### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE June 18, 200 8 S es sio n
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. BEN JAM IN M ONR OE Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Wilson County No. 06-1066 John D. Wootten, Jr., Judge

No. M2007- 02196-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Janu ary 7, 2009

Appellant pled g uilty

in the Wil son County

Criminal Court to one count of vehicula r homicide, one count of vehicular assault, and one count of leaving the s cene of the a ccide nt. I n exchang e for the g uilty pleas, Appe llant rec eived se ntence s of t hree y ear s, two y ear s, and one y ear , respe ctively . The trial court he ld a sentenc ing he aringto determine the manner of ser vice of the sentenc e. The trial court orde red A

ppellant to serve eig ht months of the se ntence day -for -day , followed by ten y ear s of prob at i o n. Appellant see ks review of the sente nce on a

ppeal. We dete rmine that the trial c ourt err oneously

deprive d Appellant of g ood conduct c redits by order i n g h i m to serve e ight months of the sentenc e day -for -day

. Consequently , we r ever se that portion of the se ntence and re mand to the trial court f

or entry of an or der de leting the require ment that the sentenc e be se rved da y -for -day . The
rema inder of the judgme nt of the trial cour t is affirmed.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Cr im ina l C our t i s R e ve r se d in P ar t, Affir m e d in P ar t a nd R e m ande d.
J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he cour t, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.
G. Fr ank L annom and Me lanie R. Be an, L ebanon, T ennesse e, for the appe llant Be njamin D

. M o nroe.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Pr e sto nSh ipp , A ssi sta nt At to rn e y

Ge ne ra l; T o m P

. T h o mp s o n , Jr

. , D is tr ic t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l, a

n d L a u r a B u s h , A s s is ta

n t D is tr ic t A ttorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION

On J une 29, 2006, Appe llant was the drive r of a vehicle containingthree passeng ers, Cortez D. Foste r, Rog er D . Maddalina, a nd J ere my

T. Donelson. Appe llant was ar rested late that nig ht-2-

afte r a sing le vehicle ac ci d en t o n Curd Road in Mt. J uliet left one of the passeng ers de ad and the other two pa sseng ers injure d. At the time of the a ccide n t , Appellant wa s enlisted as a me mber of the United States Army on full-time active duty . He wa s involved in Range r trainingand wa s on a two-we ek pre -deploy

ment leave in anticipation of deploy ment to I raq.
I n November

of 2006, Appe llant was indicted by the Wils on C o u n t y

Gra nd J ury for one count of vehicular homicide by intox ication, one c ount of vehicula r homicide by

rec klessness, two counts of vehic ular a ssault, and one c ount of leavingthe sce ne of a n acc ident.

I n J une of 2007, A

ppellant pled g uilty

to vehicular

homicide by

rec klessness in exchang e for a thre e-y ear

sentenc e. Ap p el l an t also pled guilty to vehicular

assault in exchang e for

a two-year se nte nc e . F ina lly , App e lla nt e nte re d a

be st i nte re st p le a

to l e a vin g th e scen e of an a c c ide nt i n exchang e for a one-y ear sentenc e. The manner of ser vice of the sentenc e wa s to be deter mined at a later date by the trial cour

t. At the plea a cce ptance hear ing, the following fac ts were rec ited by the prosec utor: [Ap pe lla nt] a nd a g e nt lem an by the n a me of Rog e r M a dd a lin a , . . . and e ve ntu a lly Cortez F oster and Jeremy Donelson, both minors, wound up with them proce eding to g o to [Appellant’s] house at which time the re w as an a uto acc ident which re sulted in the death of

Mr. Foste r and se vere injury to Mr. Don al d s o n [si c]. He suffe red a head injury , in a coma f or 30 day s down at Va

nderbilt, went fr om there to a reha bilitation pl ace , and those injuries we re e x tensive.

