ÿWPC ' …U:V % 0Ü–w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u©U, 0dJ B®U,ËU*÷B)!DCJ AMÇÚ(¡WÉ v~7 D3µvÓè 0@»% AOû%ÆJ& 0D' D/T' Bƒ', øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ Ee Ó€à~| K3|x+(Ð(3ë—$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ ÄXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  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 d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ½Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ25,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€record€reflects€that€the€appellantððs€name€is€ð ðLurty,ðð€weÏfollow€the€policy€of€this€court€and€refer€to€the€appellant€by€the€name€indicated€onÏthe€indictment€or€charging€instrument.Ì MÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€reflects€that€a€hearing€was€scheduled€in€this€case€in€theÏCriminal€Court€of€Jefferson€County€on€November€15,€1994.€€However,€we€areÏunable€to€locate€in€the€record€a€petition€for€a€writ€of€certiorari€for€abuse€ofÏprosecutorial€discretion,€required€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(b)(3)Ï(1994€Supp.).€€Moreover,€no€proof€was€introduced€at€the€hearing.€€Indeed,€theÏtrial€court€observed:€€Ìà8 àUpon€what€has€been€presented€it's€sort€of€hard€to€make€aÏdecision,€based€on€a€letter€from€the€defendant's€attorney€and€thenÏa€letter€from€the€Attorney€General's€Office,€as€to€how€you€judge€herÏindividually.€I've€got€two€letters€here,€neither€of€which€are€writtenÏby€her.€€I€cannot€see€an€abuse€of€discretion€based€on€the€proofÏthat's€been€offered.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€also€argues€that€the€district€attorney€general€improperlyÏconsidered€the€appellantððs€lack€of€candor€in€her€application€for€diversion€withÏrespect€to€her€conduct€in€this€case€and€the€motives€underlying€her€conduct.€ÏHowever,€on€appeal,€the€State€does€not€rely€upon€the€appellantððs€lack€of€candorÏin€support€of€its€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion.€€Moreover,€this€court€has€held,Ïð ð[T]he›€fact€that€one€of€the€reasons€given€[by€the€district€attorney€general]€for€theÏdenial€was€inappropriate€does€not€foreclose€a€determination€that€substantialÏevidence€still€remains€to€support€the€prosecutorððs€decision.ðð€€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861ÏS.W.2d€850,€857€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€Ùò ò›œßL€$%#;+'h|` | `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àFEBRUARYÏSESSION,€1996Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9502„CR„00058Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àJEFFERSON€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€WilliamÏR.€Holt,€Jr.,€JudgeÌò òJANET€LUTRYó ó,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àPre„TrialÏDiversionÌà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌLu€Ann€Ballewà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.€O.€Box€416à àÌDandridge,€TN€€37725à àà àà àChristina€S.€Shevalierà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAlfred€C.€Schmutzer,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€GassÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSevier€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€TN€€37862Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Janet€Lutry,× ƒ& ××  ×€pursuant€to€Rule€9,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.,€appealsÏfrom€the€judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€of€Jefferson€County,€affirming€the€districtÏattorney€general's€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion.€€The€appellant€seeks€to€divert€theÏoffense€of€forgery,€a€class€E€felony.€€The€sole€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€district€attorney€general€did€not€abuse€hisÏdiscretion€in€denying€her€application€for€pre„trial€diversion.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌà@ àò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌÌà àThe€record€in€this€case€indicates€that€the€appellant,€who€was€nineteenÏyears€of€age,€developed€a€close€friendship€with€Elaina€Cantwell,€a€minor€whoÏattends€middle€school€in€Dandridge,€Tennessee.€€On€February€14,€1994,€theÏappellant€forged€the€name€of€Elaina€Cantwell's€brother€on€school€documents€inÏorder€to€remove€Elaina€from€school€on€that€day.€€The€appellant€removed€ElainaÍfrom€school€without€the€permission€or€knowledge€of€Elaina's€family.€€She€laterÏreturned€the€minor€to€the€school€in€time€for€Elaina€to€ride€the€school€bus€home.€ÏAdditionally,€approximately€two€months€later,€in€an€incident€unrelated€to€theÏfacts€of€this€case,€the€appellant€boarded€a€Jefferson€County€school€bus€andÏassaulted€a€student,€triggering€an€additional€criminal€charge.ÌÌà àThe€appellant's€application€for€diversion€reveals€that,€when€she€wasÏeighteen€years€of€age,€the€appellant€moved€from€New€Jersey€to€Tennessee€inÏorder€to€reside€with€her€aunt.€€Her€application€states€that,€while€a€resident€ofÏNew€Jersey,€the€appellant€experienced€an€abusive€family€situation€and,€on€oneÏoccasion,€required€hospitalization€for€attempted€suicide.€€She€is€currentlyÏunemployed€but€receives€SSI€benefits€due€to€a€mental€disability.€€TheÏappellantððs€application€reveals€no€prior€criminal€history.ÌÌà àThe€district€attorney€general€denied€the€application€for€the€followingÏreasons:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€Nature€and€circumstances€of€the€crime:€ð ðThis€deceptive€actionÏvictimized€Denver€Cantwell€[Elainaððs€brother]€by€the€use€of€hisÏname.€€It€also€victimized€the€school€system€by€the€release€of€aÏchild€in€their€care,€and€it€displayed€the€defendant's€intention€toÏplace€a€young€girl€in€her€control€who€was€impressionable€andÏcould€be€easily€influenced€by€the€defendant's€illegal€behavior;ðð€ÌÌà8 à€(2)€Defendantððs€behavior€since€her€arrest€for€the€instant€offenseÏand€her€amenability€to€correction:€ð ðThe€defendant€has€persisted€inÏher€inability€to€conform€her€conduct€to€the€demands€of€the€law€andÍin€her€desire€to€have€contact€with€school€children.€€This€isÏevidenced€by€her€arrest€for€assault€on€April€27,€1994€in€which€sheÏis€alleged€to€have€boarded€a€Jefferson€County€School€bus€andÏassaulted€a€student;ðð€andÌÌà8 à€(3)€General€deterrence€of€forgery.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àOn€November€15,€1994,€the€trial€court€entered€its€order€finding€that€theÏdistrict€attorney€general€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€the€appellantÏpre„trial€diversion.× ƒ' ××  ×€€€€The€appellant€appeals€from€the€trial€court's€order.ÌÌà@ àò òANALYSISó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€district€attorney€general€abused€hisÏdiscretion€by€denying€pre„trial€diversion,€in€that€he€(1)€focused€primarily€uponÏthe€circumstances€of€the€offense€rather€than€on€the€appellant€as€an€individual;Ï(2)€improperly€considered€the€appellant's€arrest€for€assault€following€theÍcommission€of€the€instant€offense;€and€(3)€failed€to€produce€evidence€whichÏsupports€a€need€for€general€deterrence.× ƒ( ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€decision€to€grant€pre„trial€diversion€rests€within€the€discretion€of€theÏdistrict€attorney€general.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(b)(3)€(1994€Supp.);€òòseeÏalsoóó€€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€353€(Tenn.€1983);€€òòState€v.ÏHoustonóó,€900€S.W.2d€712,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€Ìto€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995);€€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€855.€€When€decidingÏwhether€to€grant€an€application€for€pre„trial€diversion,€the€district€attorneyÏgeneral€should€consider€the€circumstances€of€the€offense;€the€criminal€record,Ïsocial€history,€and€present€condition€of€the€defendant,€including€his€mental€andÏphysical€conditions€where€appropriate;€the€deterrent€effect€of€punishment€uponÏother€criminal€activity;€the€defendant's€amenability€to€correction;€the€likelihoodÏthat€pre„trial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interests€of€bothÏthe€public€and€the€defendant;€and€the€applicant's€attitude,€behavior€since€arrest,Ïprior€record,€home€environment,€current€drug€usage,€emotional€stability,€pastÍemployment,€general€reputation,€marital€stability,€family€responsibility,€andÏattitude€toward€law€enforcement.€€€òòState€v.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950,€951Ï(Tenn.€1993)€(citing€òòState€v.€Markhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€850,€852„53€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1988)€(citing€òòPace€v.€Stateóó,€566€S.W.2d€861€(Tenn.€1978),€andÏòòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€352)).€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòHoustonóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€714.€Ì€€€€Ìà àThe€district€attorney€general's€decision€regarding€pre„trial€diversion€isÏpresumptively€correct,€and€the€trial€court€will€only€reverse€the€decision€when€theÏappellant€establishes€that€there€has€been€a€patent€or€gross€abuse€ofÏprosecutorial€discretion.€€€òòHoustonóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€714€(citing€òòHammersleyóó,€650ÏS.W.2d€at€356).€€In€order€to€establish€abuse€of€discretion,€"the€record€must€showÏan€absence€of€any€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€district€attorney€general'sÏrefusal€to€grant€pre[„]trial€diversion."€€òòIdóó.€The€trial€court€may€only€considerÏevidence€considered€by€the€district€attorney€general€in€the€decision€denyingÏpre„trial€diversion,€€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€806,€810€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994),€and€the€trial€court€may€notÏsubstitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€district€attorney€general€when€his€decisionÏis€supported€by€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€607€S.W.2d€486,€489€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1980).ÌÌà àFor€purposes€of€our€review,€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€binding€onÏthis€court€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€such€findings.€€òòHoustonóó,Í900€S.W.2d€at€715.€€We€review€the€case,€not€to€determine€if€the€trial€judge€hasÏabused€his€discretion,€but€to€determine€if€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€finding€of€the€trial€judge€who€holds€that€the€district€attorney€general€has€orÏhas€not€abused€his€discretion.€€òòWatkinsóó,€607€S.W.2d€at€489.€€Thus,€theÏunderlying€issue€for€our€determination€remains€whether€or€not,€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw,€the€prosecutor€abused€his€discretion€in€denying€pre„trial€diversion.€€òòCarróó,Ï861€S.W.2d€at€856.ÌÌà àAgain,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€district€attorney€general€improperlyÏfocused€upon€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense.€€However,€the€focusÏof€diversion€does€not€rest€solely€upon€the€alleged€offender.€€In€appropriateÏcases,€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense€and€the€need€for€deterrenceÏmay€outweigh€all€other€relevant€factors€and€justify€a€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion.€ÏòòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€855.€€Indeed,€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offenseÏmay€alone€support€the€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion.€€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€668€S.W.2dÏ678,€680€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1984).€€Moreover,Ïthere€is€no€indication€in€the€record€that€the€district€attorney€general€failed€toÏconsider€all€relevant€factors,€including€those€set€forth€by€the€appellant€in€hisÏapplication.€€òòMarkhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€at€853.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€district€attorney€generalððs€reliance,Ïin€part,€upon€her€arrest€for€assault€is€improper.€€She€attempts€to€analogizeÍsentencing€and€pre„trial€diversion€for€the€purpose€of€excluding€evidence€ofÏarrests€from€the€district€attorney€generalððs€consideration.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏMilleróó,€674€S.W.2d€279,€284€(Tenn.€1984)(ð ðmere€arrests€or€indictments€are€notÏevidence€of€the€commission€of€a€...€crime.€...€[and]€should€...€generally€be€heldÏinadmissible€[at€a€sentencing€hearing]ðð);€òòState€v.€Buckmeieróó,€902€S.W.2d€418,Ï424€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995)(it€is€improper€forÏthe€trial€judge€to€consider€pending€criminal€charges€in€sentencing€theÏdefendant).€€However,€pre„trial€diversion€and€sentencing€are€not€the€same.€€InÏcontrast€to€the€sentencing€context,€in€the€diversion€context€the€societyððs€interestÏin€convicting€the€accused€has€not€been€achieved.€€Rather,€ð ðpre[„]trial€diversion€isÏan€extraordinary€largesse€of€the€law€in€that€it€excuses€many€guilty€persons€fromÏeven€being€tried.ðð€€òòSuttonóó,€668€S.W.2d€at€680„681.€€Thus,€ensuring€that€theÏdistrict€attorney€general€is€ð ðin€possession€of€the€fullest€information€possibleÏconcerning€the€defendantððs€life€and€characteristicsðð€assumes€even€greaterÏimportance.€€òòWilliams€v.€New€Yorkóó,€337€U.S.€241,€247,€69€S.Ct.€1079,€1083Ï(1948).€€Accordingly,€the€district€attorney€general€may€consider€evidence€ofÏarrests€in€denying€pre„trial€diversion.ÌÌà àThe€district€attorney€general€also€denied€the€appellant€diversion€basedÏupon€the€need€to€deter€others€from€committing€similar€offenses.€€The€appellantÏargues€that€the€district€attorney€general€offered€no€statistics€or€facts€which€wouldÏsupport€a€need€for€deterrence.€€The€appellantððs€argument€is€misplaced.€€ThisÍcourt€has€repeatedly€held€that€the€deterrent€effect€of€punishment€upon€otherÏcriminal€activity€is€a€factor€which€the€district€attorney€should€consider.€€òòSeeÏgenerallyóó,€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€355;€òòState€v.€Kirkóó,€868€S.W.2d€739,€743Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòMarkhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€at€853.€€Indeed,€we€haveÏpreviously€observed€that€ð ð[d]eterrence,€both€specific€and€general,€are€admirableÏgoals€of€a€prosecutorððs€office€in€determining€how€to€exercise€its€vast€discretion.ðð€ÏòòKirkóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€743.€€The€State€must€usually€demonstrate€a€need€forÏdeterrence.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSee,€e.góó.€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€No.€89„73„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏNashville,€October€19,€1989)(the€State€presented€extensive€detailed€testimonyÏthat€the€sale€of€cocaine€is€a€tremendous€and€increasing€problem€and€that€theÏneed€for€deterrence€is€particularly€great).€€However,€our€sentencing€lawsÏrecognize€that€the€punishment€of€certain€offenses€is€particularly€suited€toÏprovide€an€effective€deterrent€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„103(1)(B)€(1990).€€We€have€held€that€these€offenses,Ïby€their€very€nature,€need€no€extrinsic€proof€to€establish€the€deterrent€value€ofÏpunishment.€€òòState€v.€Millsapsóó,€No.€03C01„9211„CR„00374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€December€12,€1995).€€Cases€in€which€fraud€is€involved,€includingÏforgery€cases,€seem€to€compose€such€a€category.€€òòState€v.€Willoughbyóó,€No.Ï03C01„9305„CR„00154€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1994).€€We€conclude€that€the€district€attorney€generalððs€consideration€ofÏdeterrence€was€proper.ÌÌà àAs€we€have€previously€observed,€the€district€attorney€generalððs€decisionÏregarding€diversion€is€presumed€correct.€€òòHoustonóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€714.€€TheÏburden€of€establishing€entitlement€to€pre„trial€diversion€rests€with€the€appellant.€ÏòòWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€810.€€€The€appellant€has€failed€to€carry€her€burden.ÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€finding€that€the€districtÏattorney€general€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€pre„trial€diversion.€ÏAccordingly,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà à