ÿWPC; …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ U*Ç B)ñ DC AM] ªv~µvÓ3 B D3# 0@V AO–Æå 0D« D/ï B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- >?E@AEBCEDEEFGÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|xP2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌMay€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¦XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€!" A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌNOVEMBER€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9512„CC„00435Ìà 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 àHUMPHREYS€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ROBERT€E.€BURCHó óÌò òTOMMY€LEE€MANOR,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Rule€9€„€Pretrial€Diversion)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌWILLIAM€J.€PEELERà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌPorch,€Peeler,€Williams€&€Thomasonà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ102€South€Court€SquareÌWaverly,€TN€€37185à àà àà àCHARLOTTE€H.€RAPPUHNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌWILLIAM€H.€FARMERà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌJAMES€H.€WALKERà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌWaller,€Lansden,€Dortch€&€DavisÌ511€Union€Street,€Ste.€2100à àà àDAN€ALSOBROOKSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGEORGE€SEXTONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWaverly,€TN€€37185ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€„ÔOPINIONó óóóÔ€ŠÔÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThis€is€an€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€9,€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÏProcedure,€from€the€judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€Humphreys€County€affirmingÏthe€District€Attorneyððs€refusal€to€grant€pretrial€diversion.€€On€appeal,€AppellantÏTommy€Lee€Manor€claims€that€the€District€Attorney€abused€his€discretion€inÏdenying€his€application€for€pretrial€diversion.€€For€the€reasons€set€forth,€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓFactual€Backgroundó óÌÓ  Óà àOn€August€13,€1994,€Appellant€was€stopped€at€a€sobriety€checkpointÏand€found€to€be€in€possession€of€marijuana€and€cocaine.€€On€November€14,Ï1994,€Manor€submitted€an€application€to€the€District€Attorney€for€pretrialÏdiversion.€€The€District€Attorney€denied€his€application€citing€the€nature€andÏcircumstances€of€the€crimes,€the€need€for€deterrence,€and€background€informationÏindicating€Appellantððs€history€of€involvement€with€narcotics€as€reasons€for€hisÏdenial.€€On€April€4,€1995,€Appellant€was€indicted€for€one€count€of€possession€ofÏmarijuana€with€intent€to€sell€(a€Class€E€felony)€and€one€count€of€possession€ofÏcocaine€with€intent€to€sell€(a€Class€C€felony).€€On€June€6,€1995,€Appellant€wasÏre„indicted€for€possession€of€cocaine€in€excess€of€4€grams€with€intent€to€sell€(aÏClass€€B€felony).€€On€August€17,€1995,€Appellant€filed€a€writ€of€certiorariÍchallenging€the€District€Attorneyððs€denial€of€pretrial€diversion.€€A€hearing€was€heldÏon€August€24,€1995€and€the€trial€court€ruled€that€although€Appellant€was€eligibleÏfor€pretrial€diversion,€the€District€Attorney€General€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€inÏdenying€Appellantððs€application.€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓAppellantððs€Eligibility€for€Pretrial€Diversion€ó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€argues€that€he€is€eligible€for€pretrial€diversion€and€that€it€was€anÏabuse€of€discretion€for€the€District€Attorney€to€deny€his€application.€€The€StateÏmaintains,€although€the€trial€court€found€to€the€contrary,€that€AppellantððsÏindictment€for€a€Class€B€felony€makes€him€ineligible€for€pretrial€diversion.€€In€itððsÏreply€brief,€Appellant€argues€that€the€Stateððs€argument€should€be€disregardedÏas€beyond€the€scope€of€this€Rule€9€interlocutory€appeal.€€Appellant€maintainsÏthat€he€did€not€appeal€what€he€considers€an€appropriate€ruling€by€the€trial€courtÏon€Appellantððs€eligibility.€€Instead,€Appellant€claims€that€the€only€issue€beforeÏthis€Court€is€whether€the€District€Attorney€abused€his€discretion.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€issue€of€Appellantððs€eligibility€is€properly€before€this€Court.€ÏIn€his€Motion€for€a€Written€Order€Permitting€An€Interlocutory€Appeal,€AppellantÏcites€the€fact€that€eligibility€of€a€defendant€for€pretrial€diversion€after€indictment€forÏan€indivertible€offense€is€a€matter€of€first€impression€for€Tennessee€appellateÏcourts€as€a€reason€why€his€permission€for€interlocutory€appeal€should€beÍgranted.€€Appellantððs€eligibility€for€pretrial€diversion€is€obviously€integral€to€theÏissue€of€whether€the€District€Attorney€or€this€Court€can€properly€order€thatÏAppellant€be€placed€in€pretrial€diversion€status.€ÌÌà àIn€ruling€that€Appellant€was€eligible€for€pretrial€diversion€the€trial€court€reliedÏon€òòState€v.€Landersóó.€€723€S.W.2d€950€(Tenn.€1987).€€The€òòLandersóó€opinionÏinvolved€two€defendants€each€indicted€for€vehicular€homicide€while€under€theÏinfluence€of€intoxicants€and€vehicular€homicide€under€circumstances€manifestingÏindifference€to€human€life.€€òòId.óó€at€951.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€noted€thatÏone€of€the€prerequisites€to€pretrial€diversion€under€the€pretrial€diversion€statute€inÏeffect€at€the€time€was€that€the€maximum€punishment€for€the€offense€chargedÏhad€to€be€ten€years€or€less.€€Because€a€conviction€for€vehicular€homicide€whileÏunder€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€carried€a€maximum€punishment€of€twenty„one€years,€it€was€considered€an€indivertible€offense.€€On€the€other€hand,Ïbecause€€a€conviction€for€the€lesser€grade€of€vehicular€homicide€carried€aÏmaximum€punishment€of€only€five€years€it€was€considered€divertible.€€In€òòLandersóóÏthe€district€attorney€sought€to€dismiss€the€indivertible€offenses€so€that€he€couldÏapprove€diversion€for€the€divertible€offenses.€€The€Court€held€that€an€attorneyÏgeneral€may€not€dismiss€an€indivertible€offense€in€order€to€grant€diversion€for€aÏdivertible€offense€for€several€reasons.€€òòId.óó€at€952.€€While€the€prosecution€retainsÏabsolute€discretion€over€pretrial€diversion€before€indictment,€at€the€moment€ofÍindictment€the€court€obtains€jurisidiction.€€Once€the€prosecution€decides€to€have€aÏdefendant€indicted€for€an€indivertible€offense,€he€cannot€then€extend€the€benefitsÏof€pretrial€diversion€to€those€offenders€not€included€by€the€pretrial€diversionÏstatute.€€To€do€so€would€be€unlawful.€€ÌÌà àAppellant€focuses€on€the€following€language€in€òòLandersóó€to€support€itsÏargument€that€Appellantððs€initial€indictment€for€a€Class€C€felony€made€himÏeligible€for€pretrial€diversion:€ð ðthe€determination€of€whether€a€defendant€is€within€orÏwithout€the€eligible€class€is€irrevocably€determined€by€the€indictment.ðð€€TheÏproblem€with€Appellantððs€argument€is€twofold.€€While€the€language€quotedÏabove€in€isolation€may€support€Appellantððs€position,€understood€in€the€contextÏof€the€òòLandersóó€opinion€as€a€whole€it€does€not.€€òòLandersóó€holds€that€a€districtÏattorney€general€has€no€absolute€right€to€dismiss€a€charge€for€which€pretrialÏdiversion€is€improper€in€order€that€pretrial€diversion€may€be€granted€on€theÏremaining€charges.€€In€fact,€the€reliance€in€òòLandersóó€on€forbidding€a€districtÏattorney€from€diverting€cases€not€permitted€under€the€pretrial€diversion€statute€toÏbe€diverted€supports€the€conclusion€that€the€District€Attorney€in€this€case€shouldÏnot€be€permitted€to€divert€Appellantððs€case.€€In€addition,€òòLandersóó€does€notÏgovern€a€re„indictment€situation.€€It€does€not€hold€or€state€that€in€the€case€ofÏseveral€indictments,€the€initial€indictment€determines€the€eligibility€of€a€defendantÍfor€pretrial€diversion€such€that€an€eligible€defendant€cannot€ever€lose€his€pretrialÏdiversion€eligibility.ÌÌà à€There€is€no€doubt€that€had€Appellant€been€initially€indicted€for€a€Class€BÏfelony€he€would€not€be€eligible€for€pretrial€diversion.€€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€40„15„105(a)€reads€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ.€.€.€[I]n€cases€where€the€defendant€is€charged€with€a€misdemeanor€orÏfelony€.€.€.€the€parties€may,€by€a€memorandum€of€understanding,€agreeÏthat€the€prosecution€will€be€suspended€for€a€specified€period,€not€toÏexceed€two€(2)€years€from€the€filing€of€the€memorandum€ofÏunderstanding,€for€a€misdemeanor€other€than€driving€under€theÏinfluence€of€an€intoxicant€.€.€.,€or€for€a€Class€C€felony€.€.€.,€or€a€Class€DÏfelony€.€.€.,€or€a€Class€E€felony,€.€.€.€.ÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà àThere€is€no€allegation€in€this€appeal€of€any€ð ðbad€faithðð€on€the€part€of€theÏdistrict€attorney€in€obtaining€an€indictment€for€an€indivertible€offense.€€Thus,€weÏneed€not€address€the€question€of€whether€a€re„presentation€of€a€case€to€theÏgrand€jury€solely€for€the€purpose€of€making€a€divertible€charge€an€indivertible€oneÏwould€alter€the€results€of€our€opinion.Ìà àBecause€Appellant€was€indicted€for€a€Class€B€felony,€he€is€ineligible€forÏpretrial€diversion.€€Therefore,€we€reverse€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€that€AppellantÏwas€eligible€for€pretrial€diversion€and€affirm€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€that€theÏDistrict€Attorney€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€Appellantððs€application.à àÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE