### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JAC KS ON A s s i gne d on B r i e f

s A pr i l 10, 2007 S T AT E OF T E NN E S S E E v . F RE DD I E M c CU L L OUGH Ap pe al f ro m th e C rim in al C ou rt f orSh elb y C ou nty No. 05-01365 John P. Colton, Jr., Judge

No. W2006-01407-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 20, 2007

Th e App ell ant, F red die McC ull ou gh , a ppeal s th e S he lby

Co unty C rim ina l C ourt’ s d en ial of his request for non-i nc ar ce rative a lternat ive sentenc es. McCullough ple d guilty to one count of statut ory rap e an d o ne co unt of

sexu al batte ry, both

Cla ss E fel on ies , an d, und er the ter m s o f t he ple a agreement, received one -year sent ences for each convi ction with the trial court de te rmining the m anne r of

ser vic e o f t he senten ces . T he ag ree m ent al so allowe d M cC ull ou ghto s eek jud ici al div ers ion . A ft er a

senten cin g h ear ing , the tri al c ourt de nie d ju dic ial div ers ion an d o rde red McC ull ou ghto se rve con curre nt te rm s of sixty days in the wor

kh ou se on

each one -ye ar s enten ce, followed by one year of probati on. On appeal, McCul lough argues that the tr ial courterred by denying judici al divers ion or, in the alt ernative , total pr obation. After revi ew, the judgment of the trial court is a ffirm ed.

Te nn . R . A pp . P . 3 ; Ju dg men t of th e C rim in al C ou rt A ffi rme d D AVI D G. H AYES , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I P TO N , P.J., and A LA N E. G LE NN , J., joined. C. Anne Tipton, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellant , Freddie McCull ough. Ro be rt E . C oo pe r, Jr., Attor ne y G en era l an d R ep ort er; David H. Fi nd ley , Assistant Atto rne y Ge ne ral ; W ill iam

L. Gi bb on s, Di str ict

Attor ne y G eneral; and

Murie l C onne r, A ssi stant D istric t Attor ne y G en era l, f

or t he Ap pe lle e, St ate of

Te nn ess ee. OP IN ION Factual Back ground On March 1, 2005, a Shelby County gra nd jury returnedatwo-countindictment charging the Ap pe llant w ithstat

uto ry ra pe and sexu al batte ry, whi chwer e al leg ed to h av e o ccu

rre d b etw een Ju ly15 , 2 00 3, an d S ep te mber17 , 20 03

. On M ar ch13 , 2 00 6, th e App el la nt , p ur su an t t o the te rms of a-2-

ple a ag ree m ent, e nte red

a “b est int ere st” gu ilty p lea

to bo th ch arg es. Th e und erl yin g f act s, as r eci ted at t he gu ilty p lea

he ari ngan d a cce pte d b y th e tr ial co urt , are a s f oll ow s: [The Appel la nt], approxi mately [fif ty] years of age, had a rel ationship wit h the vic tim

. . . who is ap pro xim ate ly [ fi ft een ] y ear s o f a ge , in the m onths of

Au gu st t o Se pte m be r[ ,] 20 03 . B oth

ind ivi du als went to churc h to ge the r an d [ the Ap pe llant] wa s co ns ide red

to b e th e v ict im ’s g odf

ath er. Ap pro xim ate ly S ep tem

be r the 7 . . . [th e] Col lie rvi lle poli ce o ff ice rs g ot a th cal l f rom . . . th e vic tim ’s m oth er . . . . S he tol d C oll ier vil le p oli ce o ff

ice rs that he r da ug hte r . . . h ad

inf orm ed he r th at s he had been havin g a sexua l re lat ion sh ip w ith [the Appellant] at le ast five times. Those five t imes involved sexual act ivity by the [A pp ell ant] an d [ the vic tim ] at hi s h om e se ve ral tim es, as w ell as [ at] the Mem ph is ai rp ort. A c oupl e o f tho se ti mes [the Appe ll an t] pic ke d th e min or. . . up a t h erho me in Missi ssippi, took he r to Tennessee to have sex. [D ]e tec tiv es ha d [t

he v ict im ] cal l t

he [ Ap pe llant] to te ll [h im ] that .
. . she believed that she might be pr egnant. At that time he m ade a stat ement of adm ission stating t hat the things thatthey did, [but he sta ted the vic tim could not be pregnant be cau se] he did

no t ej acu lat e.

. . . . [W ithreg ard

to s exua l batte ry, the Ap pe llant] als o g av e a s tat em ent to po lic e of fi cer s th at whil e th e v ict im wa s as lee p in

the ba ck seat of his c ar, th at he tou ch ed her breast s and she awoke and tol d the [Appellant] to stop a nd that ti me he stopped. Th e p lea ag ree m ent pr ovided

that th e App ell ant w ou ld r ece ive a o ne -ye ar s enten ce, as a Rang e I offender, fo r ea chof the co nv ict ion s. Th e ag ree m ent f urt he r pr ov ide d th at t

he tri al c ourt would determine the manner of service of the sent ences and whetherthe sente nc es woul d run concurrent ly or consecut ively. The agre ement also specified thatthe Appellant coul d petiti on the court for judic ial diver sion. A sentencing hear ing was held on May 31, 2006; however, the Appella nt in tr oduced no proof, relying sol ely upon the pre sentence r eport. More over, the pre sentence r eport reflec ts that t he Ap pe llant d ecl ine d to pro vid e a s tat em ent to the c ase o ff ice r. T he St ate cal led

the vic tim ’s m oth er, Celena Jones, who test ified that t he Appellant and hi s wife developed a close relati onship with the vic tim thr ou ghthe church

wh ich the y a ll atte nd ed

in M em ph is. Th e App ell ant an d h is w if e w ere bo th involved in th e ch ild ren ’s m ini str

y and Sund aySc ho ol p rog ram of the churc h. Mrs . J on es further test ified that t he Appellant and hi s wife told her th at they “wanted to be a bl essing to [the vic tim ]” an d invit ed

the vi cti m

to spe nd tim e in the Ap pe llant’ s h om e. Mrs . J on es d id n ot s us pe ct any misconduct on the Appellant’s partunti l herpast or not ified herthatthe victim disclosed that the Ap pe llant h ad

be enhavin g s exua l re lat ion s w ithhe r.The r ecor d cont ai ns no r ul i ng by t he t r i al cour t on t he R ul e 35 m ot i ons, w hi ch w er e f i l ed a f t er not i ce of

appe al 1 of t he t r i al cour t ’ s se nt enci ng dec i si on w as f i l ed. -3- Mrs . J on es s tat ed

that th e se xu al a

bu se i nf lic ted up on he r da ug hter has had a traum ati c imp ac t i n h erli fe. Fo r ape ri odof t ime , the vi ct im wa s “ para no id ” th atth e App el la ntwou ldco me to h er s ch oo l, and

Mrs . J on es h ad

to d riv e th e v ict im

to s ch oo l ev ery

day and pick he r up. M rs. Jo ne s al so fo un d it

ne ces sar y to qu it h er j ob so sh e co uld take c are o f the v ict im

. T he v ict im is v ery uncomf ortable “around people, partic ularly guys on any level,” which has requiredco unseling. Several year s have passed si nce the abuse, a nd ther e are some days when “[the victim’s] okay” and oth er days whe n “it ’s ve ry m uc h a p art of he r li fe .” Ac co rdi ngto h er m oth er, the vic tim ha d to de al wi th t he fa ct that sh e wa s “pl ay ed with , m an ipu lat ed

[an d] dece ive d. ” Th e v ict im ’s a bu se h ad als o af fe cte d h er s ibl ing s b eca

us e it m ad e “t he m fe el une asy

aro un d c ert ain

pe op le. ” Mr s . J o n e s w a s o p p o s e d t o th e Ap p e ll ant’ s r e qu e s t f o r d iv e rs io n . S h e e xp lai ne d: “ I’m ag ainst the d ive rsi on

be cau se I do n’t

un de rst an d whyit s ho uld be wi pe d o ff

of his rec ord . It

wi ll never be wiped out of [the vict im’s] m ind. It’s so met hi ng s he ’s always got to find a way to c ope wi th. ” Mr s. Jones furt

he r te sti fi ed

an d n ote d th at the Ap pe llant a nd his fam ilywe re g oin g to another chur ch and that “there are other young people outhere thatcan fall into t he same situation that [the vict im] did.” The presente nc e re po rt s tat es t hat th e App ell ant is fi ft y-t wo ye ars old

an d m arr ied. Inf orm ati on co nta ine d in

th e rep ort

a lso s tat es that, i n 1 97 5, the Ap pe llant j oin ed the Un ite d S tat es Air Force and was honorably dischar ged in 1983. He recei ved an associate degree from D raughons Business College i n 1986. Beginning in 1995, he worked as a “security office[r]” for FPIA, Inc. for ov er t wo year s. Th en , he wor

ke d as an inve sti gator

fo r th e S he lby

Co unty P ub lic De fe nd er’ s O ff ice from June, 1997 to October, 2003. No current employment was noted in the r eport. The Appella nt has no prior a dult cri minal history. At the conclusi on of the hearing, the Appel la nt ’s r equestfor judicial diversion or , in the alterna tive, tot al probati on was denied. Inst ead, the tr ial courtimposed split confinement and ord ere d that the App ell ant ser ve sixty days of ea ch

sent en ce in

the w ork ho us e, fol low ed

by on e y ear of pro batio n. Th e App ell ant’s senten ces we re o rde red to ru n co nc urr ently , an d the tr ial c ourt s tay ed the jud gm ent pe nd ingthe outco m e o f t his ap pe al. Th e re co rd o n ap pe al al so contai ns the f oll ow ingmo tio ns and

su pp ort ing“exhib its ” f

ile d in this case by the Appellantat the trial level. On June 30, 2006, pursuant t o Tenn. R. Crim. P . 35, the Appellant, thr ough substitut ed counsel, filed a motion for “Modificat ion or Reduction of Sentenc e.” Th e App ell ant re qu est ed

a h ear ingan d a ck

no wl ed ge d th at “ pre vio us co un sel ” h ad fa ile d, in e ff

ect , to off er any ev ide nc e fo r j ud ici al div ers ion at t he M ay3 1 senten cin g he ari ng . O n Se ptem ber 26, 2006, a second motion for m odification orreduction of se nt en ce was file d by the Appellantupon the sam e g rou

nd s. Ac co m

pany ingh is sec on d m oti on w as a statem ent o f the App ell ant, ref err ed to 1 as a “S enten cin g H ear ingAf fi davit ,” an d a

letter fr om the Ap pe llant’s wife, bot h o f whic h are dir ect ed to th e att entio n of

the tria l ju dg e. Th e App ell ant as ser ts that in fo rm ati on

co nta ine d w ith inThe cour t ’ s f i ndi ngs ar e l i m i t ed i n t ot o t o t he f ol l ow i ng s t at em ent , “ The C our t f i nds, l aw yer s, af

t er al l of t he 2 [ si c] w hat w e’ ve he ar d s o f ar t hat due t o t he nat ur e of t hi s of f ens e t he C our t w i l l deny t he di ver si on i n t he c as e. [ The] C our t , how ever , w i l l al l ow t he [ A ppel l ant ] t o be put on pr obat i on. ”

A g a in , w e a re c o m p e lled to n o te th a t t h e t ria l c o u rt d e v ia te d fro m th e sta tu to ry a n d p ro c e d u ra l req u ire m e n ts 3 to b e e m p lo y e d w h e n c o n sid e rin g a n a p p lica n t fo r ju d ic ia l d iv e rs io n . T h e ju d ic ia l d iv e rs io n s ta tu te p la in ly p ro v id e s th a t, i f gr ant ed, t he t r i al cour t i s obl i gat ed t o w i t hhol d ent r y of a j ud gm ent of

gu i l t and t o i m m edi at el y pl ace t he de f endant on pr obat i on. T. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 313( a)

. H er e, t he A ppel l ant pl ed gui l t y and t he t r i al cour t ent er ed j udgm ent s f or ea ch of f ens e, af t er w hi ch t he c our t s chedul ed a s ent enci ng hea r i ng f or cons i der at i on of

w het her di ver si on w as appr opr i at e. “T h e re is n o sta tu to ry a u th o rity fo r pe rm itt in g j u d ic ia l d iv e rs io n afte r a n a d ju d ic a tion o f g u ilt o r im p o sitio n o f se n te n c e .” St at e v . Turc o , 1 0 8 S .W .3 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 5 (T e n n . 2 0 0 3 ).

Eff ect i ve J ul y 1, 2006, t he G ener al A ss em bl y amended Tennes see C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 40- 35- 4 3 1 3 (a )(1 )(B )(ii) to p ro v id e th a t a d e fe n d a n t w h o is c o n v ic te d o f sta tu to ry ra p e b y a n a u th o rity fi g u re , as d e sc rib e d in sect i on 39- 13- 530, i s i nel i gi bl e f or di ver si on. M or eover , s ect i on 39- 13- 530 pr ovi des t hat a de f endant convi ct ed of sta tu to ry ra p e b y a n a u th o rity fig u re is in e ligib le fo r p ro b a tion . T .C .A . § 3 9 -1 3 -5 3 0 (b ) (2 0 0 6 ). -4- the “affidavits” pr ovides “the c ourt insi ght into the [Appellant’s] candidac y for alt ernative sentencing.” An aly sis Th e App ell ant as ser

ts that “the co urt

ab us ed its dis cre tio n whe n it denie d th e [ Ap pe llant] judicial diversion wit hout consider ing all required factors and articulat ing i ts basis for the denial.” In t he alt ern ati ve , the Ap pe llant argu es t hat th e tr ial co urt

im pro pe rlyde nie d h is r eq

ue st f or f ull probation bas ed upon its failur e “to proper ly cons ider the s entencing principl es.” W e agr ee with the Appellant’s contentions that the r ecord is “voi d of any evidence” that the trial court consi dered the relevantfactors and sent encing princ iples in denying both diversion and total probat ion. Although 2 the court c learly s hould have stat ed its re asons on t he record, as r equired by st atute and ca se law, va cat ion of the senten ces an d re m an d are n ot r eq uired, beca

us e th e re co rd i s su ff

ici ent to pe rm it meaningful review on appeal. I. Judicial Diversi on Th e s tatute re g ard in g ju d ic ia l d iv e rs io np ro v id e s th at “ [ a ] c o urt m ayd e f

e r f urth er pro cee din gs agains t a q ua lif ied de fe nd ant an d p lac e th e d ef en dant o n p rob ati on

up on su ch reasonable conditions a s it may requir e withoutente ring a judgment of guilty and with t he consent of the qu ali fi ed

def en dant. ” T .C .A . § 40 -35 -31 3(a ) (2 00 6). A “ qu ali fi ed de fe nd ant” i s o ne wh o is 3 found guilty of o r pl ea ds g uilty or nol o contendre t o the offense, who is not seeking de ferral of fu rth er p roc eed ing s f

or a “se xu al o ff

en se” or a Cl ass A o r B fe lon

y, an d who ha s n ot p rev iou sly be en convicted of a felony or a Cla ss A misdem eanor. T.C.A. § 40-35-313 (a )( 1)(B)(i) (a)-( c). On the dates the se c rim es w ere co mm itt ed , th e of fe ns es of stat uto ry r ap e an d s exua l batte ry w ere no t li ste d among the “sexual offenses” which would disqual if y a de fendant. Accordingly, atthat ti me, a defendant found guilty of eitheroffense was statutor ily eligibl e for judi cial dive rsion. T.C.A. § 40- 35 -31 3(a )(1 )(B )(i i) ( 20 03 ). 4A g a in , w e w o u ld n o te th a t t h e pro v isio n s o f T e n n e ss e e C o d e A n n o ta te d se c tion 3 9 -1 3 -7 0 5 (a ) w e re n o t m e t. 5 Thi s se ct i on pr ovi des , i n r el evant par t , “ [ E]a ch se x of f ender w ho i s t o be c onsi der ed f or pr obat i on or any ot her al t er nat i ve se nt enci ng s hal l be r equi r ed t o s ubm i t t o an e val uat i on t o det er m i ne t r eat m ent, ri sk pot ent i al , pr ocedur es r equi r ed f or m oni t or i ng of

beha vi or t o pr ot ect vi ct i m s and pot ent i al vi ct i m s, and a n i dent i f i cat i on under t he pr ocedur es deve l oped pu r suan t t o 39

- 13

- 70 4(d) ( 1). ” T

. C

. A

. § 39

- 13

- 70 5(a) ( 20 06 )

. Th us, no h eari ng shou l d ha ve b een con du ct ed i n t hi s case unt i l t hi s st at ut or y pr ovi si on w as compl i ed w i t h.

B eca use i t s i nt r oduct i on w as i nt ended t o s er ve t hi s pur pose , t he st at em ent at t ache d t o t he A ppel l ant ’ s R ul e 35 6
m o tion m a y be co n sid e re d as e v id e n c e if i t i s re le v a n t t o th e iss u e o n a p p e a l an d if no o bje c tion w a s m a d e to strik e it s in c lu sio n fro m th e tec h n ic a l rec o rd

. See T e n n . R . A p p . P . 2 4 (e ); T e n n . R . E v id . 2 0 1 (b ). -5- In deciding whether to gr ant j udicial diversion, the t rial court must consider the following factors: (1) the accu se d’ s ame nabi lity to c orrecti on; (2) the circumstances of the offense; (3) t he acc us ed ’s c rim ina l re co rd; (4 ) t he a ccu sed ’s so cia l h ist ory ; (5 ) th e st atu s o f t he acc us ed ’s p hy sic al an d m ental he alth; ( 6) t

he de ter ren ce v alu e to the a ccu sed as w ell as o the rs; an d (7 ) whe the r ju dic ial diversion will serve the ends of justi ce. State v. Elec troplati ng , Inc

. , 990 S.W .2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Cr im . App . 1 99 8); Sta te v . Par ker , 9 32 S.W .2 d 94 5, 958 (Tenn. Crim . Ap p. 199 6). Th e re co rd m us t indicate that the court has weighe d all of the factor s in reaching i ts determination. Electroplat ing , Inc

. , 99 0 S. W

. 2 d

at 2 2 9

. If

th e tr ia l c o urt

d e ni e d th e re qu e s t f

o r j u d ic ia l d iv e rs io n , it

s h o u ld s tat e in th e r e c o rd

“ th e s p e c if

ic r e a s o n s f

o r it s d e te rm in ati on s. ” Parker , 932 S.W .2d at 958-59. If the tri al co urt “bas ed its de ter m inatio ns on on ly so m e of the f act ors , it m

us t exp lai n whythe se f

act ors outw eig h th e o the rs. ” Electroplat ing , Inc

. , 99 0 S. W .2 d at 22 9. T he de cis ion of wh eth er t o g rant a reques t f or j ud ici al d ive rsi on

lie s w ith in t

he so un d d isc ret ion

of the tri al c ourt, an d th is c ourt w ill not disturb that deci sion on appeal absent an abus e of disc retion. State v. Robinson , 139 S.W .3d 66 1, 66 5 (T enn. Cr im . App . 2 00 4); Electroplat ing , Inc

. , 990 S.W .2d at 229. Be c au s e th e tri a l c o urt

i nth is c a s e f

a il e d t o c o n s id e r th o s e f

a c to rs wh ic hare r equir ed to pro pe rlyeval uate a req

ue st f or ju dic ial dive rsi on , we , in turn, revi eweach of t ho se f act ors deno vo to determine whether the denial of diver sion consti tuted an abuse of di screti on. See Electropl ating , Inc

. , 990 S.W .2d at 229. Fi rst , th e App ell ant ha s f ail ed to p res ent any e vid en ce t o establish that he is am en ab le t o co rre ction. His st atem ent to the tri al c ourt i s utte rlywi tho ut c on cer n o r re m ors e f

or t he vic tim ’s 5 pli ght. Hi s st ate m ent is rec ite d, in r ele vant p art , a s f oll ow s: 6 First, I t ake full Responsibil ity for allowing myself to be fra med into a position wh ere all of

my att em pts to “D O G OO D” cou ld be “EV IL SPO KEN O F” bype op le wi th h idd enag en da s. MyKi nd ne ss, Co m

pa ssi on an d Desire to help pe op le w ere tak enas w eak

ne sse s an d (b y s ub seq

ue nt a cti on s take n b y my a ccu ser s) w e w ere ev entua llyvie we d a s “T arg ets of Ec on om ic O pp ort

un ity ”.

. . . . Your Honor , thi s entir e pro ces s ( which in eff ect amounts t o a DA Office Poli tical Ve nd ett a a ga in st m e ) has taken approximately t hree (3) Years a nd over twenty (20)-6-

Co nti nu ati on s (f

or v ari ou s rea so ns ) whic h h av e re su lte d in “T raum ati c W ild ern ess Experiences a nd Har d Lessons learned for Me and my wife. O ur Marri age and Fa mil y Re la ti on sh ip with our bo ys hav e be enextre mel y stra in ed ; an d, I hav e l os t my Ex cel lent R ep utatio n & G oo d St an din g in the Co mm

un ity , O ur G oo d N am e, Ho m e, Em ployment, Cars and a Level of Dignity. In State v. Dowdy , 8 94 S. W .2 d 3 01 , 3 06 (T enn. Cr im . App . 1 99 4), th is c ourt o bs erv ed that the wi lli ng ne ss o f a

d ef en dant to acc ep t r esp on sib ili ty fo r h is or he r wron gs , or a de fe nd ant who is unrep entant, are c irc um stanc es r ele vant i n d ete rm ini ngthat pers on ’s po tentia l f

or r eh ab ili tat ion

or, the eq uiv ale nt, “am en ab ili ty t o c orr ect ion .” Ba sed up on the scant e vid en ce b ef

ore us , w e m

us t conclude thatthe Appellant ’s potenti al for rehabil itati on is low. Second, the circumstances of the offenses are egregious. The Appel lant earned a positi on of trust with the victim by assuming the role of her godparent and by serving a s her mentor in the church. Clearl y, the fifty-year- old Appellant ut il iz edh is p osit ion as an author ity figure overthe fifteen-year-ol d victim to effectuate his c rimes. Moreover, we cannot i gnore the proof thatthe Appellant’s pattern of sexual abuse has had a traumatic a nd las ting impact upon the vic tim. Finally, with regard t o factor six, we would agre e with the mother of the vi ctim that if diversion i s granted, no thi ngis g ain ed

be cau se t

he Ap pe llant c ansim

ply go to a dif fere nt c hurch

an d “ the re are o the r yo un g p eo ple out he re that can f all int o th e sam e si tuatio n th at [ the vic tim ] d id. ” W ithreg ard

to f act ors thr ee, fo ur, an d f

ive , th e re co rd d em on str ate s th at the Ap pe llant’ s la ck of a cr im ina l hi sto ry, his so cia l hi sto ry, an d h is “ ex cel lent phys ica l and m ental he alth” we igh

in favor of the granti ngof

div ers ion . N on eth ele ss, af ter de novo rev iewo f eac h of th e fa ctors, we co nc lud e th at the Ap pe llant’ s la ck of am en ab ili ty t o c orr ect ion , th e re pre he ns ibl e an d a gg rav ate d cir cum stanc es o f t

he of fe ns es, an d th e d ete rre nc e v alu e to the Ap pe llant and to o the rs c learly outw eig h th e p os iti ve fac tor s favo rin g div ers ion . Thus , w e co nc lud e th at the tri al c ourt d id n ot a bu se its disc retion i n denying judici al divers ion for eitherof the Appellant’s offenses. II. Probation Th e tr ial co urt

ord ere d th e App ell ant to ser ve sixtydays in t

he Sh elb y C ounty

wo rkh ou se before being place d on probation for eac h of his one-year se ntences. The Appellant challenges the trial court’s de nial of his reque st for total probation. Be cau se t

he Ap pe llant p led

gu ilty to tw o C las s E fe lon ies , a s a R an ge I of fe nd er, he is “p res um ed

to b e a fa vo rab le can did ate f

or alt ern ati ve s enten cin g op tio ns in th e ab sen ce o f e vid en ce to t he co ntr ary .” T. C. A. § 4 0-3 5-1 02 (6) (20 06 ). W he n a de fe nd ant is pre sumed to be aneli gib le can did ate , th e S tat e can o ve rco m e the pres um pti on wi th “ ev ide nc e to the co ntr ary .” Id . H ow ev er, the burden is on the Appellantto establ ish that he is s uitable for tota l pr obation and “that pr obation wi ll b e in the be st i nte res t of

the de fe nd ant an d th e p ub lic .” State v. Ring , 56 S .W.3 d 57 7, 586 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (citing Sta te v . B ak er , 9 66 S.W .2d 42 9, 43 4 (T enn. Cr im . App . 1 99 7))

. Altern at iv e se ntenc ing, which include s total pr obation, may be denied on the basi s of the cir cum stanc es o f t

he of fe ns e al on e, if

tho se ci rcum stanc es co uld be des cri be d as es pe cia llyvio lent,-7-

ho rri fy ing , s ho ck ing , re pre he ns ibl e, of fe ns ive , or oth erw ise o f anex ces siv e o r ex ag ge rat ed de gre e; an d whe n th e n ature and

cir cum stanc es of

th e of fe ns e ar e su chthat th eyoutw eig h a ll o the r f act ors favoring probati on. Sta te v. Fletc he r , 80 6 S. W .2 d 78 5, 788 -89 (T enn. Cr im . App . 1 99 1); seeals o Sta te v . H ar tle y , 818 S.W .2d 370, 374-75 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). Following deno vo rev iew , w e co nc lud e th at the cir cum stanc es i n thi s cas e are rep reh en sib le and offensive. As noted su pra , the proof in this case established the vulnerabil ity of the vict im, the disparit y in age between the Appell ant a nd the victi m, the victim’s psychological trauma, the ongo ingn ature of

th e sexua l e nc ounte rs, th e bre ach o f tru st, and

th e Ap pe llant’ s total l ack of rem ors e. Thus , a ft er de novo rev iew , w e co nc lud e th at t he tri al c ourt’ s im

po sition of

six ty- day pe rio ds of co nf ine m ent f or e ach of the App ell ant’s c onvic tio ns is c learlyju sti fi ed b y the fa cts in t

his case. CO NC LU SI ON Ba sed up on the fo reg oin g and

the rec ord

as a wh ole , the jud gm ent of

the Sh elb y C ounty Criminal Court is affirmed.

___________________________________ DAVID G. H AYES, JUD GE