ÿWPC1 …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` U,Õ 0dU,eU>‘U*ÏB)ù B"DC? AM‚#ÏÖòv~È D3FvÓy 0@L AOŒÆÛ 0D¡ D/å B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ;<D=>?E@ADBCDDÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|xM((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌAugust€1,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÌÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÔ€"ÔOrdinarily,€considerations€of€deterrence€in€dealing€with€criminal€defendants€must€be€supportedÏby€à0 àspecific€evidence€of€the€need€for€deterrence.€€òòState€v.€Asbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€170€(Tenn.€1991).Ô€!ÔÔ€!XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`$$$$'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€"ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€†mXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€&'%;+'h|` ç `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9503„CR„00083Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JANE€WHEATCRAFTó óÌDAMON€W.€BYRD,à àà àà àò ò)à àPRESIDING€JUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Interlocutory€Appeal€T.R.A.P.€9)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJAMES€WEATHERLY,€JR.à àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌThird€National€Finance€Centerà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ22nd€Floor,€424€Church€St.à àÌNashville,€TN€€37219à àà àà àCHRISTINA€SHEVALIERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€F.€JACKSON,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJudicial€Building,€Ste.€303Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòÔ€"„Ôà@ àOPINIONÔ€"XÔÌÌÓÓó óóóà àThe€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€Appellant€Damon€Byrd€on€twoÏcounts€of€assault€and€two€counts€of€sexual€battery.€€Appellant€entered€a€plea€of€notÏguilty€and€requested€pretrial€diversion€of€the€offenses.€€In€this€interlocutory€appealÏpursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€9,€Appellant€seeks€review€ofÏthe€judgment€of€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court€affirming€the€district€attorneyððsÏdenial€of€diversion.€€Appellant€alleges€that€the€district€attorney€abused€hisÏdiscretion€in€denying€the€request€for€diversion.€€ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThis€case€arises€from€an€incident€that€occurred€in€August€of€1992€at€the€TwoÏRivers€Wave€Pool€in€Nashville.€€According€to€the€Stateððs€theory€of€the€case,ÏAppellant,€a€thirty„nine„year„old€male,€approached€the€victim,€a€thirteen„year„oldÏfemale,€engaged€her€in€conversation,€and€then€touched€her€breast€by€reachingÏinside€her€bathing€suit.€€Some€time€later,€Appellant€again€approached€the€victimÏand€again€touched€her€breast.€€Appellant€denies€that€the€incident€occurred.€ÌÌà àFollowing€his€indictment,€Appellant€requested€pretrial€diversion.€€On€JuneÏ28,€1994,€the€district€attorney€denied€his€request.€€While€acknowledging€AppellantððsÏexcellent€work€record€and€social€history,€the€district€attorney€denied€diversion€onÏthe€following€grounds:€€(1)€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€offense;€(2)ÏAppellantððs€lack€of€amenability€to€rehabilitation;€(3)€the€interests€of€society;€and€(4)Ïthe€deterrent€effect€of€punishment.ÌÌà àAppellant€filed€a€petition€for€a€writ€of€certiorari€in€the€Davidson€CountyÏCriminal€Court,€seeking€to€overturn€the€district€attorneyððs€denial€of€diversion.€€OnÏOctober€6,€1994,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€to€determine€whether€the€districtÏattorneyððs€denial€of€diversion€constituted€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€After€consideringÏthe€evidence,€the€trial€court€refused€to€find€an€abuse€of€prosecutorial€discretion€andÏaffirmed€the€district€attorneyððs€decision.€€The€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€forms€theÏbasis€of€the€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€decision€to€grant€pretrial€diversion€rests€within€the€discretion€of€theÏdistrict€attorney.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(b)(3)€(Supp.€1995).€€That€decisionÏis€presumptively€correct€and€shall€be€reversed€only€when€the€appellant€establishesÏthat€there€has€been€a€patent€or€gross€abuse€of€prosecutorial€discretion.€€òòState€v.ÏHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€356€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€order€to€establish€such€anÍabuse€of€discretion,€the€record€must€show€an€absence€of€any€substantial€evidenceÏto€support€the€district€attorneyððs€refusal€to€grant€pretrial€diversion.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àWhen€deciding€whether€to€grant€pretrial€diversion,€the€district€attorneyÏshould€consider€the€following€factors:€(1)€the€circumstances€of€the€offense;€(2)€theÏdefendantððs€criminal€record,€social€history,€and€present€condition,€including€mentalÏand€physical€conditions€if€appropriate;€(3)€the€deterrent€effect€of€punishment€onÏother€criminal€activity;€(4)€the€defendantððs€amenability€to€correction;€and€(5)€theÏlikelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interestsÏof€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950,€951Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€When€reviewing€a€denial€of€pretrial€diversion,€this€Court€may€notÏsubstitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€district€attorneyððs€even€if€we€would€haveÏpreferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€607€S.W.2d€486,€488€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1980).€€The€role€of€this€Court€is€limited€to€determining€whether€any€substantialÏevidence€exists€to€support€the€district€attorneyððs€decision€within€the€framework€ofÏthese€factors.€€òòState€v.€Houstonóó,€900€S.W.2d€712,€714€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1995).€€ÌÌà àHere,€the€district€attorney€properly€considered€all€applicable€factors.€€In€hisÏletter€denying€diversion,€the€district€attorney€conceded€that€Appellant€had€anÏexcellent€work€and€social€history,€with€no€prior€criminal€record,€but€concluded€thatÍthe€factors€opposing€diversion€outweighed€Appellantððs€favorable€personal€history.€ÏWe€will€review€the€findings€of€the€district€attorney€in€order€to€determine€whetherÏthere€is€substantial€evidence€to€support€a€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€in€this€case.€€€ÌÌà àThe€district€attorney€relied€upon€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€in€denyingÏdiversion.€€As€noted€by€the€trial€court,€the€alleged€crimes€were€perpetrated€againstÏa€thirteen„year„old€child€and€involved€two€distinct€incidents€of€improper,€intentionalÏtouching,€rather€than€a€single€impetuous€act.€€We€conclude€that€the€circumstancesÏof€the€alleged€offenses€support€the€decision€to€deny€diversion.ÌÌà àThe€district€attorney€also€relied€upon€the€need€to€protect€the€interests€ofÏsociety€in€denying€diversion.€€The€very€fact€of€a€sexual€assault€upon€a€child€isÏdisturbing.€€The€fact€that€these€alleged€assaults€took€place€in€the€seeminglyÏinnocuous€setting€of€a€public€amusement€attraction€frequented€by€children€is€evenÏmore€troubling.€€Parents€and€children€should€be€free€of€the€fear€that€adult€sexualÏpredators€will€strike€in€places€reserved€for€innocent€fun.€€Again,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€need€to€protect€the€interests€of€society€weigh€in€favor€of€the€denial€of€diversion.ÌÌà àThe€district€attorney,€in€his€letter€notifying€Appellant€of€the€decision€to€denyÏdiversion,€referred€to€the€need€for€deterrence€in€cases€such€as€this€one.€ÍSpecifically,€the€prosecutor€stated€that€the€goal€of€deterrence€would€be€bestÏachieved€ð ðif€other€members€of€society€[saw]€that€those€in€a€position€of€prominenceÏ[were]€not€diverted€when€they€make€sexual€attacks€on€minors€and€others€who€areÏunable€to€defend€themselves.ðð€€This€Court€has€previously€noted€that€ð ð[d]eterence,Ïboth€specific€and€general,€are€admirable€goals€of€a€prosecutorððs€office€inÏdetermining€how€to€exercise€its€vast€discretion.ðð€€òòState€v.€Kirkóó,€868€S.W.2d€739,€743Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€order€to€substantiate€the€need€for€deterence,€the€StateÏpresented€child€abuse€statistics€for€Tennessee€and€Davidson€County€to€the€trialÏcourt€as€well€as€examples€of€law€enforcement€efforts€to€address€the€problems€ofÏchild€abuse.€€Even€absent€underlying€proof,€certain€criminal€offenses,€by€their€veryÏnature,€need€no€extrinsic€proof€to€establish€the€deterrent€value€of€punishment.€ÏòòState€v.€Pinkhamóó,€No.€02C01„9502„CR„00040,€1996€WL€275048€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€May€24,€1996);€òòState€v.€Millsapsóó,€920€S.W.2d€267,€271€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).× ƒ( ××  ×ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€sexual€molestation€of€children€is€an€offense€where€theÏneed€for€deterrence€is€obvious.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Vinesóó,€No.€95,€1991€WL€21603,€at€*1Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€22,€1991);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Krattsóó,€No.€193,€1988€WLÍ63512,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€22,€1988)€(commenting€that€ð ðthere€is€a€publicÏawareness€of€the€need€to€deter€an€individual€who€would€sexually€abuse€childrenððÏand€that€ð ðthe€need€to€deter€.€.€.€is€obviousðð).€€Thus,€the€district€attorneyððsÏconsideration€of€and€reliance€upon€the€deterrent€effect€of€punishment€was€proper.ÌÌà àThe€district€attorney€however€was€incorrect€in€finding€that€Appellant€was€notÏamenable€to€rehabilitation€because€he€denied€the€allegations€in€the€indictment.€€AsÏAppellant€correctly€points€out,€an€admission€of€guilt€is€not€a€valid€prerequisite€to€theÏgranting€of€pretrial€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€645€S.W.2d€251,€253€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1982).€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€conclusion€thatÏAppellant€is€unamenable€to€rehabilitation.€€Indeed,€Appellantððs€lack€of€any€criminalÏrecord€and€his€social€history€would€weigh€in€favor€of€his€amenability€toÏrehabilitation€without€the€necessity€of€a€public€trial.€€This€consideration€weighs€inÏfavor€of€diversion.ÌÌà àThis€Court€is€not€at€liberty€to€second€guess€the€decision€of€the€districtÏattorney€in€this€matter€absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€DespiteÏAppellantððs€outstanding€personal€history€and€apparent€amenability€to€rehabilitation,Ïthe€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€need€to€protect€the€public,€and€the€deterrentÍeffect€of€punishment€provide€ample€support€for€the€discretionary€decision€to€denyÏpretrial€diversion.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓà àÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGE