ÿWPCx …# VUNa %¯ 0Ƶ{ 4ƒ — w@¦ 0Jæ 0T0 0^„ 0hâ 0rJ 0|¼ 0†8 0¾ 1uN 0dÃU>'U*eB)DC¸ AMûªHv~ò BpvÓ D3` 0@“ AOÓÆ" 0Dè D/, B[˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÔ¡¨ 3|xÍ »-e¼[½D¾¿DÀÁÂEÃÄÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌNovemberÏ8,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPt HHð@ÿìÿîRd(ühh° @d'ÿœÿ¦ š dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ý›Ñ7€–}XdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑԀԜـ€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|` ´- `€€Lß›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLE€óóÌà@ àSEPTEMBER€1996ÏSESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#Ï01C01„9510„CC„00336€Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà à*à àWILLIAMSONÏCOUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Donald€P.ÏHarris,€JudgeÌMICHAEL€GENTRY,à àà à*à à(JudicialÏDiversion)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà à*ÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòForÏAppellee:óóÌÓÓErnest€W.€Williams€and€à àà àà àà àCharlesÏW.€BursonÌJ.€Russell€Heldman€à àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€ReporterÌAttorneys€at€LawÌ320€Main€Street,€Suite€101€à àà àà àElizabeth€T.€RyanÌFranklin,€TN€€37064à àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€D.€BaughÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRonald€L.€DavisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€General€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937ÌÌ€Ìà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌà àà àThe€defendant,€Michael€Gentry,€entered€a€plea€of€guilt€to€one€count€ofÏofficial€misconduct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„402(a)(5).€€Pursuant€to€a€pleaÏagreement,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€Range€I€sentence€of€two€years€and€grantedÏprobation€but€denied€the€defendant's€request€for€judicial€diversion.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„313;€òòState€v.€Dishmanóó,€915€S.W.2d€458€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€InÏthis€appeal,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€byÏrefusing€to€grant€judicial€diversion;€he€also€insists€that€the€district€attorney€generalÏwas€guilty€of€prosecutorial€vindictiveness.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àOn€July€11,€1994,€the€defendant€and€Katrina€Greer,€both€of€theÏFranklin€Police€Department,€were€indicted€on€two€counts€of€official€misconduct,€twoÏcounts€of€soliciting€unlawful€compensation,€and€one€count€of€conspiracy.€€At€theÏtime,€the€defendant€was€a€sergeant€of€the€Williamson€County€DUI€Task€Force,€aÏbody€comprised€of€two€officers€from€the€Franklin€Police€Department€and€one€eachÏfrom€the€Brentwood€Police,€the€Fairview€Police,€and€the€Williamson€CountyÏSheriff's€Department.€€The€defendant€supervised€all€task€force€activities.€€DuringÏChristmas€of€1993,€the€defendant€authorized€for€himself€and€the€other€officers€in€theÍtask€force€holiday€pay€even€though€no€work€would€actually€take€place.€€AÏsubsequent€investigation€established€that€the€defendant€and€Ms.€Greer€were€theÏonly€two€task€force€members€who€had€made€claims€for€and€received€theÏunwarranted€holiday€pay.€€The€defendant€was€untruthful€when€questioned€by€hisÏlieutenant€during€the€initial€stages€of€the€investigation.Ìà àÌà àà àInitially,€the€state€had€offered€to€allow€the€defendant€to€plead€guilty€toÏone€count€of€official€misconduct,€be€granted€probation,€and€then,€upon€successfullyÏcompleting€a€two„year€probationary€period,€have€his€record€expunged€under€theÏprovisions€of€judicial€diversion.€€That€offer,€however,€was€made€contingent€upon€theÏcodefendant,€Ms.€Greer,€accepting€the€same€terms.€€Ms.€Greer€declined.ÌÌà àà àSeveral€months€later,€a€trial€ensued.€€During€the€defendant'sÏtestimony,€the€state€again€offered€a€plea€agreement.€€As€to€Ms.€Greer,€however,€theÏperiod€of€probation€was€increased€by€one€year€from€the€original€proposal€and,€as€toÏthe€defendant,€the€terms€were€the€same€except€that€the€judicial€diversion€offer€wasÏwithdrawn.€€Each€accepted€the€terms€of€the€new€plea€agreement.€€At€the€sentencingÏhearing,€the€state€opposed€the€defendant's€request€for€judicial€diversion.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€denied€the€application€on€the€basis€that€the€defendantÍhad€been€untruthful€during€the€course€of€the€investigation€and€had€presentedÏwitnesses€"for€the€purpose€of€creating€an€impression€with€the€jury€that€he€and€Ms.ÏGreer€did€work."€€The€trial€court€ultimately€ruled€that€because€the€defendant€held€aÏresponsible,€public€position,€had€violated€the€trust€incident€to€the€office,€and€hadÏbeen€less€than€candid€during€the€various€stages€of€the€proceedings,€the€request€forÏjudicial€diversion€should€be€denied.€€ÌÌà àà àJudicial€diversion€is€authorized€by€statute.€€It€is€reserved€for€"anyÏperson€who€has€not€previously€been€convicted€of€a€felony€or€a€Class€AÏmisdemeanor."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313(a)(1).€€It€is€available€only€to€thoseÏwho€either€plead€guilty€or€are€found€guilty€of€"a€misdemeanor€which€is€punishableÏby€imprisonment€or€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony."€€òòIdóó.€€The€statute€authorizes€the€trialÏcourt€to€place€the€defendant€"on€probation€upon€such€reasonable€conditions€as€itÏmay€require€and€for€a€period€of€time€not€less€than€the€maximum€sentence€for€theÏmisdemeanor€...€or€...€the€felony€with€which€he€is€charged."€€òòIdóó.€€In€the€event€theÏdefendant€satisfactorily€completes€his€probationary€term,€he€is€entitled€to€aÏdischarge€and€dismissal.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313(a)(2).€€The€effect€of€theÏdismissal€is€"to€restore€[the€defendant]€to€the€status€he€occupied€before€such€arrestÏor€indictment€or€information."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313(b).€€òòState€v.€Evittsóó,€915ÏS.W.2d€468€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€grant€of€judicial€diversion€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€ÏOnly€an€abuse€of€that€discretion€warrants€a€reversal.€€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2dÏ163€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€this€case,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€clearly€hadÏa€rational€basis.€€The€defendant,€a€veteran€police€officer€in€charge€of€the€task€force,Ïqualified€as€a€public€employee€entrusted€with€an€important€role€of€responsibility.€ÏThe€plan€to€acquire€unearned€pay€and€the€ensuing€coverup€lasted€for€a€period€ofÏweeks.€€The€defendant€and€at€least€one€other€person€participated€in€the€plan.€€HisÏlack€of€candor€during€the€investigation€militates€against€the€grant€of€a€more€lenientÏsentence.€€ÌÌà àà àThat€is€not€to€say,€of€course,€that€the€defendant€did€not€present€aÏpersuasive€claim.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€the€33„year„old€defendant€had€an€impressiveÏrecord.€€Father€of€three€children,€he€had€graduated€from€high€school€and€hadÏattended€Austin€Peay€University.€€He€spent€four€years€in€the€United€States€MarineÏCorps€and€was€in€the€Presidential€Guard€Service.€€He€received€several€awardsÏwhile€in€the€Marines€and€currently€serves€in€the€Tennessee€Army€National€Guard.€ÏHe€has€training€œin›€accident€œinvestigation,›€accident€reconstruction,€and€several€otherÏfields€of€expertise.€€While€the€defendant€may€have€been€a€worthy€candidate€for€theÏjudicial€diversion€program,€this€court€must€defer€to€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÍwhich,€after€having€observed€the€demeanor€of€the€defendant€and€other€witnesses,Ïfound€reasonable€grounds€for€denial.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€claim€of€prosecutorial€vindictiveness€also€has€no€merit.€€ThisÏdefense€is€most€commonly€addressed€when€the€defendant€has€been€reindicted€onÏa€more€serious€charge€in€retaliation€for€the€exercise€of€a€constitutional€right.€€òòSeeóó,Ïòòe.góó.,€òòBlackledge€v.€Perryóó,€417€U.S.€21,€94€S.Ct.€2098€(1974);€òòUnited€States€v.ÏWilsonóó,€639€F.2d€500€(9th€Cir.€1981).€€In€òòUnited€States€v.€Meyeróó,€810€F.2d€1242Ï(D.C.€Cir.€1987),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€485€U.S.€940€(1988),€the€term€was€described€asÏfollows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à"Prosecutorial€vindictiveness"€is€a€term€of€art€with€aÏprecise€and€limited€meaning.€€The€term€refers€to€aÏsituation€in€which€the€government€acts€against€aÏdefendant€in€response€to€the€defendant's€prior€exerciseÏof€constitutional€or€statutory€rights....ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€Supreme€Court€has€established€two€ways€in€whichÏa€defendant€may€demonstrate€prosecutorialÏvindictiveness.€€First,€the€defendant€may€show€"actualÏvindictiveness"„„that€is,€òòhe€may€prove€through€objectiveÏevidence€that€a€prosecutor€acted€in€order€to€punish€himÏfor€standing€on€his€legal€rightsóó.€This€showing€is,€ofÏcourse,€exceedingly€difficult€to€make.€€Second,€òòaÏdefendant€may€in€certain€circumstances€rely€on€aÏpresumption€of€vindictiveness:€when€the€facts€indicatedÏ"a€realistic€likelihood€of€'vindictiveness[,]'"€a€presumptionÏwill€arise€obliging€the€government€to€come€forward€withÏobjective€evidence€justifying€the€prosecutorial€actionóó.€€IfÍthe€government€produces€such€evidence,€theÏdefendant's€only€hope€is€to€prove€that€the€justification€isÏpretextual€and€that€actual€vindictiveness€has€occurred.€ÏBut€if€the€government€fails€to€present€such€evidence,€theÏpresumption€stands€and€the€court€must€find€that€theÏprosecutor€acted€vindictively.€€ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€1245€(emphasis€added)(citations€omitted).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€this€instance,€of€course,€there€was€no€reindictment.€€An€offer€ofÏsettlement€which€had€been€made€by€the€state€and€rejected€by€the€defense€severalÏmonths€before€was€simply€no€longer€on€the€table.€€The€record€does€not€establishÏthat€the€state,€by€refusing€to€agree€to€judicial€diversion€at€the€later€date,€attemptedÏto€further€punish€the€defendant.€€In€fact,€other€information,€perhaps€not€availableÏwhen€the€first€offer€was€made,€had€likely€come€into€the€hands€of€the€state€by€theÏtime€the€new€offer€was€proposed.€€Moreover,€in€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€€919€S.W.2d€346,Ï360€(Tenn.€œCrim.€App.€1995),›€this€court€held€that€the€issue€of€prosecutorialÏvindictiveness€had€been€waived€when€the€defendant€has€knowingly€and€voluntarilyÏentered€the€plea€of€guilt.€€That€is,€of€course,€the€very€case€here.€€By€accepting€theÏrevised€offer,€the€defendant€gave€up€his€right€to€complain.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€Ìà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌL.T.€Lafferty,€Special€Judge€Ì