IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FILED FEBRUARY SESS ION, 1998 August 7, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9708-CC-00338 ) Appellee, ) ) ) SEVIER COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. REX HENRY OGLE TYRONE PAUL LINTNER, ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (Sentencing)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF SEVIER COUNTY

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: EDWARD C. MILLER JOHN KNOX WALKUP Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter P.O. Box 416 Dandridge, TN 37725 SANDY C. PATRICK Assistant Attorney General 5th Avenu e North Nashville, TN 37243 AL SCHMUTZER, JR. District Attorney General CHARLES E. ATCHLEY, JR. Assistant District Attorney General Sevierville, TN 37862

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20 JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE ORDER Appellant Tyrone Paul Lintner pleaded guilty in the Sevier County Criminal Court on March 3, 1997 to two c ounts of forgery. As a Range I standard offender, Appellant was sentenced to four years incarceration with the Tennessee Depa rtment o f Correc tion for the first c ount and two years for the second count, to be served consecutively. The trial court ordered him to pay $48,195.45 in restitution. Appellant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the trial court should have instituted an alternative sentence.

After a review of the record, we affirm the judgme nt of the trial court pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

Appe llant forged 21 checks for a total of $48,195, all while he was on federal probation for tax evasion.1

“Sentences involving confin eme nt sho uld be based on the following considerations: (A) Confinem ent is necess ary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long his tory of crim inal cond uct; (B) Confine ment is n ecessa ry to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense or confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses; or (C) Measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently b een ap plied uns uccess fully to the de fendan t.”

Tenn . Code Ann. § 4 0-35-10 3.

Appellant was apparently never punished directly for his embezzlement of $785,731.00 from his previous employer, rather he was convicted of federal tax

The four counts of tax evasion stemmed from the Appellant’s failure to pay taxes on $785,731.00 he embezzled from a previous employer.

-2- evasion in connection with the embezzled funds. He received a federal sentence of twenty-one months confineme nt followed by a pro bationary period. While on federal probation he committed the instant offenses using forgery to steal from his subse quent e mploye r. It is clear that measures less restrictive than continuous confinement have not made an impact on Appellant. We have no trouble concluding that the trial court’s decisio n to inc arcera te is fully supported by this record.

For the above stated reasons, the decision of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE

___________________________________ WILLIAM B. ACREE, JR., SPECIAL JUDGE

-3-