### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 13, 200 5

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . TAMMY MARIE W IL BURN

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Blou nt County No. C-15019 D . Ke lly Th om as, Jr., Judge

No. E2005-01009-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Fe bruary 15, 2006

The de fenda nt, Tammy

Marie Wilburn, pled g uiltyto one count of attempted ag g ravated ar son, a C l as s B f el o n y

. T h e Bl o u n t C o u n t y C i rc u i t C o u rt s en t en ce d h er t o an ei gh t -y ea r s en t en ce as a R an ge I , s ta nd ardof

fe nd e r t o b e se rv e d in the De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n. Th e de fe nd a nt ap pe a ls, contending the trial court erre d in deny ing her alternative sentencing

. We affirm the judgme nt of the
tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., deliver ed t h e o p i nion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

J ulie A. Rice, Knoxvi lle, Tenne ssee (on appea l); Ray mond Ma ck Garner, District Public Defe nder;

a ndSta c e y

D. No rd qu ist , A ssi sta nt P ubli c Defen der (at tria l) , f

or the a pp e lla nt, Ta mmy

Ma ri e Wil burn.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; L e sli e E. Pr ic e , A ssi sta nt At torn e y Ge ne ra l; Michae l L . Fly nn, District Attorney Gene ral; and Micha el A. Ga lleg os, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

This case rela tes to the defe ndant’s setting fire t o her r ental house. The defe ndant was indicted for a g g ravated ar son, but she pled guilty to attempted agg ravated arson with the sentenc e to be determined by

the t rial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court de nied the def endant alternative sentenc ing a nd order ed her to serve the eig ht-y ear

sentenc e as a

Rang e I , sta n d ard offe nder in c onfinement.

At the sentenc ing he aring , the state pre sented the f ollowing a ccount of

the ar son committed on April 18, 2004.-2- The fa cts would have come out to the Court that [ the defe ndan t ] wa s angry

with her son, Josh. And J osh and [the de fe nd a nt] we re in the kit c he n ar g uin g . Andsh e be c a me a ng ry a t hi m

a ndwou ld have - - I

thi nk sh e fl ipp e d a

ta ble ov e r andthe re wa s a

c a nd le on the ta

ble

. And a fi re sta

rt e d in the kit c he n. An d s he did nothing to put t he fire out

. J osh beg an to s uppress the f ire. Well, [t he de fe nd a nt’ s] a c tio ns fo llo wi ng that w e re , s he sa w s ome lig hte r f lui d and she w ent into the living room a nd s h e began to spread the char coal fl u i d i n t o the living r oom are a to start that portion of the house on fire

.
[The defe ndant] -- J osh place s h imself, when she does the living room action, on the stoop. That’s wher e h e p u t s himself. Howeve r, it’s our belief

that he would have been prese nt in the house. B ut i n a ny

e ve nt, Yo ur

Ho no r, [thede fe nd a nt] b e li eved at the tim e that she was doing this action in the l iving room that J osh was in the kitchen. And there fore we ha ve this intent to commit ag g ravated

arson. Of course , she can’ t if he’s not c ontained there in, but she was

a tte mpt ing to d o it

.

Th e de fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d th a t she wa s thirty -s ix y e ars old a nda div or c e d mo the r o f t wo so ns

. She said she droppe d out of hig h school in the t enth g rade beca use she wa s preg nant. She said she supported her self by

working as a private nursing assist ant for the elderly and then as a w aitress for about fiftee n y ear s. She said she had psy cholog i ca l p ro b l ems for f ive to six y ear s. She said that about one y ear befor e thi s offe nse, she had been phy sically abused and had a ne rvous bre akdown. She sa id h e r d oc tor

se nt h e r t o L ake sh or e Me nta l H e a lth I ns titute fo r s e ve n da y s in 20 03 . Sh e sa id a doctor diag nosed her

with bipolar depre ssion, and she wa s taking five diff ere nt medications for seizures, migr aines, slee ping, and anxietyattacks. She sa id that she had bee n on medication for two y ear s and that

it w a s w o rk in g w e ll a t th e ti me s h e te s ti f ie d

. Sh e a c k n o w le d g e d s h e h a d b e en convicted of two DUI s and two or t hree driving on revoke d licenses but never a ny violent offense s befor e the a

rson.

Th e de fe nd ant testif

ie d th a t a t th e tim e of

the ars on , s he wa s li vin g wi th h e r t wo so ns a t a

re nta l ho us e on 18 04 Ki ttr e ll Av e nu e

. She sa id sh e wa s no t wo rking a t th e tim e of the ars on be c a us e she wa s unable to hold down a job. She sa id she was on a ntidepressa nts that reac ted with her othe r medications causing her to be nervous and depr essed. She sa id she had be en out of the hospital and not in her “right mind” f

or over a y ear when she committed the arson. She said that she di d not take the antidepr essants an y m o re an d that she did not know what she w as doing when she set the fire beca use she ha d b lacke d out. She said she and he r son, who wa s six fee t tall and weig hed 180 po un ds , g ot i nto a

fi g ht i n th e kit c he n. She sa id that th e y kn oc ke d th e ta

bleov e r wi th c a nd le s o n it but that it did not catc h anything on f ire. She said she then took a c an of lig hter fluid, poure d it on her living room furniture
, and li t it on fire. She said she g ained nothing financ ially from setting the fire a nd lost all of her possessions.-3-

T h e d ef e n d an tt es t i fi ed t h at s i n ce s h e go to u to f j ai l o n t h i s ch ar ge, s h e h ad b ee n s ee i n g a doct o r at C h er o k ee H ealth Sy stem every four we eks. She said that since she stopped taking the antidepre ssants, she had been able to c ope with daily activities, work two jobs, work on a new home, and take car e of herse lf and one of her sons. She said she wa s working as a na nny for thre e childre n

a ndtr a ini ng to be a

se rv e r at a

re staur a nt. She sa id s he plann e d to e nr oll in a pa re nti ng c la ss anddid

so du ri ng on e of

the tr ia l c ou rt ’s re c e sse s.

On cr oss-examination, the defendant acknowle dg ed being convicted of cr i m i nal imp e rs on a tio n a ndpo sse ssi on of dr ug pa ra ph e rn a lia . Sh e a c kn ow le dg e d th a t w hil e onb o n d f o r t h os e char g es, she wa s arr ested for driving under the influence and possession of marijuana in 1996, but was only convicted of

the DUI . She acknow ledg ed that she was arr ested for a second D UI

in 1997 while on proba tion for the prior D UI . She acknow ledg ed t h at s h e was arr ested for driving on a revoke d license in 1998 while on pr obation for the se cond DUI

. She acknow ledg ed being char g ed with and convicte d of two m ore offense s for driving on a re voked license while on proba tion in 1999

a nd20 00 . She a dmi tte d th a t sh e wa s a rr e ste d f or so lic itatio n to po sse ss d ru g pa ra ph e rn a lia wh ile on bond for the pr esent off ense. She explained she was pulled ove r and ha d a marijuana pipe in her purse that she had taken away from her son. She admitted she had use d marijuana in the past. She acknow ledg ed she had been under a doctor’s treatment and taking the medications as prescribed at the time she committed the off ense. She a cknowledg ed h er d octor c hang ed her antidepre ssant medication in Ma

rch 2004 and stated her neg ative re action to the medicine did not surfac e until after she visited her doctor i n April. She acknow ledg ed that her medical record from April 8, 2004, ten day s befor e the arson, s tates she went in for a medication check and reported no complaints and an improved mood.

The de fenda nt testified that she w as n o t mad at her son but was mad at he rself, “ That wa s my ang er c oming out.” S h e s ai d s he did not reme mber telling office rs her son was in the kitchen when she started the f

ire. She a dmitted she did not remember her son was on the porc h until after she spoke with he r attorney sever al wee ks after the fire . She acknow ledg ed living in two diff ere nt trailers in 2001 a nd both of the trailer s burning down. She explained one burne d down bec ause of an improper ly

installed water

heate r and the other burned down a we ek af ter she w as evic ted. She denied thre atening to burn down the sec ond trailer.

Clara Wilburn, the defe ndant’s mother, te stified that s h e wa s o u t s ide when she hear d the defe ndant and the de fenda nt’s son arg uing. She sa id the defe ndant’s son ca m e o u t s ide and wa s talking to Ms. Wil burn when she noticed fla mes in the window. She said the de fenda nt was cry ing a lot and dee ply

depre ssed ar ound the time of the fire. She said that since the fire, the defe ndant’s

me dic a tio ns ha ve be e n c ha ng e d, the de fe nd a nt s e e me d to be do ing be tte r, a ndthe de fe nd a nt w a s a ble to hold d o w n a jo b

. Sh e s a id o n e o f th e d e f e n d a n t’ s s o n s w a s a w ar d o f th e s tate beca use the defe ndant could not handle him. She said that a y ear or two ag o the def

endant wa s unable to take

car e of the defe ndant’s childre n and that she took c are of them for a fe w months. She sa id that when sh e vis ite d th e de fe nd a nt i n ja il, the de fe nd a nt did no t re me mbe r an y thi ng abo ut the fi re . Sh e sa id that the def

endant wa s g oing to Cher okee f or treatment around the time of the fir e and that she was sti ll g oin g to Che ro ke e a t the tim e of the se nte nc ing he ari ng

. Whe n a sk e d why th e cou rt shou ldW e n ot e t h at on J u n e 7, 2005, t h e G en er al As s embl y a men ded T en n es see Code An n ot at ed s ec t i on s 40- 35- 1

1 0 2 (6 ),

- 1 1 4
, - 2 1 0
, - 3 0 3
, - 4 0 1 and 40

- 3 6

- 1 0 6

. See 2 0 0 5 T enn. P ub

. A ct s ch. 35 3
, §§ 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17

. H o wever, t he

a m e n d e d c o d e se c tio n s a re ina p p lica b le to the d e fen d a n t’s ap p e a l.

-4- be lie ve th is si tu ati on wo uldno t ha pp e n a g a in, Ms. Wilb ru n s a id, “ I do n’ t kn ow sir . I

jus t ho pe it don’t.” She said the de fenda nt was a lot diffe rent than she was whe n she starte d the fire

. The pre sent en ce re p o rt states that the de fenda nt had three prior convic tions for driving on

a re voked license
, t wo p ri o r convictions for driving unde r the influenc e, one c onviction for solicitation to possess drug para pherna lia, two convictions for driving while license w as suspende d, one conviction for possession of drug paraphe rnalia, and one conviction for c riminal impersonation. The re port states she be g an drinking at ag e thirtee n or fourteen a nd drank until ag e thirty -five. T he report also states the def

endant be g an using marijuana t wo t o t h ree times per we ek whe n she wa s six teen or sevente en until 2003, when she w as in her mid-thirties. The report states the def endant

su ff eredfr om b ipo lar d iso rd e r, de pr e ssi on , n e rv e s, a sth ma , s e izur e s, mig raine s, a nxie ty , p a nic attacks, a nd insomnia. The report states the def endant r eporte d working as a se rver in various
restaur ants from 1999 to 2004.

After arg ument by

counsel, the tria l court denie d alternative senten ci n g. T h e trial c ourt examined the enhanc ement and mitigating fac tors set forth in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tions 40-35-113 a nd -114 and f ound the following enhanc ement fac tors applied: (2) the defe ndant had a previous history

of m isdemeanor criminal convictions and the criminal behavior of illega l drug use; (9 ) the de fe nd a nt’ s p re vio us un wi lling ne ss t o c omp ly wi th the c on dit ion s in vo lve d in c ommun ity rele ase; and (11) the defe ndant had no hesitation committing the offe nse when the risk to human life

was high, beca

use the de fenda nt’s son and mother we re on the porch. See § 40-35-114 ( 2003). The 1 trial court f

ound the def

endant did not have any

prior fe lony

convictions and imposed the minimum
sentenc e. I n deny ing pr obation and alternative sente ncing , the trial court stated:

I ’ve c on sid e re d p ro batio n, sp lit c on fi ne me nt, Com mun ity Correc tions. You are be ing tr eate d i n t h e community , but I think ba c k d ur ing thi s ti me y ou we re no t b ein g s uc c e ssf ull y a ndsa fe ly
trea ted in the community
, which has to be an underly ing a ssumption of re le a se

. I n fa c t, the e xhibi t sh ow s th a t y ou we re ke e pin g mon thl y appointments with y our doctors . . . The likelihood of re habilitation, I ’ve considere d that. And in that r eg ard, I ’ve looked at all the times
y ou’ve v i o l at ed y our probation and been r ear rested w hile on probation. And a ll this kind of stuff builds up.

You eve n committed a mi nor offense while y ou wer e on bond fo r thi s, a ve ry hu g e ly se ri ou s c ri me . So , c e rt a inl y that sh ow s n ot a g ood likelihood of reha

bilitation . . . .-5- This is an ext raor dinarily serious o ff

en s e that put y ou, the pe op le ar o u n d t h e r e , a n d t h e e m e r g e n c y p e r s o n n e l a t r i s k

. N o tto have confineme nt for someone who just willfullysets things on fir e like t h at with people a

round, I think, would huge ly

depre ciate the seriousness of this off

ense.

On ap p ea l
, t h e d ef

en d an t cl ai m s t h e t ri al co u rt erre di n d en y i n g h eral t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g. Specifica lly , the def

endant c laims she pro v e d

h e r suitabilit y

for the Community

Correc tions progr am under the specia l needs provision of Ten n essee Code Annotated se ction 40-36-106( c). The defe ndant asserts the trial court fa iled to apply the following mitigating fac tors: (2) that she “ acte d under strong provocation,” (8) that he r mental a nd p h y sical problems “ signific antly reduc ed [her] culpability fo r t h e o ffense,” a nd (11) that she “committed the off ense unde r such unusua l circ umstances that it is unlikely that a s u s tained intent to violate the law motivated the criminal conduct.” S ee T.C.A. § 40-35-113. The defe ndant asserts her pre vious criminal convictions

oc c ur re d in se pa

rate sh ort pe ri od s o f t ime . T he de fe nd a nt a sse rt s t here wa s n oth ing “ e sp e c ia lly

e g re g iou s” abo ut h e r o ff

e ns e that wo uld re qu ir e inc arc e ratio n to a vo id de pr e c ia tin g the se ri ou sn e ss of the offense. The def

endant a lso asserts that her mental hea lth has improved since she was re lease d from jail and he r medications were a djusted.

Th e state c on te nd s th a t th e tria l c ou rt pr op e rl y de nie d a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing . T he state

asserts t h e d efe ndant is not entitled to a presumption of alternative sente ncing beca use she wa s

c on vic te d o f a Class B fe lon y . T he state a sse rt s th e de fe nd a nt w a s n ot e lig ibl e fo r C omm un ity Correc tions because attempted agg ravated ar son is a violent offense . The state a sserts the def endant failed to e stablish that she was a s u i t able c andidate f or CommunityCorrec tions under the spec ial needs pr ovision. The state conte nds the defe ndant did not act under strong provocation because the fig ht betwee n t h e d efe ndant and he r son was not out of the or dinary and had e nded bef

ore the de fe nd ant st arte d th e fi re . T he state a sse rt s th e de fe nd a nt f a ile d to sh ow that he r m e nta l c apa c ity mitigated the offe nse beca use a medical report f

rom ten day s befor e the fire show s the defe ndant had

no c omp la int s, a n im

pr ov e d mo od , a ndde c re a se d a nxie ty

. Th e state a sse rt s th e de fe nd a nt f a ile d to offe r any medical testimony

reg arding her mental incapa cities. The state contends the defendant had

a his tory of c ri min a l c on vic tio ns a nd ill e g a l dr ug us e a nd a his tory of

un wi lli ng ne ss t o c omp ly

wi th conditions involved in release in the community

.

Whe n a de fe nd a nt ap pe a ls the ma nn e r o f s e rv ic e of a se nte nc e imp os e d b y

the tr ia l c ou rt , th is
court c onducts a de novo revie w of the r ecor d with a pre sumption t hat the trial c ourt’s de te rm inatio ns are c or

re c t. T .C. A. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 03 ). Ho we ve r, the pr e su mp tio n o f c or re c tne ss is “co n d it io n e d u p o n th e a f f irmati v e s h o w in g in th e r e c o r d th a t th e tria l c o u r t c o n s id e r e d the
sentenc ing principles and a ll relevant facts a nd circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . The burde n is on the appeal i n g p ar t y t o show that the sentenc e is improper. T.C.A. § 4 0 -3 5 -4 0 1 (d) ( 2003), Sentenc ing Commission Com ments. This means if the trial c ourt fo llo we d th e statut ory se nte nc ing pr oc e du re , mad e fi nd ing s of fa c t th a t are a de qu a te ly su pp orte d in the re c or d, a ndg a ve du e c on sid e ratio n a ndpr op e r w e ig ht t o th e fact ors a ndprinc ipl e s r e le va nt t o-6-

se nte nc ing un de r the 19 89 Se nte nc ing Ac t, we ma y no t distu rb the se nte nc e e ve n if a d if fe re nt r e su lt

wer e pre fer

red. State v. F letcher , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

.

When determinin g i f i n car cer ation is appropria te, a tria l court should consider if (1)

co nfinement is nee ded to protec t society by restra ining a

defe ndant who has a

long history

of criminal conduc t, (2) conf inement is neede d to avoid depreciating the se riousness of the of fense or

c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula

rl y su ite d to pr ov ide a n e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to p e op le likely to c omm it simil ar of fense s, or (3) less restric tive measure s than confine ment have f reque ntly or re cently

been applied unsucces s fu l l y t o the def endant. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169 (c iting T.C.A. § 40-35- 10 3( 1) (A )- (C ))

. Th e tr ia l c ou rt may a lso c on sid e r the mit ig a tin g a nde nh a nc ing fa c tor s se t f orth i n Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d sec tio ns 40 -3 5- 11 3 a nd-1 14 . T .C. A. § 4 0- 35 -2 10 (b )( 5) (2 00 3) ; State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). In addition, a trial court should consider a def endant’ s potential or lack of potential for r ehabilitation wh en d etermining if an a lternative
sentenc e would be a

ppropriate . T.C.A. § 40-35-103( 5); Boston, 938 S.W.2d at 438.

The pre sumption of favora ble ca ndidacy

for a lternative se ntencing extends t o a def endant “who is an e specia lly

mitigated or

standard of

fende r convicted of a Class C, D, or E felony .” T.C.A. § 40-35-102( 6) (2003) . When the defendant is presumed to be an e ligible c andidate, the state ca n

overc ome the pre sumption wit h “evide n ce to the contrary .” I d. Be cause the def endant wa s convicted of

a Class B f

elony , she is not presumed to be a fa v o rable candidate for a lternative
sentenc ing. See id. There fore , the state had no burde n to justi fy confine ment in this case. State v. Be verly Dix on, No. W2004-00194-CCA-R3-CD, Shelby County , slip op. at 8 (Tenn. Crim. App. J une 30, 2005), a

pp. denied ( Tenn. De c. 5, 2005) ( citing State v. Joshua L . Webster, No. E19 9 9- 02203-CCA-R3-CD, Blount County , slip op. at 3 (Tenn. Crim. App. De c.4, 2000))

.

I n conducting a de novo re view, we must consider (1) the evidenc e, if a ny , rec eived at the trial and sente ncing hearing, ( 2) the pr es entence re port, (3) the principles of se ntencing and

arg ume nts a s to se nte nc ing a lte rn a tiv e s, (4 ) the natur e a ndc ha ra c te ri sti c s o f thec ri min a l c on du c t, (5) a ny mitigating or statutory enhanc ement fac tors, (6) a ny statement that the de fenda nt made on his own behalf, a nd (7) the potential for rehabilitation or t reatment. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-102, - 103, -210 (2003); see Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 168.

A def endant can be elig ible for Communi ty Correc tions unde r Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 40-36- 106(a) if the def endant meets all the criteria set out in the sec tion. See T.C.A. § 40- 36-106 (2003)

. The de fenda nt in this case would not be elig ible under se ction (a) beca use she wa s convicted of a viol ent felony offe nse. S ee T .C.A. § 40-35-120(b) (1)( G). Te nnessee Code Annotated section 40-36- 106(c) provides that def endants who a

re n o t e li g ib le

f o r Co mm u n ity Correc tions under

su bs e c tio n ( a ) and“ wh o w ou ld b e us ua lly c on sid e re d u nf

it f or pr ob a tio n d ue to h ist orie s o f c hr on ic alcohol, drug abuse, or mental health problems, but w hose spec ial needs a re tre atable and could be

serve d best in the community ” may be elig ible for CommunityCorrec tio n s. This court construe d the words “ who would be usua lly considere d unfit for probation” to mean that a defe ndant must be otherwise e ligible f

or probation under the sentenc ing a ct in order to be elig ible for plac ement in the Communi ty

Correc tions P ro gra m

. State v. Staten, 787 S.W .2d 934, 936-37 (Te nn. Crim. App.-7-

1989). The de fenda nt is eligible f o r probation because she re ceive d an eig ht-y ear sentenc e. See T.C.A. 40-35-303( a) ( 2003).

Whe n a de fe nd a nt i s e lig ibl e fo r C ommun ity Cor re c tio ns un de r s ub se c tio n ( c ), the c ou rt mus t consider the following fac tors to determine if the defe ndant is suitable for the pr og ram

(1) the of

fende r has a

history of chr onic alcohol, dru g abuse, or

me nta l he a lth pr ob le ms, (2 ) the se fa c tor s w e re re a so na bly re la te d to

a ndc on tr ibu te d to the of

fe nd e r ’ s c ri m i n a l c on du c t, ( 3) the ide nti fi able specia l n ee d (o r n eeds) are trea table, and ( 4) the tre atment of the

s p e c ia l n e e d c o u ld b e s e r v e d b e s t in th e c o mmu n it y r a th e r tha n in a

corr ectional institution.

State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435, 439 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).

The trial c ourt stated “the mitigating fac tors are not a whole lot.” The trial court did not apply three fac tors that the def endant c ontends wer e applica ble. See T.C.A. § 4 0 -35-113(2), (8), (11). F irst, the defe ndant testified that li g hting the fire in the l iving room had nothing to do with her

so n a ndthat a ft e r the ir

fi g ht i n th e kit c he n, the de fe nd a nt l e ft the kit c he n, we nt int o the liv ing ro om, and set it on fire . The re cord doe s not show that the defen dant was unde r strong provocation. Second, the r ecor d shows that Dr. Micha el F. Smith, the defe ndant’s psy chiatrist, m et wi t h the defe ndant ten day s befor e she c ommitt ed the of fense and his notes ref

lect that the defenda nt had no complaints about her me dications, that her mood ha d improved, th at s he wa s tolerating her medications we ll, and that she denie d any thoughts of w anting to harm her self or othe rs. The r ecor d d o e s n o t s h o w t h a t t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s m e n t a l p r o b l e m s “ s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e d u c e d h e r

c u l p ab i l i t y. ” T h i r d l y, the de fe nd a nt’ s mo the r t e sti fi e d th a t it wa s “ ty pic a l” fo r the de fe nd a nt andthe de fe ndant ’s son t o arg ue, thus the defe ndant was not unde r unusual circ umstances when she committed the o ff en se. The trial c ourt’s finding s that these mitigating f actor s did not apply

are supported by

the re cord.

The trial c ourt found that the spe cial nee ds provisio n for CommunityCorrec tions did not apply in this case. The rec ord re flec ts that the defe ndant had a history of mental health problems and drug and alc o h o l ab use. It is li kely the def endant’ s mental hea lth problems contributed to the de fe nd a nt’ s c ri min a l c on du c t, but no me dic a l pro of wa s pro vid e d to tha t ef fe c t. Ad dit ion a lly , it is questionable if the defe ndant’s specia l ne eds are trea table or if the trea tment of the sp ec i al needs could best be se rved in the c ommunity . No ex perts testi fied that the de fenda nt’s treatment could be

succe ssful in the community . The e vidence offe red at the sente ncing hearing show ed the de fenda nt was unde r treatment in the communitywhen she committed the offe nse. Ther efor e, we conclude the defe ndant did not show herse lf to be qualified for Communi ty Correc tions under the spec ial needs provision.

The trial c ourt found inca rce ration wa s appropriate in this case

. The recor d ref lects t hat the d e f e n d a n t h a d b e e n c o n v ic te d o f mu lt ip le o f f e n s e s , man y o f w h ic h w e r e c o mm it te d while the de fe nd a nt w a s o n b on d o r pr ob a tio n fo r oth e r of fe ns e s. I t a lso re fl e c ts that th is w a s a se ri ou s c ri me-8-

e nd a ng e ri ng the de fe nd a nt’ s so n a nd mothe r w ho we re sta nd ing on the po rc h a ndre su lti ng in signific ant loss to the owner of t h e h o m e. We conc lude the def endant ha s failed to show the

se nte nc e wa s impr op e r. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE