OPINION

ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, Jr., J.

A Monroe County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Noah Keith Tipton, for one count of initiation of a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine ("the methamphetamine charge") and fourteen counts of aggravated cruelty to animals. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, the Defendant pleaded guilty to the methamphetamine charge and two counts of aggravated cruelty to animals and was sentenced to eight years with the manner of service to be determined at a sentencing hearing.1 Following the sentencing hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant was "not eligible for punishment in the community" under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106(a)(1) but took under advisement the Defendant's claim that his "special needs" were treatable and could best be served in the community as provided by subsection -106(c). Following a second hearing in which no additional proof was taken, the trial court found that the Defendant's special needs could be best served in the Department of Correction rather than in the community corrections program for Monroe County. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his placement in the community corrections program. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 15, 2014, the Defendant pleaded guilty to the methamphetamine charge and two counts of aggravated cruelty to animals and was sentenced to eight years. During the plea colloquy, the State provided the following factual basis in support of the guilty plea:

On November 17, 2014, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. The Southeast Tennessee Community Corrections Investigation Report ("presentence report") and a letter from Miracle Lake, a residential treatment facility in McMinn County, were entered into evidence. The Miracle Lake letter stated that there was a bed available for the Defendant to begin his two-month treatment program beginning October 2, 2014. The presentence report included the following explanation of the methamphetamine and aggravated animal cruelty charges provided by the Defendant:

In addition to the Defendant's charges in this case, the presentence report lists twenty-nine criminal charges arising out of eighteen separate incidents since 1994. In May 1998, the Defendant was charged with felony reckless endangerment involving a firearm. The Defendant was charged and convicted of criminal trespass in 1999, while the felony reckless endangerment charge was pending. On March 2, 2000, the Defendant pleaded guilty to felony reckless endangerment and was sentenced to two years' probation. On March 27, 2000, less than a month after he pleaded guilty to felony reckless endangerment, the Defendant was charged with assault. In August 2001, he was charged with violation of an order of protection, a second offense DUI, and driving on a revoked license. He was again charged with reckless endangerment on August 15, 2003, and the presentence report shows he was "convicted" of that charge on April 26, 2004. In February 2006, he was charged with three counts of "possession by a convicted felon." The presentence report does not identify what the Defendant possessed or state whether or not he was convicted. In February 2014, he was charged with domestic assault.

At his sentencing hearing, the Defendant explained the incident that led to his 1998 felony reckless endangerment conviction in the following exchange:

The Defendant then stated he "was shooting up in the air" and did not mean to hit the van door.

At his sentencing hearing, the Defendant explained the 2014 domestic assault charge, which he incurred approximately two months before he was arrested on the methamphetamine and animal cruelty charges, as follows:

The following dialogue is from the testimony of Randall Scott Gray at the sentencing hearing. Mr. Gray was the Defendant's preacher:

Mr. Gray was asked a series of questions by the State concerning the Defendant's demeanor. Mr. Gray said that the Defendant was sometimes violent and that he "was a totally different person" when "high or drunk." When asked whether the Defendant was loud and violent when high or drunk, Mr. Gray answered that the Defendant was "10 foot tall and bulletproof."

After the parties argued their respective positions, the trial court engaged in a lengthy oral analysis and determined—based on the Defendant's conviction of a felony offense in which he used a weapon, his past pattern of behavior indicating violence, and a pattern of committing violent offenses—that the Defendant was not statutorily eligible for punishment in the community under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106(a)(1)(D), (E), and (F). Noting that its assessment of violence was not going to change, the trial court then took the matter under advisement for a later hearing to consider whether the Defendant's "issues could best be served in the community[.]"3 On December 17, 2014, the trial court denied the Defendant's request to serve his sentence in the community corrections program finding that the Defendant's special needs could be best served in the Department of Correction rather than in the community corrections program in Monroe County.

This appeal then followed.

ANALYSIS

The Defendant contends the trial court relied upon an erroneous interpretation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106 to find him statutorily ineligible for placement in the community corrections program. We disagree. The trial court correctly found the Defendant was statutorily ineligible under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106(a)(1)(E) for punishment in the community. Next, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding that his special needs would best be served by confinement. Again, we disagree. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the special needs of the Defendant, who had a chronic history of drug and alcohol abuse and who pleaded guilty to initiating the process to manufacture methamphetamine, could be best served in the Department of Correction.

Because the trial court sentenced the Defendant within-range and considered the purposes and principals of the sentencing act, we review challenges to the denial of a community corrections sentence under the abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012); see also State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012).

Criteria for Eligibility under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(1)

The intent of the Community Corrections Act was to "[e]stablish a policy within the state to punish selected, nonviolent felony offenders in front-end community based alternatives to incarceration, thereby reserving secure confinement facilities for violent felony offenders." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-103(1) (2010). Eligible offenders under the Community Corrections Act include:

Id. § 40-36-106(a)(1)(A)-(F) (2010) (emphasis added). Subsections (A),(B),(C), and (D) provide eligibility criteria applicable only to the offense or offenses for which an offender is seeking punishment in the community. In contrast, subsections (E) and (F) establish eligibility criteria in which past behavior or conduct, in addition to the nature of the offense or offenses for which an offender is seeking punishment in the community, may be considered.

Simply because an offender meets the minimum requirements under the Community Corrections Act "does not mean that he is entitled to be sentenced under the Act as a matter of law or right." State v. Ball, 973 S.W.2d 288, 294 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (citing State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919, 922 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)). Instead, the Act's criteria "shall be interpreted as minimum state standards, guiding the determination of eligibility of offenders under this chapter." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(d) (2010).

Because the trial court analyzed each of the six criteria for eligibility set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106(a)(1) during the initial sentencing hearing, we will address each of its findings.

Section 40-36-106(a)(1)(A).

The court acknowledged that the Defendant would be incarcerated in a correctional institution for his convictions unless he was eligible for community corrections.4

Section 40-36-106(a)(1)(B).

The trial court correctly characterized aggravated cruelty to animals as a property-related offense and the methamphetamine charge as a drug-related offense for the purposes of finding the Defendant eligible under subsection (B).

Section 40-36-106(a)(1)(C).

After correctly characterizing aggravated cruelty to animals as a property-related offense, the trial court, citing Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-14-212(a) and (b), stated:

The trial court correctly noted that subsection (B) specifically includes a reference to "crimes against the person as provided in title 39, chapter 13, part 1-5," whereas subsection (C) does not reference crimes against the person. In reconciling this difference, the trial court stated that the violence involved with aggravated cruelty to animals could make the Defendant ineligible for community corrections under subsection (C).

For the purposes of eligibility for placement in the community, "nonviolent felony offense" is defined in section 40-36-102 as:

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-102(11). The definition of serious bodily injury in section 39-11-106 applies to all of title 39, including, if relevant, to the aggravated cruelty to animal statute.

In the hearing concerning the Defendant's special needs, the trial court referenced subsection (C) as one criteria on which it determined that the Defendant was not an eligible offender. It is not necessary for us to determine whether aggravated cruelty to animals is or is not a nonviolent felony offense as defined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-102(11), because, as will be discussed below, even if aggravated cruelty to animals is a nonviolent offense, any error in finding the Defendant ineligible for community corrections under subsection (C) is harmless because an offender must meet all of the criteria set forth in section 40-36-106(a)(1) to be eligible for punishment in the community.

Section 40-36-106(a)(1)(D).

As the trial court correctly recognized, the Defendant's prior conviction of felony reckless endangerment involving the discharge of a firearm does not make the Defendant ineligible for punishment in the community under subsection (D) because subsection (D) applies only to the offense for which the Defendant is seeking to be placed on community corrections and not to a prior offense.5

Section 40-36-106(a)(1)(E).

Although the prior conviction for felony reckless endangerment cannot be a basis to find the Defendant ineligible under subsection (D), the trial court properly used the prior conviction as a factor for determining eligibility under subsection (E). This court has previously held that reckless endangerment involving the use of a firearm qualifies as a violent offense. See e.g., State v. Andrea Nichole Bean, No. M2011-02767-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 6698060, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 26, 2012). Based on the presentence report, in addition to the felony reckless endangerment involving a firearm, the Defendant had been charged with assault, violation of an order of protection, another reckless endangerment, and assault by domestic violence. Concerning the assault by domestic violence, a charge the Defendant incurred only two months before the Defendant was charged with initiation of the process to manufacture methamphetamine and aggravated cruelty to animals, the Defendant admitted getting into an altercation with his wife in which he "laid her out." Although the presentence report fails to provide sufficient information to determine whether the Defendant was convicted of several of the charges he incurred, the presentence report together with the Defendant's testimony and the testimony of Mr. Gray is more than sufficient to show that the Defendant has "demonstrate[d] a present or past pattern of behavior indicating violence." See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(1)(E) (emphasis added). The trial court properly found that the Defendant was ineligible for punishment in the community under subsection 106(a)(1)(E).

Section 40-36-106(a)(1)(F).

Whereas subsection (E) involves a "pattern of behavior indicating violence," subsection (F) involves a "pattern of committing violent offenses." Obviously, these two subsections are intended to apply to different factual situations. Based on the wording of the two subsections, subsection (F) appears to be more stringent than subsection (E). Although we have found no cases holding that subsection (F) applies only to convictions,6 that appears to be a logical interpretation. Although the presentence report shows that the Defendant had been charged with offenses indicating violence on several occasions, the presentence report shows only one conviction for a violent offense. One conviction is not a pattern. Andrea Nichole Bean, 2012 WL 6698060, at *5.

We conclude that the proof is insufficient to support the trial court's finding that the Defendant demonstrated a pattern of committing violent offenses under subsection (F). However, once again, any error in finding the Defendant ineligible for community corrections under subsection (F) is harmless because an offender must meet all of the criteria set forth in section 40-36-106(a)(1) to be eligible for punishment in the community, and the Defendant was not eligible under section 40-36-106(a)(1)(E).

"Special needs" Under Section 40-36-106(c)

Once the trial court determined the Defendant was not eligible for punishment in the community under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106(a)(1), it was required to address the Defendant's request to be placed in the community corrections program under the "special needs" provision of section 40-36-106(c), which provides:

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(c) (2010).

The trial court properly addressed the criteria set out in subsection (c). First, as discussed above, the trial court determined the Defendant was not eligible for punishment in the community under subsection (a). Second, the trial court determined that the Defendant was eligible for probation based on the offenses for which he was convicted and his eight-year sentence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-303(a). Third, the trial court found that the Defendant was unfit for probation because of his chronic history of alcohol and drug abuse. Fourth, the trial court determined that the defendant's "special needs" were treatable. Therefore, the issue which the trial court had to decide was whether the Defendant's special needs could be best served in the community corrections program or in the Department of Correction.

As this court has previously stated:

State v. Grigsby, 957 S.W.2d 541, 547 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Trial courts are also in the best position to determine if an ineligible offender's special needs "could be served best in the community rather than in a correctional institution." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(2). Resources vary from community to community and the local trial judge is in the best position to know what resources are available in the community.

In this case, when analyzing where the special needs of the Defendant could be best served, the trial court specifically mentioned its concerns arising from the testimony of the Defendant's minister about the Defendant's violent demeanor when he was drunk or high and the tendency of the Defendant to drink or do drugs when he was around the wrong people. Additionally, the trial court expressed concern that the Defendant would relapse into abusing alcohol or drugs if his sentence was served in the community corrections program for Monroe County. The trial judge was in the best position to gauge the critical factor of where the Defendant's special needs could be best served.

Trial courts have broad discretion in sentencing, and this court will not disturb a trial court's decision absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d at 278-79; see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 707. Although the trial court did not make findings concerning what resources were available in the community corrections program, the finding were sufficient to show that the trial court weighed the options and determined that the Defendant's special needs could be best served in a correctional institution.

CONCLUSION

It is clear from the record that the trial court agonized over its decision. Although the findings of the trial court could have been better articulated, or even better yet incorporated in its written order denying community corrections, the record is sufficient to show that the Defendant was not eligible for punishment in the community pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106(a)(1)(E) and that the trial court did not err in finding pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106(c) that the Defendant's special needs could be best served in the Department of Correction. We, therefore, affirm the judgments of the trial court.

CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, J., dissenting.

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority in this case. For the reasons that follow, I would remand this matter to the trial court for Tipton to be placed in the community corrections program. In this appeal, Tipton contends that the trial court relied upon an erroneous interpretation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106 in finding him statutorily ineligible for placement in the community correction program. He argues that the prior convictions relied upon by the court do not constitute a pattern of prior violent offenses pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-102(11).1 Specifically, he contends that (1) reckless endangerment does not meet the definition of a violent offense; (2) aggravated animal cruelty, as codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-212, is classified as a property offense and not a crime of violence; and (3) the trial court improperly relied on Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113(f)(1)-(3) (2006), rather than section 39-13-113 (2001), in finding that his 2001 charge for violating an order of a protection was a violent offense. Excluding the convictions that the trial court improperly classified as crimes of violence, Tipton claims the sole basis for the trial court's denial of his placement in the community correction program was charges reflected in his presentence report that did not result in convictions, which is likewise an improper basis to deny placement. Finally, Tipton argues that the trial court erred in finding that his needs would best be served by confinement because he arranged for placement in a drug rehabilitation program that had a bed waiting for him, accepted responsibility for his actions, was found to be credible by the trial court, had only one prior felony conviction and nine misdemeanor convictions, and has never violated probation. In response, the State contends that the trial court properly denied Tipton placement in the community correction program. I agree with Tipton.

As conceded by the majority, the trial court erred in its application of subsection (F) of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106(a)(1). Additionally, as will more fully be discussed below, the trial court failed to articulate its reasons for finding Tipton ineligible for community corrections under subsection (c). Therefore, because the sentence imposed by the trial court does not reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act, my review is for an abuse of discretion without a presumption of reasonableness.

Although the trial court recognized that section 40-36-106(B) makes a person convicted of "property related" or "felony offenses not involving crimes against the person" eligible for placement in the community corrections program, it considered the elements of the offense of aggravated animal cruelty coupled with the facts supporting the guilty plea in finding Tipton statutorily ineligible for placement in the community correction program. In other words, the record shows that the trial court classified aggravated animal cruelty as a violent offense against a person.2 Tipton correctly notes that the aggravated animal cruelty statute has been classified by the Tennessee legislature as a property offense, not an offense against a person. However, while animals are "personal property for some purposes, they are different from other types of property, because animals are living, sentient beings." See Kirsten E. Brimer, Justice for Dusty: Implementing Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Animal Abusers, 113 PENN ST. L. REV. 649, 656 (2008). As such, courts have considered "malicious acts against animals as acts of violence towards living creatures." Id. (citing People v. Dyer, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 527, 532 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (even though abused animal was property of the abuser, the perpetrator-abuser remained a threat to society and further concluding that such "a crime against an inanimate object or property can qualify as a crime of force or violence")); see also People v. Garcia, 29 A.D.3d 255, 261, 812 N.Y.S.2d 66, 71 (2006) (observing that "the crime [of animal cruelty] was established in recognition of the correlation between violence against animals and subsequent violence against human beings. . . [t]hus, it must be inferred that the Legislature's concern was with the state of mind of the perpetrator rather than that of the victim."). With this in mind, I can conceive of circumstances under which aggravated animal cruelty may constitute a violent offense for purposes of determining placement in a community corrections program.

Nevertheless, the facts and circumstances here do not present such a case. The record shows that the dogs in Tipton's care were malnourished and suffered from neglect. One dog was found dead. Tipton testified that he used his dogs to hunt, and they suffered injuries as a result. The trial court repeatedly stressed Tipton's honesty and accredited his testimony that the injuries were inflicted by a bear and not him. Without more proof evincing the violent nature of the offense, the trial court erred in finding Tipton statutorily ineligible for placement in the community correction program due to his aggravated animal cruelty conviction. See e.g., State v. Sandra Kay Webb and Tabitha Nicole Webb, 130 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (trial court sentenced defendants, convicted of forty-seven counts of cruelty to animals, to community corrections for eleven months and twenty-nine days for each count, with incarceration for sixty days). Finally, the trial court improperly classified the violation of the order of protection charge as a violent offense. There is no proof in the record that Tipton was convicted of violating an order of protection or any of the numerous charges listed in the presentence report. The presentence report in this case was woefully inadequate in apprising the trial court of Tipton's criminal history as evidenced by the trial court's repeated questions of the presentence report officer. While the majority stresses that the charges in the presentence report indicated violence, there was no proof offered at the hearing to support this assertion. To the extent the trial court relied upon the testimony of Gray to establish a pattern of behavior indicating violence, the record is again devoid of any present or past pattern of violent behavior. To the contrary, Gray testified that he had not personally observed Tipton to be violent. The record reflects one conviction for a violent felony offense, the 1998 felony reckless endangerment. As such, Tipton is eligible for placement in the community correction program under subsection (a).

After the trial court considered and denied placement in the community correction program under subsection (a), the court considered subsection (c) of the Community Corrections Act, known as the "special needs" provision, which states:

T.C.A. § 40-36-106(c) (2006). First, before being eligible for a community corrections sentence under subsection (c), the offender must be eligible for probation. State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (citing State v. Staten, 787 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989); State v. Lanny Crowe, No. 01C01-9503-CC-00064, 1995 WL 392967, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 6, 1995)). Second, the trial court must determine whether the offender is suitable for placement in the community corrections program by finding the following:

Id. at 439 (citing State v. Robert Wilson, No. 03C01-9209-CR-00305, 1993 WL 79626, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 22, 1993)).

First, Tipton was eligible for probation because he was sentenced to eight years' incarceration. See T.C.A. § 40-35-303(a). The trial court determined that Tipton had a significant, chronic history of substance abuse and that his problems were treatable. My concern is that the trial court does not explicitly address whether Tipton's problems were reasonably related to his criminal conduct. The court simply stated, "it boils down to could these issues that are treatable be best served in the community rather than a correctional facility." After the trial court took the matter under advisement, it later denied relief relying primarily on the previous hearing. Although the record reflects that the trial court agonized over whether to place Tipton in the community correction program, it did not make explicit findings regarding whether Tipton's drug addiction was reasonably related to his criminal conduct or whether his addiction would be better treated in the community rather than incarceration. The court alluded to Gray's testimony and the fact that "there could be a problem," but Gray testified that he had never observed Tipton to be violent and would assist Tipton in his recovery. The trial court did not provide its reasoning for denial of community corrections under subsection (c) other than to say, "it [is] just too much violence," which was not supported by the record.

The record reflects that Tipton had a history of alcohol and drug use which was "reasonably related to and contributed to [Tipton's] criminal conduct[.]" The record further demonstrates that Tipton's drug addiction is treatable, as evidenced by his acceptance into the drug rehabilitation program, and that such treatment is best served in the community rather than in a correctional institution. While the majority seems to focus on the unsubstantiated charges within the presentence report, I believe it is significant that Tipton had not been convicted of an offense since 2001, nearly sixteen years prior to the instant offense. Moreover, aside from Tipton's minimal criminal history, he had never violated his probation, had never received court-ordered treatment for his drug or alcohol addiction, and had gone through a seven-year period of sobriety. I would conclude that the trial court's denial of Tipton's placement in a community correction program to serve his sentence is not supported by the record and that Tipton is a proper candidate for community corrections under subsection (a). Additionally, even if there was some indication of violence based on his criminal history, as the majority concludes, Tipton was certainly a proper candidate for service of his sentence under the special needs provision of subsection (c). While the trial court has broad discretion in sentencing, such discretion is undisturbed by an appellate court only if it is supported by the record. See State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 861 (Tenn. 2013) (noting that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-210(e) and State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012), specifically require trial courts to articulate the reasons for the sentence in accordance with the purposes and principles of sentencing in order for the abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness to apply on appeal); see also State v. Cecelia M. Beasley, No. 01C01-9801-CR-00018, 1998 WL 626989, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 16, 1998) (reversing and modifying judgment to place defendant on community corrections where the record failed to show that the trial judge considered the sentencing principles and failed to place on the record its reasons for arriving at the final sentencing decision). Accordingly, I would reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for entry of judgments sentencing Tipton to community corrections and for consideration of other terms and conditions that the trial court deems appropriate pursuant to the Community Corrections Act.