ÿWPCC ¾Ž‰Ø^Ú,1,>áËš¦-kæ·.ëÝ÷=Rcá›QH¼‚шƒä¶~'BAº¸àOÕÿ £(nàöÚõáÖ;4Žq =¬†\ÀgFHi3É >Ý"A>ð¨¸àV½D·7n¶Õœ×ÕÐJ¨ºç¸«™Oy´ÙóÏ…àSÈñ͉rçÂ5)pÇæDÇkXt/‰U»›9Î_ózD÷ï± 2”jµ?ÉÉ#„„aKóÞŸ¬KpµÆ'WºÞUS}D«å>>Aô¸œ™ˆÚµMœy,K`æcìþ ¼yk­Âž¹Ÿ¯¸xž&íMýò¸_çɌЖÅÃþ>:ÀèEÇâ/îÞk”MѾ¼LGXc¢h¯Ú?…Þ ιµÌ$ÇV›Yü C•Ë·<Ó¨”«/…2E6ûòÅ8È,hä ¿ý<=ª7WÑíjWCªk•†îÆìPc‹1O2åþz€:ÜO|‘®,Ò^™!øêGg ÓÓÀ´½ðÝÅÃ_QXZÁ¡/ûã²ù‘Cýø©ó޳öo]õ¡!8VV2 í¦So›Ö Šoh7—!3¥¾  hÞÏ'ýíˆ*ËúO﵃Ýk¤j‘/}¤Ót¯{КË2QsÜŹ8°Í,# hUNs %Á 0(Çw@ï4/CfR 0ˆ¸ 0D@Ô„ÐX U:( b U:j U:¤ UNÞ U:, $f U:Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š BÄ Ä 0Dá D3%%%% AQXÆ© 0Do 0D³ D/÷ B&˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÜÏ'Ör Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ €3Š3‹3Œ3D3DŽ33E3‘3D’3Ó€ø‚&3|x3 \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ(8(2«€$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒø°ÒÒX°Òà P àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÊÝ ƒ «€ÿÝÒø°ÒÒX°Òà P àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô‡ôÛXôXXÔÔ‡ ô[†ôôôÛXÔThe€defendant€proceeded€pro€se€on€appeal€with€only€the€advice€of€attorneys€Vince€SikoraÐ `  Ðand€€David€Overbay.€€The€case€was€submitted€for€a€decision€on€the€record€and€the€appellantððs€brief,Ïwith€oral€argument.Ô#†ôÛXôô ô[†#ÔÔ#†XšñXôôÛX`#Ô ÆÝ ƒ «€ÿÝÒø°ÒÒX°Òà P àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôÛXôXXÔÔ‡ô[†ôôôÛXÔThe€defendant€proceeded€pro€se€on€appeal€with€only€the€advice€of€Mr.€Vince€Sikora€and€Mr.Ð `  ÐDavid€Overbay.€€The€case€was€submitted€for€a€decision€on€the€record€and€the€appellantððs€brief,€withÏoral€argument.Ô#†ôÛXôô ô[†~#ÔÔ#†XšñXôôÛX_#Ô, øð AZ"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular'Ör Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XØXXXÔÔ€|XXØÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XØX|ÔÐ  ÐÌò òMay€20,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô³ôXXØÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý'ÿÿdxd'(!)*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý›Ñ` °ÑÒX°ÒÒ4°ÒÑܰÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓòòÔ€XæmXXXÔÔ‡XØXXXæmÔÑ7€q/XXdìdÈ7Ñò òÑ  ÑÑ€†Ññ’3ñœßr€&"<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` ttx$X` ð Úrß›ñ’3ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÐ `  Ðà@@ÚÚ0ÚàòòÌAT€KNOXVILLEó óóóÐ 8 Ø ÐÌJANUARY€1999€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à ” àà ì à*à D àC.C.A.€NO.€¢03„C„01„9801„CC„00034£€Ð ¢B ÐÌà Œ àAPPELLANT,à ” àà ì à*à D à¢SULLIVAN€COUNTY£Ð t  ÐÌ¢VS£.à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à*à D àHon.€Phyllis€H.€Miller¢£,€JudgeÐ @à  ÐÌà0 Œ àà 4 àò òCHRIS€EUGENE€ETTERSó ó,à ì à*à D à(Pretrial€Diversion¢£)à L àà ¤ àà ü! àà T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ àà @T$ à€Ð ¬ Œ €%Œ €% ÐÌà Œ àAPPELLEE.à < àÔ#†XæmXXXØÖ#ÔÔ‡XØXXXæmÔà ” àà ì à*à D àÐ Þ~ Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àÌà Œ àà ä àÌòòÌÌFor€Appellantóó:à < àà ” àà ì àà D àòòFor€Appelleeóó:Ð Bâ ÐÌ¢£¢John€Knox€Walkup£à < àà ” àà ì àà D àDavid€OverbayÐ ® ÐAttorney€General€and€Reporterà ì àà D à1740€Euclid€AvenueÐ ô” Ð450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà ì àà D àBristol,€VA€€24203Ð Ú z ÐNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àVincent€SikoraÌ¢Albert€L.€Partee,€IIIà < àà ” àà ì àà D àP.O.€Box€821£Ð Œ#, ÐSenior€Counselà < àà ” àà ì àà D àPiney€Flats,€TN€37686Ð r$ ÐEnforcement€DivisionÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€North,€2nd€FloorÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0494ÌÌLewis€Combs,€Jr.ÌAssistant€District€Attorney€General€ÌBlountville,€TN€€37617ÌÌà Œ àà ä àà < àÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€____________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€€ÌÌÌÌNORMA€MCGEE€OGLE,€JUDGEÔ#†XæmXXXØ´#ÔòòÐ „5$,1 ÐÓ  Óò òÓÓÑ7€q/XXdìXXdì7ÑÌÌÐ *:Ê06  ÐOPINIONóóó óÐ `  ÐÓº Óà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant,€Chris€Eugene€Etters,€was€indicted€on€February€12,Ï1997,€on€one€count€of€vandalism€in€the€amount€of€$10,000€or€more€and€on€oneÏcount€of€violating€the€Tennessee€Water€Quality€Act.€€The€defendant€applied€forÏpretrial€diversion.€€On€June€2,€1997,€the€District€Attorney€General€denied€theÏrequest.€€On€January€7,€1998,€the€Criminal€Court€of€Sullivan€County€overruled€theÏDistrict€Attorney€General€and€granted€the€defendant€pretrial€diversion.€€Accordingly,Ïon€February€10,€1998,€the€District€Attorney€General€entered€into€a€memorandum€ofÏunderstanding€with€the€defendant,€setting€forth€the€conditions€of€the€defendantððsÏpretrial€diversion.€€The€State€additionally€applied€for€permission€to€appeal€theÏinterlocutory€order€of€the€trial€court€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9,€which€applicationÏwas€granted€by€the€trial€court€and€by€this€court.€€In€this€appeal,€the€State€asserts€thatÏthe€trial€court€incorrectly€overruled€the€District€Attorney€General's€denial€of€pretrialÏdiversion.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àFollowing€a€review€of€the€record€and€the€partiesðð€briefs,€we€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòI.€óóó óà @Œ àà @ä àò òòòFactual€Backgroundóóó óÐ  +À!$ ÐÓ  Óà Œ àà ä àIn€1993,€the€defendant,€Chris€Eugene€Etters,€leased€a€tract€of€land€onÏRiverport€Road€in€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€and€began€operating€AZROK€CorporationÏ(AZROK).€€AZROK€processed€and€distributed€hardwood€bark€generated€by€the€localÏMead€Paper€facility.€€Previously,€Mead€Paper€had€been€disposing€of€approximatelyÏ75,000€tons€of€hardwood€bark€per€year€in€landfills.€€Seizing€an€opportunity€to€turnÏwhat€had€been€Mead€Paper's€waste€into€a€viable€commercial€product,€AZROKÏbegan€processing€the€leftover€bark€into€compost€landscape€mulch€for€resale.€€As€aÐ @8à.2 Ðresult,€the€two€companies€won€the€œ1993„94›€Tennessee€Association€of€BusinessÏExcellence€in€Sold€Waste€Management€Award€for€their€joint€effort€to€conserveÏlandfill€space€and€find€a€beneficial€use€for€the€bark€material.€€At€this€time,€theÏdefendantððs€business€was€thriving,€but€trouble€was€looming€on€the€horizon.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àProblems€began€for€AZROK€in€œAugust,›€1993€when€the€defendant€wasÏinformed€by€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Environment€and€Conservation€(TDEC),ÏDivision€of€Solid€Waste€Management€(DSWM),€that€he€was€engaged€in€theÏunauthorized€processing€of€solid€waste€in€violation€of€the€Solid€Waste€Disposal€Act.€ÏFrom€œAugust,›€1993€to€œAugust,›€1995€the€defendant€met€with€various€agents€ofÏDSWM€on€numerous€occasions€and€initiated€efforts€to€comply€with€theirÏrequirements.€€However,€he€was€unable€to€fully€execute€the€required€measures€dueÏto€the€size€and€unfortunate€location€of€his€business.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAZROK€was€located€on€a€tract€of€land€adjacent€to€a€public€road€andÏthe€Holston€Army€Ammunition€Plant€(HAAP)€property€and€near€a€sluice€of€theÏHolston€river.€€Furthermore,€unknown€to€the€defendant€at€the€time€he€leased€the€lot,Ïthe€AZROK€business€was€on€or€adjacent€to€a€former€city€dump€site.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWhen€AZROK€mulched€its€bark€and€placed€the€mulch€in€piles€for€theÏpurpose€of€aging,€the€piles€of€mulch€would€occasionally€spontaneously€combust.€ÏWhen€AZROK€employees€sprayed€the€mulch€with€water€in€an€attempt€to€control€theÏfires€or€when€it€rained,€tannins€would€leach€from€the€mulch,€and€another€chemicalÏ(TEC)€would€leach€from€the€city's€old€dump€site.€€The€defendant€built€œretainingÏponds›€and€excavated€a€ditch€in€order€to€control€the€leachate,€but€he€could€notÏcontrol€the€flow€of€leachate€off„site.€€Personnel€from€the€TDEC€Division€of€WaterÐ @8à.2 ÐPollution€Control€inspected€the€site€and€witnessed€leachate€flowing€across€RiverportÏRoad€and€draining€into€the€nearby€sluice€of€the€Holston€River.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àMead€Paper€conducted€tests€of€the€mulch€product€and€concluded€thatÏthe€mulch€was€not€hazardous€to€the€public€using€the€product€or€to€AZROKÏemployees.€€Additionally,€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Health,€EpidemiologyÏDivision,€concluded€that€the€contaminants€in€the€mulch€were€not€a€hazard€to€theÏpublic€and€that€the€contaminants€in€the€leachate€were€not€highly€concentratedÏenough€to€warrant€public€concern.€€However,€œthe€State€alleged€thatñ3ñ,ñ3ññ3ñ€ñ3ññ3ñ€ñ3ññ3ññŽ3ñ€ñŽ3ññ3ñbetween›€1994Ïand€1995,€the€defendant€failed€to€contain€the€leachate,€failed€to€control€theÏoutbreaks€of€fires€on€the€site,€failed€to€comply€with€the€Permit„by„Rule€requirementsÏof€a€solid€waste€processing€facility,€failed€to€file€adequate€financial€assurance€withÏthe€Commissioner€of€TDEC,€and€failed€to€pay€the€annual€maintenance€fee€requiredÏof€persons€operating€an€approved€solid€waste€processing€facility.Ì€€Ìà Œ àà ä àTherefore,€on€August€4,€1995,€the€Commissioner€of€TDEC€ordered€theÏdefendant€to€immediately€cease€accepting€waste€at€his€facility€and€ordered€him€toÏclose€the€facility.€€Closing€the€facility€entailed€the€removal€of€all€solid€waste€and€solidÏwaste€constituents€within€thirty€days.€€In€addition,€the€Commissioner€ordered€theÏdefendant€to€pay€restitution€in€the€amount€of€$76,433.27.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€ceased€operation€of€AZROK,€but€he€did€not€remove€theÏbark€materials€from€the€site.€€As€a€result€of€the€defendantððs€efforts€to€comply€with€theÏTDECððs€requirements,€his€business€had€become€insolvent.€€Moreover,€the€defendantÏand€Mead€Paper€disagreed€over€who€was€responsible€for€the€cleanup€of€the€site.€ÏMeanwhile,€the€leachate€continued€to€flow€off„site.Ð @8à.2 ЀÌà Œ àà ä àOver€a€period€of€time,€the€AZROK€operation€caused€$4,000€damage€toÏa€fence€on€the€Armyððs€adjacent€property.€€Moreover,€the€leachate€allegedlyÏcontaminated€soil€on€the€Armyððs€property,€requiring€the€removal€of€the€soil.€€TheÏArmy€sought€restitution€from€the€defendant€for€these€expenses.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àMr.€Jerry€Fulkerson€and€Mr.€Walter€Nat€Smith,€agents€of€TDEC,€wereÏresponsible€for€inspecting€the€AZROK€site€at€various€times.€€In€affidavits,€both€Mr.ÏSmith€and€Mr.€Fulkerson€alleged€that€the€defendant€had€threatened€them€while€theyÏwere€visiting€the€AZROK€site.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àHowever,€Mr.€Fulkerson€submitted€two€œinconsistent€versions›€of€theÏœñ‹3ñincidentñ‹3ññŒ3ñepisodeñŒ3ñ›€in€which€he€was€threatened€by€the€defendant.€€During€an€interview€with€theÏprobation€officer€who€prepared€the€pretrial€diversion€report,€Mr.€Fulkerson€stated€thatÏð ð...during€the€investigation€the€defendant€threatened€him€and€ððpulled€a€gunðð€on€himÏas€well€as€other€members€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Energy€andÏConservation.ðð€€In€contrast,€in€his€affidavit,€Mr.€Fulkerson€did€not€allege€that€theÏdefendant€had€ever€ð ðpulled€a€gunðð€on€him.€€Rather,€he€stated€that€he€had€once€seenÏa€gun€in€the€defendantððs€truck.€€Mr.€Fulkerson€attested€that,€on€that€occasion,€theÏdefendant€did€not€threaten€any€TDEC€agents.€€The€only€threat€by€the€defendantÏdescribed€in€Mr.€Fulkersonððs€affidavit€occurred€during€a€telephone€conversation.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àMr.€Smith€stated€in€his€affidavit€that,€on€one€occasion€when€he€wasÏinspecting€the€AZROK€site€and€discussing€compliance€measures€with€the€defendant,Ïthe€defendant€expressed€disagreement€with€the€on„going€enforcement€action€andÏstated€that€he€had€something€that€would€take€care€of€the€problem.€€The€defendantÐ @8à.2 Ðthen€placed€his€right€hand€on€the€small€of€his€back.€€Mr.€Smith€inferred€that€theÏdefendant€had€a€weapon€concealed€on€his€person.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAs€stated€above,€the€defendant€was€indicted€on€one€count€ofÏvandalism€and€on€one€count€of€violating€the€Tennessee€Water€Quality€Act.€ÏAccording€to€the€pretrial€diversion€report,€the€defendant€was€forty„four€years€old,Ïmarried,€and€the€father€of€four€children.€€His€family€was€supportive.€€Despite€poorÏgrades,€the€defendant€had€graduated€from€high€school€œin€1973€and›€had€sinceÏdeveloped€a€good€work€history.€€His€criminal€history€consisted€of€three€speedingÏtickets.€€He€had€no€history€of€alcohol€or€drug€abuse€as€an€adult.€€As€a€juvenile,€theÏdefendant€drank€alcohol€for€a€short€period€of€time€and€experimented€with€marijuanaÏtwice€on€one€day€when€he€was€approximately€seventeen€years€old.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€was€apologetic€and€remorseful€for€any€harm€he€mayÏhave€caused€to€others€as€a€result€of€his€business.€€He€maintained€that€Mead€PaperÏwas€responsible€for€removing€the€waste€material€following€the€closing€of€the€AZROKÏfacility.€€Therefore,€he€contended€that€any€œdamages›€caused€by€the€leftover€barkÏmaterials€and€the€leachate€œwere›€not€attributable€to€him.€€Further,€he€asserted€that,Ïdue€to€his€businessðð€insolvency,€he€was€unable€to€pay€œfor€the›€damages.€€A€numberÏof€friends€and€family€members€wrote€letters€vouching€for€the€defendantððs€goodÏcharacter€and€concern€for€the€environment.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€a€letter€denying€the€defendantððs€request€for€pretrial€diversion,€theÏDistrict€Attorney€General€stated€that€he€had€considered€ð ðthe€pretrial€diversion€report,Ïa€clean„up€estimate€by€Holston€Defense,€Affidavits€from€Mr.€Nat€Smith€and€Mr.€JerryÏFulkerson,€letters€sent€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Etters,€and€other€information€from€the€file.ðð€Ð @8à.2 ÐThe€District€Attorney€General€then€listed€the€following€grounds€upon€which€his€denialÏrested:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(1)€€The€defendant€was€ordered€by€the€Commissioner€ofÏthe€Department€of€Environment€to€cease€business€at€hisÏlocation€by€order€dated€August€4,€1995.€€The€offensesÏlisted€in€the€Presentment€occurred,€at€least€partially,€afterÏthe€Commissionerððs€Order.€€The€allegation€of€waterÏpollution€was€listed€as€occurring€over€eight€months€afterÏthe€Order€was€entered.€€The€Order€also€states€a€historyÏof€substantial€non„compliance€with€state€regulationsÏduring€the€course€of€the€defendantððs€mulching€operation.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(2)€Mr.€Walter€Nat€Smith€and€Mr.€Jerry€Fulkerson€bothÏfiled€affidavits€stating€that€the€defendant€threatened€themÏduring€their€work€at€the€defendantððs€work€site.€€In€bothÏinstances,€a€handgun€was€the€perceived€weapon€inÏconnection€with€the€threats.€€The€threats€occurred€over€aÏperiod€of€time€and€was€obviously€in€response€to€theirÏinvestigation€of€the€defendantððs€facility.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àÐ ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(3)€The€Presentment€alleges€criminal€activity€whichÏoccurred€over€an€extended€period€of€time€and€whichÏcaused€extraordinary€damages€to€the€victimððs€property.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(4)€The€defendant€does€not€have€a€criminal€history,€butÏdoes€admit€to€using€an€illegal€drug€on€at€least€twoÏoccasions.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(5)€The€educational€history€in€the€pretrial€diversion€reportÏshows€a€poor€academic€record.€€However,€it€was€notedÏthat€the€defendant€did€graduate€high€school.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓš0Óà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àThe€Criminal€Court€of€Sullivan€County€overruled€the€District€AttorneyÏGeneral€and€granted€the€defendant€pretrial€diversion.€€The€trial€court€held€that€theÏDistrict€Attorney€General€had€abused€his€discretion.€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€heldÏthat€the€District€Attorney€General€had€failed€to€enumerate€or€assign€due€significanceÏto€all€relevant€factors€and€that,€in€any€case,€there€was€no€substantial€evidence€in€theÏrecord€to€support€the€prosecutorððs€denial€of€pretrial€diversion.€€The€trial€court€orderedÏthat€the€State€enter€into€a€Memorandum€of€Understanding€with€the€defendant,Ïgranting€pretrial€diversion€for€a€period€œof›€two€years.€€In€addition€the€trial€courtÐ @8à.2 ÐцÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ñordered:€€Ð `  ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à1.€€The€defendant€shall€pay€restitution€to€HAAP€in€theÏamount€of€$4,000€to€rebuild€the€fence€damaged€by€theÏAZROK€operation.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à2.€€The€defendant€shall€pay€TDEC€$4,949.55€in€past€dueÏmaintenance€fees,€interest,€and€penalties.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à3.€€The€defendant€must€perform€three€hundred€hours€ofÏcommunity€service.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓ±;ÓÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à4.€€The€defendant€must€pay€a€monthly€supervision€fee€ofÏ$30€and€court€costs.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà @Œ àà @ä àò òòòII.€AnalysisÐ Pð ÐÓP>ÓóóA.€€Pretrial€Diversion€Generallyó óÐ 0Ð Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€Pretrial€Diversion€Act€provides€a€means€of€avoiding€theÏconsequences€of€a€public€prosecution€for€those€who€have€potential€for€rehabilitation.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105€(1997€and€Supp.€1998).€€The€pretrial€diversionÐ Ð p Ðprogram€allows€a€district€attorney€general€to€suspend€prosecution€against€a€qualifiedÏdefendant€for€a€period€of€up€to€two€years.€€òòId.óó€€Whether€to€grant€or€deny€anÐ $0 Ðapplication€for€pretrial€diversion€is€in€the€discretion€of€the€district€attorney€general.€ÏòòId.óó;€òòÔ‡ X–XXX–ÔState€v.€Pinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€956,€959€(Tenn.€1997);Ô#†X–XX X–#A#Ô€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650Ð P(ð! ÐS.W.2d€352,€353€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861€S.W.2d€850,€855€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 0*Ð # ÐApp.€1993);€òòState€v.€Freemanóó,€No.€03C01„9712„CC„00523,€1999€WL€96272,€at€*2Ð ,°"% Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€February€22,€1999).Ìà Œ àÌà Œ àà ä àIn€making€the€initial€œdeterminationñ‘3ñ,ñ‘3ñ€of€whether€diverson€is€warranted,€›Ïthe€district€attorney€general€must€consider€(1)€the€circumstances€of€the€offense;€(2)Ïthe€defendantððs€criminal€record;€(3)€the€defendantððs€social€history;€(4)€theÏdefendantððs€physical€and€mental€condition;€(5)€the€deterrent€effect€of€punishmentÐ P7ð-1 Ðupon€other€criminal€activity;€(6)€the€defendantððs€amenability€to€correction;€(7)€theÏlikelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€ð ðserve€the€ends€of€justiceðð€and€the€best€interestsÏof€the€defendant€and€the€public;€and€(8)€the€defendantððs€ð ðattitude,€behavior€sinceÏarrest,€prior€record,€home€environment,€current€drug€usage,€emotional€stability,€pastÏemployment,€general€reputation,€marital€stability,€family€responsibility,€and€attitude€ofÏlaw€enforcement.ðð€€òòState€v.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950,€951€(Tenn.€1993)€(citingÐ À`  ÐòòState€v.€Markhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€850,€852„53€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)).€€Ð  @  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€alleged€offenses€are€not€the€onlyÏappropriate€factors€to€be€considered€upon€application€for€diversion€but€may€aloneÏprovide€a€sufficient€basis€for€denial.€€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€855;€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€668Ð  À ÐS.W.2d€678,€680€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cavnoróó,€No.€02C01„9704„CR„Ð   Ð00155,€1998€WL€148320,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€March€31,€1998),Ïòòperm€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1999).€€However,€the€circumstances€of€the€case€andÐ À!` Ða€generalized€need€for€deterrence€ð ðcannot€be€given€òòcontrollingóó€weight€unless€theyÐ  #@ Ðare€ððof€such€overwhelming€significance€that€they€[necessarily]€outweigh€all€otherÏfactors.ðððð€òòWashingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€at€951€(emphasis€in€original)€(quoting€òòMarkhamóó,Ð `'  Ð755€S.W.2d€at€853).€€Where€there€are€no€ð ðsuch€exceptional€circumstances,€ððtheÏdistrict€attorney€general€must€consider€evidence€which€tends€to€show€that€theÏapplicant€is€amenable€to€correction€by€diversion€and€is€not€likely€to€commit€furtherÏcriminal€acts.ðððð€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€806,€810€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð à.€%( ÐApp.€1993).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWhen€deciding€whether€to€enter€into€a€memorandum€of€understandingÏunder€the€pretrial€diversion€statute,€a€prosecutor€should€focus€on€the€defendantððsÏamenability€to€correction.€€Any€factors€which€tend€to€accurately€reflect€whether€aÐ @8à.2 Ðparticular€defendant€will€or€will€not€become€a€repeat€offender€should€be€considered.€ÏSuch€factors€must,€of€course,€be€clearly€articulated€and€stated€in€the€record€in€orderÏthat€a€meaningful€appellate€review€may€be€had.€€òòPinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€959„960Ð  À Ð(quoting€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€355);€see€also€òòState€v.€Curryóó,€No.€02S01„9709„Ð   ÐCC„00079,€1999€WL€115113€(Tenn.€at€Dyersburg,€March€8,€1999).€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àFurthermore,€if€the€district€attorney€general€denies€pretrial€diversion,Ïthe€denial€must€be€in€writing€and€must€include€ð ðan€enumeration€of€the€evidence€thatÏwas€considered€and€a€discussion€of€the€factors€considered€and€weight€accordedÏeach.ðð€€òòPinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€960.€€This€ð ðrequirement€entails€more€than€anÐ @à Ðabstract€statement€in€the€record€that€the€district€attorney€general€has€consideredÏthese€factors.ðð€€òòState€v.€Herronóó,€767€S.W.2d€151,€156€(Tenn.€1989).€€Instead,€theÐ   Ðfactors€considered€ð ðmust€be€clearly€articulable€and€stated€in€the€record...€.ðð€€òòId.óó€€TheÐ à€ Ðfact€that€a€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€suitability€for€diversion€doesÏnot€relieve€the€prosecutorððs€obligation€to€examine€all€of€the€relevant€factors€and€setÏforth€the€required€findings.€€òòPinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€960;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòCurryóó,€No.Ð €%  Ð02S01„9709„CC„00079,€1999€WL€115113,€at€*3.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIf€the€application€for€pretrial€diversion€is€denied,€the€defendant€mayÏappeal€by€petitioning€the€trial€court€for€a€writ€of€certiorari.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„¼105(b)(3)€(1997€and€Supp.€1998).€€On€a€petition€for€certiorari,€the€hearing€conductedÏby€the€trial€judge€is€limited€to€two€issues:€(1)€whether€the€accused€is€eligible€forÏdiversion;€and€(2)€whether€the€district€attorney€general€abused€his€discretion€inÏrefusing€to€divert€the€accused.€€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€607€S.W.2d€486,€488„89€(Tenn.Ð €4 +. ÐCrim.€App.€1980);€òòState€v.€Cavnoróó,€No.€02C01„9704„CR„00155,€1998€WL€148320,Ð `6-0 Ðat€*3.€€Moreover,€the€only€evidence€that€may€be€considered€by€the€trial€court€is€theÐ @8à.2 Ðevidence€that€was€considered€by€the€district€attorney€general.€€òòWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2dÐ `  Ðat€810.€€The€trial€court€may€conduct€a€hearing€only€to€resolve€any€factual€disputesÏraised€by€the€prosecutor€or€the€defendant€concerning€the€application,€but€not€to€hearÏadditional€evidence€that€was€not€considered€by€the€prosecutor.€€òòSeeóó€òòPinkhamóó,€955Ð   ÐS.W.2d€at€960.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòState€v.€Curryóó,€our€supreme€court€announced€the€standard€of€review€Ð  @  Ðthat€an€appellate€court€must€apply€in€pretrial€diversion€cases:€ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThe€action€of€the€prosecutor€is€presumptively€correct,Ïand€is€subject€to€review€by€the€trial€court€only€for€anÏabuse€of€discretion.€€The€record€in€this€regard€must€showÏan€absence€of€any€substantial€evidence€to€support€theÏrefusal€of€the€district€attorney€general€to€enter€into€aÏmemorandum€of€understanding€before€a€reviewing€courtÏcan€find€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòThe€appellate€courtÐ   Ðmust€determine€whether€the€trial€courtððs€decision€isÏsupported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.óó€€€Ðà€ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÓoXÓÓÓÌÓÓNo.€02S01„9709„CC„00079,€1999€WL€115113,€at€*4€(emphasis€added);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÐ À!` ÐòòPinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€960.Ð  #@ ÐÌò òB.€€Application€of€the€œLawñ3ñ€in€this€Caseñ3ñó ó›Ð `'  Ðà Œ àà ä àOn€appeal,€the€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€theÏDistrict€Attorney€Generalððs€denial€of€pretrial€diversion.ñ€3ñœ×ƒ ×ñ€3ññ€3ñ׃ ×ñ€3ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€The€State€contends€that€theÐ  +À!$ Ðtrial€court€erred€by€tacitly€re„weighing€the€relevant€factors€and€deciding€that€theÏdefendant€was€amenable€to€correction.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àInitially,€we€concur€in€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€District€AttorneyÏGeneral€failed€to€enumerate€or€assign€weight€to€all€of€the€factors€relevant€in€pretrialÐ €4 +. Ðdiversion€cases.€€Although€the€District€Attorney€General€stated€in€his€denial€letterÏthat€he€considered€the€pretrial€diversion€report€and€the€letters€sent€on€behalf€of€theÏdefendant,€the€prosecutor€did€not€discuss€the€defendantððs€favorable€social€history,Ïlack€of€criminal€record,€and€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€The€failure€of€the€DistrictÏAttorney€General€to€consider€and€articulate€all€of€the€relevant€factors€constituted€anÏabuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòCurryóó,€No.€02S01„9709„CC„00079,€1999€WL€115113,€atÐ À`  Ð*6.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àMoreover,€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€that€the€circumstances€of€the€case€were€not€ð ðððof€such€overwhelmingÏsignificance€that€they€[necessarily]€outweigh[ed]€all€other€factors.ðððð€òòWashingtonóó,€866Ð  À ÐS.W.2d€at€951€(citation€omitted).€€The€District€Attorney€General€denied€pretrialÏdiversion€on€five€grounds.€€On€appeal,€the€State€contends€that€three€of€the€fiveÏgrounds€were€each€a€sufficient€and€independent€ground€to€deny€diversion:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(1)€€The€defendant€was€ordered€by€the€Commissioner€ofÏthe€Department€of€Environment€to€cease€business€at€hisÏlocation€by€order€dated€August€4,€1995.€€The€offensesÏlisted€in€the€Presentment€occurred,€at€least€partially,€afterÏthe€Commissionerððs€Order.€€The€allegation€of€waterÏpollution€was€listed€as€occurring€over€eight€months€afterÏthe€Order€was€entered.€€The€Order€also€states€a€historyÏof€substantial€non„compliance€with€state€regulationsÏduring€the€course€of€the€defendantððs€mulching€operation.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(2)€Mr.€Walter€Nat€Smith€and€Mr.€Jerry€Fulkerson€bothÏfiled€affidavits€stating€that€the€defendant€threatened€themÏduring€their€work€at€the€defendantððs€work€site.€€In€bothÏinstances,€a€handgun€was€the€perceived€weapon€inÏconnection€with€the€threats.€€The€threats€occurred€over€aÏperiod€of€time€and€was€obviously€in€response€to€theirÏinvestigation€of€the€defendantððs€facility.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÓÇbÓÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(3)€The€Presentment€alleges€criminal€activity€whichÏoccurred€over€an€extended€period€of€time€and€whichÏcaused€extraordinary€damages€to€the€victimððs€property.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓÓÐ @8à.2 Ðà Œ àà ä àWith€respect€to€the€first€ground,€the€State€cites€four€separate€instancesÏof€discharge€of€pollutants€by€AZROK€after€the€State€had€warned€the€defendant€andÏprescribed€curative€measures.€€The€Commissioner€of€TDEC€described€theseÏinstances€in€his€August€4,€1995,€order€closing€the€AZROK€facility.€€The€State€assertsÏthat€these€episodes€demonstrate€the€defendantððs€willful€violation€of€state€laws€andÏregulations.€€Moreover,€the€State€argues€that€a€grand€jury€subsequently€found€thatÏthe€defendant€wilfully€and€knowingly€polluted€the€Holsten€River€on€April€21,€1996.€ÏAccording€to€the€State,€the€prosecutor€was€entitled€to€rely€upon€the€CommissionerððsÏorder€and€the€finding€of€the€grand€jury€in€denying€the€defendant€pretrial€diversion.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€trial€court€found€no€substantial€evidence€to€suggest€that€theÏdefendant€willfully€ignored€the€TDECððs€requirements.€€The€court€observed€that€theÏrecord€is€replete€with€the€defendantððs€efforts€to€comply€with€the€requirements,Ïincluding€spraying€mulch€piles€to€control€fires,€building€ditches€and€ponds€to€catchÏrunoff,€and€testing€the€toxicity€of€the€mulch€and€leachate.€€In€conclusion,€the€trialÏcourt€stated,€ð ðThe€Court€does€not€accept€the€premise€that€because€the€defendantððsÏefforts€were€unsuccessful,€he€willfully€failed€to€comply€with€TDECððs€rules€andÏregulations.ððÌà Œ àÌà Œ àà ä àFurthermore,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€it€could€find€no€evidenceÏthat€the€defendant€continued€his€mulching€business€after€August€4,€1995.€€The€trialÏcourt€noted€that€the€record€was€devoid€of€any€officerððs€report€or€other€documentÏindicating€that€the€pollution€of€the€river€which€is€alleged€to€have€occurred€on€April€21,Ï1996,€was€caused€by€anything€other€than€leftover€bark€materials€and€leachate€fromÏthe€city€dump€site.Ìà Œ àà ä àÐ @8à.2 Ðà Œ àà ä àAs€to€the€second€ground€for€denial€of€pretrial€diversion,€the€StateÏargues€that€the€threats€made€by€the€defendant€were€significant€enough€to€warrantÏthe€prosecutorððs€denial€of€pretrial€diversion.€€The€State€contends€that€these€threatsÏwere€clearly€designed€to€chill€the€regulatory€zeal€of€Mr.€Fulkerson€and€Mr.€Smith€byÏplacing€them€in€fear€of€bodily€harm€should€they€continue€their€enforcement€efforts.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€trial€court€found€no€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€StateððsÏbelief€that€the€defendant€threatened€TDEC€employees€with€a€handgun.€€AsÏexplained€earlier,€Mr.€Fulkersonððs€affidavit€differs€materially€from€an€interview€heÏgave€to€the€probation€officer€who€prepared€the€pretrial€diversion€report.€€In€hisÏaffidavit,€Mr.€Fulkerson€related€only€one€actual€threat€by€the€defendant€whichÏoccurred€during€a€telephone€conversation.€€Additionally,€Mr.€Smith€did€not€relate€anyÏexplicit€threat€by€the€defendant,€nor€did€he€ever€witness€the€defendant€in€possessionÏof€a€handgun.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAs€to€the€third€ground€that€the€defendantððs€vandalism€occurred€over€anÏextended€period€of€time,€the€State€argues€that€the€defendantððs€vandalism€continuedÏeven€after€the€August€4,€1995,€administrative€order€closing€the€AZROK€facility.€€WithÏrespect€to€the€amount€of€damage€to€the€Armyððs€property,€the€State€concedes€thatÏthe€damage€estimates€contained€in€the€record€reflect€a€discrepancy.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€trial€court€found€that€any€damage€caused€by€the€defendantððsÏoperation€of€his€business€occurred€between€April€20,€1995,€and€the€closing€of€theÏAZROK€facility€on€August€4,€1995.€€The€trial€court€reasoned€that€from€August€4,Ï1995,€to€October€31,€1996,€any€damage€was€attributable€to€runoff€from€the€materialsÏremaining€on€the€property€and€leachate€from€the€city€dump€site.€€The€trial€courtÐ @8à.2 Ðconcluded,€ð ðThere€is€no€evidence€that€the€defendant€actively€caused€any€damageÏduring€this€period€but€that,€instead,€he€was€embroiled€in€a€dispute€with€MeadÏCorporation€over€cleanup€of€the€site;€and€his€company€was€insolvent.ððÌÌà Œ àà ä àAs€to€the€extent€of€damage€to€the€Armyððs€property,€the€trial€court€notedÏthat€the€record€reveals€a€preliminary€assessment€of€damages€on€July€22,€1996,€ofÏonly€$24,000.€€Yet,€on€May€27,€1997,€with€no€explanation€or€itemization€of€damages,Ïthe€damage€assessment€rose€to€ð ð2.1M.ðð€€Moreover,€œñŠ3ñthe€trial€court€reasoned€that€theÏlegislature€has€provided€that€a€person€who€commits€a€Class€C€felony€is€eligibleÏfor€pretrial€diversion;€therefore,€the€District€Attorney€erred€in€relying€upon€the€factÏthat€the€damages€exceeded€$€10,000.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ñŠ3ññŠ3ñ›in›€rejecting›€the›€prosecutorððs›Ïreliance›€upon›€the›€amount›€of›€damages›€in›€denying›€pretrial›€diversion,›€the›€trial›€court›Ïreasoned›€that›€the›€legislature›€has›€provided›€that›€a›€person›€who›€commits›€vandalism›€causing›Ïdamage›€worth››€more›€than›€$10,000›€is›€eligible›€for›€pretrial›€diversion.ñŠ3ñ›Ì€€Ìà Œ àà ä àWe€conclude€that€the€record€contains€ample€evidence€to€support€theÏtrial€courtððs€decision€to€overrule€the€District€Attorney€Generalððs€denial€of€pretrialÏdiversion.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à__________________________________Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àNorma€McGee€Ogle,€JudgeÌÓo|ÓÌCONCUR:ÌÌÓÓ______________________________ÌJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÓl}ÓÌÌÓÓ_______________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judgeà ì àà D àà œ àà ô àà L à