and€the€bedroom€window€amounted€toÏ$1,200.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€and€Lawson€testified€that€they€were€working€the€picketÏline€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€Their€story€was€supported€by€several€fellowÏstrikers.€€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€jury€convicted€Shannon€Davis€of€vandalism,× ƒ( ××  ×€a€class€D€felonyÏand€recommended€that€she€pay€a€fine€of€$625€and€also€pay€restitution€to€theÏvictim€of€$625.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€theÏdefendant€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€two€years€and€one€day€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction,× ƒ) ××  ×€approved€the€amount€of€the€fine,€and€ordered€theÏpayment€of€$625€in€restitution.€€The€trial€court€denied€probation.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€denialÏof€probation€but€found€that€the€order€of€restitution€tied€to€a€sentence€ofÏincarceration€was€plain€error.€€We€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€whetherÍprobation€should€have€been€denied€and€whether€there€is€statutory€authority€toÏrequire€restitution€with€a€sentence€of€incarceration.ÌÌà@ àò òòòPROBATIONó óóóÌà àThe€task€of€an€appellate€court€when€reviewing€the€length,€range,€orÏmanner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€including€the€grant€or€denial€of€probation,€is€toÏconduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€lower€court€was€correct.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)(1990).€€This€presumption€is€conditioned€ð ðuponÏthe€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌà àWe€analyze€the€trial€courtððs€action€on€probation€by€first€reviewing€theÏfactors€the€trial€court€must€consider€in€imposing€a€sentence.€€A€trial€court€mustÏconsider€the€evidence€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€theÏpresentence€report,€the€principles€of€sentencing,€argument€of€counsel,€theÏnature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense,€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors,Ïstatements€made€by€the€defendant,€and€the€defendantððs€potential€forÏrehabilitation.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€must€consider€the€sentencing€purposesÏand€considerations€set€forth€in€the€Sentencing€Act.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102,€„103,€&€„210€(1990).ÌÌà àAlthough€probation€ð ðmust€be€automatically€considered€as€a€sentencingÏoption€for€eligible€defendants,€the€defendant€is€not€automatically€entitled€toÏprobation€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€(1990)Ï(Sentencing€Commission€Comments).€€Instead,€the€court€must€begin€itsÏsentencing€determination€by€reviewing€the€purposes€of€sentencing€set€forth€inÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102,€which€include:€ÌÓÓÌà8 à(5)€In€recognition€that€state€prison€capacities€and€the€funds€to€buildÏand€maintain€them€are€limited,€convicted€felons€committing€theÏmost€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminal€histories€evincing€aÏclear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincingÏfailure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priorityÏregarding€sentencing€involving€incarceration;€and€ÌÌà8 à(6)€A€defendant€who€does€not€fall€within€the€parameters€ofÏsubdivision€(5)€and€is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offenderÏconvicted€of€a€class€C,€D€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorableÏcandidate€for€alternative€sentencing€òòin€the€absence€of€evidence€toÏthe€contraryóó.ÌÌÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5)€&€(6)(emphasis€added).€€As€we€discussed€inÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€òòsupraóó,€ð ðevidence€to€the€contraryðð€may€be€found€in€applying€theÏconsiderations€that€govern€sentences€involving€confinement,€which€are€set€forthÏin€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1):ÌÓÓÌà8 à(A)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€aÏdefendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;ÌÌà8 à(B)€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€toÍprovide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similarÏoffenses;€orÌÌà8 à(C)€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€orÏrecently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.ÌÌÌòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.ÌÌÌÓÓà àHere,€the€trial€court€reviewed€the€purposes€and€considerations€set€forth€inÏthese€statutory€provisions.€€The€defendant,€as€a€class€D€felon,€was€entitled€to€theÏpresumption€of€alternative€sentencing€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€In€denying€probation,€however,€the€court€emphasized€that€confinementÏwas€necessary€ð ðto€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offenseðð€andÏnecessary€to€provide€an€ð ðeffective€deterrent€to€others€likely€to€commit€similarÏoffenses.ðð€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B).€ÌÌà àWhether€a€sentence€will€deter€others€likely€to€commit€similar€criminalÏoffenses€is€a€proper€sentencing€consideration€and€a€proper€basis€upon€which€toÏdeny€probation€or€alternative€sentencing.€€The€Sentencing€Act€clearly€states€thatÏð ð[p]unishment€shall€be€imposed€to€prevent€crime€and€promote€respect€for€theÏlaw€by€...€[p]roviding€a€general€deterrent€to€those€likely€to€violate€the€criminalÍlaws€of€this€state.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(3)(A).× ƒ+ ××  ×€ÌÌà àBecause€there€is€a€degree€of€deterrence€uniformly€present€in€every€case,Ïhowever,€the€significance€of€this€factor€ð ðvaries€widely€with€the€class€of€offenseÏand€the€facts€of€each€case.ðð€€òòState€v.€Michaelóó,€629€S.W.2d€13,€14„15€(Tenn.Ï1982).€€Thus,€a€ð ðfinding€of€deterrence€cannot€be€conclusory€only€but€must€beÏsupported€by€proof.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€170.€ÌÌà àThe€evidence€in€this€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€reliance€on€theÏdeterrence€factor.€€The€trial€judge€made€his€specific€findings€of€deterrence€in€theÏcontext€of€a€labor€dispute€in€the€community€which€had€escalated€into€criminalÏacts.€€€Specifically,€the€defendant€threatened€Regina€Kleeper€in€a€confrontationÏas€she€crossed€the€picket€line€and€then€later€committed€acts€of€vandalismÏagainst€her€in€the€early€morning€hours.€€Moreover,€the€record€indicates€that€atÏleast€one€individual€participating€in€the€offenses€went€unpunished.€€Accordingly,Ïthere€is€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€denyingÏprobation€was€necessary€to€deter€others€from€committing€similar€offenses.€€€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B).ÌÌà àMoreover,€while€the€acts€of€vandalism,€by€definition,€did€not€directlyÏinvolve€violence€to€another€person,€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findingÏthat€denying€probation€avoided€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B).€€€In€denying€probation€to€the€defendant,€theÏtrial€court€considered€the€appropriate€factors,€applied€the€purposes€andÏprinciples€of€sentencing,€and€complied€with€our€holding€in€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ïòòsupraóó.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denyingÏprobation.ÌÌà@ àò òòòRESTITUTIONó óóóÌ€à àThe€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€had€the€statutory€authority€to€orderÏrestitution€along€with€a€sentence€of€incarceration€is€a€question€of€first€impressionÏin€this€State.× ƒ, ××  ×€€Since€it€is€a€question€of€law,€our€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóówith€noÏpresumption€of€correctness.€€òòBeare€Co.€v.€Tenn.€Dept.€of€Revenueóó,€858€S.W.2dÏ906,€907€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àEncouraging€defendants€to€make€restitution€to€victims€where€appropriateÏis€one€of€the€purposes€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(3)(D).€€€With€regard€to€the€question€presented€inÏthis€case,€however,€we€observe€that€the€Sentencing€Act€authorizes€a€number€ofÏsentencing€alternatives,€including€a€fine,€confinement,€work€release,€probation,Ïand€community€based€alternatives;€but€with€respect€to€restitution,€it€onlyÏprovides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àÌà8 à(2)€A€sentence€of€confinement€òòwhich€is€suspended€upon€a€term€ofÏprobation€supervision€which€may€include€community€service€orÏrestitution,€or€bothóó;€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c)(2)(1990).€€Accordingly,€there€is€no€provisionÏexpressly€authorizing€confinement€in€the€Department€of€Correction€along€withÏan€order€of€restitution.× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà àMoreover,€two€other€statutes€are€more€relevant€and€specific.€€First,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„304(a)€provides€in€part€that€ð ða€sentencing€court€may€direct€aÏdefendant€to€make€restitution€to€the€victim€of€the€offense€as€a€òòcondition€ofÍprobationóó.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€Similarly,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„303(d)(10)›Ïprovides:ÌÓÓÌà8 à(d)€Whenever€a€court€sentences€an€offender€to€òòsupervisedÏprobationóó,€the€court€shall€specify€the€terms€of€the€supervision€andÏmay€require€the€offender€to€comply€with€certain€conditions€whichÏmay€include,€but€are€not€limited€to:ÌÌà8 àà àà àà àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 à(10)€Make€appropriate€and€reasonable€restitution€to€the€victim€orÏthe€family€of€the€victim€involved€pursuant€to€ðð€40„35„304.ÌÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„303(d)(10)(1990)(emphasis›€added).ÌÌà àThis€Courtððs€role€in€construing€these€statutes€is€to€determine€and€to€ð ðgiveÏeffect€to€the€legislatureððs€intent€without€unduly€restricting€or€expanding€aÏstatuteððs€coverage€beyond€its€intended€scope.ðð€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2dÏ923,€926€(Tenn.€1995).€€We€must€determine€the€legislative€intent€from€the€plainÏlanguage€of€the€statute€ð ðread€in€the€context€of€the€entire€statute,€without€anyÏforced€or€subtle€construction€which€would€extend€or€limit€its€meaning.ðð€€òòNationalÏGas€Distributors,€Inc.€v.€Stateóó,€804€S.W.2d€66,€67€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àAnother€aid€to€determination€of€legislative€intent€is€the€application€of€rulesÏof€statutory€construction,€one€of€which€provides:€€ð ð[I]t€is€a€rule€of€statutoryÏconstruction€that€.€.€.€the€mention€of€one€subject€in€a€statute€means€the€exclusionÍof€other€subjects€that€are€not€mentioned.ðð€€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,€81Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€To€illustrate,€restitution€is€regarded€as€a€condition€of€probation€inÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„304(a)€and€40„35„303(d)(10).€€It€follows€thatÏrestitution€may€properly€be€made€part€of€a€sentence€involving€probation€but€mayÏnot€be€tied€to€a€sentence€of€incarceration€because€incarceration€is€notÏmentioned€in€these€statutes.€€The€Legislatureððs€omission€of€a€reference€to€aÏsentence€of€confinement€in€these€provisions€is€therefore€deemed€intentionalÏand€significant.€€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€81.ÌÌà àMoreover,€this€interpretation€is€consistent€with€the€sentencing€alternativesÏauthorized€by€the€Legislature.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c).€€TheÏLegislature€expressly€authorized€a€sentence€of€restitution€as€part€of€a€term€ofÏsupervised€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c)(2).€€It€omitted€anyÏreference€to€a€sentence€involving€restitution€as€part€of€a€term€of€confinement.€€ÌÌà àIn€applying€these€rules€of€statutory€construction,€we€conclude€that€theÏLegislature€intended€to€limit€restitution€to€defendants€placed€on€probation.€ÏòòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€82.€€This€Court€cannot€affirm€a€sentence€that€isÏnot€expressly€authorized€by€the€Legislature.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c).€€Because€there€was€no€other€authority€under€which€courts€may€imposeÏrestitution€as€part€of€a€custodial€sentence,€we€must€conclude,€as€the€State€ofÍTennessee€concedes,× ƒ/ ××  ×€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€the€authority€to€imposeÏrestitution€in€this€case.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€a€number€of€other€jurisdictions€agree€that€the€limits€ofÏpunishment€are€set€by€the€Legislature€and€that€no€punishment€may€be€imposedÏwithout€statutory€authority.€€òòGarski€v.€Stateóó,€248€N.W.2d€425€(Wis.€1977);€òòseeóóÏòòalsoóó€òò€People€v.€Ondreyóó,€335€N.E.2d€531€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1975);€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€384ÏA.2d€199€(N.J.€Super.€Ct.€1978);€òòSpannuth€v.€Stateóó,€234€N.W.2d€79€(Wis.€1975).€ÏThese€decisions€stand€for€the€proposition€that€sentencing€courts€are€notÏpermitted€to€exceed€the€penalty€specifically€set€forth€by€the€legislature€byÏimposing€additional€conditions€such€as€restitution.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€As€the€Wisconsin€SupremeÏCourt€said€in€òòSpannuthóó,€ÌÓÓÌà8 àNo€statute€[]€allows€the€trial€court€to€impose€any€other€conditions,Ïno€matter€how€ððreasonable€and€appropriateðð€they€appear,€whenÏthe€statutory€penalty€rather€than€probation€is€chosen.€€The€evidentÏpurpose€of€the€legislature€is€that€each€defined€crime€would€have€aÍproscribed€[sic]€maximum€punishment,€which€may€not€beÏexceeded€by€the€courts€of€this€state.€€It€is€a€well€establishedÏproposition€in€our€system€of€separate€branches€of€government€thatÏthe€authority€to€punish€is€a€matter€for€the€legislature.ÌÌÓÓòòÌSpannuth€v.€Stateóó,€234€N.W.2d€at€82€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àTo€summarize,€the€Tennessee€Legislature€has€expressly€authorizedÏsentences€requiring€defendants€who€are€placed€on€probation€to€makeÏrestitution€and€there€is€no€other€authority€under€which€courts€may€imposeÏrestitution€as€part€of€a€sentence€of€incarceration.€€We€conclude,€therefore,€thatÏrestitution€may€only€be€imposed€as€a€condition€of€a€sentence€of€probation.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€applied€the€purposes€andÏconsiderations€of€sentencing€as€outlined€in€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€òòsupraóó,€and€did€notÏerr€in€denying€the€defendant€probation.€€We€further€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€have€the€statutory€authority€to€order€the€payment€of€restitution€as€part€ofÏthe€defendantððs€sentence€of€confinement.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àE.€RILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó óÌBirch,€C.J.ÌDrowota€and€Reid,€JJ.ÌÌ