ÿWPCU …U:V %U:–Ðn­à 04Áw@Á4 0J 0T_ 0^³ 0h 0ry 0|ë 0†g 0í 1u} U,ò 0d U,‚ U6® U*ä B)DC7 AMzÇ BÏv~ìvÓj D3= 0@p AO°Æÿ 0DÅ D/  B8<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiX,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular3|x&«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXÂxþ6X@ÉÇ;X@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó DDDDDDDDÓ€ypÑ èô2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òJuly€9,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ ÔÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€€ÙßL€#$";+'h|` Å `€€Lßà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌà@ àMARCH€1996ÏSESSIONÌó óÌà€ àÌÒèyXI’ÒÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌÌ€€€€€Appellee,ÌV.ÌÌò òCHRIS€RAMEYÌÌ€€€€€ó óAppellant,ÌÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:ÌÌÌO.€Duane€SloneÌAttorney€at€LawÌP.O.€Box€1088ÌDanridge,€Tn.€37725Ì€€€€ÉÌ)C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9509„CC„00285Ì)Ì)€Sevier€CountyÌ)Ì)€Hon.€Rex€Henry€Ogle,€JudgeÌ)Ì)(Pretrial€Diversion€Denial)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌÌCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€General€and€€ReporterÌHunt€S.€BrownÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tn.€37243€€ÌÌG.€Scott€GreenÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÌSevier€County€CourthouseÌSevierville,€Tn.€37862ÉÒÒ€€€€€OPINION€FILED:€______________________€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€ò òAFFIRMED€ó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò ò€€€€€CHARLES€LEEó ó,€Ì€€€€€Special€JudgeÇÑ7€fóXXdæXXdÈ7ÑÓÓÌÑ  Ñà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌó óÌÌ€€€€€€€The€appellant€was€originally€charged€with€rape€and€sexual€battery.€€TheÏstate€amended€the€rape€charge€to€attempted€rape.€€The€appellant€soughtÏpretrial€diversion,€which€the€District€Attorney€General€denied.€€The€appellantÏthen€sought€review€of€the€denial€and€the€trial€judge€affirmed€the€action€of€theÏDistrict€Attorney€General.€€The€appellant€sought€and€received€anÏinterlocutory€appeal€by€permission€of€the€trial€court€pursuant€to€Rule€9,ÏTenn.R.App.P.,€and€this€Court€granted€review.€€On€appeal€he€contends€thatÏthe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€when€pretrial€diversion€was€denied€toÏhim.€€Since€the€record€on€appeal€is€incomplete,€we€are€unable€to€addressÏthe€merits€of€appellant's€complaint€and€must€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÌà àAt€the€hearing€on€the€appellant's€writ€of€certiorari€before€the€trial€court,Ïno€witnesses€were€called€to€testify,€no€stipulations€were€entered,€and€onlyÏone€exhibit,€the€denial€letter€of€the€assistant€District€Attorney€general,€wasÏentered€into€evidence.€€If€the€parties€were€relying€on€the€local€rules€toÏcircumvent€the€need€to€correctly€introduce€evidence,€no€citation€to€thoseÏrules€was€made.€€ÌÌà àThe€transcript€of€the€hearing€consists€of€the€arguments€of€counsel€toÏthe€trial€judge.€€From€these€arguments€we€can€glean€that€the€appellant€filedÏwith€the€District€Attorney€an€application€for€pretrial€diversion.€€At€one€point€inÏthe€hearing€the€trial€judge€indicated€that€it€had€read€the€application.€€TheÏapplication€for€pretrial€diversion€is€not€evidence€unless€properly€introducedÏas€such.€òòHillhaven€€Corp.€v.€State€ex€rel.€Manor€Careóó,€565€S.W.2d€210,€212Ï(Tenn.€1978);€òòPrice€v.€Mercury€Supply€Co.,€Inc.óó,€682€S.W.2d€924,€929€n.€5Ï(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€It€was€obviously€contemplated€by€the€parties€that€thisÏapplication€along€with€the€denial€letter€would€be€the€record€in€this€case.€ÏHowever,€the€application€was€never€introduced€in€the€hearing.€€ÌÌà àBefore€an€exhibit€may€be€considered€by€this€Court,€it€must€have€beenÏ(a)€received€into€evidence,€(b)€marked€by€the€trial€judge,€clerk€or€courtÏreporter€as€having€been€received€into€evidence€as€an€exhibit,€(c)Ïauthenticated€by€the€trial€judge,€and€(d)€included€in€the€transcript€of€theÏevidence€transmitted€to€this€Court.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(f);€òòKrause€v.€Tayloróó,Ï583€S.W.2d€603,605„606€(Tenn.€1979);€òòState€v.€Melson€óó,€638€S.W.2dÏ342,351€(Tenn.€1982),€cert.€den.€459€U.S.€1137,€103€S.Ct.€770,€74€L.Ed.2dÏ983€(1983);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€638€S.W.2d€417,421€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);ÏòòState€v.€Brockóó,€€678€S.W.2d€486,489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).ÌÌà àFurthermore,€we€cannot€consider€the€arguments€of€counsel€asÏevidence.€€The€arguments€of€counsel€and€the€recitation€of€facts€contained€inÍthe€briefs€of€counsel,€or€similar€pleadings,€are€not€evidence.€òòPrice€v.€MercuryÏSupply€Co.,€Inc.óó,€òòsupraóó;€òòGoodway€Marketing,€Inc.€v.€Faulkner€AdvertisingÏAssoc.,€Incóó.,€545€F.€Supp.€263€(E.D.€Pa.€1982).€€The€same€is€true€ofÏstatements€made€by€counsel€during€the€course€of€a€hearing€or€trial.€òòTrotter€v.ÏStateóó,€508€S.W.2d€808,€809€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974);€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€673ÏS.W.2d€171,€173€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€€Consequently,€the€recordÏcorrectly€before€us€lists€no€qualifications€of€the€appellant€to€be€considered€forÏdiversion.ÌÌ€€€€€€€When€an€accused€seeks€appellate€review€of€an€issue€in€this€Court,€it€isÏthe€duty€of€the€accused€to€prepare€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,€accurateÏÑ 4 ÑÑ  Ñand€complete€account€of€what€transpired€with€respect€to€the€issue.€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Bunchóó,€646€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.ÏRobertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€The€appellant€hasÏfailed€to€carry€his€burden€of€showing€that€the€District€Attorney€GeneralÏabused€his€discretion€in€denying€pretrial€diversion.€€No€abuse€of€discretionÏwill€be€found€where€the€record€shows€that€the€defendant€seeking€diversionÏfailed€to€submit€evidence€to€the€prosecutor€to€show€his€entitlement€toÏdiversion.€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€641€S.W.2d€517,€520€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€ÏWhile€the€record€in€this€case€tends€to€show€that€information€was€provided€toÍthe€prosecutor,€that€information€was€not€properly€presented€to€the€trial€judge.€ÏSince€there€was€no€information€properly€before€the€trial€judge€to€refute€theÏdenial€of€diversion,€we€affirm€the€judgment.ÌÌà àOur€decision€may€seem€hyper„technical€and€particularly€harsh€to€theÏdefendant€who€may€be€relying€on€a€local€practice€that€does€not€demandÏstrict€compliance€to€proper€procedure.€€Such€may€be€the€case€here.€€It€isÏobvious€from€the€transcript€of€the€proceedings€that€all€concerned€believedÏthe€trial€court's€ruling€to€be€predicated€upon€a€comparison€of€the€applicationÏfor€pretrial€diversion€and€its€accompanying€attachments€with€the€denial€letterÏof€the€District€Attorney€General€supplemented€by€the€arguments€of€counsel.€ÏAssuming€the€application€for€pretrial€diversion€reviewed€by€the€DistrictÏAttorney€General€is€the€same€as€the€application€contained€in€the€pleadingsÏtransmitted€to€this€court,€and€assuming€this€document€is€the€same€documentÏreview€by€the€trial€judge,€the€outcome€would€be€no€different€than€that€whichÏwe€have€reached.ÌÌà àIt€appears€the€appellant€was€the€youth€minister€in€his€church€and€hadÏbeen€active€for€some€time€in€counseling€young€people.€€The€alleged€victimÏwas€a€fifteen€year€old€young€man€who€was€having€adjustment€difficulties.€ÍWhile€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€the€alleged€victim€was€entrustedÏto€the€care€of€the€appellant€to€counsel.€€The€appellant€was€accused€by€theÏyoung€man€of€performing€fellatio€upon€him€when€he€was€thought€to€beÏasleep.€€While€not€consenting€to€this€act,€the€minor€reported€he€did€not€resist.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€has€no€prior€criminal€record€of€any€kind.€€He€worked€hisÏway€through€school,€had€a€stable€work€history€as€an€adult,€and€has€marriedÏsince€these€charges€were€brought.€€He€is€thought€of€well€by€severalÏmembers€of€his€community€and€fellow€church€members€all€of€whomÏexpressed€disbelief€of€the€charges.€€The€appellant€admitted€to€lying€on€theÏsame€bed€with€the€minor€but€denied€any€sexual€contact.ÌÌà àIn€his€letter€the€District€Attorney€General€denied€pretrial€diversionÏrelying€primarily€upon€the€nature€of€the€offense€and€deterrence.€€The€DistrictÏAttorney€placed€great€emphasis€on€the€age€of€the€victim€and€the€position€ofÏtrust€held€by€the€appellant.ÌÌ€€€€€€€Whether€to€grant€or€deny€an€application€for€pretrial€diversion€is€in€theÏdiscretion€of€the€District€Attorney€General.€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2dÏ352€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€making€the€initial€determination,€the€District€AttorneyÍmust€consider€(1)€the€circumstances€of€the€offense;€(2)€the€defendant'sÏcriminal€record;€(3)€the€defendant's€social€history;€(4)€the€defendant'sÏphysical€and€mental€condition;€and€(5)€the€likelihood€that€the€defendant€willÏbenefit€from€the€pretrial€diversion€program.€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€355.ÏThe€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€alleged€offenses€are€not€onlyÏappropriate€factors€to€be€considered€upon€application€for€diversion€but€mayÏalone€provide€a€sufficient€basis€for€denial.€òòState€v.€Cytonóó,€668€S.W.2d€678Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).ÌÌ€€€€€€€Although€there€are€factors€weighing€favorably€for€the€defendant,€theÏcriteria€for€pretrial€diversion,€while€similar€to€those€of€probation,€should€beÏmore€stringently€applied.€òòState€v.€Poplaróó,€612€S.W.2d€498,€501€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1980).€The€defendant€holds€a€position€of€high€trust.€€He€is€charged€withÏthe€spiritual€guidance€of€several€youths.€€This€is€similar€to€a€parental€duty.€ÏAny€violation€of€that€responsibility€is€in€breach€of€a€most€sacred€trust.€€And,Ïeven€though€pretrial€diversion€may€be€granted€in€appropriate€circumstancesÏto€one€charged€with€sexual€abuse,€the€nature€of€this€charge€is€particularlyÏoffensive.€ÌÌ€€€€€€€On€the€other€hand,€if€not€guilty,€the€defendant€should€be€fully€exoneratedÏat€trial.€€Under€these€circumstances,€a€disposition€one€way€or€the€other€isÏpreferable.€€Society€will€be€best€served€when€the€adversarial€system€worksÏto€its€logical€conclusion.€€ÌÌà àIn€summary,€had€the€record€been€as€the€parties€believed€it€to€be,€itÏwould€have€supported€the€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€based€upon€the€natureÏand€gravity€of€the€charge.ÌÌÌÒ À ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓ_____________________________ÌCharles€Lee,€Special€JudgeÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge