’WPC‰ £Ż3h\\ˆ?y\‰i{Æ÷°5†łHė11”0(\ų÷©©Ļ;Xß>!Ņ·ī½īmǐ“ŻZØŌ Öȋ>ŹŖOpŪ'Óś_É£į˜ų“—VīÖJ” ōæ·qˆW'ǼR¹Ų ļ|r-KažwCÓO©é'0®é“>¹jådÉYŲ9Ųb¢öĮ?0œéi߆||šJļxįķŻ"ƒäźæ-o¶ UŒÆ(~™g‚ŗ Ҿ¤øø °œ”;­é8€Ž˜ż¹ <æ2ŗ£œ·üE[;F¼‰D'ˆ%ąŗØŪé[ēS8–r—A Ž®&i®sµœ©Gw:Pƒ±¶--Ö$ž ŲC…„łāO  ŠD«•ötn÷‹ĒŖ†t_o2Ją „7E4.˜°+—ŗ'ė.Ē„'µ†ˆG'””į@”c×£Ņä§FƱ‡śhŁžI‘"LJ`ˆ=āūæ ‡ļą”źŠ’ėzż[ŠEŃjzƒƒaĆķGB)»»ś›Āæ%§JöBłDŽ-‡V#1+ !1”ų,ŠC>ŽĢkäö§°ƒq£ „Œ¾’6W \Ź‘%5ˆ5;Õ[w‡®›ģ4ōHŻB’ąGåü ®~øæĶ/<[za£;/1ā'=Ņ€Ždēż¼\ūŦ 7“b#Į\ % N# 0ˆ% UN­ 7ū 0D2 zv Ņš zĀ Ņ< ^ wĘĘäĘŖĘp46NJL[E] m_vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvb~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0놆†† Bqq 0¤Ž D32 D-e 0K’’ ASŻĘ0 0¤ö 0Dš A«Ž˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»(`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular -Ż ƒRøą$ŻÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōŠ\ņ»»ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThe€report€actually€states€that€the€defendant€said€that€the€accident€was€š šavoidable,šš€but€the€context€of€theŠ ° Šstatement€reveals€this€to€be€a€misprint.(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptnˆ{)⠁Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5•jW)GRA~1<„£3|x ’U‹’ĄĄĄ - ł-(|G2øą$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€¾¤»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōŠ\ņ»»Ō d(|3A$$££Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€¾¤»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻVVVV'’’dxd)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_X`YEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$$¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€¾¤»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€¾¤»»ddČ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃ  ŃŃ  ŃŌ€¼¾¤»»»ŌŃ8€½3XXdš»»d8р€ą@ttģąŌ‡ī÷g¾¤ŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ ° Šą@WW$ģąAT€KNOXVILLEŌ#†¼¾¤»īī÷g#ԈŠ Ü, ŠÓ  Óą @ ąą @` ąAugust€2000€SessionŠ X ŠŌ‡X½3X»¼¾¤ŌĢņ ņŌ#†¼¾¤»XX½3#ŌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEņņóó€v.€ņņóóJOHNNIE€BELL,€JR.Ō‡X½3X»¼¾¤Ōó óŠ  ` ŠĢą@@½½ģąņ ņ€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyŠ  h Šą@@ųųģąNo.€S41906€€€€€€Phyllis€H.€Miller,€JudgeŠ  X ŠĢĢą@@ģģ*ģąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` Aߊ Ų(  ŠĢą@@TTģąNo.€E1999„00819„CCA„R9„CD€Š ×'  ŠNovember€27,€Ō_Ō2000Ō_ŌŠ Ē  ŠßA€V) °°` dE<¶` Aߊ ·  Šó óĢÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Johnnie€Bell,€Jr.,€challenges€the€trial€courtššs€order€upholding€the€prosecutorššs€denialŠ ¶ Šof€pretrial€diversion€for€the€charges€of€vehicular€homicide€and€aggravated€assault.€€He€contends€thatŠ ¦ö Šthe€prosecutor€abused€his€discretion€in€failing€to€consider€all€the€relevant€factors€and€to€list€theŠ –ę Šfactual€disputes€in€the€evidence.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€may€not€rehabilitate€the€prosecutorššsŠ †Ö Šletter€and€that€this€court€must€order€pretrial€diversion.€€We€hold€that€the€prosecutor€failed€to€considerŠ vĘ Šall€the€relevant€factors€but€that€the€failure€does€not€require€the€grant€of€pretrial€diversion€absent€proofŠ f¶ Šof€entitlement.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtššs€order€denying€pretrial€diversion.€Š V¦ ŠÓ¼Óņ ņĢTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€Interlocutory€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óŠ 6† ŠņņÓ  ÓŌ#†¼¾¤»ąX½3Œ#ŌŌ‡X½3X.¼¾¤ŌĢJoseph€M.€Ō_ŌTiptonŌ_Ō,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņRobert€W.€Ō_ŌWedemeyerŌ_Ō,€J.óó,Š f Šjoined.€€ņņDavidóó€H.€ņņWellesóó,€J.,€filed€a€concurring€and€dissenting€opinion.Š V ŠĢGeorge€Todd€East,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€the€appellant,€Johnnie€Bell,€Jr.Š ę6 ŠĢPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Patricia€C.€Ō_ŌKussmannŌ_Ō,€Assistant€AttorneyŠ Ę  ŠGeneral;€H.€Greeley€Wells,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€J.€Lewis€Combs,€Assistant€DistrictŠ ¶!  ŠAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Š ¦"ö! ŠÓŸÓĢĢņ ņOPINIONó óŌ#†¼¾¤»XX½3Ī#ŌŠ v%Ę $ ŠÓ  ÓŌ€X½3X»¼¾¤ŌĢą  ąThe€defendant,€Johnnie€Bell,€Jr.,€brings€an€interlocutory€appeal,€Ō_ŌT.R.A.P.Ō_Ō€9,€from€the€orderŠ V'¦"& Šof€the€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Court€affirming€the€prosecutorššs€denial€of€his€application€for€pretrialŠ F(–#' Šdiversion€for€the€charges€of€vehicular€homicide,€a€Class€C€felony,€and€aggravated€assault,€a€ClassŠ 6)†$( ŠD€felony.€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€prosecutor€abused€his€discretion€by€failing€to€considerŠ &*v%) Šall€the€factors€relevant€to€diversion€and€to€list€the€disputed€facts.€€He€challenges€the€trial€courtššsŠ +f&* Šdetermination€that€the€prosecutorššs€conclusions€are€supported€by€substantial€evidence€in€the€record.€Š ,V'+ ŠHe€argues€that€the€prosecutorššs€abuse€of€discretion€required€the€trial€court€to€grant€pretrial€diversion.Š ö,F(, ŠŠ ę-6)-żĀ ŠŌ_Ōą  ąThe€charges€arise€from€the€defendantššs€tractor€trailer€striking€the€rear€of€Ms.€Lois€BaconššsŠ ° Šminivan,€which€resulted€in€Ms.€Baconššs€death€and€injuries€to€her€passenger,€Ashley€Bacon.€€TheŠ  š Šdefendant€requested€pretrial€diversion,€and€pursuant€to€the€partiesšš€stipulation,€the€trial€court€orderedŠ ą Šthe€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€(TDOC)€to€conduct€a€background€investigation€of€theŠ €Š Šdefendant.€€In€a€letter,€the€prosecutor€denied€the€defendantššs€application€for€pretrial€diversion€for€theŠ pĄ Šfollowing€reasons:Š ` ° ŠĢą8  ą1.€€The€defendant€takes€no€responsibility€for€his€actions€and€blames€the€victim€in€thisŠ @  Šcase.€€The€defendant€admits€that€the€victim€never€entirely€left€her€lane€of€travel.€€TheŠ 0 € Šdefendant€states€on€page€3€of€the€Pre„Trial€Diversion€Report€that€the€š šaccident€wasŠ  p  Šunavoidable€on€his€behalfšš€and€that€he€š šwas€not€negligent€in€his€actions.šš€€The€lackŠ `  Šof€acceptance€of€responsibility€on€behalf€of€the€defendant€shows€that€he€would€be€aŠ P  Špoor€candidate€for€rehabilitation.Šš@ Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą2.€€The€defendant€admits€to€having€two€speeding€tickets€and€one€conviction€forŠ Š  Šfollowing€too€closely.€€There€is€evidence€that€the€defendant€was€following€too€closelyŠ Ą Što€the€victim€of€this€fatality.€€The€defendant€has€violated€the€motor€vehicle€rules€inŠ ° Šthe€past€but€chose€to€drive€dangerously€again.Š šŠ Š  ŠĢą8  ą3.€€The€defendant€had€no€hesitation€in€acting€recklessly€and€did€endanger€severalŠ €Š Šmotorists€other€than€the€victims.€€Other€motorists€were€in€danger€of€serious€bodilyŠ pĄ Šinjury.€€Diversion€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€these€crimes.Š`°Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą4.€€The€defendant€has€an€unstable€work€history€as€a€truck€driver.€€He€has€beenŠ @ Šterminated€twice€and€all€of€his€jobs€have€been€of€short€duration.€€The€defendantŠ 0€ Šwould€be€a€poor€candidate€to€complete€any€probationary€period.Š pŠ Š  ŠĢą8  ą5.€€The€driver€was€driving€a€large€semi„truck.€€The€victim€was€driving€a€DodgeŠ P ŠCaravan.€€The€officer€states€that€the€victim€was€killed€in€part€by€the€fact€that€theŠ š@ Šdefendant€was€following€too€closely.€€The€defendant€should€have€reasonably€knownŠ ą0 Šof€his€vehicles€[sic]€potential€for€deadly€force.€€Fatalities€by€large€trucks€are€aŠ Š  Šgrowing€problem€in€our€community€and€in€our€nation.€€Irresponsible€driving€of€theseŠ Ą! Švehicles€must€be€deterred€nationwide.€€Truck€crashes€increased€from€383,000€in€1996Š °"  Što€444,000€in€1997.€€In€1997€there€were€717€fatalities€of€truck€occupants€comparedŠ  #š! Šwith€4,638€fatalities€of€passenger„vehicle€occupants€involved€in€truck„car€crashes.€Š $ą" ŠAlthough€large€trucks€represent€only€3%€of€all€registered€vehicles€on€the€road,€theyŠ €%Š # Šwere€involved€in€over€25%€of€passenger€vehicle€occupant€deaths€in€multiple€vehicleŠ p&Ą!$ Šcrashes.Š`'°"%Š Š  ŠĢÓÓą8  ąThe€actions€of€the€defendant€must€be€deterred.Š@)$'Š Š  ŠŠ  +p&) ŠÓÓą  ąThe€defendant€petitioned€the€trial€court€for€a€writ€of€certiorari€to€review€the€prosecutorššsŠ ° Šdenial€of€pretrial€diversion.€€The€state€submitted€a€copy€of€the€record€upon€which€it€based€the€denialŠ  š Šof€pretrial€diversion,€consisting€of€the€TDOCššs€pretrial€diversion€report;€a€statement€the€defendantŠ ą Šgave€the€police;€a€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€(TBI)€laboratory€report;€materials€by€theŠ €Š ŠCitizens€for€Reliable€and€Safe€Highways€(CRASH),€which€contain€statistics€on€wrecks€involvingŠ pĄ Šlarge€trucks;€and€a€transcript€of€the€defendantššs€telephone€conversation€with€a€police€officerŠ ` ° Šregarding€the€accident.Š P   ŠĢą  ąIn€his€statement€to€the€police,€the€defendant€said€that€on€July€6,€1998,€he€was€traveling€northŠ 0 € Šon€Interstate€181€in€the€right€lane€when€he€saw€a€minivan€enter€the€emergency€lane€as€if€to€approachŠ  p  Šthe€exit€ramp€from€that€lane.€€He€said€that€he€noticed€that€cars€were€entering€the€interstateŠ `  Šnorthbound€and€that€two€tractor€trailers€and€a€car€were€pulling€alongside€his€tractor€trailer.€€He€saidŠ P  Šthat€the€minivan€reentered€the€right€lane€in€front€of€him.€€He€said€that€he€drove€as€close€to€the€centerŠ š@  Šline€as€possible€while€braking€but€that€he€still€hit€the€left€rear€of€the€minivan.€€He€stated€that€he€didŠ ą0  Šnot€know€what€happened€after€that€because€his€right€front€tire€deflated,€and€he€tried€to€maintainŠ Š  Šcontrol€of€his€truck.€€He€parked€his€truck€on€the€shoulder€of€the€road.Š Ą ŠĢą  ąIn€the€pretrial€diversion€report,€the€defendant€stated€that€the€accident€was€unavoidable׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀onŠ  š Šhis€part.€€He€stated€that€no€one€felt€worse€than€he€about€the€victimššs€death€but€that€he€was€notŠ ą Šnegligent.€€Kingsport€Police€Officer€Jerry€Mowell€reported€that€the€defendant€was€truthful€andŠ €Š Šcooperative€during€the€accident€investigation.€€Officer€Mowell€said€that€the€defendant€showedŠ pĄ Šextreme€remorse€for€the€accident.€€He€said€that€although€he€would€leave€the€matter€of€pretrialŠ `° Šdiversion€to€the€district€attorneyššs€office,€if€anyone€deserved€pretrial€diversion,€the€defendant€did.€Š P  ŠIn€a€recorded€telephone€conversation,€Officer€Mowell€asked€the€defendant€about€the€victimššs€entryŠ @ Šinto€the€emergency€lane.€€The€defendant€stated€that€the€minivanššs€left€tires€reached€the€solid€whiteŠ 0€ Šline,€but€he€agreed€that€the€minivan€never€crossed€it.€€€€€€€€€€Š  p ŠĢą  ąAccording€to€the€diversion€report,€the€thirty„four„year„old€defendant€graduated€from€highŠ P Šschool€and€served€seven€years€in€the€army€before€receiving€an€honorable€discharge.€€After€leavingŠ š@ Šthe€army,€the€defendant€completed€truck€driving€school€in€Clarksville,€Alabama,€and€then€droveŠ ą0 Štrucks€for€different€employers.€€He€worked€for€J.B.€Hunt€Transport€for€a€year€and€three€months€andŠ Š  Šthen€for€M.S.€Carriers€for€three€years,€leaving€both€positions€to€take€another€job.€€He€next€workedŠ Ą! Šas€a€truck€driver€for€Watkins€Motor€Lines€but€was€discharged€after€nine€months.€€He€worked€as€aŠ °"  Štruck€driver€for€Overland€Transport€for€a€year€and€four€months€before€leaving€to€take€another€job.€Š  #š! ŠHe€then€worked€as€a€truck€driver€for€Active€Transportation€for€two€years€and€ten€months€before€heŠ $ą" Šwas€fired€as€a€result€of€the€present€offenses.€€At€the€time€he€was€interviewed,€the€defendant€workedŠ €%Š # Šas€a€releasing€agent€for€Auto€Rail€Services,€and€a€representative€of€the€company€characterized€himŠ p&Ą!$ Šas€a€good€employee.€€Š `'°"% ŠŠ P( #& Šą  ąThe€pretrial€diversion€report€also€reveals€that€the€defendant€paid€a€fine€following€a€convictionŠ ° Šfor€defective€equipment€in€1994.€€Additionally,€the€defendant€reported€incurring€two€speeding€ticketsŠ  š Šin€Ohio€and€having€a€following„too„closely€offense€in€Louisiana.€€The€defendant€had€been€marriedŠ ą Šfor€thirteen€years€and€had€three€children.€€He€reported€that€he€was€in€good€physical€health€but€hadŠ €Š Šback€problems.€€He€said€that€he€was€in€excellent€mental€health€and€had€used€alcohol€once€but€did€notŠ pĄ Šlike€the€taste.€€He€reported€no€other€drug€use.€€The€laboratory€report€reveals€that€the€defendant€hadŠ ` ° Šnot€used€drugs€on€the€day€of€the€offenses.Š P   ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€found€that€substantial€evidence€in€the€record€supported€the€prosecutorššsŠ 0 € Šreasons€for€denying€pretrial€diversion.€€The€court€found€that€the€defendantššs€statement€to€the€policeŠ  p  Šrevealed€that€he€blamed€the€victim€for€the€accident,€despite€his€telephone€admission€to€OfficerŠ `  ŠMowell€that€the€victim€never€fully€left€his€lane€of€travel.€€The€court€found€that€the€defendant€had€twoŠ P  Štickets€for€speeding,€one€ticket€for€following€too€closely,€and€one€conviction€for€defective€equipment.€Š š@  ŠIt€found€that€the€three€moving€traffic€violations€were€significant€in€this€case€because€the€defendantŠ ą0  Šallegedly€operated€his€tractor€trailer€recklessly€on€the€interstate€and€the€facts€suggested€that€he€mayŠ Š  Šhave€been€following€too€closely.€€The€court€found€that€the€defendantššs€description€of€the€accidentŠ Ą Šrevealed€that€several€other€motorists€were€in€the€area€and€that€the€defendantššs€actions€endangeredŠ ° Šthese€motorists.€€The€court€noted€that€if€the€defendant€was€convicted,€it€could€enhance€his€sentenceŠ  š Šwith€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„35„114(10),€lack€of€hesitation€in€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€toŠ ą Šhuman€life€is€high,€and€(16),€commission€of€the€crime€under€circumstances€creating€great€potentialŠ €Š Šfor€bodily€injury€to€a€victim.€€It€held€that€granting€the€defendant€pretrial€diversion€when€at€least€twoŠ pĄ Šenhancement€factors€would€apply€to€his€sentence€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses.€Š `° ŠThe€court€declined€to€find€that€the€defendant€had€an€excellent€work€history€because€he€had€been€firedŠ P  Šfrom€two€jobs€and€his€other€jobs€were€of€short€duration.€€Finally,€it€found€that€the€materials€reliedŠ @ Šupon€by€the€state€provided€substantial€evidence€of€the€need€to€deter€truck€drivers€from€recklessŠ 0€ Šdriving.Š  p ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€expressed€concern€about€the€prosecutorššs€failure€to€list€and€evaluate€evidenceŠ P Šfavorable€to€the€defendant€such€as€his€honorable€discharge€from€the€army,€his€stable€marriage€ofŠ š@ Šthirteen€years,€his€high€school€diploma,€and€his€lack€of€a€history€of€drug€or€alcohol€abuse.€Š ą0 ŠNevertheless,€it€recognized€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„15„105(b)(3)€provides€that€it€ņņmayóó€orderŠ Š  Špretrial€diversion€if€the€prosecutor€abused€his€or€her€discretion.€€Thus,€it€determined€that€it€was€notŠ Ą! Šrequired€to€order€pretrial€diversion€for€the€prosecutorššs€failure€to€list€and€evaluate€evidence€that€didŠ °"  Šnot€outweigh€the€unfavorable€factors€listed€and€supported€by€the€evidence.€€Noting€the€defendantššs€Š  #š! Šexperience€and€training€as€a€tractor€trailer€driver,€the€court€found€that€the€defendant€should€haveŠ $ą" Šanticipated€that€the€cars€merging€onto€the€interstate€would€force€the€victim€to€stay€in€his€lane€andŠ €%Š # Šshould€have€slowed€his€truck€to€maintain€a€safe€distance€behind€the€victim.€€Due€to€the€defendantššsŠ p&Ą!$ Šegregious€behavior€under€the€circumstances,€the€court€found€that€to€order€pretrial€diversion€wouldŠ `'°"% Šdepreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses€and€would€undermine€the€judicial€system.Š P( #& Š€€Š @)$' Šą  ąThe€decision€to€grant€or€deny€an€application€for€pretrial€diversion€is€within€the€discretion€ofŠ 0*€%( Šthe€prosecuting€attorney.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„15„105;€ņņState€v.€Curryóó,€988€S.W.2d€153,€157€(Tenn.Š  +p&) Š1999).€€In€making€this€determination,€the€prosecutor€shouldŠ ,`'* Šą8  ąfocus€on€the€defendantššs€amenability€to€correction.€€Any€factors€which€tend€toŠ ° Šaccurately€reflect€whether€a€particular€defendant€will€or€will€not€become€a€repeatŠ  š Šoffender€should€be€considered.€€Such€factors€must,€of€course,€be€clearly€articulableŠ ą Šand€stated€in€the€record€in€order€that€meaningful€appellate€review€may€be€had.€Š €Š ŠAmong€the€factors€to€be€considered€in€addition€to€the€circumstances€of€the€offenseŠ pĄ Šare€the€defendantššs€criminal€record,€social€history,€the€physical€and€mental€conditionŠ ` ° Šof€a€defendant€where€appropriate,€and€the€likelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serveŠ P   Šthe€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.Š@ Š Š  ŠĢņņCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€157€(quoting€ņņState€v.€Pinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€956,€959„60€(Tenn.€1997)€andŠ  p  ŠņņState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€355€(Tenn.€1983)).€€The€prosecutorššs€response€must€be€inŠ `  Šwriting,€must€list€€the€evidence€considered,€and€must€point€out€any€factual€discrepancies€between€theŠ P  Ševidence€upon€which€the€prosecutor€relied€and€that€presented€in€the€defendantššs€application.€€ņņCurryóó,Š š@  Š988€S.W.2d€at€157.€€The€response€must€discuss€the€factors€considered€by€the€prosecutor€and€theŠ ą0  Šweight€given€to€each€factor.€€ņņId.ó󀀹 šThat€a€defendant,€obviously,€bears€the€burden€of€demonstratingŠ Š  Šsuitability€for€diversion€does€not€relieve€the€prosecutorššs€obligation€to€examine€all€of€the€relevantŠ Ą Šfactors€and€to€set€forth€the€required€findings.šš€€ņņId.óóŠ ° ŠĢą  ąThe€decision€of€the€prosecutor€to€grant€or€deny€pretrial€diversion€is€presumptively€correct€andŠ ą Šwill€not€be€set€aside€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€ņņId.óó€at€158;€ņņHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€356.€€InŠ €Š Šreviewing€the€prosecutorššs€denial€of€pretrial€diversion,€the€trial€court€may€consider€only€thatŠ pĄ Ševidence€considered€by€the€prosecutor.€€ņņCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€158.€€In€order€to€find€an€abuse€ofŠ `° Šdiscretion,€the€trial€court€must€find€that€the€record€lacks€substantial€evidence€supporting€theŠ P  Šprosecutorššs€determination.€€ņņId.óó€Š @ ŠĢą  ąThis€court€has€stated€that€on€appeal,€the€trial€courtššs€factual€determinations€will€be€overturnedŠ  p Šonly€if€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€ņņState€v.€Carróó,€861€S.W.2d€850,€856€(Tenn.€Crim.Š ` ŠApp.€1993);€ņņState€v.€Helmsóó,€720€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€In€ņņCurryóó,€our€supremeŠ P Šcourtņņóó€applied€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€standard€for€review€of€the€trial€courtššs€decisionŠ š@ Šregarding€the€prosecutorššs€abuse€of€discretion,€rather€than€limiting€this€standard€to€the€trial€courtššsŠ ą0 Šfactual€findings.€€ņņCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€158€(citing€ņņPinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€960).€€Respectfully,€theŠ Š  Štrial€courtššs€determination€that€the€prosecutor€has€or€has€not€abused€his€or€her€discretion€is€a€legalŠ Ą! Šconclusion,€not€binding€upon€the€appellate€court.€€ņņCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€856;€ņņseeóó,€ņņe.g.óó,€ņņHammersleyóó,Š °"  Š650€S.W.2d€at€356€(holding€that€the€record€must€be€devoid€of€any€substantial€evidence€to€supportŠ  #š! Šthe€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€for€a€reviewing€court€to€find€an€abuse€of€discretion€and€applying€thisŠ $ą" Šstandard€to€hold€that€the€prosecutorššs€denial€of€diversion€based€solely€upon€deterrence€was€an€abuseŠ €%Š # Šof€discretion).ņņóó€€When€the€facts€are€undisputed,€the€underlying€issue€that€this€court€must€determineŠ p&Ą!$ Šon€appeal€remains€whether,€as€a€matter€of€law,€the€prosecutor€abused€his€or€her€discretion€in€denyingŠ `'°"% Špretrial€diversion.€€ņņCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€856;ņņóó€ņņState€v.€Brooksóó,€943€S.W.2d€411,€413€(Tenn.€Crim.Š P( #& ŠApp.€1997);€ņņState€v.€Lutryóó,€938€S.W.2d€431,€434€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€ņņState€v.€Morganóó,€934Š @)$' ŠS.W.2d€77,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€ņņseeóó€ņņState€v.€Houstonóó,€900€S.W.2d€712,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.Š 0*€%( ŠApp.€1995)€(limiting€the€appellate€courtššs€role€to€determining€whether€any€substantial€evidenceŠ  +p&) Šsupports€the€prosecutorššs€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€in€light€of€the€relevant€factors);€ņņState€v.€Helmsóó,Š ,`'* Š720€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)€(reversing€the€trial€courtššs€finding€of€abuse€ofŠ ° Šdiscretion€because€the€facts€were€undisputed€and€substantial€evidence€in€the€record€supported€theŠ  š Šprosecutorššs€denial€of€pretrial€diversion).€€€Š ą ŠĢ€ņņóóą  ąThe€defendant€contends€that€the€prosecutor€abused€his€discretion€in€denying€the€applicationŠ pĄ Šfor€pretrial€diversion€because€the€prosecutor€failed€to€consider€all€of€the€relevant€factors.€€He€claimsŠ ` ° Šthat€the€five€reasons€listed€in€the€denial€letter€relate€to€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€the€need€forŠ P   Šdeterrence.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€the€prosecutor€did€not€consider€the€circumstances€of€theŠ @  Šoffense,€his€lack€of€a€prior€criminal€record,€his€social€history,€or€his€physical€and€mental€conditionŠ 0 € Šat€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€He€also€contends€that€the€prosecutor€failed€to€identify€the€factual€disputesŠ  p  Šbetween€the€evidence€upon€which€the€prosecutor€relied€and€the€defendantššs€application.€€Š `  ŠĢą  ąThe€state€contends€that€the€prosecutor€did€consider€the€allegedly€omitted€factors€but€that€heŠ š@  Šmerely€came€to€a€different€conclusion€than€the€defendant€regarding€their€weight.€€It€argues€that€theŠ ą0  Šprosecutor€considered€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€when€stating€that€the€defendant€was€drivingŠ Š  Ša€tractor€trailer,€the€victim€was€driving€a€Dodge€Caravan,€and€the€officer€stated€that€the€victimššsŠ Ą Šdeath€was€caused€in€part€by€the€defendant€following€too€closely.€€It€claims€that€the€prosecutorŠ ° Šconsidered€the€defendantššs€prior€criminal€record€by€noting€his€conviction€for€following€too€closelyŠ  š Šand€his€two€speeding€tickets.€€It€argues€that€the€prosecutor€considered€the€defendantššs€work€historyŠ ą Šand€found€it€to€be€unstable.€€The€state€also€contends€that€no€factual€disputes€are€apparent€from€theŠ €Š Šrecord.€€However,€it€does€not€explain€the€prosecutorššs€failure€to€address€the€defendantššs€relevantŠ pĄ Šsocial€history€and€physical€and€mental€condition.Š `° ŠĢą  ąThe€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€providing€the€prosecutor€š šwith€sufficient€backgroundŠ @ Šinformation€and€data€to€enable€that€officer€to€make€a€reasoned€decision€to€grant€or€deny€the€reliefŠ 0€ Šsought.šš€€ņņState€v.€Herronóó,€767€S.W.2d€151,€156€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€applicant€should€provide€theŠ  p Šprosecutor€with€evidence€relating€to€the€relevant€factors€and€may€include€affidavits€and€characterŠ ` Šletters.€€ņņState€v.€Winsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€806,€810€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€parties€may€supplement€thisŠ P Šinformation€with€a€pretrial€investigative€report,€but€this€report€does€not€detract€from€the€defendantššsŠ š@ Šresponsibility€to€show€that€he€is€a€suitable€candidate€for€diversion.€€ņņHerronóó,€767€S.W.2d€at€156.€€InŠ ą0 Šfiling€the€petition€for€a€writ€of€certiorari,€the€defendant€should€include€the€record€as€it€stands€at€thatŠ Š  Špoint,€including€the€completed€application€for€pretrial€diversion.€€ņņWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€810.€€WeŠ Ą! Šnote€that€the€record€before€us€does€not€contain€an€application€for€diversion.€€Nevertheless,€the€pretrialŠ °"  Šdiversion€report€provides€evidence€of€the€defendantššs€graduation€from€high€school,€thirteen„yearŠ  #š! Šmarriage,€work€history,€criminal€record,€and€lack€of€a€drug€or€alcohol€problem.Š $ą" ŠĢą  ąš šIf€the€attorney€general€bases€his€decision€on€less€than€the€full€complement€of€factors€[listedŠ p&Ą!$ Šin€ņņHammersleyóó,]€he€must,€for€the€record,€state€why€he€considers€that€those€he€relies€on€outweigh€theŠ `'°"% Šothers€submitted€for€his€consideration.šš€€ņņHerronóó,€767€S.W.2d€at€156.€€Furthermore,€the€prosecutorŠ P( #& Šis€required€to€identify€any€disputed€facts.€€ņņCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€157;€ņņWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€810.€Š @)$' ŠIn€this€case,€the€defendant€correctly€notes€that€the€denial€letter€does€not€specify€that€the€prosecutorŠ 0*€%( Šconsidered€any€of€the€defendantššs€favorable€qualities.€€Even€if€the€prosecutor€interpreted€theseŠ  +p&) Šqualities€to€be€unfavorable€for€the€defendant,€he€was€required€to€state€them€as€evidence€relevant€toŠ ,`'* Šthe€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendantššs€social€history,€or€the€defendantššs€physical€or€mentalŠ ° Šcondition€and€then€to€state€why€the€factors€upon€which€he€relied€outweighed€these€factors.€€ņņSeeóóŠ  š ŠņņCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€158„59.€€Thus,€the€prosecutor€abused€his€discretion€in€failing€to€consider€allŠ ą Šthe€relevant€factors€listed€by€our€supreme€court€in€ņņHammersleyóó€and€restated€in€ņņCurryóó.Š €Š ŠĢą  ąThe€defendant€contends€that€because€the€prosecutor€has€abused€his€discretion,€this€court€mustŠ ` ° Šreverse€the€trial€court€and€order€pretrial€diversion.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€acknowledged€thatŠ P   Šthe€prosecutor€failed€to€list€and€consider€evidence€favorable€to€the€defendant,€but€it€essentiallyŠ @  Šattempted€to€rehabilitate€the€denial€letter€by€relating€some€favorable€evidence€and€finding€it€to€beŠ 0 € Šoutweighed€by€the€unfavorable€evidence.€€The€state€contends€that€the€trial€court€was€not€required€toŠ  p  Šorder€pretrial€diversion€even€if€the€prosecutor€did€not€list€all€of€the€factors€in€the€denial€letter€becauseŠ `  Šthe€trial€courtššs€review€of€all€the€factors€revealed€that€pretrial€diversion€was€not€appropriate.Š P  ŠĢą  ąIn€ņņCurryóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€prosecutorššs€failure€to€enumerate€and€consider€allŠ ą0  Šof€the€relevant€factors€constituted€an€abuse€of€discretion,€and€it€reinstated€the€trial€courtššs€grant€ofŠ Š  Špretrial€diversion.€€ņņCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€159„60.€€Justice€Holder,€dissenting,€warned€that€theŠ Ą Šmajorityššs€holding€would€allow€defendants€to€avoid€prosecution€based€solely€upon€the€proceduralŠ ° Šomissions€of€the€prosecutor:Š  š ŠĢą8  ąI€question€whether€the€legislature€intended€that€a€criminal€committing€a€series€ofŠ €Š Šserious,€sustained,€planned,€and€deceptive€crimes€over€a€two„year€period€of€timeŠ pĄ Šautomatically€be€granted€diversion€merely€because€a€district€attorney€failed€toŠ `° Šemploy€a€preferred€term€in€the€letter€denying€diversion.€€The€majorityššs€holdingŠ P  Šcould€effectively€allow€defendants€committing€serious€offenses€.€.€.€to€avoidŠ @ Šprosecution€merely€because€a€district€attorney€commits€a€non„prejudicial€omissionŠ 0€ Šaffecting€neither€a€constitutional€nor€a€statutory€right.Š pŠ Š  ŠĢņņId.óó€at€163.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€prosecutorššs€abuse€of€discretion€ņņrequiresóó€anŠ P Šorder€granting€pretrial€diversion.€€However,€we€note€that€in€response€to€Justice€Holderššs€dissent,€theŠ š@ Šmajority€opinion€in€ņņCurryņņóóóó€reviewed€and€approved€the€merits€of€the€defendantššs€request€for€diversion.€Š ą0 ŠņņId.óó€at€159.€€This€indicates€that€the€defendant€must€show€entitlement€to€diversion€even€if€an€abuse€ofŠ Š  Šdiscretion€exists.Š Ą! ŠĢą  ąAlso,€we€do€not€believe€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„15„105€or€prior€Tennessee€decisionsŠ  #š! Šsupport€the€defendantššs€argument.€€Section€40„15„105(b)(3)€provides€in€pertinent€part:€€š šIf€the€trialŠ $ą" Šcourt€finds€that€the€prosecuting€attorney€has€committed€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€failing€to€divert,Š €%Š # Šthe€trial€court€ņņmayóó€order€the€prosecuting€attorney€to€place€the€defendant€in€a€diversion€status€on€suchŠ p&Ą!$ Šterms€and€conditions€as€the€trial€court€may€order.šš€€(Emphasis€added).€€In€interpreting€a€statute,€ourŠ `'°"% Šrole€is€to€give€effect€to€the€legislatureššs€intent€when€enacting€the€statute.€€ņņOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908Š P( #& ŠS.W.2d€923,€926€(Tenn.€1995).€€When€a€statute€is€unambiguous,€the€court€should€enforce€the€statuteŠ @)$' Šas€written,€without€resorting€to€auxiliary€rules€of€construction.€€ņņBrowder€v.€Morrisóó,€975€S.W.2d€308,Š 0*€%( Š311€(Tenn.€1998).€€š šUnambiguous€statutes€must€be€construed€to€mean€what€they€say.šš€€ņņRobertsonŠ  +p&) Šv.€University€of€Tennesseeóó,€912€S.W.2d€746,€747€(Tenn.€1995)€(citation€omitted).€€The€plainŠ ,`'* Šmeaning€of€the€term€š šmayšš€necessarily€implies€discretion.€€The€use€of€š šmayšš€in€šš€40„15„105(b)(3)Š ° Šreveals€that€the€trial€court€is€not€required€to€order€pretrial€diversion€upon€finding€that€the€prosecutorŠ  š Šhas€abused€his€or€her€discretion.€€ņ ņ€€€€€€ó óŠ ą Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ąĢą  ąThe€legislature€has€vested€the€authority€to€prosecute€a€case€or€to€divert€it€with€the€prosecutorŠ pĄ Šrather€than€the€court.€€ņņCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€858;€ņņseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„15„105.€€The€trial€courtŠ ` ° Šmay€not€merely€substitute€its€own€judgment€for€that€of€the€prosecutor€but,€instead,€must€š šdefer€toŠ P   Šthe€prosecutorššs€discretion€when€the€record€contains€any€substantial€evidence€to€support€theŠ @  Šdecision.šš€€ņņId.óó€€In€reviewing€the€prosecutorššs€denial€of€diversion,€the€trial€court€must€look€at€all€theŠ 0 € Šrelevant€factors€to€determine€whether€the€prosecutor€considered€them,€and€if€he€or€she€did€not,€toŠ  p  Šdetermine€whether€pretrial€diversion€is€appropriate.€€ņņHerronóó,€767€S.W.2d€at€156;€ņņCarróó,€861€S.W.2dŠ `  Šat€858.€€Essentially,€ņņHerronóó€provides€that€in€reviewing€whether€the€prosecutor€has€abused€his€or€herŠ P  Šdiscretion€regarding€whether€diversion€should€be€granted,€the€trial€court€must€undertake€the€sameŠ š@  Šprocess€required€of€the€prosecutor€in€considering€and€weighing€the€relevant€factors.€€In€this€respect,Š ą0  Šthe€trial€court€may€consider€only€the€record€that€was€before€the€prosecutor.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņCurryóó,€988€S.W.2dŠ Š  Šat€157€(holding€that€in€reviewing€the€denial€of€diversion,€the€trial€court€is€limited€to€the€evidenceŠ Ą Šconsidered€by€the€prosecutor).€€Because€the€trial€court€is€limited€to€the€record€considered€by€theŠ ° Šprosecutor,€the€trial€court€will€not€surprise€the€defendant€by€basing€its€determination€upon€newŠ  š Šreasons€not€in€the€record.€€In€turn,€this€court€will€defer€to€the€trial€courtššs€determination€unless€it€isŠ ą Šnot€supported€by€substantial€evidence€in€the€record.Š €Š ŠĢą  ą€€To€the€extent€that€this€procedure€gives€some€measure€of€discretion€over€the€decision€ofŠ `° Šwhether€to€divert€to€the€trial€court,€it€is€the€legislature€that€gave€the€trial€court€that€discretion€byŠ P  Šemploying€the€term€š šmayšš€in€section€40„15„105(b)(3)€as€discussed€above.€€Furthermore,€the€grantŠ @ Šof€discretion€to€the€trial€court€is€wholly€appropriate:Š 0€ ŠĢą8  ąą ` ąDiversion€may€not€be€regarded€as€a€mere€extension€of€the€charging€process.€Š ` ŠIt€does€not€come€into€play€until€after€the€indictment.€€The€plan€of€diversion,€or€theŠ P Šdenial€thereof,€ņņfollowsóó€indictment€and€comes€after€the€€prosecutor€has€fullyŠ š@ Šdischarged€all€discretionary€functions€and€after€the€prosecutorial€die€has€been€cast.€Š ą0 ŠOnce€committed€to€prosecution,€the€case€is€ņņbefore€the€courtóó€for€disposition.€€TheŠ Š  Šprocess,€at€this€stage,€becomes€fundamentally€judicial€and€must€end€in€a€verdict,€aŠ Ą! Šņņnolleóó€[ņņprosequióó]€or€pretrial€diversion.а" Š Š  Šą8  ąą ` ą.€.€.€.€€€[T]he€jurisdiction€of€the€court€has€been€invoked€by€indictment€andŠ  #š! Šdisposition€becomes€a€judicial€responsibility.А$ą"Š Š  ŠĢņņPace€v.€Stateóó,€566€S.W.2d€861,€870€(Tenn.€1978)€(Henry,€C.J.,€concurring)€(footnote€omitted).Š p&Ą!$ ŠFinally,€the€alternativeš!šthe€automatic€grant€of€pretrial€diversion€upon€a€finding€that€the€prosecutorŠ `'°"% Šhas€abused€his€or€her€discretionš!šcould€result€in€the€award€of€€pretrial€diversion€for€a€whollyŠ P( #& Šundeserving,€yet€š šeligible,šš€applicant.€€ņņCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€163€(Holder,€J.,€dissenting)€(warningŠ @)$' Šthat€an€automatic€grant€of€pretrial€diversion€based€upon€a€procedural€error€by€the€prosecutor€couldŠ 0*€%( Šresult€in€diversion€for€š šdefendants€committing€serious€offenses€such€as€manslaughter,€kidnapping,Š  +p&) Šand€vehicular€homicidešš).€€ņņóóSuch€a€reflexive€award€of€pretrial€diversion€belies€the€fact€that€pretrialŠ ,`'* Šdiversion€is€a€legislative€largess€granted€only€to€those€who€can€show€their€entitlement.€€ņņCf.óó€ņņCurryóó,Š ° Š988€S.W.2d€at€158€€(holding€that€the€š šfacts€and€circumstances€of€nearly€all€criminal€offenses€are€byŠ  š Šdefinition€serious;€only€by€analyzing€all€of€the€relevant€factors,€including€those€favorable€to€theŠ ą Šdefendant,€can€appropriate€candidates€for€this€legislative€largess€be€identified€in€a€manner€consistentŠ €Š Šwith€the€purpose€of€the€pretrial€diversion€actšš).Š pĄ ŠĢą  ąIn€the€present€case,€although€it€erroneously€found€that€the€prosecutor€had€not€abused€hisŠ P   Šdiscretion,€the€trial€court€undertook€this€weighing€process.€€It€reviewed€the€five€reasons€given€by€theŠ @  Šprosecutor€and€found€them€to€be€supported€by€substantial€evidence€in€the€record.€€The€prosecutorššsŠ 0 € Šfirst€basis€denying€pretrial€diversion€is€the€defendantššs€failure€to€take€responsibility€for€his€actionsŠ  p  Šand€his€blame€of€the€victim,€which€show€him€to€be€a€poor€candidate€for€rehabilitation.€€The€trialŠ `  Šcourt€found€that€despite€his€admitting€that€the€victim€never€fully€left€his€lane€of€travel,€the€defendantŠ P  Štold€the€police€that€the€accident€was€unavoidable€and€that€he€was€not€negligent.€€The€trial€court€foundŠ š@  Šthat€these€statements€revealed€that€the€defendant€blamed€the€victim€for€the€accident.€€The€trial€courtŠ ą0  Šalso€found€that€the€defendant€was€not€completely€truthful€in€his€statement€because€he€implied€thatŠ Š  Šthe€victim€traveled€completely€in€the€emergency€lane€for€a€distance€and€then€reentered€the€right€laneŠ Ą Šin€front€of€him.€€The€trial€court€found€the€defendantššs€lack€of€candor€to€be€probative€of€his€potentialŠ ° Šfor€rehabilitation.Š  š ŠĢą  ąThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€the€prosecutorššs€basis€for€denialŠ €Š Šbecause€the€facts€relating€to€how€the€accident€occurred€continue€to€be€greatly€disputed€and€are€theŠ pĄ Šsubject€of€a€tort€suit€in€federal€court.€€Furthermore,€he€argues€that€Officer€Mowell€stated€in€theŠ `° Špretrial€diversion€report€that€the€defendant€was€truthful€and€cooperative€during€the€investigation€andŠ P  Šshowed€extreme€remorse€for€what€happened.€€A€prosecutor€may€not€deny€diversion€based€purelyŠ @ Šupon€a€defendantššs€failure€to€admit€guilt.€€ņņState€v.€James€M.€Laneóó,€No.€E1999„00615„CCA„R9„CD,Š 0€ ŠHamilton€County,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€1,€2000).€€On€the€other€hand,€if€the€failureŠ  p Što€admit€the€offense€reveals€a€lack€of€candor€or€remorse,€such€could€be€a€proper€basis€for€denyingŠ ` Špretrial€diversion.€€ņņId.óó;€ņņseeóó€ņņState€v.€Neaseóó,€713€S.W.2d€90,€92€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)€(holding€theŠ P Šdefendant€to€be€a€poor€candidate€for€diversion€because€he€was€not€completely€truthful€about€whatŠ š@ Šoccurred€and€did€not€accept€full€responsibility).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendantššsŠ ą0 Šstatement€implied€that€the€victim€pulled€completely€into€the€emergency€lane,€traveled€in€theŠ Š  Šemergency€lane€for€some€distance,€and€then€reentered€the€right€lane€in€front€of€him.€€It€determinedŠ Ą! Šthat€this€implication€contradicted€the€defendantššs€telephone€admission€to€Officer€Mowell€that€theŠ °"  Švictim€never€completely€left€his€lane€of€travel.€€We€agree€that€substantial€evidence€in€the€recordŠ  #š! Šsupports€the€denial€of€diversion€based€upon€the€defendantššs€failure€to€take€responsibility€for€hisŠ $ą" Šactions€based€upon€his€lack€of€candor€regarding€the€manner€in€which€the€accident€occurred.Š €%Š # ŠĢą  ąThe€prosecutor€also€denied€pretrial€diversion€based€upon€the€defendantššs€continuing€to€driveŠ `'°"% Šdangerously€despite€previously€incurring€two€speeding€tickets€and€a€conviction€for€following€tooŠ P( #& Šclosely.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€diversion€report€revealed€that€the€defendant€had€two€speedingŠ @)$' Štickets,€one€ticket€for€following€too€closely,€and€one€conviction€for€defective€equipment.€€The€trialŠ 0*€%( Šcourt€observed€that€although€such€traffic€offenses€normally€carry€little€significance,€the€defendantššsŠ  +p&) Šthree€moving€traffic€violations€take€on€greater€importance€in€this€case€in€which€the€defendantŠ ,`'* Šallegedly€operated€a€tractor€trailer€recklessly€and€the€evidence€suggests€that€the€defendant€may€haveŠ ° Šbeen€following€too€closely€at€the€time.€€The€defendant€contends€that€any€weight€attributed€to€hisŠ  š Štraffic€citations€is€wholly€misplaced.€€He€argues€that€these€citations€became€known€solely€throughŠ ą Šhis€own€disclosure€and€that€the€record€contains€no€evidence€regarding€their€disposition€orŠ €Š Šsurrounding€circumstances.€Š pĄ ŠĢą  ąThe€prosecutor€may€properly€consider€evidence€of€criminal€behavior€to€deny€diversion.€€ņņSeeóóŠ P   ŠņņState€v.€Beverlyóó,€894€S.W.2d€292,€293€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(noting€that€the€trial€courtššsŠ @  Šdiscretion€regarding€judicial€diversion€is€subject€to€the€same€constraints€as€that€of€prosecutorsššŠ 0 € Šdiscretion€regarding€pretrial€diversion€and€affirming€the€trial€courtššs€denial€of€judicial€diversionŠ  p  Šbased€upon€the€defendantššs€prior€criminal€behavior€of€marijuana€use);€ņņseeóó,€ņņe.g.óó,€ņņState€v.€MichaelŠ `  ŠDurand€Holmesóó,€No.€03C01„9707„CR„00243,€Hamblen€County,€slip€op.€at€9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€JulyŠ P  Š7,€1998),€ņņapp.óó€ņņdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Feb.€16,€1999)€(affirming€the€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€based€uponŠ š@  Šthe€defendantššs€experience€and€reputation€as€a€drug€dealer,€his€prior€criminal€behavior,€and€hisŠ ą0  Šmodest€criminal€record).€€The€pretrial€diversion€report€reveals€that€the€defendant€had€a€convictionŠ Š  Šfor€defective€equipment,€resulting€in€a€$67.50€fine.€€The€report€also€reveals€that€the€š šdefendant€statedŠ Ą Šthat€he€has€two€(2)€speeding€ticket[s]€in€Ohio€and€a€following€too€close[ly]€offense€in€Louisiana.šš€Š ° ŠAlthough€the€defendant€appears€to€question€whether€these€incidents€actually€resulted€in€convictions,Š  š Šhe€admitted€in€the€report€that€these€moving€violations€occurred.€€These€violations€constitutedŠ ą Šrelevant€criminal€behavior€that€the€prosecutor€properly€considered€as€a€basis€for€denying€diversion.Š €Š Šą  ą€€€€€€€€€€€Š pĄ Šą  ąThe€defendant€also€challenges€the€prosecutorššs€fourth€basis€for€denial,€which€relates€to€hisŠ `° Šwork€history.€€The€prosecutor€concluded€that€the€defendantššs€unstable€work€history€revealed€that€heŠ P  Šwould€be€unlikely€to€complete€a€probationary€period.€€In€reviewing€this€reason,€the€trial€court€found:Š @ ŠĢą8  ąą ` ąAccording€to€the€pretrial€diversion€report,€the€Defendant€has€worked€for€sixŠ  p Šdifferent€companies€since€April€1989.€€He€worked€approximately€three€years€each€onŠ ` Štwo€of€those€six€jobs;€he€worked€only€about€a€year€on€the€other€four.€€He€wasŠ P Šterminated€from€two€of€the€jobs,€once€because€of€the€incident€involved€in€the€presentŠ š@ Šcase.Šą0Š Š  ŠĢThe€trial€court€declined€to€find€that€the€defendant€had€an€š šexcellent€work€historyšš€because€he€hadŠ Ą! Šbeen€fired€from€two€jobs€and€his€other€jobs€were€of€short€duration.€€It€determined€that€the€recordŠ °"  Šcontained€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€prosecutorššs€contention€that€the€defendant€had€anŠ  #š! Šunstable€work€history.€€Š $ą" ŠĢą  ąThe€defendant€argues€that€the€record€does€not€support€the€conclusion€that€his€work€historyŠ p&Ą!$ Šis€unstable.€€He€contends€that€the€record€shows€that€he€has€been€employed€from€1989,€when€he€wasŠ `'°"% Šhonorably€discharged€from€the€army,€until€he€was€terminated€as€a€result€of€these€offenses.€€HeŠ P( #& Šmaintains€that€he€changed€jobs€for€increased€wages€and€better€hours,€allowing€him€to€spend€moreŠ @)$' Štime€with€his€family.€€He€acknowledges€that€the€record€reflects€that€he€was€discharged€from€two€jobs.€Š 0*€%( ŠHe€contends€that€one€discharge€resulted€from€the€present€accident€and€the€other€came€about€whenŠ  +p&) Šthe€job€ceased€to€exist.€€Neither€party€presented€evidence€at€the€certiorari€hearing.€€The€defendantššsŠ ,`'* Šattorney€argued€that€the€defendant€changed€jobs€to€gain€better€pay€and€more€time€with€his€family.€Š ° ŠThe€trial€court€noted:€š šIt€is€not€in€here€why€you€left€those€jobs€that€I€could€find,€why€you€said€thatŠ  š Šyou€.€.€.€changed€jobs€so€often.€€I€donššt€believe€thatššs€in€any€materials€that€the€State€considered.ššŠ ą ŠĢą  ąAlthough€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtššs€finding€that€theŠ pĄ Šdefendantššs€work€history€was€not€excellent,€we€do€not€believe€that€substantial€evidence€in€the€recordŠ ` ° Šsupports€€the€prosecutorššs€determination€that€the€defendantššs€work€history€was€unstable.€€The€recordŠ P   Šreflects€that€the€defendant€was€continuously€employed€from€the€time€he€graduated€from€high€school.€Š @  ŠWhile€in€the€army,€he€received€an€achievement€medal,€a€commendation€medal,€and€an€air€assaultŠ 0 € Šbadge.€€The€defendant€reported€that€he€was€š šdischargedšš€from€Watkins€Motor€Lines€in€April€1994Š  p  Šand€that€he€began€driving€a€truck€for€Overland€Transport€that€same€month.€€The€record€does€notŠ `  Šreflect€the€reason€for€his€discharge.€€The€record€reveals€that€Active€Transport€fired€the€defendant€onŠ P  ŠJuly€6,€1998,€because€of€the€present€offenses€and€that€the€defendant€started€work€as€a€releasing€agentŠ š@  Šfor€Auto€Rail€Services€on€December€1,€1998,€earning€just€over€nineteen€dollars€an€hour.€€AŠ ą0  Šrepresentative€of€Auto€Rail€Services€characterized€the€defendant€as€a€good€employee.€Š Š  ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€noted€that€the€prosecutor€failed€to€list€and€evaluate€evidence€favorable€to€theŠ ° Šdefendant€such€as€his€honorable€discharge€from€the€army,€his€stable€marriage€of€thirteen€years,€hisŠ  š Šhigh€school€diploma,€and€his€lack€of€a€history€of€drug€or€alcohol€abuse.€€This€evidence€relates€to€theŠ ą Šdefendantššs€social€history€and€his€physical€and€mental€condition,€€and€it€reflects€favorably€upon€hisŠ €Š Šamenability€to€correction.€€The€trial€court€considered€this€evidence€and€found€it€to€be€commendableŠ pĄ Šbut€not€significant€enough€to€outweigh€the€unfavorable€evidence€relied€upon€by€the€prosecutor€toŠ `° Šdeny€diversion.€€The€trial€court€placed€great€weight€on€the€seriousness€of€the€crimes€with€which€theŠ P  Šdefendant€was€charged,€the€fact€that€the€defendant€had€previously€operated€a€tractor€trailer€inŠ @ Šviolation€of€the€law,€and€the€fact€that€his€actions€endangered€others€in€addition€to€the€victims.€€TheŠ 0€ Štrial€court€emphasized€its€conclusion€that€the€defendant,€a€trained€and€experienced€tractor€trailerŠ  p Šdriver,€should€have€anticipated€that€the€cars€merging€onto€the€interstate€would€force€the€victim€toŠ ` Šremain€in€his€lane€and€should€have€slowed€his€truck€to€maintain€a€safe€distance€behind€the€victim.€Š P ŠBased€upon€this€evidence€and€the€reasons€listed€by€the€prosecutor,€the€court€refused€to€order€pretrialŠ š@ Šdiversion€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses,€emphasizing€the€need€€to€deter€tractorŠ ą0 Štrailer€drivers€from€dangerous€driving.€€It€concluded€that€pretrial€diversion€would€not€serve€the€endsŠ Š  Šof€justice€nor€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€public€and€the€defendant.€Š Ą! ŠĢą  ąWe€review€the€trial€courtššs€weighing€of€the€favorable€evidence€and€ultimate€denial€ofŠ  #š! Šdiversion€to€determine€whether€substantial€evidence€in€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtššsŠ $ą" Šdetermination.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€defendant€had€completed€truck€driving€school€and€hadŠ €%Š # Šdriven€trucks€for€nine€years€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€The€circumstances€of€the€collision€indicateŠ p&Ą!$ Šthat€the€defendant€could€have€avoided€the€accident.€€In€his€statement,€the€defendant€said€that€heŠ `'°"% Šnoticed€cars€merging€onto€the€interstate.€€In€his€telephone€conversation€with€Officer€Mowell,€theŠ P( #& Šdefendant€agreed€that€the€victim€never€completely€left€his€lane€of€travel.€€Also,€the€defendant€statedŠ @)$' Šthat€other€motorists€were€traveling€in€the€left€lane€and€entering€the€interstate.€€Thus,€the€recordŠ 0*€%( Šreflects€that€the€defendantššs€actions€endangered€others€in€addition€to€the€victims.€€Š  +p&) ŠŠ ,`'* Šą  ąFinally,€the€defendant€admitted€to€three€prior€moving€violations,€including€a€previousŠ ° Šinstance€of€following€too€closely.€€The€defendant€lives€in€Kentucky€and€is€a€tractor„trailer€driver.€Š  š ŠHis€violations€occurred€in€Ohio€and€Louisiana,€ostensibly€while€he€was€on€the€job.€€Essentially,€theŠ ą Štrial€court€believed€that€the€defendant€had€a€disregard€for€the€rules€of€the€road€while€driving€a€tractorŠ €Š Štrailer,€which€increased€the€risk€of€harm€to€others€above€that€present€for€other€motor€vehicles€andŠ pĄ Šculminated€in€the€death€and€injuries€in€the€present€case.Š ` ° ŠĢą  ąWith€the€trial€courtššs€view€of€the€defendantššs€lack€of€candor€and€failure€to€appreciate€the€risksŠ @  Šof€harm€that€his€traffic€violations€posed€when€driving€a€tractor€trailer,€it€was€justified€in€seriouslyŠ 0 € Šquestioning€the€defendantššs€amenability€to€rehabilitating€his€conduct€in€similar€situations.€€€Likewise,Š  p  Šunder€the€circumstances€in€this€case€and€given€the€defendantššs€background,€the€record€supports€theŠ `  Štrial€courtššs€conclusion€that€granting€diversion€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses€forŠ P  Šthe€defendant.€€We€hold€that€substantial€evidence€in€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtššs€denial€ofŠ š@  Špretrial€diversion.€Š ą0  ŠĢą  ąAlthough€the€prosecutor€improperly€failed€to€consider€all€the€relevant€factors€and€to€list€theŠ Ą Ševidence€favorable€to€the€defendant,€substantial€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtššs€conclusion€thatŠ ° Špretrial€diversion€is€not€warranted€in€this€case.€€In€support€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,Š  š Šwe€affirm€the€trial€courtššs€order€denying€the€defendant€pretrial€diversion.Š ą ŠĢĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą___________________________________€Š P  Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE