ÿWPC<# £# ú % 0R w@] 4 ± À U:È U: 0–< 0DÒ D3 0JI 0T“ 0^ç 0hE 0r­ 0| 0†› 0! 1u± 0d&U*ŠB)´DCÝ AM  mf Bó AOÆ_ 0n% 0@“ 0DÓv~ D/• BÄvÓá 0c´ 0w 0ŠŽ 0  0´¸ 0Çl 0Û3 0ï! 1mý! 0Òj"˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0  X(*¤›$¡¡ÑÑÒ€°ÒÒX°Ò VUWUXY[U\U]E^E_D`Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xi, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularÂ"Arial Regular(F(3Gç$¤¤Ý ƒ¤›!ÝѰÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(((('ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd*,$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌFebruaryÏ20,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ d*,-/Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(F3¿$¢¢Ý ƒ¤›!ÝѰÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® 00'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#àstuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)VX¹ 8Document[1]Document StyleÌÔ  Ôà@ì..^àòòò òÔ  ÔÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔˆÌððóóó óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÑ ° ÑÑ € Ñ›ÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ ã XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑœÑ  ÑÙ€*ÙßR€%&$A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÌOCTOBER€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€01C01„9510„CC„00323à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àCOFFEE€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€GERALD€L.€EWELL,€SR,Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌCHRISTIE€QUICKà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Pretrial€Diversion)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)Ìà à€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTà àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóóÌÌThomas€C.€Farisà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ101€S.€College€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌPublic€Squareà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌWinchester,€Tennessee€37398à àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTimothy€F.ÏBehanà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Michael€LaneÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€147€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àManchester,€Tennessee€37355ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àStephen€E.€WeitzmanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€147€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àManchester,€Tennessee€37355ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:______ÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓOpinionóóÑ€'ÑÇÓ  Óà àThe€Appellant,€Christie€Quick,€œappeals›€the€Coffee€County€Circuit€CourtððsÏjudgment€affirming€the€Coffee€County€assistant€district€attorneyððs€denial€of€her€pretrialÏdiversion.€€She€argues€on€appeal€that€the€assistant€district€attorney€abused€hisÏdiscretion€when€he€denied€the€pretrial€diversion.€€We€have€carefully€reviewed€theÏrecord€on€appeal€and€we€agree.€€We,€therefore,€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€decision€toÏuphold€the€district€attorneyððs€denial€of€pretrial€diversion.ÌÌà àThe€record€concerning€the€events€leading€up€the€request€for€pretrial€diversionÏis€very€sparse.€€It€appears€that€in€April€of€1995,€the€Appellantððs€husband€wasÏcontacted€by€Timmy€Brown,€a€construction€worker,€who€was€trying€to€sell€someÏkitchen€appliances.€€Although€the€appliances€were€brand€new€and€still€in€their€factoryÏcardboard€packaging,€Brown€told€the€Appellantððs€husband€that€he€was€their€rightfulÏowner.€€The€Appellantððs€husband€agreed€to€purchase€the€appliances€and€paidÏ$600.00€for€a€dishwasher,€a€microwave€oven,€and€a€range€top.€€At€some€point€afterÏthe€sale,€the€appliances,€which€in€fact€belonged€to€a€Tim€Hall,€were€found€in€theÏpossession€of€the€Appellant€and€her€husband.€€Ìà àIn€June,€1995,€the€Appellant€and€her€husband€were€both€indicted€for€theft€ofÏproperty€valued€over€$1000.00.€€Before€trial€the€Appellant€applied€for€œpretrialÏdiversion.›€€In€his€letter€denying€diversion,€the€assistant€district€attorney€stated€that€heÏcould€not€grant€the€Appellantððs€diversion€request€because€she€failed€toÏð ðacknowledge€any€responsibility€for€her€criminal€conduct.€.€.ðð€€The€Appellant,€in€herÍapplication€for€diversion,€had€stated€that€the€appliances€had€been€bought€by€herÏhusband€from€a€person€who€had€represented€that€he€was€the€rightful€owner€of€thoseÏappliances.€€The€Appellant€had€then€stated:€ð ðI€do€not€feel€that€I€am€guilty€of€the€crimeÏcharged.ðð€€Because€of€these€two€statements,€the€assistant€district€attorney€stated€thatÏð ð[a]€defendant€who€denies€guilt€is€not€amenable€to€correction€or€rehabilitation.€.€.ðð€andÏthat€defendants€who€claim€that€they€are€innocent€should€not€use€diversion€as€ð ðaÏconvenient€vehicle€to€avoid€prosecutionðð€and€should€instead€proceed€to€trial.€€TheÏletter€further€stated€that€the€district€attorneyððs€office,€during€the€last€eight€to€tenÏmonths,€had€noticed€a€general€increase€in€crime€and€that€the€Appellantððs€ð ðoffense€ofÏtheft€needs€to€be€deterred€in€our€community.ðð€€Ìà àAfter€the€assistant€district€attorneyððs€denial,€the€Appellant€filed€a€writ€ofÏcertiorari€in€the€Coffee€County€Circuit€Court€appealing€the€assistant€district€attorneyððsÏdecision.€€The€trial€court€affirmed€the€assistant€district€attorneyððs€denial€of€diversion€byÏstating€that€there€was€not€an€absence€of€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€denial€ofÏthe€pretrial€diversion.€€The€Appellant€now€appeals€that€decision.ÌÌà àIf€an€individual€charged€with€a€crime€satisfies€certain€statutory€criteria,€he€orÏshe€can€apply€to€the€district€attorney€for€pretrial€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„15„105€(Supp.€1995).€€The€decision€of€whether€to€grant€a€request€for€pretrialÏdiversion€lies€within€the€district€attorneyððs€sole€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650ÏS.W.2d€352,€353€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Markhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€850,€853€(Tenn.€Crim.ÍApp.€1988).€€This€discretion,€however,€is€not€totally€unbridled.€€The€district€attorneyððsÏdecision€may€not€be€arbitrary€or€capricious.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(b)(2);ÏòòMarkhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€at€852„53.€€The€district€attorneyððs€decision€to€deny€diversionÏmust€also€serve€the€interests€of€justice.€€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€353€(citing€òòPaceÏv.€Stateóó,€566€S.W.2d€861,€864€(Tenn.€1978)).€€€In€considering€whether€to€grantÏdiversion€the€district€attorney€should€consider€the€following€factors:Ìà8 àÓÓ(1)€the€circumstances€of€the€offense;€(2)€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,Ïsocial€history€and€present€condition,€including€his€mental€and€physicalÏconditions€if€appropriate;€(3)€the€deterrent€effect€of€punishment€on€otherÏcriminal€activity;€(4)€the€defendantððs€amenability€to€correction;€and€(5)Ïthe€likelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€of€justice€andÏthe€best€interests€of€both€the€public€and€defendant.ÌÓÓÌòòState€v.€Houstonóó,€900€S.W.2d€712,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950,€951€(Tenn.€1993);€òòseeóó€òòMarkhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€at€852„53;€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€35.Ìà àWhen€the€district€attorney€denies€pretrial€diversion,€an€appellant€can€appealÏthat€decision€by€filing€a€writ€of€certiorari€to€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105€(b)(3).€€On€appeal€the€appellant€has€the€burden€to€prove€that€the€district€attorneyÏgrossly€abused€his€discretion€in€denying€the€diversion.€€òòIdóó;€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€607ÏS.W.2d€486,€488€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€ð ð[T]he€record€must€[also]€show€anÏabsence€of€any€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€refusal€of€the€District€AttorneyÏGeneral€to€[grant€pretrial€diversion].ðð€€òòWatkinsóó,€607€S.W.2d€at€488;€òòseeóó€òòHoustonóó,€900ÏS.W.2d€at€714.€€When€reviewing€the€district€attorneyððs€denial,€ð ðthe€trial€judge€[has]€toÍ[not€only]€confine€his€consideration€to€the€evidence€considered€by€the€DistrictÏAttorney€General€òòat€the€timeóó€he€considered€the€application,€but€that€he€must€alsoÏconfine€his€review€to€the€reason€or€reasons€given€by€the€District€Attorney€General€òòatÏthat€timeóó.€€Fairness€demands€that€the€defendant€know€what€allegations€he€must€meetÏwhen€he€comes€before€the€trial€judge€on€his€application.ðð€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€700ÏS.W.2d€568,€570€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985)€(emphasis€added);€òòState€v.€ShermanÏSteeleóó,€No.€01C01„9205„CC„00185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€9,€1993)Ï(Permission€to€Appeal€Denied€Feb.€7,€1995).Ìà àIf€the€trial€court€upholds€the€district€attorneyððs€denial€of€diversion,€an€appealÏcan€be€taken€to€the€court€of€criminal€appeals.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9.€€In€reviewingÏthe€appeal,€this€Court€may€not€substitute€its€own€judgment€for€the€district€attorneyððsÏjudgment.€€òòHoustonóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€714.€€The€standard€of€review€for€this€Court€is€toÏdetermine€ð ðwhether€the€finding€of€the€trial€court€that€the€district€attorney€general€didÏnot€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€[the]€application€of€pretrial€diversion€is€supportedÏby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€806,€809€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€ÌÌÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ  Óà àThe€Appellant€first€argues€that€the€State€cannot€deny€pretrial€diversion€on€theÏground€that€the€Appellant€maintains€and€asserts€her€innocence.€€Ìà àThe€assistant€district€attorney,€in€his€letter€denying€pretrial€diversion,€statedÏthat€he€did€not€find€the€Appellant€amenable€to€diversion€because€she€failed€to€admitÏany€wrongdoing€in€this€case.€€In€the€Stateððs€brief,€an€argument€is€made€that€diversionÏwas€not€denied€because€the€Appellant€maintained€that€she€was€innocent€of€the€crimeÏwith€which€she€was€charged.€€Instead,€the€State€argues€that€ð ð[t]he€proof€[introduced€atÏthe€writ€of€certiorari€hearing]€and€the€[assistant€district€attorneyððs]€letter€show€that€theÏdefendantððs€refusal€to€acknowledge€any€wrongdoing€on€her€part,€based€on€the€factsÏand€circumstances€of€the€offense,€indicate€that€the€defendant€is€not€amenable€toÏrehabilitation.ððÌà àIt€may€very€well€be€that€the€Appellant€was€not€amenable€to€rehabilitationÏbased€on€the€circumstance€of€the€offense.€€If€that€is€the€case€it€is€unfortunate€that€theÏassistant€district€attorney€failed€to€provide€for€that€in€his€letter€denying€diversion.€€ThisÏCourt€cannot€uphold€a€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€based€on€factors€that€were€notÏstated€in€the€assistant€district€attorneyððs€letter.€€Ìà àThe€only€rationale€stated€in€the€letter€to€why€the€Appellant€was€not€consideredÏto€be€amenable€to€rehabilitation€seems€to€be€that€she€failed€to€admit€to€anyÏwrongdoing.€€It€is€well„established€in€Tennessee€that€the€State€cannot€condition€aÏrequest€for€pretrial€diversion€on€a€defendantððs€guilty€plea.€€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€640€S.W.2dÏ30,€33€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€Such€a€condition€would€ð ðsupplant€[the€pretrialÏdiversion]€program€with€probation,€and€would€totally€defeat€the€legislative€purpose€ofÏthese€statutes.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€our€opinion,€to€condition€pretrial€diversion€on€an€AppellantððsÍadmission€of€criminal€conduct€is,€for€all€practical€purposes,€the€same€thing€as€aÏrequesting€an€Appellant€to€enter€a€guilty€plea.€€Ìà àMoreover,€the€denial€letter€also€states€that:€ð ðDefendants€who€maintain€theirÏinnocence€should€proceed€to€trial€and€not€apply€for€diversion.ðð€€It€appears,€therefore,Ïthat€the€assistant€district€attorney€maintained€a€policy€to€only€grant€pretrial€diversionÏwhen€œapplicants›€would€admit€some€criminal€œconduct.›€€Tennessee€law,€however,€hasÏmade€it€clear€that€a€district€attorney€cannot€establish€a€policy€on€whether€to€grant€orÏdeny€pretrial€diversion€that€is€different€from€the€pretrial€diversion€policy€of€the€State€ofÏTennessee.€€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€356„57.€€Any€diversion€denial€that€is€basedÏon€such€a€policy€is€in€error.€€We,€therefore,€find€that€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€assistant€district€attorney€didÏnot€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€the€Appellantððs€pretrial€diversion€because€sheÏwas€unamenable€to€rehabilitation.€ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  Óà àThe€Appellant€next€contends€that€the€State€had€no€right€to€deny€the€AppellantÏpretrial€diversion€based€on€a€general€ground€of€deterrence€alone,€citing€only€aÏgeneral€rise€in€crime.Ìà àThe€need€for€deterrence€is€one€of€the€factors€the€district€attorney€shouldÏconsider€when€deciding€whether€to€grant€or€deny€pretrial€diversion.€€òòHoustonóó,€900ÏS.W.2d€at€714;€òòWashingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€at€951.€€The€need€for€deterrence,€however,Ícannot€be€ð ðgiven€controlling€weight€unless€[it€is]€ððof€such€overwhelming€significanceÏthat€[it€necessarily]€outweigh[s]€all€other€circumstances.ðððð€òòMarkhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€atÏ853€òòcited€inóó€òòWashingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€951.Ìà àIn€his€letter€denying€pretrial€diversion,€the€assistant€district€attorney€stated€thatÏthere€had€been€a€general€rise€in€crime€in€the€community€over€the€last€eight€to€tenÏmonths.€€During€the€writ€of€certiorari€hearing,€two€Coffee€County€assistant€districtÏattorneys€testified€that€they€felt€that€there€had€been€a€general€increase€in€crime€basedÏon€their€increased€case€load.€€More€specifically€they€testified€that€the€number€of€theftsÏand€burglaries€had€increased€in€Coffee€County,€but€they€also€testified€that€violentÏcrimes€and€drug€related€crimes€had€increased€in€a€similar€manner.€€Although€weÏhave€held€that€no€person€is€in€a€better€position€to€know€the€level€of€criminal€activity€inÏan€area€than€the€district€attorney,€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€661€S.W.2d€91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1983),€the€denial€letter€failed€to€show€that€the€need€for€either€specific€or€generalÏdeterrence€is€of€such€overwhelming€significance€that€it€outweighs€all€the€otherÏcircumstances€of€this€case.€€The€circumstances€of€the€offense€indicate€that€it€was€theÏAppellantððs€husband€who€purchased€the€kitchen€appliances.€€The€Appellant€has€noÏcriminal€record€and€has€a€solid€work€history.€€The€Appellant€is€also€providing€for€herÏtwo€children€and€is€making€current€payments€on€two€loans€to€a€lending€institution.Ìà àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€upholding€of€theÏassistant€district€attorneyððs€denial€of€pretrial€diversion.€€We€remand€the€case€to€theÍtrial€court€with€an€order€to€place€the€Appellant€on€pretrial€diversion€with€appropriateÏconditions€to€such€diversion.€€ÌÌœ›ÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àœ›à àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌœÌ›Ìœ_________________________________›ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌœÌ__________________________________›ÌJ.€STEVEN€STAFFORD,€SPECIAL€œJUDGE›