. . . . Mr. Maddalina g ave a statement in which he indicated that ther e had be en a shot
and a ha lf of Ye a g e r [s ic ] dr ank

by the de fe nd ant p ri or

to t he inc ide nt.
This defe ndant was inter

viewed at which time he state d that there had bee n four be ers - he had ha d four b ee rs prior to the incident. He wa s not located at the
scene , J udg e, this defe ndant. He left the sce ne and w as not locate d until som e thre e hours and f

orty -five minutes late r. He walked ba ck to the s cene at t his time and he was intervie wed, a

blood test taken five hour s later, whic h was .05. . . . .[T] he bott om line is that the St ate f eels like in discussing [t he vehic ular homicide by intox ication cha

rg e] with the family , this is a fair settlement of those fac ts. The alcohol par

t could g o.
The re ason for

the best intere st ple a, this pa rticular defe ndant - a s Iindicated, Mr. Madd a li n a , w h o w a s th e p a s s e n g e r in th e v e h ic le , h e g o e s to a h o u s e to seek he lp. Th is d e fe nd ant c ome s to t hat ho us e , a

nd the y ’r e out th e re on

the po rc h a

nd thi s d e f e n d an tl e av e s an d

w e d o n ’ ts e e h i mf

o r s o m e - a g a i n , u n t i l t h r e e h o u r s an d f o rt yfive minutes later

.-3- The discussion betwe en Counsel, J udg e, is that he is g oing to c laim that he had a c oncussion at this tim e. Obviously , the State would contend that he didn’t, and wh a t w e have a g re e d to is that th is i s a be st i nte re st p le a , b ut t

hat the ple a

a s to rec klessness base d on the spee d of the ve h i cle, those are stra ight up plea s and the
ve hic ula r a ssa ult , th a t is a str a ig ht up ple a , and that w ou ld b e the fa c ts that th e State would put forwa

rd.
The trial c ourt held a sentenc ing hear ing at a later date. At the sentenc ing he aring , the trial court he ard te stimony

from seve ral witnesse s.
Avana Sisco, who was responsible for pre paringAppellant’s pr esente nce r eport, e x plained to the trial court that Appe llant had a “ very go o d home environme nt” that would support the conditions of a sente nce that involved relea se into the community

. One of the offic ers f

or the L ebanon Police Depa rtment, Kenne th D ewa

y ne Smith, testi fied at the sente ncing hear ing. H e re sponded to the ac cident when Appellant re turned to the sce ne. Offic er Smith reporte d that Appellant had the odor of a lcohol about his person a nd that his ey es we re red an d b l o o d s hot. Office r Smith also st ated that Appe llant was slurringhis words. About three months prio r

to th e s e n te n c in g h e ar in g , O f f ic e r Sm it hh a d s e e nAp p e ll an t d

r ink in g a lc o h o l, e v en though he was unde rag e at the time.

Ta bit ha F os te r, the mot

he r o f t he de c e a se d v ic tim , te sti fi e d at th e he ari ng . Sh e e xpla ine d to t h e t r i a l c o u rt t h a t h e r s o n ’ s d e a t h h a d a f f e c t e d e v e r yo n e i nh e r

f a m i l y b o t hm e n t a l l y an d

e m o t i o n a l l y. Mrs. Foster

and her daug hter we re still rec eiving counselingat the time o f t he hea ring . Cortez Foster ’s g randmother , Shirley Foster , also testified. She stated that the loss of her g randson wa s “aw ful” a nd “ove rw h elming.” Mrs. Foster descr ibed Appellant a s a cow ard f or leaving the scene o f t h e a cc i d en tan d

wa s d i s ap p o i n t edi nAp p el l an tfo r d ri n k i n g an d dri v i n g.
Jado nn a Simp so n, the mot

he r o f v ic timJer e my

Do ne lso n, te sti fi e d that pr ior to t he a c c ide nt, her son loved playing sports and being with pe ople. Afte r the a ccide nt in which he suff ere d a broke n fe mur , b ro ke n a

nk le , br ok e n wr ist , f

a c ia l f ra c tur e s, a

br ok e n c lavic le , s pin a l f

ra c tur e s, and

a br a in injury , Mr. Donelson is unable to do many of the thing s that he used to love.
As a re sult of the acc ident, Mr. Donelson was in a coma f or seve ral we eks. When he a woke from the c oma, Mr. Done lson had to rele arn how to w alk, talk, and eat. At the time of the sentenc ing hear ing, Mr . Donelson wa s still wea ring a legbrac e and attending spe ech the rapy
. Dr . Ri c ha rd F ish be in t e sti fi e d f

or Ap pe lla nt. He re viewed Appe lla nt’ s me dic a l r e c or ds to asce rtain the nature of the injuries Appellant re ceive d in the cra sh. Dr. F ish b ei n o p ined that Appellant re ceive d a closed head injury from the acc ident. Appellant’s actions afte r the a ccide nt and the statements that he ma de to authorities we re c onsistent with a concussion.-4-

Appellant had se vera l char acte r wit n es ses testify at the sente ncinghear ing. O ffice r Mar k Pa c k o f t he Na sh vil le Pol ic e De pa rtme nt te sti fi e d that he ha d kno wn Ap pe lla nt f or fi ve and a ha lf y ear s. During that time, O ffice r Pack and A ppellant had, among othe r thing s, g one fishingtoge ther. Acc ording to Office r Pack, A ppellant was r emorsef

ul and ca pable of abiding the law.
Ric k Wh ite , App e lla

nt’ s e mpl oy e r, te sti fi e d th a t he ha d k no wn App ell ant f

or fi ve or six y ear s. Mr. Whit e owns a l an d s ca ping c ompany and desc ribed Appe llant as havinga g ood work
e thi c . App e lla

nt a nd Mr . Wh ite a lso a tte nd e d chur c h to g e the r. Mr . Wh ite ha d o ff e re d App e lla

nt a room in his home should Appellant be re lease d into the communi ty

. Mr. W hite felt that Appe llant’s
su pp or t sy ste m wo uld a llo w him to c omp ly wi th the c on dit ion s of a se nte nc e inv olv ingre le a se int o the community

. Appellant’s ne x t-door neig hbor, Richar d Roberts, also testified that he ha d known Appellant fo r fi ve or six y e ars
. Mr

. Rob e rt s d e sc ri be d App e lla nt a s e mot ion a lly

wi thd ra wn a ft e r t he a c c ide nt. Appellant’s mother , J odi Bube l, testified that on the evening of the ac cident, Appe llant was at h e r h o me a t ar o u n d 9 :0 0 p
. m. H e w a s a c c o mp an ie d b y h is f r ie n d s R. J, D ar

r iu s , and Da rrius’s g irlfriend A manda. Appe llant and R.J . put oil int o Ms. Bube l’s car and then the g roup left. At that time, around 9:45 p.m., there was no indication that any of t h em were drinking . At around 12:30
a. m. , M s
. B u

b e l r e c e iv e d a te le p h o n e c a ll f r o m Ap p e ll an t in w h ic h h e a s k e d if h e and his frie nds
c ou ld u se he r c omp ute r. She tol d the m th a t th e y c ou ld u se the c omp ute r. Ac c or din g to M s. B ub e l, there was no indication that Appellant was impaired at that time. Appellant never arr i v ed

. Soon there af te r , p o li c e ar

r iv e d a t h e r h o me an d in f o r me d h e r a

b o u t th e a c c id e n t. M s
. B u b e l n e xt saw Ap pe lla nt at th e ho sp ita l.
Ms. Bube l informed the tria l court that as a result of the f

el o n y co n v i ction, Appellant wa s discharg ed fr om the milit ary and wa s ineligi b l e to re-enlist. Appellant wa s withdrawn a fter the
a c c ide nt b ut h a d s tarted to beco me mo re so c ia l. M s. B ub e l a g re e d th a t sh e wo uld fa c ili tate Appellant’s se ntence if it involved relea se into the community

. Acc ording to the prese ntence repor t the Appellant g ave a statement to the police, o n the
e ve nin g of

the a c c ide nt. Ap pe lla

nt s a id t hat th e and

Mr . M a dd a lin a

we nt t o L e ba

no n a ft e r w or

k to meet a ma nn ame d “ Jo s h ” w h o p u r c h a s e d

a lc o h o l f o r th e m. Ap p e ll an t d id

n o t r e me mb e r

b e ing involved in the acc ident. He admitted that he drank alcohol but ha d no idea how muc h alcohol he consumed. Appe llant’s first memory afte r the c rash wa s awakeningin a ditch nea r the a ccide nt.
After th e a c c id e n t, A p p e ll an t att e n d e d th e v ic ti m’ s f

u n e r a l. Ap p e ll a

n t e xp la in e d

to the probation off

icer that he knew that “Cortez was kil led and J ere my was badly hurt. [He] also [ knew] that [he] was drivin g and the wr eck w as [his] fault.” A ppellant apolog ized for the ac cident and stated that he thoug ht about his friends “e very day .”
At the conc lusion of the sentenc ing h earing , the trial cour t made the f

ollowing f

indings of fac t and conc lusions of law:-5-

All r ight. I said at the outset of this he aring that any time the re is a death i nvolved
and a lso ve ry , v e ry

se ri ou s b od ily

inj ur y tha t so me times emo ti ons c an o ve rwhe lm pa rt ic ipa nts in t his he ari ngor

any he ari ngand

tha t is the c a se a s it

re late s to bo th sides. Nothing this Court do es ca n b ri n g b ack the life of a y oung man. Ther e’s nothing that I can do, but I have to look at those sentencingconsiderations, and Ido
no t th ink tha t I c an, in a ny se ns e , g ra

nt t his de fe nd ant pr ob a tio n in the fu lle st s e ns e of the wo rd . I

thi nk that th a t wo uld de pr e c iate the se ri ou sn e ss of the fa c ts o f t his c a se an d w h a tI’ v e h e ar d

t o d ay. Now, base d upon what the State has told me, and also g iven the fa ctors that Ih av e t o co n s ider unde r our law . . . Ido not think that I can r un these sente nces consec utive. . . .
So I thi nk that I ’m stu c k, thi s Co ur t is stu c k w itha

thr e e y e ar s e nte nc e in terms of I ’ve go t a t wo y ea r and a one y ear and I think they

just have to run
c on c ur re nt, Ido be lie ve that.

. . . . I ’v e a lr e a dy sa id that to pl a c e thi s d e fe nd ant o n c omp le te pr ob a tio n, Ithi nk , w ou ld de pr e c iate the se ri ou sn e ss o f t his of fe ns e , th e re fo re , I ’m

g oin g to s e nte nc e him

to serve eig ht months, day

for da y , in jail, but under the law of this state, Ican e x tend the probation out a considera ble per iod of time.
Ob vio us ly , I ’m

c a pp e d at th e a mou

nt o f t ime tha

t he wo uld have to s e rv e in a jail setting or in a pe netetionar y [si c] setting or how ever

y ou want to couch it for three y ear s, but Ican impose a probate d sentenc e in excess of the three y ear s. Ican runit o u t a ll th e w ay

to 1 5 y e ar s , s o w h a t I ’ m g o in g to d o is I ’ m g o in g to sentenc e him to b a sic a lly

a thr e e y e ar s e nte nc e , to se rv e e ig ht m on ths , d ay fo r d ay , s pli t c on fi ne me nts , a

nd the n I ’m g oin g to pla c e him on

pr ob a tio n f

or 10 y e ars , 1 0 y e ars
.

. . . . Ithi nk th at is the ri g ht d e c isi on and the jus t de c isi on . I t do e sn ’t br ingba c k th is y oung man or it doesn’t c ure the y oung man that was se riously injured, and I ’m sure that it saddens to a g reat sense the f riends and family of t he def endant, be cause Ido believe that these y oung men, y oung boy s, y oung men wer e all fr iends, but y ou have to pay for the c onsequenc es of your ac tions, y oung man, . . . . Appellant filed a

timely notice of a

ppeal.
An aly sisI n r es pon s e t o Bl ake l y v. Was hi ngt on , 54 2 U

. S. 296 ( 20 04 ) , t he T enn es s ee Legi s l at ur e a mended T enn es s ee 1 C o d e A n n o ta te d se c tio n 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0

. C o m p a re T

. C

. A

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 2 1 0 (c) (20 0 3 ) w ith T

. C

. A

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 2 1 0 (c) (20 0 6 ). T he
a m e n d m e n t b e c a m e e ff e c tive o n J u n e 7 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e leg islatu re a lso p ro v id e d tha t t h is a m e n d m e n t wo u ld a p p ly t o d ef end ant who co m m i t t ed a cri m i nal off ense on o r af

t er June 7, 20 0 5

. 20 0 5 T enn. P ub

. A ct ch. 35 3 , § 1 8

. A p p el l ant h er ei n c ommi t t ed t h e of f en s es i n Ju n e of

2006. T h er ef

or e, t h e a men dmen t t o T en n es s ee Code An n ot at ed s ec t i on 40- 35- 210 a ppl i es t o A ppel l an t

. Spe ci f i ca l l y , t h e a men dmen t m ade t h e s en t en ci n g g u i del i n es “ adv i s or y ” i n n at u r e. T

. C. A. 40- 3 5

- 2 1 0 (c).
-6- On app eal, Appellant argues that the ten- y ear leng th of probation wa s “unjustified and excessive” a

nd not in compliance with Te nnessee Code Annotated s ec t i o n 40-35-103( 4), which establishes as a

sentenc ing principle that “the sentenc e imposed should be the lea st severe measure nece ssary to achieve the purposes f or which the sentenc e is imposed.” . Fur ther, Appe llant argues that the trial cour

t improperly order ed him to serve e ight months of the se ntence day -for -day . The State contends that the tria l court’s de cision to se ntence Appellant to serve ten y ear s on probation
wa s pr op e r and

sh ou ld b e a ff

ir me d. Ho we ve r, the State c on c e de s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ’s de c isi on to order Appellant to serve eig ht months of the sentence day -for -day was e rror
. “When re viewing sentenc ing issues . . . , the appellate court shall conduc t a de novo r eview on the re cord of

such issues. Such re view shall be c onducted with a pr esumption that the deter minations made by

the cour

t from which the a

ppeal is take n are cor re ct

. ” T.C.A. § 40-35-401( d). “H oweve r, the pre sumption of corre ctness which a ccompa nies the t rial cour

t’s action is conditioned upon the aff irmative show i n g i n t he re cord that the trial court c onsidered the sentenc ing principles and all rele vant facts and cir cumstance s.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . I n con d u ct i n g our re view, we must consider the de fenda nt’s potential for reha bilitation, t he trial a

nd sentenc ing he aringevidenc e, the pr esente nce r epor t, the sentenc ing principles, sentenc ing alternative arguments, the nature and cha rac ter of the offe nse, the e nhancing
and mit ig a tin g fa c tor s, and the d e fe nd ant’ s st a te me nts . T .C. A. §§ 40 -3 5- 10 3( 5) , - 21 0( b) ; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. We a

re to a lso r ecognize that the defe ndant bear s “the burde n of demonstrating that the sentenc e is improper.” Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. In making its sentencingdeter mination, the t rial court, at t he conclusion of t he sentencing hear ing, determines the rang e of se ntence and then deter mines the specif

ic s entenc e and the propriety of sentenc ing a lternatives by considering : (1) the evidenc e, if a

ny , rec eived at the t rial and the sentenc ing he aring ; (2) the pr esente nce r eport; (3) the principles of se ntencingand ar g uments as to sentenc ing a lternatives; (4) the nature and char acte ristics of t he criminal conduct involved; (5) e vidence and information offer ed by the par ties on the enha

nceme nt and m itigating fac tors; (6) any statements t he defenda nt wishes t o make in the defe ndant’s behalf about sentenc ing; and (7) the potential for reha bilitation or treatment. T.C.A. §§ 40 -3 5- 21 0( a ), (b ), -1 03 (5 ); State v. W illiams , 920 S.W .2d 247, 258 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

. 1
Wit h reg ard to a lternative se ntencing , Tenne ssee C o d e Annotate d section 40-35- 102(5) pr ov ide s a s f

oll ow s:

I n rec og nition that state prison capa cities and the f unds to build and maintain them
are limit ed, convic ted fe lo n s co m m itting the most sever e off enses, possessing-7-

criminal histories evincinga cle ar disre g ard f or the law s and morals of society , and evincingfailure of past eff orts at rehabilitation shall be g iven first priority reg arding sentenc ing involving incar cer ation. . . .

A def endant who doe s not fall within this class of of fende rs “ an d who i s an espe cially mitigated of fe nd e r o r s tand ard

of fe nd e r con vi c te d o f a

Cla ss C , D , o r E fe lony sh ou ld b e c on sid e re d a s a favor able c andidate f

or alter native sente ncingoptions in the absenc e of evidenc e to the contra ry
. A court shall consider, but is not bound by , this advisory sentenc ing guideline.” T.C.A. § 40 -3 5- 10 2( 6) ; see also State v. Carter , 254 S.W .3d 335, 347 (Tenn. 2008) . Fur thermore , with reg ard to probation, a de fenda

nt wh o s e sentenc e is ten y ear s or less is elig ible for pr obation. T.C.A. § 40-35-303( a).

Ho we ve r, al l off

end e rs wh o me e t th e c ri te ri a fo r a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ingare no t e nti tle d to relief ; i n s t ea d , sentenc ing issues must be de termined by the fa cts and c ircumstance s of ea ch ca se. See State v . Taylor , 7 4 4 S

. W

. 2 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 2 (T en n
. C ri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 8 7 ) ( ci t i n g Sta te v . M os s , 727 S.W .2d 229, 235 (Tenn. 1986)). Even if a defe ndant is a favor able candidate for alternative sentenc ing unde r Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-102(6), a t ri al cour t may deny an alter native sente nce beca use: (A) Confine ment is nece ssary to protect society

by restra ining a

defe ndant who has
a lon g his tor

y of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is ne cessa ry to a void de prec iating the seriousne ss of the off ense or c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula

rl y su ite d to pr ov ide an e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to o the rs lik e ly to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) Mea sures less re strictive than conf inement have fre qu ently

or re cently

been applied unsucc essfully

to the defe ndant. . . .

T.C.A. § 40-35-103( 1)(A) -(C). In choosing amongpossible sentencing alternatives, the trial cour t sh ou ld a ls o co ns id er Ten nes see C od e An no tat ed s ect io n 4 0-3 5-1 03 (5) , wh ic h s ta te s, in p e rt ine nt p a

rt , “[t] he p o te n ti a l o r la c k o f p o te n ti a l f o r th e r e h a

b il it a ti o n o r tr e a tm e n t o f a d e f e n d an t s h o uld be considere d in determining t h e s en t en ce alternative or leng th of a ter m to be imposed.” T.C.A. § 40 -3 5- 10 3( 5) ; State v. Dowdy , 894 S.W .2d 301, 305 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) . The trial c ourt may consider a

defe ndant’s u n t ru thfulness and lac k of ca ndor as they

relate to the potential for reha bilitation. See State v. Nunley , 2 2 S. W.3 d 2 82 , 2 89 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); see also State v. Bunch , 646 S.W. 2d 15 8, 16 0- 61 (T e nn . 1 98 3) ; Sta te v . Ze oli a , 92 8 S.W. 2d 45 7, 46 3 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); State v. W

illiamson , 91 9 S.W. 2d 69 , 84 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ); Dowdy , 894 S.W .2d at 305-06.-8-

I f t he c ourt de te rm ine s th a t a

pe ri od of pr ob a tio n is a

pp ro pr iate , th e c ourt

sh a ll
se nte nc e the de fe nd ant t o a sp e c if ic se nte nc e but sh a ll su sp e nd the e xec uti on

of a ll or par t thereof an d place the def endant on supe rvised or unsupe rvised probation either immediate ly

or af ter a period of c onfinement for a per iod of time no less than the minimum s entenc e allowe d under the classification and up to and including the statutory maxi mum tim e for

the class of

the conviction off

ense. T.C.A. § 40-35-303( c)( 1). Appellant her ein p led g uilty to vehicular

homicide, a Class C felony , vehicular assault, a Class D felony , and lea

ving the scene of an acc ident involving death, a Class E felony

. SeeT.C.A. § § 3 9 -1 3 -2 13(b)( 1); 39-13-106( b); 55-10-101( b)(2) . I n exchang e for his guilty

pleas, Appe llant
rec eived se ntence s of three y ear s, two y ear s, and one y ear , respe ctively . The sente ncingrang e for
a Rang e I of fe nd e r f or a Cla ss C fe lony is thr e e to six y e ars , and the ma ximumse nte nc e in t he c la ss is fifteen y ear s. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-111(b) (3); 40-35- 112(a) (3).
Trial cour ts are g iven wide latitu d e when se tting probation and the trial cour t here in was clea rly conce rned w ith the level of super vision that Appellant require d. The trial c ourt also wante d to avoid depre ciating the seriousness of the offe nse, espec ially wher e there was a loss of one life a nd serious pe rm an en t injuries to another a s a re sult of Appellant’s ac tions. The rec ord supports the proposition that the relatively light inca rce ration portion of the se ntence coupled with an e x tended probationary p er i o d is the least seve re me asure to effe ct the purpose of the sente nce. A ppellant’s probationar

y sentenc e of te n y ear s is affirme d.

Ne xt, w e no te that Ap pe lla nt and the State c or

re c tly po int out that the tr ia l c ourt imp ro pe rl y order ed Appe llant to serve e ight months of his sentenc e day -for -day

. A defendant who is sentence d to a county jail f

or less than one y ear is e ntitled to ear n g ood conduct cre dits, a

nd a trial c ourt may not deny a def endant this statutory

rig ht. See T. C.A . § 41 -2 -1 11 (b ); Sta te v . Clar k , 67 S.W .3d 73, 78 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ). I t is we ll- se ttl e d th a t: [w]he re a p e r i o d o f c o n f i n e m e n ti s i m

p o s e d , ano r d e r

o f d ay - f o r - d ay s e r v i c e is impermissible beca

use a tria l court ca

nnot deny a def endant the statutory

rig ht to earn g oo d c on du c t c re dit s o r a uth or ize d w or

k c re dit s w he re the de fe nd ant recei ves a sentenc e of split confine ment and bec omes a c ounty jail inmate.

Sta te v . Ti m M

att ing ly , N o. M2 00 2- 02 76 5- CCA -R 3- CD , 2 00 3 WL 22 03 87 77 , at *3 (T e nn . Cr im. App., at Na shville, Sept. 2, 2003). See also State v . Alberto Camacho , No. E2005-02699- CCA-R3- CD , 20 07 WL 31 45 00 3, a t *1 5 (T e nn
. Cr im. Ap p. , a t Kn oxvil le , Oc t. 2 9, 20 07 ); State v. Chris E. Hixon , No. M 2002-03141-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 741670, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 7, 2004). B eca

use the trial c ou rt er re d with respec t to the day -for -day sentenc e ser

vice, we
reve rse the judg ment of the trial c ourt as to sentenc ing a nd rema nd for entry of a judgme nt deleting the da y -f or -d ay se rv ic e re qu ir e me nt.-9- Conclusion

For the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the trial c ourt in reg ard to the da y -for -day service of eig ht months of Appellant’s sentenc e is reve rsed a nd rema nded for entry of a judgment de leting the day -for -day

service require ment. I n all other re spects, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE