ÿWPC …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , 0l4 0D  0Jä 0T. 0^‚ 0hà 0rH 0|º 0†6 0¼ 1uL 0dÁ U*%B)ODCx AM» B%t+v~ŸvÓ D3ð 0@# AOcƲ 0Dx D/¼ Bë˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ D  D D  5e D e Ó€ ·‚^!3|x ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òDecember€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó jÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€recognize€that€appellant€failed€to€properly€include€in€the€record€the€letterÏà àfrom€the€assistant€district€attorney€denying€pretrial€diversion.€€The€State€arguesÏà àthat€this€omission€precludes€this€Court€from€considering€the€issue.€Ïà àà àNotwithstanding€the€validity€of€this€contention,€the€letter€does€appear€inÏthe€à àrecord€and€facilitates€our€review.€€Therefore,€we€have€chosen€to€address€thisÏà àissue€on€the€merits.€€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€_„XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßR€#%"A1-j|ïÿ¾` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLE€óóÌÌà@ à€SEPTEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9506„CR„00170Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMEIGS€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€E.€EUGENE€EBLEN,ÌROSS€ROGERS,à àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à à(Pretrial€Diversion)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌHoward€G.€Swaffordà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ32€Courthouse€Squareà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌJasper,€TN€37347à àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHunt€S.€BrownÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€E.€HawkÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRoger€DelpÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€703Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKingston,€TN€37763ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Ross€Rogers,€appeals€from€the€judgment€of€the€Meigs€CountyÏCriminal€Court€affirming€the€district€attorneyððs€refusal€to€grant€him€pretrial€diversion.€ÏIn€its€affirmance,€the€trial€court€granted€permission€for€appellant€to€pursue€anÏinterlocutory€appeal€to€this€Court.€€€Pursuant€to€Rule€9€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure,€we€granted€his€request€to€appeal.€Ìà àAppellant,€a€seventy„one€(71)€year€old€man,€operates€a€mobile€home€businessÏand€routinely€submits€bids€to€insurance€companies€on€damaged€mobile€homes.€ÏThese€bids€generally€are€to€obtain€items€of€value€that€were€not€damaged€orÏdestroyed.€€On€September€8,€1994,€appellant€received€a€letter€informing€him€that€hisÏbid€had€been€accepted€on€a€burned€mobile€home€in€Meigs€County.€€The€letterÏawarded€him€the€refrigerator,€stove€and€air€conditioning€unit€and€authorized€him€toÏremove€the€salvaged€trailer€from€the€property.€€While€removing€these€items,Ïeyewitnesses€saw€appellant€take€several€other€items€from€the€property.€€These€itemsÏincluded€a€boat,€boat€motor,€utility€trailer,€weed€eater,€life€preservers,€tools,€clothing,Ïetc.€€The€award€letter€gave€appellant€no€authority€to€remove€these€items€and€he€wasÏnot€entitled€to€possession€of€them.€€As€a€result,€appellant€was€indicted€in€NovemberÏof€1994€on€one€count€of€burglary€and€one€count€of€theft€over€$1,000.€Ìà àOn€January€25,€1995,€appellant€filed€an€application€with€the€district€attorneyÏseeking€pretrial€diversion.€€This€application€reflects€that€appellant€has€no€priorÏcriminal€record,€is€a€World€War€II€veteran,€attends€church€regularly€and€has€beenÏmarried€to€the€same€woman€for€forty€(40)€years.€€He€is€a€retired€machinist€from€TVAÏand€has€been€in€the€mobile€home€business€for€over€twenty€(20)€years.€€On€March€17,Ï1995,€a€Meigs€County€assistant€district€attorney€denied€appellantððs€application€forÏpretrial€diversion.€€The€letter× ƒ& ××  ×€reflects€that€diversion€was€denied€because€appellantÏrefused€to€pay€restitution,€because€the€district€attorney€had€serious€questions€aboutÏappellantððs€credibility,€and€because€the€appellant€refused€to€accept€responsibility€forÏthe€crime.€€Ìà àAppellant€then€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€in€the€Criminal€Court€ofÏMeigs€County€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„15„105(b)(3)Ïseeking€to€overturn€the€decision€of€the€assistant€district€attorney.€€After€a€hearing,€theÏtrial€court€upheld€the€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€finding€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€theÏassistant€district€attorney.€€The€matter€is€now€before€us€to€review€the€order€of€the€trialÏjudge.Ìà àThe€legislature€has€deemed€it€prudent€to€divert€certain€criminal€offenders€fromÏthe€usual€prosecutorial€process€and€this€task€is€accomplished€through€our€system€ofÏpretrial€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„15„105(a)€(Supp.€1996).€€If€an€offenderÏmeets€the€minimum€eligibility€requirements€set€forth€in€the€statute,€he€may€seek€thisÏform€of€extraordinary€relief€from€the€district€attorney€general.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð40„15„105€(Supp.€1996).€€The€district€attorney€general€shoulders€the€responsibilityÏof€evaluating€the€individual€applications€for€pretrial€diversion€and€may,€in€hisÏdiscretion,€grant€or€deny€such€relief.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„15„105(b)€(Supp.Ï1996).€€Because€the€decision€is€a€discretionary€one,€the€statute€provides€littleÏguidance€in€making€this€decision.€€However,€our€supreme€court€has€outlinedÏparticular€factors€that€are€proper€considerations€for€a€district€attorney€in€evaluating€aÏrequest€for€pretrial€diversion:ÌÓÓà8 à€ð ð[the]€circumstances€of€the€offense;€the€criminal€record,€social€historyÏand€present€condition€of€the€defendant,€including€his€mental€andÏphysical€conditions€where€appropriate;€the€deterrent€effect€ofÏpunishment€upon€other€criminal€activity;€defendantððs€amenability€toÏcorrection;€the€likelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€ofÏjustice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€defendant;€and€theÏapplicantððs€attitude,€behavior€since€arrest,€prior€record,€homeÏenvironment,€current€drug€usage,€emotional€stability,€past€employment,Ïgeneral€reputation,€marital€stability,€family€responsibility€and€attitude€ofÏlaw€enforcement.ðð€ÌÌÓÓ€òòState€v.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.€2d€950,€951€(Tenn.€1993).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Herronóó,Ï767€S.W.2d€151,€155€(Tenn.€1989)€and€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€355Ï(Tenn.€1983).Ìà àIf€an€application€is€denied,€the€offender€may€petition€the€trial€court€for€a€writ€ofÏcertiorari€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„15„105(b)(3).€€The€trialÏcourtððs€duty€in€this€review€is€to€determine€whether€the€district€attorney€has€committedÏan€abuse€of€discretion.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„15„105(b)(3)€(Supp.€1996).€€Only€whenÏan€appellant€is€able€to€demonstrate€that€there€has€been€a€patent€or€gross€abuse€ofÏprosecutorial€discretion€will€the€district€attorneyððs€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€beÏreversed.€€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€356.€€In€order€to€demonstrate€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion,€the€trial€court€must€find€the€record€lacking€in€any€substantial€evidence€toÏsupport€the€district€attorney€generalððs€decision.€€òòState€v.€Houstonóó,€900€S.W.2d€712,Ï714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Kirkóó,€868€S.W.2d€739,€743€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€Ìà àIf€the€trial€court€finds€the€district€attorneyððs€denial€is€supported€by€substantialÏevidence€and€upholds€the€denial,€the€applicant€may€then€seek€an€interlocutoryÏappeal€to€this€Court€challenging€the€trial€courtððs€affirmance.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9.€ÏWhen€an€offender€complains€of€the€trial€judgeððs€finding€of€no€abuse€of€discretion,€theÏduty€of€this€Court€is€to€determine€whether€or€not€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€findings€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€806,€809€(Tenn.ÍCrim.€App.€1993)€(the€question€before€us€is€whether€the€finding€of€the€trial€court€thatÏthe€district€attorney€general€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€the€application€isÏsupported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence);€òòState€v.€Kirkóó,€868€S.W.2d€739,€742Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€and€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€607€S.W.2d€486,€489€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1980).€€òòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861€S.W.2d€850,€856€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(theÏpresumptive€correctness€which€attaches€to€trial€courtððs€findings€in€certiorari€hearingsÏapplies€only€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact,€not€conclusions€of€law€where€the€factsÏare€undisputed)€(emphasis€added).€€Such€is€our€standard€or€review.Ìà àIn€its€order,€the€trial€court€made€the€following€findings€in€support€of€the€districtÏattorneyððs€denial:€(1)€appellant€refused€to€accept€any€responsibility€for€his€crime;€(2)Ïhis€credibility/believability€was€poor;€(3)€the€two€previous€factors€militate€against€anÏinference€that€appellant€is€unlikely€to€engage€in€criminal€behavior€in€the€future;€(4)Ïappellantððs€attitude€was€very€poor€and€absent€of€any€remorse€or€regrets;€and€(5)Ïalthough€appellant€bears€a€good€reputation€in€the€community€where€he€lives,€theÏdistrict€attorney€properly€found€this€to€be€outweighed€by€the€other€factors.€€The€recordÏsupports€each€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€Ìà àThe€record€clearly€indicates€that€appellant€refused€to€accept€any€responsibilityÏfor€his€crime.€€Foremost,€this€refusal€to€accept€responsibility€was€reflected€inÏappellantððs€refusal€to€pay€any€restitution€to€the€victims.€€Apparently,€there€was€someÏdiscussion€on€this€issue€with€the€district€attorney,€but€no€agreement€was€reached.€ÍThis€refusal€was€one€indication€that€appellant€was€not€willing€to€accept€the€financialÏresponsibility€for€these€offenses.€€This€a€proper€consideration€when€weighing€factorsÏfor€pretrial€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„15„105(a)(2)(D)€(Supp.€1996).€€ThisÏfinding€was€supported€by€other€evidence€also.€€At€the€certiorari€hearing,€appellantÏdenied€taking€any€of€the€unauthorized€items.€€However,€an€eyewitness€stated€that€heÏsaw€appellant€with€a€group€of€people€who€loaded€the€stolen€items€onto€a€smallÏpickup€truck€and€drove€away.€€In€the€face€of€such€testimony,€appellant€had€noÏexplanation€for€how€the€items€disappeared,€contended€that€he€never€saw€anyoneÏelse€at€the€property,€and€denied€taking€the€items.€€This€Court€has€previously€held€thatÏfailure€to€accept€responsibility€for€an€offense€is€relevant€in€assessing€the€potential€forÏrehabilitation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€857€S.W.2d€571,€574€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€ÏAccordingly,€the€district€attorney€and€the€trial€court€properly€considered€this€factor€asÏbearing€on€the€appellantððs€amenability€to€correction.€€Ìà àAppellant€contends,€however,€that€it€is€improper€to€require€an€admission€ofÏguilt€as€a€prerequisite€to€pretrial€diversion.€€We€agree€that€it€is€impermissible€toÏrequire€a€defendant€to€enter€a€formal€guilty€plea€as€a€condition€to€a€grant€of€pretrialÏdiversion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€645€S.W.2d€251,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)Ï(requirement€of€guilty€plea€prior€to€approval€of€pretrial€diversion€is€a€nullity).€ÏHowever,€the€assistant€district€attorney€never€made€such€a€demand€upon€appellant.€ÍApparently,€he€did€request€that€appellant€accept€some€responsibility€by€payingÏrestitution€and€appellant€refused€to€do€so.€€Therefore,€this€argument€is€without€merit.€€Ìà àSecondly,€the€trial€judge€determined€that€appellantððs€credibility€was€poor.€ÏSuch€a€determination€is€within€the€purview€of€the€trial€judge,€who€is€in€a€uniqueÏposition€to€observe€the€demeanor€and€behavior€of€the€witnesses.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ï571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€trial€courtððs€finding€is€well€supported€by€theÏproof.€€Appellantððs€poor€credibility€was€first€exemplified€by€his€denial€that€heÏcommitted€the€crimes.€€He€remained€steadfast€in€this€testimony€even€in€the€face€ofÏeyewitness€testimony€to€the€contrary.€€The€trial€court€found€the€eyewitnessðð€credibilityÏto€be€superior€to€appellantððs€and€we€will€not€interfere€with€such€a€determination.Ìà àThe€record€also€demonstrates€appellantððs€untruthfulness€on€another€matter.€ÏThe€property€surrounding€the€mobile€home€contained€a€small€storage€building.€€ThisÏwas€not€included€in€appellantððs€award€letter€from€the€insurance€company.€€However,Ïappellant€attempted€to€sell€the€storage€building€to€a€neighbor€who€was€interested€inÏbuying€it.€€Appellant€accepted€a€check€as€payment€for€the€building€and€issued€aÏhandwritten€receipt€to€the€neighbor.€€Several€days€later,€the€owner€of€the€propertyÏinformed€the€neighbor€that€appellant€had€no€rights€to€the€building€and€the€neighborÏdemanded€a€refund€from€appellant.€€Appellant€then€returned€the€neighborððs€check.€ÏAt€the€hearing,€appellant€denied€that€he€sold€this€storage€building€to€the€neighbor.€ÏCuriously€enough,€he€did€not€dispute€accepting€the€money€or€issuing€the€receipt,€orÍreturning€the€check€to€the€neighbor.€€He€incredulously€insisted€that€he€did€not€attemptÏto€sell€the€storage€building€in€the€face€of€undisputed€facts€and€documentary€evidenceÏto€the€contrary.€€He€also€stated€that€he€understood€that€the€award€letter€did€notÏinclude€the€storage€building.€€The€trial€judge€found€that€the€appellantððs€testimony€inÏthat€regard€demonstrated€his€lack€of€credibility.€€An€offenderððs€refusal€to€acceptÏresponsibility€for€his€crimes€and€poor€credibility€are€proper€considerations€whenÏweighing€the€factors€for€pretrial€diversion.€€òòState€v.€Neaseóó,€713€S.W.2d€90,€92€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1986)€(failure€to€be€completely€truthful€and€to€accept€full€responsibility€forÏhis€crimes€makes€an€offender€a€poor€candidate€for€pretrial€diversion).€€These€factorsÏstrongly€weighed€against€appellant€in€his€application€for€pretrial€diversion.Ìà àThese€factors€also€make€it€difficult€to€conclude€that€appellant€would€not€beÏlikely€to€engage€in€further€criminal€conduct.€€He€maintained€his€innocence€throughoutÏthe€entire€chain€of€events€and€never€provided€any€rebuttal€to€the€eyewitnessÏtestimony.€Likewise,€appellantððs€attitude€of€nonchalance€regarding€the€theft€weighedÏagainst€his€application.€€At€no€time€did€appellant€demonstrate€that€he€was€sorry€thatÏthese€events€happened€or€that€he€regretted€the€inconvenience€to€the€victims.€€Even€ifÏwe€assume€appellant€is€completely€innocent,€as€he€contends,€remorse€or€regret€forÏthis€misunderstanding€would€have€been€a€proper€consideration€for€the€districtÏattorney.Ìà àFinally,€the€trial€judge€held€that€the€district€attorney€weighed€all€the€factors€inÏfavor€of€diversion€against€the€above€considerations€and€correctly€exercised€hisÏdiscretion€in€denying€this€remedy.€€Such€a€weighing€process€is€integral€to€the€districtÏattorneyððs€decision.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Herronóó,€767€S.W.2d€151,€156€(Tenn.€1989)€(factorsÏupon€which€the€denial€is€based€must€be€clearly€articulable€on€the€record€andÏaccompanied€by€the€reasons€why€they€outweigh€other€factors€submitted€forÏconsideration).€€At€the€hearing,€the€district€attorney€stated€that€he€acceptedÏappellantððs€employment€history,€his€age,€and€his€reputation€within€his€community;€heÏdid€not€contest€the€validity€of€these€favorable€considerations.€€However,€he€didÏexpress€serious€reservations€about€the€propriety€of€pretrial€diversion€in€light€ofÏappellantððs€poor€credibility€and€complete€refusal€to€accept€any€form€of€responsibility.€ÏIt€is€apparent€that€the€district€attorney€considered€the€circumstances€of€the€appellantððsÏoffenses,€his€lack€of€amenability€to€correction,€and€appellantððs€attitude€whenÏevaluating€his€application€for€pretrial€diversion.€€The€record€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€at€the€certiorari€hearing.€€Therefore,€we€find€noÏerror€in€the€trial€courtððs€affirmance€of€the€district€attorneyððs€denial€of€appellantððsÏapplication€for€pretrial€diversion.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌ__________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge