WPC5 U:V % 0w@r 4   0  0D 0JA 0T 0^ 0h= 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0dU*B) BDC AM54BTJ D3^!*! 0@#@#;&:*v~$,v- AOu33 0D4 D/4 B4,  AZ"Arial RegularX(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  eUfUgDhUijPkElmenӀ^!3|xy((3$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7,XXdXXd7    `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d7Border 1dd- C << G  !  #d#    ! \RA'\#d#      YYY FILEDX March27,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk  y !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7,XXdXXd7     Asamatterofpolicy,thiscourtdoesnotnameminorswhoarevictimsofsexualabuse.SeeStatev.Schimpf,782S.W.2d186,188n.1(Tenn.Crim.App.1989).  !#d#     \RA'\#d#        Theappellantalsoattachedtohisapplicationforpretrialdiversionsevenlettersfromrelatives,friends,andcoworkers,whoattestedtotheappellantsgoodcharacter.  !#d#     \RA'\#d#        Atthetimeofthewritofcertiorarihearing,theappellanthadbeenmarriedforfortyfiveyears. 8 !#d#     \RA'\#d#        TheappellantassumedlegalcustodyofMPwhensherequestedpermissiontopermanentlyresidewithhergrandparents.Shehadpreviouslylivedwithherauntanduncle,withwhomshewasexperiencingproblems.Sincetheinitiationofthesecriminalproceedings,MPhasreturnedtothehomeofherauntanduncle.Theappellanttestifiedatthewritofcertiorarihearingthat,althoughhecontinuestoprovidefinancialsupporttoMP,heisvoluntarilytransferringlegalcustodyofMPtoherauntanduncle.  !#d#     \RA'\#d#        Theappellantsubmittedvariouslettersfromtreatingphysicians,whoindicatedthattheappellantsafflictionsincludedepression,atypicalmigraines,cerebralvasculardisease,atheroscleroticcardiovasculardiseasewithanunderlyingischemicheartdisease,highbloodpressure,diabetesmellitus,chronicdyspepsia,degenerativelumbarspine,andsleepapnea.  !#d#     \RA'\#d#         ` XX Thedistrictattorneygeneralasserted, [Theappellant]appearstobeselfcenteredandunconcernedwiththevictimandtheconsequenceshisactsmayhaveonherlife.'dxd  !#d#     \RA'\#d#        Withrespecttothisfactor,thedistrictattorneygeneralnoted, Theattitudeoflawenforcementisthatsexualabuseofchildrenisaseriousprobleminoursocietyanditsperpetratorsneedtobepunishedanddeterred.("$     6 !#d#     \RA'\#d#        Withrespecttotheappellantsamenabilitytocorrectionandthecircumstancesoftheoffense,thetrialcourtnotedtheappellantsstatementtothepoliceinwhichheconfessedtofondlingandkissingMPsbreastsonatleastoneoccasion.  !#d#     \RA'\#d#        Wenotethatthiscourthaspreviouslysuggested,indicta,thatsexualmolestationofchildrenisanoffenserequiringnoextrinsicproofoftheneedfordeterrence.SeeStatev.Byrd,No.01C019503CR00083(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,August1,1996),perm.toappealgranted,(Tenn.1997).Moreover,ourlegislaturehasdeclared:8 Theincidenceofchildsexualabusehasatremendousimpactonthevictimizedchild,siblings,familystructure,andinevitablyonallcitizensofthisstate,andhascausedthegeneralassemblytodeterminethatthepreventionofchildsexualabuseshallbeapriorityofthisstate.Tenn.CodeAnn.371601(a)(1996)  !#d#     \RA'\#d#        Wenotethattheappellant,inhisbrief,failedtociteanyauthorityinsupportofhisdueprocessclaim.Tenn.R.App.P.27(a)(7);Ct.ofCrim.App.Rule10(b).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .      \RA'\#Xd##Xd#   ݛ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE̜R!" A1-j|` | `@Rߛ@ SEPTEMBERSESSION,1996 STATEOFTENNESSEE ,  )     ) No.03C019512CC00401 Appellee   )     ) HAMBLENCOUNTYvs.     )     ) Hon. JamesE.Beckner ,Judge ROBERTEUGENEPFOFF,SR.  )     ) InterlocutoryAppeal Appellant   ) (DenialofPreTrialDiversion)FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee: PAULG.WHETSONE   JOHNKNOXWALKUP AttorneyatLaw    AttorneyGeneralandReporter502NorthJacksonSt. Morristown,Tn37814   ELIZABETHT.RYAN       AssistantAttorneyGeneral       CriminalJusticeDivision      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493                C.BERKELEYBELL,JR.       DistrictAttorneyGeneral       VICTORVAUGHNand      JOHNDUGGER       Asst.DistrictAttorneysGeneral      510AllisonStreet      Morristown,TN37814OPINIONFILED:򀀀 AFFIRMED DavidG.Hayes Judge@ OPINION  Theappellant,RobertEugenePfoff,Sr.,bringsthisinterlocutoryappealpursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.9,contendingthatthedistrictattorneygeneralabusedhisdiscretionindenyingtheappellantsapplicationforpretrialdiversionandthathewasdeniedanadequatehearingofhispetitionforwritofcertiorariinviolationofthedueprocessprovisionsoftheTennesseeandUnitedStatesconstitutions.Followingareviewoftherecord,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.@ I.FactualBackground  OnJuly3,1995,theGrandJuryofHamblenCountyreturnedanindictmentchargingtheappellantwithtwocountsofsexualbatteryofhissixteenyearoldgranddaughter,MP. #   ׀InOctober,1995,theappellantappliedforpretrialdiversionpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.4015105(1996Supp.).OnNovember9,1995,thedistrictattorneygeneraldeniedtheappellantsrequest,and,accordingly,theappellantfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari.OnNovember17,1995,thetrialcourtconductedahearing,concludingthattheprosecutorhadproperlyexercisedhisdiscretion. Alongwithhisapplicationforpretrialdiversion,theappellantsubmittedtothedistrictattorneygeneralaletterfromthevictim,MP,inwhichshestatedthatshewouldnotobjecttotheappellantsplacementinapretrialdiversionprogram.Moreover,indenyingtheappellantsrequestforpretrialdiversion,thedistrictattorneygeneralnotedthefollowingfactorssupportingtheappellantsapplication:theappellantslackofacriminalrecord;theappellantsgoodbehaviorsincehisarrestintheinstantcase;theappellantslackofanyhistoryofdrugoralcoholabuse;theappellantseducationandhistoryof sustainedandregularemployment;theappellantsgoodreputationinthecommunity; $   ׀theappellantsmaritalstability; %   ׀andtheappellantsfulfillmentoffamilyresponsibilities.Thedistrictattorneygeneralalsonotedthefollowingfactorsmilitatingagainstpretrialdiversion:thecircumstancesoftheoffense,includingtheappellantsrepeatedexploitationofhiscustodialrelationshipwithhisgranddaughter,MP, &   ׀andanongoinginvestigationbytheDepartmentofHumanServicesofallegationsthattheappellanthassexuallymolestedanothergranddaughter,SP,whowasfiveyearsold;theappellantspoorphysicalandmentalcondition; '   ׀theappellantsattitude; (   ׀theattitudeoflawenforcement; ,   ׀theneedfordeterrence;andtheappellantslackofamenabilitytocorrection.Theprosecutoraccordedmostsignificancetothecircumstancesoftheoffense,theappellantslackofamenabilitytocorrection,andtheneedfordeterrenceandconcludedthattheadversefactorsoutweighedthosefactorssupportingpretrialdiversion. OnNovember15,1995,theappellantsubmittedamotiontothetrialcourt,inessenceobjectingtothedistrictattorneygeneralsrelianceupontheappellantsallegedsexualabuseofhisfiveyearoldgranddaughter,SP.Atthewritofcertiorarihearing,defensecounselbroughttheappellantsmotiontotheattentionofthetrialcourtandaskedthatthecourtomitfromitsreviewoftheprosecutorsdecisionanyconsiderationoftheappellantsallegedsexualabuseofSP.Whileaccordingtheallegationlittleweight,thetrialcourtneverthelessconcludedthattheallegationwasonefactorsupportingtheprosecutorsexerciseofdiscretionintheinstantcase.Thetrialcourtadditionallyfoundthattheprosecutorsdenialofdiversionwassupportedbytheappellantslackofamenabilitytocorrection,theneedforspecificdeterrence,thecircumstancesoftheoffense,theappellantsmentalcondition,and,generally,thebestinterestsofthepublic. .   ׀ThetrialcourtquestionedtheStatesrelianceupontheappellantsphysicalcondition,notingthat [i]tcouldgoeitherway,theStatesrelianceuponthepoorattitudeoftheappellant,citingthelackofevidencesupportingthisfactor,andtheStatesrelianceupontheattitudeoflawenforcementandgeneraldeterrence,againcitingthelackofevidenceintherecord. /   ׀Again,inthefinalanalysis,thecourtconcludedthattheprosecutorhadnotabusedhisdiscretionanddeniedtheappellantspetition.@ II.Analysis  Onappeal,theappellantcontendsthatthedistrictattorneygeneralabusedhisdiscretionindenyingtheappellantpretrialdiversion.Inarelatedissue,theappellantarguesthatthedistrictattorneygeneralsrelianceatthewritofcertiorarihearinguponanunchargedoffenseprecludedafairhearing. Initially,thedecisiontograntpretrialdiversionrestswithinthediscretionofthedistrictattorneygeneral.Tenn.CodeAnn.4015105(b)(3)(1996Supp.);seealsoStatev.Hammersley,650S.W.2d352,353(Tenn.1983);Statev.Houston,900S.W.2d712,714(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1995);Statev.Carr,861S.W.2d850,855(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Whendecidingwhethertograntanapplicationforpretrialdiversion,thedistrictattorneygeneralshouldconsiderthecircumstancesoftheoffense;thecriminalrecord,socialhistory,andpresentconditionofthedefendant,includinghismentalandphysicalconditionswhereappropriate;thedeterrenteffectofpunishmentuponothercriminalactivity;thedefendant'samenabilitytocorrection;thelikelihoodthatpretrialdiversionwillservetheendsofjusticeandthebestinterestsofboththepublicandthedefendant;andtheapplicant'sattitude,behaviorsincearrest,priorrecord,homeenvironment,currentdrugusage,emotionalstability,pastemployment,generalreputation,maritalstability,familyresponsibility,andattitudeoflawenforcement.Statev.Washington,866S.W.2d950,951(Tenn.1993)(citingStatev.Markham,755S.W.2d850,85253(Tenn.Crim.App.1988)(citingPacev.State,566S.W.2d861(Tenn.1978),andHammersley,650S.W.2dat352)).SeealsoHouston,900S.W.2dat714.Inappropriatecases,thenatureandcircumstancesoftheoffenseandtheneedfordeterrencemayoutweighallotherrelevantfactorsandjustifyadenialofpretrialdiversion.Carr,861S.W.2dat855.Indeed,thenatureandcircumstancesoftheoffensemayalonesupportthedenialofpretrialdiversion.Statev.Sutton,668S.W.2d678,680(Tenn.Crim.App.1984).̀ Thedistrictattorneygeneral'sdecisionregardingpretrialdiversionispresumptivelycorrect,andthetrialcourtwillonlyreversethedecisionwhentheappellantestablishesthattherehasbeenapatentorgrossabuseofprosecutorialdiscretion.Houston,900S.W.2dat714(citingHammersley,650S.W.2dat356).Inordertoestablishabuseofdiscretion,"therecordmustshowanabsenceofanysubstantialevidencetosupportthedistrictattorneygeneral'srefusaltograntpre[]trialdiversion."Id.Thetrialcourtmayonlyconsiderevidenceconsideredbythedistrictattorneygeneralinthedecisiondenyingpretrialdiversion,Statev.Winsett,882S.W.2d806,810(Tenn.Crim.App.1994),andthetrialcourtmaynotsubstituteitsjudgmentforthatofthedistrictattorneygeneralwhenhisdecisionissupportedbytheevidence.Statev.Watkins,607S.W.2d486,489(Tenn.Crim.App.1980). Forpurposesofourreview,thefindingsofthetrialcourtarebindingonthiscourtunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstsuchfindings.Houston,900S.W.2dat715.Wereviewthecase,nottodetermineifthetrialjudgehasabusedhisdiscretion,buttodetermineiftheevidencepreponderatesagainstthefindingofthetrialjudgewhoholdsthatthedistrictattorneygeneralhasorhasnotabusedhisdiscretion.Watkins,607S.W.2dat489.Thus,theunderlyingissueforourdeterminationremainswhetherornot,asamatteroflaw,theprosecutorabusedhisdiscretionindenyingpretrialdiversion.Carr,861S.W.2dat856. Withrespecttotheprosecutorsconsiderationofallegationsthattheappellantsexuallyabusedhisfiveyearoldgranddaughter,SP,inStatev.Morgan,934S.W.2d77,82(Tenn.Crim.App.1996),thiscourtheldthat [t]odenydiversionbaseduponanallegedeventthatmayormaynothaveoccurredwouldconstituteanabuseofdiscretion.Weobservedthatfundamentalfairnessdictatesthat,iftheStateintendstorelysolelyuponanunchargedoffense,theremustbeprobablecausetobelievethattheoffensedid,infact,occur.CompareStatev.Lutry,No.03C019502CR00058(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,April25,1996)(forpublication)(thiscourt,notingthatpretrialdiversionisanextraordinarylargesseofthelawandtheconsequentimportanceofensuringthattheprosecutorisinpossessionofthefullestinformationpossibleconcerningthedefendantslifeandcharacteristics,heldthatthedistrictattorneygeneralmayconsiderevidenceofarrestsindenyingadefendantpretrialdiversion).Althoughtheprosecutorsconsiderationofanunchargedoffensemustbesupportedbyprobablecause,inStatev.Pinkham,No.02C019502CR00040(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson),perm.toappealgranted,(Tenn.1996),weheldthatreliablehearsayevidencemaysufficientlysupportsuchconsideration.Ifadefendantneverthelesscontendsthatinformationconsideredbythedistrictattorneygeneralismateriallyfalse,theburdenisuponthedefendanttochallengesuchinformation.Id. Atthewritofcertiorarihearing,theStateindicated, Wewereprovidedwithareportfromthe...counselorwhohasbeencounselingthechildinvolvedinthiscaseaswellas[thefiveyearold]grandchild,anditwasrelated...tothe...counselorbythemotherofthechildren,thatthe[fiveyearold]childhadrelatedtoherthat[theappellant]hadhadhertakeashowerwithhiminthenudeandthathehadhadherplaywithhispenisandthathehadvideotapedher...inthenude....Thatmatterisstillunderinvestigation.Theappellant,atthehearing,deniedmolestingSP.Inanyevent,asnotedearlier,thetrialcourtaccordedverylittleweighttotheunchargedoffense,findingothersubstantialevidencetosupportthedistrictattorneygeneralsdenialofdiversion.SeePinkham,No.02C019502CR00040(evenifthetrialcourtfindsthatthedistrictattorneygeneralconsideredfalseormisleadingfactsinarrivingathisdecision,therebyabusinghisdiscretion,thetrialcourtmustaffirmthedenialofdiversionifthereexistsothersubstantialevidencetosupportthedistrictattorneygeneralsdecision).Weagreethat,evenomittinganyconsiderationoftheunchargedoffense,therecordadequatelysupportstheprosecutorsexerciseofdiscretion.Additionally,therecordreflectsthattheappellantreceivedahearingconsistentwithprinciplesofdueprocess. 0    Accordingly,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdenialoftheappellantspetitionforwritofcertiorari.     ____________________________________     DAVIDG.HAYES,JudgeCONCUR:______________________________JOHNH.PEAY,Judge______________________________WILLIAMM.BARKER,Judge