ÿWPC ÑÄ0¶î¾SJ º\•CÇ3X¸aZÉR¤n_Ú éR·ƒ½í ·&¿Pòãt±®óÞÙ¿`0GXd@v“©ÀìÝÐyu—©5ä b2+1¹S>nSÝMÊ£8X1^Np±ªŸÑÿè´6 qúR7ôÂå¬(H`{b’ èE—»ù難¦æ6¢<)oQ„¼Fï`I_\Ñy8Œq¯è8y_†,O';2eœ†×Eo ¹s)¬Áÿmè'%˽/½ú‡Kvq£@Öhþ¬óìøò&FB Ì³‹˜…ªt\MEUÙ'æ!‰Wöe R…žN™]9ÿÒˆb—Ç”T*[xv¸Ð¸q€#yz ~Y“Ì碆ìevïÜAs~W/Êæ‡•¶ ážl%Ú·A™ƒ(æ‘VŽÓ÷¤–¸R+fZL3·*÷µ´µGº£ÉÈ35½â޵k仌:½à‰ø± ǽМ¼øó*é¯ö ·WRÄ»-€; ¯mO¼O–\Ká=Åš±½â‘<ø*K`æiù2'µv–¨nÇ5T‘tOk‹ª—5¤róJ•\½F½šÌ ”–ÂŽm ò‚ü¦Ë]<:ø ¯E*b1ƒ£R¬,-Câ9JàÀ>p Aºû»b#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% UN­ ®û 0D© zí Òg z9 Ò³ ^ …w‘Æ•Æ[Æ!Æç4­NÁÃÒEÔ mÖííííííííííííííííííííííbõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõ 0ëýýýý Bèè 0¤ D3© D-Ü 0K   ASTƧ 0¤m 0D A«U˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ¤Ý ƒR̽$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïíò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€defendantððs€name€appears€as€Robert€Allen€Carriger€on€the€briefs€and€various€documents€inÐ ° Ðthe€record,€but€it€is€this€courtððs€policy€to€use€the€defendantððs€name€as€it€appears€on€the€presentment,€absent€anyÐ tÄ Ðamendment€in€the€record.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptK«”)â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5•jW)bk1Ð1¥3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ - ù-(|G2̽$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Tµ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïíò»»Ô d(|3Ç‹$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Tµ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç‹$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Tµ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Tµ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Tµ»»»ÔÑ8€)XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îE”TµÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Tµ»îîE” #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àSeptember€26,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X)X»¼TµÔÌò òÔ#†¼Tµ»XX)#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€òòóóROBBIE€Ô_ÔCARRIGERÔ_ÔÔ‡X)X»¼TµÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Carter€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€S14447€€€€€€Robert€E.€Ô_ÔCuppÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„00823„CCA„R3„CD€Ð ¥õ  ÐDecember€20,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓThe€state€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€order€placing€the€defendant,€Robbie€Ô_ÔCarrigerÔ_Ô,€on€pretrialÐ d´ Ðdiversion€based€upon€its€finding€that€the€prosecutor€abused€his€discretion€for€failing€to€consider€allÐ P  Ðthe€factors€relevant€to€pretrial€diversion€in€his€written€response€denying€diversion.€€The€stateÐ <Œ Ðcontends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€consider€the€prosecutorððs€amended€response€to€theÐ (x Ðapplication€for€pretrial€diversion.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€consider€theÐ d Ðprosecutorððs€amended€response,€but€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€automatic€grant€of€pretrial€diversionÐ P Ðand€remand€the€case€for€the€trial€court€to€consider€the€defendantððs€entitlement€to€pretrial€diversionÐ ì< Ðin€light€of€the€relevant€factors.€Ð Ø( ÐÓûÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed€in€Part,€Ð ° ÐReversed€in€Part,€and€Remandedó óÐ œì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Tµ»àX)¯#ÔÔ‡X)X.¼TµÔJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòJamesÐ tÄ ÐÔ_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Peter€M.€Ô_ÔCoughlanÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 8!ˆ  Ðand€Joe€C.€Ô_ÔCrumleyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ô#†¼Tµ»XX)  #ÔÔ‡X)X»¼TµÔÐ $"t! ÐÌRowland€E.€Ô_ÔVerranÔ_Ô,€Johnson€City,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€the€appellee,€Robbie€Ô_ÔCarrigerÔ_Ô.Ð ü#L# ÐÌÓq Óà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Tµ»XX) #ÔÔ‡X)X»¼TµÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Tµ»XX)7 #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X)X»¼TµÔà  àThe€state€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€Carter€County€Criminal€Courtððs€order€placing€theÐ ¬'ü"' Ðdefendant,€Robbie€Ô_ÔCarrigerÔ_Ô,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€on€pretrial€diversion€for€his€charge€of€statutory€rape,€a€Class€E€felony.€Ð ˜(è#( ÐUpon€the€defendantððs€petition€for€a€writ€of€certiorari,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€prosecutor€hadÐ „)Ô$)ý¾ ÐÔ_Ôabused€his€discretion€in€his€denial€of€the€defendantððs€application€for€pretrial€diversion€by€failing€toÐ ° Ðconsider€all€of€the€factors€set€forth€in€òòState€v.€Curryóó,€988€S.W.2d€153,€157€(Tenn.€1999).€€It€alsoÐ œì Ðfound€that€òòCurryóó€prevented€the€courtððs€consideration€of€the€stateððs€amended€response€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendantððs€application€for€pretrial€diversion,€and€it€ordered€diversion.€€The€state€contends€that€theÐ tÄ Ðtrial€court€should€have€considered€its€amended€response€before€determining€that€the€prosecutorÐ `° Ðabused€his€discretion.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€consider€the€stateððs€amendedÐ L œ Ðresponse€and€affirm€its€finding€of€abuse€of€discretion€based€upon€the€prosecutorððs€failure€to€considerÐ 8 ˆ Ðall€the€factors.€€We€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€automatic€grant€of€diversion€upon€finding€an€abuse€ofÐ $ t Ðdiscretion€and€remand€the€case€for€the€trial€court€to€make€findings€and€a€determination€of€whetherÐ  ` Ðthe€defendant€is€entitled€to€pretrial€diversion€in€light€of€the€relevant€factors.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€statutory€rape,€occurring€when€he€was€forty€years€old€andÐ Ô$  Ðthe€victim€was€fifteen.€€This€conduct€resulted€in€the€birth€of€a€child€to€the€victim.€€The€defendantÐ À  Ðrequested€pretrial€diversion,€alleging€that€he€and€the€victim€wished€to€marry€but€that€her€parentsÐ ¬ü  Ðwould€not€give€their€consent.€€He€asserted€that€he€was€willing€to€support€the€child€until€he€and€theÐ ˜è  Ðvictim€could€marry€once€she€turned€eighteen.€€The€defendantððs€application€for€pretrial€diversionÐ „Ô  Ðstated€that€he€graduated€from€high€school,€was€twice€divorced,€and€had€a€disability€resulting€fromÐ pÀ Ðsurgery€on€his€shoulder€in€1995.€€It€listed€his€nerves,€loss€of€sleep,€and€a€spur€on€his€heel€as€otherÐ \¬ Ðmedical€problems.€€It€related€that€since€August€1996,€he€had€worked€as€a€crew€chief€for€the€City€ofÐ H˜ ÐElizabethtonððs€Waste€Water€Department,€earning€$8.20€an€hour.€€He€had€previously€worked€as€aÐ 4„ Ðmachine€operator€for€Shaw€Industries€from€1992€or€1993€through€May€1995,€as€a€supervisor€atÐ  p ÐSpecialty€Produce€for€an€undisclosed€time,€and€with€Mor„Flo€Industries€from€1978€to€1988.€€TheÐ  \ Ðdefendant€reported€leaving€Shaw€Industries€to€return€to€Elizabethton€from€South€Pittsburg,Ð øH ÐTennessee.€€He€said€that€he€left€the€other€two€jobs€because€they€required€too€many€work€hours.€€HeÐ ä4 Ðreported€that€he€attended€Pinecrest€Christian€Church€in€Johnson€City,€Tennessee.€€He€admitted€thatÐ Ð  Ðhe€was€arrested€for€public€intoxication€as€a€juvenile€in€1974.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€Board€of€Probation€and€Paroleððs€Investigation€Report€reveals€that€the€defendant€earnedÐ ”ä Ðhis€certification€in€water€and€wastewater€operation€in€February€1998.€€It€relates€that€the€defendantÐ €Ð Ðreported€that€he€first€used€alcohol€as€a€teenager€but€has€no€problems€with€alcohol.€€He€stated€that€heÐ l¼ Ðexperimented€with€marijuana€as€a€teenager€but€has€not€used€it€since€that€time.€€The€defendant€doesÐ X ¨ Ðnot€have€any€children€from€his€previous€marriages,€and€he€lives€alone€in€his€own€trailer.€€TheÐ D!” Ðdefendant€reported€that€his€relationship€with€the€victim€grew€over€two€years,€during€which€they€wereÐ 0"€  Ðgood€friends,€talked€a€lot,€and€played€basketball.€€He€stated€that€the€victim€telephoned€him€daily€andÐ #l! Ðwrote€him€letters.€€He€denied€that€they€had€a€physical€relationship€during€this€time.€€In€the€victimÐ $X" Ðimpact€statement€included€in€the€report,€the€victim€stated€that€she€wanted€to€marry€the€defendant,€thatÐ ô$D # Ðshe€and€the€defendant€loved€each€other,€and€that€she€did€not€think€the€defendant€should€be€punishedÐ à%0!$ Ðbecause€he€had€not€committed€a€crime.€€The€victim€stated€that€she€felt€stress€because€her€parentsÐ Ì&"% Ðwould€not€allow€her€to€see€or€speak€with€the€defendant.€€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€state€submitted€a€written€response€denying€the€defendantððs€application€for€pretrialÐ )à$( Ðdiversion€based€upon€the€circumstances€of€the€case€and€the€need€for€deterrence.€€The€prosecutorÐ |*Ì%) Ðfound€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€a€forty„year„old€man€seducing€a€fifteen„year„old€girl,€to€beÐ h+¸&* Ðespecially€shocking€and€reprehensible.€€The€prosecutor€determined€that€if€the€defendant€had€trulyÐ ° Ðcared€about€the€victim,€he€would€not€have€impregnated€her;€that€if€returned€to€the€community,€theÐ œì Ðdefendant€would€likely€find€another€victim€to€satisfy€his€sexual€desires;€and€that€the€grant€of€pretrialÐ ˆØ Ðdiversion€in€this€case€would€do€nothing€to€deter€others€bent€upon€committing€statutory€rape.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€petitioned€the€trial€court€for€a€writ€of€certiorari€to€review€the€prosecutorððsÐ L œ Ðdenial€of€pretrial€diversion.€€Citing€òòState€v.€Curryóó,€988€S.W.2d€153€(Tenn.€1999),€the€defendantÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontended€that€the€prosecutor€abused€his€discretion€in€basing€the€denial€of€diversion€upon€theÐ $ t Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€and€deterrence€without€considering€all€of€the€relevant€factors,€includingÐ  ` Ðhis€lack€of€a€criminal€record€and€his€favorable€social€history,€and€without€stating€why€the€seriousnessÐ ü L  Ðof€the€offense€and€deterrence€outweighed€all€other€factors.€€He€further€argued€that€the€recordÐ è 8  Ðcontained€no€factual€basis€to€support€the€prosecutorððs€determination€that€he€is€not€a€suitableÐ Ô$  Ðcandidate€for€rehabilitation;€that€the€offense€was€especially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,Ð À  Ðreprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€degree;€or€that€he€would€re„offend€if€placedÐ ¬ü  Ðon€pretrial€diversion.€€The€defendant€pointed€to€the€victim€impact€statement€in€which€the€victimÐ ˜è  Ðstated€that€she€planned€to€marry€him€when€she€turned€eighteen€and€that€she€did€not€want€him€to€beÐ „Ô  Ðpunished€because€she€did€not€believe€that€he€had€committed€a€crime.€€He€claimed€that€his€lack€of€aÐ pÀ Ðcriminal€record€and€his€favorable€social€and€work€history€reveal€his€amenability€to€rehabilitation.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àBefore€the€trial€court€ruled€upon€the€certiorari€petition,€the€state€filed€an€amended€responseÐ 4„ Ðto€the€defendantððs€application€for€pretrial€diversion.€€In€its€amended€response,€the€state€thoroughlyÐ  p Ðdiscussed€the€factors€relevant€to€pretrial€diversion,€listed€the€evidence€both€favorable€and€unfavorableÐ  \ Ðto€the€defendant,€and€found€that€the€unfavorable€factors€outweighed€the€favorable€factors€in€bothÐ øH Ðnumber€and€import.€€The€defendant€filed€a€response€to€the€stateððs€amended€response,€claiming€thatÐ ä4 Ðmany€of€the€stateððs€allegations€were€not€documented€by€evidence€in€the€file€and€disagreeing€with€theÐ Ð  Ðstateððs€interpretation€of€some€of€the€evidence.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€prosecutorððs€initial€response€based€solely€upon€theÐ ”ä Ðcircumstances€of€the€case€and€deterrence€constituted€an€abuse€of€discretion€under€òòCurryóó€because€theÐ €Ð Ðprosecutor€failed€to€consider€all€of€the€relevant€factors.€€For€this€reason,€it€ordered€that€the€defendantÐ l¼ Ðbe€placed€on€pretrial€diversion.€€The€court€concluded€that€òòCurryóó€prevented€it€from€considering€theÐ X ¨ Ðstateððs€amended€response.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€state€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€its€amended€response€to€theÐ #l! Ðdefendantððs€application€for€pretrial€diversion.€€It€argues€that€the€amended€response€furthers€the€intentÐ $X" Ðof€òòCurryóó€that€prosecutors€make€conscientious€and€readily€reviewable€decisions€in€evaluating€pretrialÐ ô$D # Ðdiversion€applications.€€It€maintains€that€permitting€an€amended€response€will€not€surprise€aÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant€with€new€evidence€because€the€defendant€can€respond€to€the€amended€response,€as€theÐ Ì&"% Ðdefendant€did€€in€this€case,€and€can€also€request€an€evidentiary€hearing€to€clarify€any€factual€disputes.€Ð ¸'#& ÐFinally,€it€argues€that€allowing€an€amended€response€advances€the€policies€that€underlie€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrequirement€of€a€written€response€because€it€further€shows€that€the€prosecutor€thought€about€andÐ )à$( Ðjustified€the€denial€in€terms€of€the€relevant€factors,€it€defines€the€area€of€controversy,€and€it€narrowsÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€issues€and€restricts€the€stateððs€evidence€at€any€future€evidentiary€hearing.€€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€òòCurryóó,€which€reaffirmed€the€relevant€factors€that€the€prosecutorÐ ° Ðmust€consider,€was€the€applicable€law€when€he€requested€pretrial€diversion€and€had€been€in€effectÐ œì Ðfor€six€months€at€the€time€the€state€filed€its€initial€response.€€He€argues€that€once€a€defendant€filesÐ ˆØ Ða€petition€for€certiorari,€the€state€is€foreclosed€from€amending€its€denial€and€the€defendant€is€entitledÐ tÄ Ðto€judicial€review€of€the€prosecutorððs€initial€decision.€€He€claims€that€the€prosecutor€cannot€introduceÐ `° Ðnew€evidence€after€making€his€or€her€diversion€record€and€that€the€trial€court€may€only€consider€thatÐ L œ Ðevidence€which€has€been€considered€by€the€prosecutor.€€He€argues€that€the€stateððs€amended€responseÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€an€impermissible€attempt€to€fill€in€the€gaps€in€the€first,€inadequate€response.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€decision€to€grant€or€deny€an€application€for€pretrial€diversion€is€within€the€discretion€ofÐ ü L  Ðthe€prosecuting€attorney.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105;€òòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€157.€€In€making€thisÐ è 8  Ðdetermination,€the€prosecutor€shouldÐ Ô$  ÐÌà8  àfocus€on€the€defendantððs€amenability€to€correction.€€Any€factors€which€tend€toÐ ¬ü  Ðaccurately€reflect€whether€a€particular€defendant€will€or€will€not€become€a€repeatÐ ˜è  Ðoffender€should€be€considered.€€Such€factors€must,€of€course,€be€clearly€articulableÐ „Ô  Ðand€stated€in€the€record€in€order€that€meaningful€appellate€review€may€be€had.€Ð pÀ ÐAmong€the€factors€to€be€considered€in€addition€to€the€circumstances€of€the€offenseÐ \¬ Ðare€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€social€history,€the€physical€and€mental€conditionÐ H˜ Ðof€a€defendant€where€appropriate,€and€the€likelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serveÐ 4„ Ðthe€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌòòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€157€(quoting€òòState€v.€Pinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€956,€959„60€(Tenn.€1997)€andÐ øH ÐòòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€355€(Tenn.€1983)).€€The€prosecutorððs€response€must€be€inÐ ä4 Ðwriting,€must€list€€the€evidence€considered,€and€must€point€out€any€factual€discrepancies€between€theÐ Ð  Ðevidence€upon€which€the€prosecutor€relied€and€that€presented€in€the€defendantððs€application.€€òòCurryóó,Ð ¼  Ð988€S.W.2d€at€157.€€The€response€must€discuss€the€factors€considered€by€the€prosecutor€and€theÐ ¨ø Ðweight€given€to€each€factor.€€òòId.óó€€ð ðThat€a€defendant,€obviously,€bears€the€burden€of€demonstratingÐ ”ä Ðsuitability€for€diversion€does€not€relieve€the€prosecutorððs€obligation€to€examine€all€of€the€relevantÐ €Ð Ðfactors€and€to€set€forth€the€required€findings.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àIf€the€prosecutor€denies€the€application€for€pretrial€diversion,€the€defendant€has€the€right€toÐ D!” Ðpetition€the€trial€court€for€a€writ€of€certiorari€alleging€that€the€prosecutor€has€abused€his€or€herÐ 0"€  Ðdiscretion.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„105(b)(3).€€The€decision€of€the€prosecutor€to€grant€or€denyÐ #l! Ðpretrial€diversion€is€presumptively€correct€and€will€not€be€set€aside€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€Ð $X" ÐòòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€atòòóó€158;€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€356.€€In€reviewing€the€prosecutorððs€denialÐ ô$D # Ðof€pretrial€diversion,€the€trial€court€may€consider€only€that€evidence€considered€by€the€prosecutor.€Ð à%0!$ ÐòòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€158.€€In€order€to€hold€that€an€abuse€of€discretion€occurred,€the€trial€court€mustÐ Ì&"% Ðfind€that€the€record€lacks€substantial€evidence€supporting€the€prosecutorððs€determination.€€òòId.óó€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€trial€courtððs€factual€determinations€will€be€overturned€only€if€the€evidenceÐ )à$( Ðpreponderates€against€them.€€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861€S.W.2d€850,€856€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.Ð |*Ì%) ÐHelmsóó,€720€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€In€òòCurryóó,€our€supreme€courtòòóó€applied€theÐ h+¸&* Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€standard€to€the€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision€regarding€theÐ ° Ðprosecutorððs€abuse€of€discretion,€rather€than€limiting€this€standard€to€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings.€Ð œì ÐòòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€158€(citing€òòPinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€960).€€Respectfully,€the€trial€courtððsÐ ˆØ Ðdetermination€that€the€prosecutor€has€or€has€not€abused€his€or€her€discretion€is€a€legal€conclusion,Ð tÄ Ðnot€binding€upon€the€appellate€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€856;€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòHammersleyóó,€650Ð `° ÐS.W.2d€at€356€(holding€that€the€record€must€be€devoid€of€any€substantial€evidence€to€support€theÐ L œ Ðdenial€of€pretrial€diversion€for€a€reviewing€court€to€find€an€abuse€of€discretion€and€applying€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðstandard€to€hold€that€the€prosecutorððs€denial€of€diversion€based€solely€upon€deterrence€was€an€abuseÐ $ t Ðof€discretion).òòóó€€When€the€facts€are€undisputed,€the€underlying€issue€that€this€court€must€determineÐ  ` Ðon€appeal€remains€whether,€as€a€matter€of€law,€the€prosecutor€abused€his€or€her€discretion€in€denyingÐ ü L  Ðpretrial€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€856;òòóó€òòState€v.€Brooksóó,€943€S.W.2d€411,€413€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð è 8  ÐApp.€1997);€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€934€S.W.2d€77,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.Ð Ô$  ÐHoustonóó,€900€S.W.2d€712,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(limiting€the€appellate€courtððs€role€toÐ À  Ðdetermining€whether€any€substantial€evidence€supports€the€prosecutorððs€denial€of€pretrial€diversionÐ ¬ü  Ðin€light€of€the€relevant€factors);€òòHelmsóó,€720€S.W.2d€at€476€(reversing€the€trial€courtððs€finding€ofÐ ˜è  Ðabuse€of€discretion€because€the€facts€were€undisputed€and€substantial€evidence€in€the€recordÐ „Ô  Ðsupported€the€prosecutorððs€denial€of€pretrial€diversion).Ð pÀ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð \¬ Ðà  àThe€statute€authorizing€pretrial€diversion€and€the€filing€of€a€petition€for€writ€of€certiorariÐ H˜ Ðmakes€no€provision€for€the€filing€of€an€amended€response€to€the€denial€of€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ 4„ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„15.€€We€begin€by€noting€the€uniqueness€of€certiorari€review:€ð ðCertiorari€is€a€proceduralÐ  p Ðvehicle€which€has€enjoyed€an€extremely€long€life.€€It€functions€properly€when€a€court€uses€it€toÐ  \ Ðreview€a€proceeding€to€determine€whether€there€were€any€irregularities.ðð€€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882Ð øH ÐS.W.2d€806,€809€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citing€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó,€228€(6òòthóó€ed.€1990)).€€AsÐ ä4 Ðsuch,€it€is€an€inappropriate€procedure€for€considering€new€or€additional€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó;€òòState€v.Ð Ð  ÐPoplaróó,€612€S.W.2d€498,€500€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€(recognizing€that€because€the€pretrialÐ ¼  Ðdiversion€statute€€permits€the€defendant€to€seek€certiorari€review,€the€trial€court€should€consider€onlyÐ ¨ø Ðthat€evidence€considered€by€the€prosecutor€when€determining€whether€to€grant€diversion),€òòabandonedóóÐ ”ä Ðòòonóó€òòotheróó€òògroundsóó€òòbyóó€òòState€v.€Neeseóó,€713€S.W.2d€90,€91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Thus,€as€statedÐ €Ð Ðabove,€in€reviewing€a€petition€for€certiorari€arising€from€the€denial€of€pretrial€diversion,€the€trialÐ l¼ Ðcourt€may€consider€only€that€evidence€considered€by€the€prosecutor€in€evaluating€the€defendantððsÐ X ¨ Ðapplication€for€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€òòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€158;€òòWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€810;€òòState€v.Ð D!” ÐBrownóó,€700€S.W.2d€568,€570€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985)òòóó.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€the€past,€this€court€has€permitted€prosecutors€to€supplement€their€denial€of€pretrialÐ $X" Ðdiversion€with€additional€reasons€in€the€interest€of€judicial€economy.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€668Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€678,€680€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€In€òòSuttonóó,€the€prosecutor€denied€diversion€orally.€€AfterÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€defendant€filed€a€petition€for€certiorari€but€before€the€hearing€and€at€the€trial€courtððs€request,€theÐ Ì&"% Ðstate€filed€a€supplemental€pleading,€setting€forth€its€reasons€for€denying€diversion€more€specificallyÐ ¸'#& Ðthan€those€provided€in€its€answer€to€the€petition.€€The€defendant€argued€that€the€state€developed€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðevidence€upon€which€it€relied€in€the€supplemental€pleading€after€its€initial€denial€of€diversion.€€TheÐ )à$( Ðâ âcourt€held€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àall€information€in€possession€of€the€District€Attorney€General€may€be€relied€upon€byÐ ° Ðâ âthe€State€at€the€certiorari€hearing€in€Criminal€Court.€€We€agree€with€the€state€that€toÐ œì Ðhold€otherwise€would€be€to€promote€judicial€inefficiency€since€the€prosecution€can,Ð ˆØ Ðwith€good€cause,€always€terminate€diversion,€on€the€basis€of€new€information,€andÐ tÄ Ðresume€prosecution€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„15„105(d).€€This€is€not€to€say€thatÐ `° Ðevidence€may€be€accepted€and€considered€by€the€trial€judge€that€has€never€beenÐ L œ Ðsubmitted€to€the€District€Attorney€General€since€the€court€considers€only€whether€the€Ð 8 ˆ ÐDistrict€Attorney€General€abused€his€discretion€in€denying€diversion.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€(citing€òòPoplaróó,€€612€S.W.2d€at€500).€€Consistent€with€òòSuttonóó,€this€court€has€continued€to€excludeÐ ü L  Ðevidence€that€was€never€submitted€to€the€prosecutor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Shaun€Matthew€Dinwiddieóó,€No.Ð è 8  Ð01C01„9809„CC„00268,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€21,€1999)€(holding€that€by€considering€Ð Ô$  Ðsupportive€letters€from€the€defendantððs€family€and€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€remorse,€the€trialÐ À  Ðcourt€ð ðimproperly€exceeded€the€scope€of€certiorari€review€by€entertaining€evidence€not€consideredÐ ¬ü  Ðby€the€district€attorney€generalðð).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àòòóóIn€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€700€S.W.2d€568€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985),€the€court€turned€from€itsÐ pÀ Ðholding€in€òòSuttonóó.€€In€òòBrownóó,€the€prosecutor€provided€a€written€denial€of€pretrial€diversion,€whichÐ \¬ Ðstated€that€the€defendant€was€not€eligible€under€the€statute.€€At€the€certiorari€hearing,€the€prosecutorÐ H˜ Ðargued€that€the€denial€was€based€upon€the€circumstances€of€the€case€and€the€defendantððs€failure€toÐ 4„ Ðmention€prior€arrests€in€the€application.€€The€defendant€challenged€the€prosecutorððs€substitution€ofÐ  p Ðnew€reasons€at€the€hearing.€€Citing€òòPoplaróó,€612€S.W.2d€at€500,€the€court€held€that€in€reviewing€theÐ  \ Ðdenial€of€pretrial€diversion€for€an€abuse€of€discretion,€the€trial€court€could€only€consider€thatÐ øH Ðevidence€before€the€prosecutor€at€the€time€he€evaluated€the€diversion€application.€€òòBrownóó,€700Ð ä4 ÐS.W.2d€at€570.€€The€court€noted€the€reasons€behind€requiring€a€written€response€to€the€diversionÐ Ð  Ðapplication:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àð ðFirst,€the€statement€would€compel€the€prosecutor€to€think€about€and€justify€hisÐ ”ä Ðdenial€in€terms€of€the€applicable€standards.€€Second,€the€statement€of€reasons€wouldÐ €Ð Ðdefine€the€area€of€controversy€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€Finally,€the€statement€ofÐ l¼ Ðreasons€would€restrict€the€prosecutor€to€a€particular€rationale€and€insure€that€theÐ X ¨ Ðprosecutor€would€offer€no€new€reasons€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.ððÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€(quotingòòóó€Steven€W.€Feldman,€òòTennessee€Pretrial€Diversion€Act:€A€Practitionerððs€Guideóó,€13Ð #l! ÐMemphis€St.€U.€L.€Rev.€285,€302€n.106€(1983));€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€157.€€Based€upon€theÐ $X" Ðimportance€of€the€written€response,€the€court€restricted€the€trial€courtððs€certiorari€review€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðevidence€that€the€prosecutor€had€before€him€at€the€time€of€denial€and€to€the€reasons€given€by€theÐ à%0!$ Ðprosecutor€at€the€time€he€or€she€denied€the€application:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà8  àThus,€we€hold€that,€not€only€is€the€trial€judge€to€confine€his€consideration€to€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðevidence€considered€by€the€District€Attorney€General€at€the€time€he€considered€the€Ð )à$( Ðapplication,€but€that€he€must€also€confine€his€review€to€the€reason€or€reasons€givenÐ |*Ì%) Ðby€the€District€Attorney€General€at€that€time.€€Fairness€demands€that€the€defendantÐ h+¸&* Ðknow€what€allegations€he€must€meet€when€he€comes€before€the€trial€judge€on€hisÐ ° Ðapplication.€€Furthermore,€the€state€has€the€resources€to€fully€investigate€theÐ œì Ðapplicantððs€background€prior€to€the€determination€to€grant€or€deny€diversion.ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòBrownóó,€700€S.W.2d€at€570.€€Ð `° ÐÓÓà  àIn€òòState€v.€David€Georgeóó,€No.€37,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Nov.€16,€1988),€òòapp.óóÐ 8 ˆ Ðòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€May€8,€1989),€this€court€applied€òòBrownóó€to€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€consideringÐ $ t Ðthe€prosecutorððs€affidavit,€which€provided€additional€reasons€for€denying€diversion€and€which€wasÐ  ` Ðfiled€after€the€defendant€petitioned€for€certiorari€but€before€the€certiorari€hearing.€€When€ð ðthe€DistrictÐ ü L  ÐAttorney€refuses€to€enter€into€a€memorandum€of€understanding€and€commits€his€reasons€to€writing,Ð è 8  Ðhe€cannot€shift€to€a€later€stance€after€the€writ€of€certiorari€has€been€issued.ðð€€òòDavid€Georgeóó,€slip€op.Ð Ô$  Ðat€3€(determining€that€prosecutorððs€reasoning€in€initial€memorandum€was€an€abuse€of€discretion).Ð À  ÐÌà  àMore€recently,€in€òòCurryóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€this€court€erred€in€remanding€the€caseÐ ˜è  Ðto€the€trial€court€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€to€allow€the€prosecutor€to€testify€to€the€other€factorsÐ „Ô  Ðconsidered€in€the€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€but€not€enumerated€in€the€written€denial.€€988€S.W.2dÐ pÀ Ðat€159„60òòóó.€€The€court€reasoned€that€this€procedureÐ \¬ ÐÌà8  àdecreases€the€importance€of€the€written€response€and€increases€the€risk€that€newÐ 4„ Ðreasons€or€considerations€will€be€introduced€during€the€hearing€without€notice€to€theÐ  p Ðdefendant.€€Second,€the€standard€of€review€governing€certiorari€proceedings€requireÐ  \ Ðthe€trial€court€to€consider€only€that€which€has€already€been€considered€by€theÐ øH Ðprosecutor.€€òòSeeóó€òòWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€809€(evidence€considered€at€hearingÐ ä4 Ðexceeded€certiorari€review).€€Accordingly,€.€.€.€an€evidentiary€hearing€may€be€heldÐ Ð  Ðonly€to€clarify€factual€disputes€in€the€record,€and€may€not€be€held€to€allow€theÐ ¼  Ðprosecutor€to€discuss€new€or€additional€considerations€regarding€the€denial€ofÐ ¨ø Ðdiversion.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€160.€€In€òòState€v.€Norman€Jeffery€Pipkinóó,òòóó€No.€W1998„02738„CCA„RM„CD,€Hardeman€CountyÐ l¼ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€May€24,€2000),€this€court€held€that€the€prosecutor€abused€her€discretion€by€failingÐ X ¨ Ðto€state€in€the€written€denial€why€the€circumstances€of€the€offenses€outweighed€the€other€relevantÐ D!” Ðfactors€and€to€relate€the€facts€favorable€to€the€defendant.€€The€court€recognized€that€in€the€wake€ofÐ 0"€  ÐòòCurryóó,€no€opportunity€exists€for€a€remand€to€inquire€into€deficiencies€in€the€prosecutorððs€writtenÐ #l! Ðresponse:€ð ðBecause€the€opinion€in€òòCurryóó€requires€that€the€district€attorney€must€not€leave€ððgapsðð€€inÐ $X" Ðproviding€the€written€response€to€the€application€for€diversion,€and€because€there€can€be€no€remandÐ ô$D # Ðfor€inquiry€into€those€ððgaps,ðð€the€judgement€of€the€trial€court€must€be€reversed€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòNorman€JefferyÐ à%0!$ ÐPipkinóó,€slip€op.€at€8.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àOur€review€of€these€cases€brings€us€to€the€firm€conclusion€that€while€the€case€is€on€certiorariÐ ¤(ô#' Ðreview,€the€prosecutor€may€not€amend€his€or€her€written€response€to€the€diversion€application€for€theÐ )à$( Ðpurpose€of€adding€reasons€upon€which€denial€is€based,€which€were€available€to€the€prosecutor€at€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðtime€of€the€original€denial.€€The€state€argues€that€an€amended€response€will€not€take€the€defendantÐ h+¸&* Ðby€surprise€because€it€is€a€written€document,€which€the€defendant€may€contest€and€the€trial€court€mayÐ ° Ðreview.€€Yet€because€an€amended€response€requires€the€defendant€and€the€court€to€look€beyond€theÐ œì Ðprosecutorððs€initial€written€denial€of€diversion€to€find€the€complete€basis€for€denial,€it€changes€theÐ ˆØ Ðbasis€for€denial€that€the€defendant€must€contest€and€decreases€the€importance€of€the€initial€writtenÐ tÄ Ðdenial.€€As€such,€it€violates€the€precepts€of€òòCurryóó€and€òòBrownóó.Ð `° ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€We€note,€though,€that€Tennessee€courts€have€previously€remanded€cases€for€the€prosecutorÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€reconsider€the€diversion€application€in€light€of€new€legal€standards.€€òòSeeóó€òòWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€Ð $ t Ð809„10€(clarifying€the€procedures€for€the€consideration€and€review€of€pretrial€diversion€applicationsÐ  ` Ðand€remanding€for€the€petitioner€to€file€a€new€pretrial€diversion€application);€òòState€v.€Damon€Byrdóó,Ð ü L  ÐNo.€01C01„9707„CR„00248,€Davidson€County,€slip€op.€at€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€22,€1998),€òòapp.óóÐ è 8  Ðòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€8,€1999)€(noting€that€the€supreme€court€remanded€the€case€to€the€prosecutor€forÐ Ô$  Ðfurther€consideration€of€the€pretrial€diversion€application€in€relation€to€the€factors€set€forth€in€òòStateÐ À  Ðv.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950€(Tenn.€1993));€òòState€v.€Spencer€Barrett€Minchóó,€No.€66,€ShelbyÐ ¬ü  ÐCounty,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Nov.€29,€1989)€(remanding€the€case€for€the€petitioners€toÐ ˜è  Ðreapply€for€pretrial€diversion€and€the€prosecutor€to€consider€the€applications€using€the€proceduresÐ „Ô  Ðset€forth€in€òòState€v.€Herronóó,€767€S.W.2d€151€(Tenn.€1989)).€€Also,€a€change€in€the€circumstances€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€defendant€may€merit€a€remand€to€the€prosecutor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Darla€Young€Mayoóó,€No.€01C01„Ð \¬ Ð9208„CC„00261,€Dekalb€County,€slip€op.€at€7„8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Nov.€18,€1993)€(remanding€theÐ H˜ Ðcase€to€the€trial€court€for€the€prosecutor€to€reconsider€diversion€ð ðunder€the€circumstances€presentlyÐ 4„ Ðexistingðð€when€the€defendant€had€acquired€a€job€and€moved€from€the€housing€project€at€which€theÐ  p Ðdrug€offenses€occurred€and€neither€the€prosecutor€nor€the€trial€court€indicated€how€the€defendantððsÐ  \ Ðfavorable€factors€weighed€in€relation€to€the€negative€factors).€€Finally,€the€courts€will€not€sanctionÐ øH Ðan€absurd€result€by€prohibiting€the€consideration€of€evidence€which€was€discovered€by€the€prosecutorÐ ä4 Ðafter€the€defendant€petitioned€for€certiorari€despite€the€prosecutorððs€good€faith€efforts€and€whichÐ Ð  Ðclearly€shows€that€the€defendant€is€ineligible€or€is€not€entitled€to€diversion.€€In€this€respect,€weÐ ¼  Ðrecognize€that€circumstances€may€exist€under€which€a€prosecutor€may€seek€or€a€trial€court€may€orderÐ ¨ø Ða€remand€of€the€diversion€application.€€However,€this€case€does€not€fall€within€the€circumstances€thatÐ ”ä Ðmerit€such€a€remand.€€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€prosecutorððs€abuse€of€discretion€in€failing€to€consider€all€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€factors€relevant€to€pretrial€diversion,€without€more,€entitles€him€to€pretrial€diversionòòóó.€€A€panelÐ D!” Ðof€this€court€recently€rejected€this€contention€in€a€split€decision€in€òòState€v.€Johnnie€Bell,€Jr.óó,€No.Ð 0"€  ÐE1999„00819„CCA„R9„CD,€Sullivan€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Nov.€27,€2000).€€We€adopt€theÐ #l! Ðreasoning€of€the€majority€opinion€in€òòJohnnie€Bell,€Jr.óó€and€apply€it€as€follows.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àIn€òòCurryóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€prosecutorððs€failure€to€enumerate€and€consider€allÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€relevant€factors€constituted€an€abuse€of€discretion,€and€it€reinstated€the€trial€courtððs€grant€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðpretrial€diversion.€€òòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€159„60.€€Justice€Holder,€dissenting,€warned€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðmajorityððs€holding€would€allow€defendants€to€avoid€prosecution€based€solely€upon€the€proceduralÐ ¤(ô#' Ðomissions€of€the€prosecutor:Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àI€question€whether€the€legislature€intended€that€a€criminal€committing€a€series€ofÐ ° Ðâ âserious,€sustained,€planned,€and€deceptive€crimes€over€a€two„year€period€of€timeÐ œì Ðautomatically€be€granted€diversion€merely€because€a€district€attorney€failed€to€employÐ ˆØ Ða€preferred€term€in€the€letter€denying€diversion.€€The€majorityððs€holding€couldÐ tÄ Ðeffectively€allow€defendants€committing€serious€offenses€.€.€.€to€avoid€prosecutionÐ `° Ðmerely€because€a€district€attorney€commits€a€non„prejudicial€omission€affectingÐ L œ Ðneither€a€constitutional€nor€a€statutory€right.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€163.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€prosecutorððs€abuse€of€discretion€òòrequiresóó€anÐ  ` Ðorder€granting€pretrial€diversion.€€However,€we€note€that€in€response€to€Justice€Holderððs€dissent,€theÐ ü L  Ðmajority€in€òòCurryòòóóóó€reviewed€and€approved€the€merits€of€the€defendantððs€request€for€diversion.€€òòId.óó€atÐ è 8  Ð159.€€This€indicates€that€the€defendant€must€show€entitlement€to€diversion€even€if€an€abuse€ofÐ Ô$  Ðdiscretion€exists.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAlso,€we€do€not€believe€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105€or€prior€Tennessee€decisionsÐ ˜è  Ðsupport€the€defendantððs€argument.€€Section€40„15„105(b)(3)€provides€in€pertinent€part:€€ð ðIf€the€trialÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€finds€that€the€prosecuting€attorney€has€committed€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€failing€to€divert,€theÐ pÀ Ðtrial€court€òòmayóó€order€the€prosecuting€attorney€to€place€the€defendant€in€a€diversion€status€on€suchÐ \¬ Ðterms€and€conditions€as€the€trial€court€may€order.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€In€interpreting€a€statute,€ourÐ H˜ Ðrole€is€to€give€effect€to€the€legislatureððs€intent€when€enacting€the€statute.€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2dÐ 4„ Ð923,€926€(Tenn.€1995).€€When€a€statute€is€unambiguous,€the€court€should€enforce€the€statute€asÐ  p Ðwritten,€without€resorting€to€auxiliary€rules€of€construction.€€òòBrowder€v.€Morrisóó,€975€S.W.2d€308,Ð  \ Ð311€(Tenn.€1998).€€ð ðUnambiguous€statutes€must€be€construed€to€mean€what€they€say.ðð€€òòRobertsonÐ øH Ðv.€University€of€Tennesseeóó,€912€S.W.2d€746,€747€(Tenn.€1995)€(citation€omitted).€€The€plainÐ ä4 Ðmeaning€of€the€term€ð ðmayðð€necessarily€implies€discretion.€€The€use€of€ð ðmayðð€in€ðð€40„15„105(b)(3)Ð Ð  Ðreveals€that€the€trial€court€is€not€required€to€order€pretrial€diversion€upon€finding€that€the€prosecutorÐ ¼  Ðhas€abused€his€or€her€discretion.€€ò ò€€€€€€ó óÐ ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌà  àThe€legislature€has€vested€the€authority€to€prosecute€a€case€or€to€divert€it€with€the€prosecutorÐ „Ô Ðrather€than€the€court.€€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€858;€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105.€€The€trial€courtÐ pÀ Ðmay€not€merely€substitute€its€own€judgment€for€that€of€the€prosecutor€but,€instead,€must€ð ðdefer€to€theÐ \ ¬ Ðprosecutorððs€discretion€when€the€record€contains€any€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€decision.ðð€Ð H!˜ ÐòòId.óó€€In€reviewing€the€prosecutorððs€denial€of€diversion,€the€trial€court€must€look€at€all€the€relevantÐ 4"„  Ðfactors€to€determine€whether€the€prosecutor€considered€them,€and€if€he€or€she€did€not,€to€determineÐ  #p! Ðwhether€pretrial€diversion€is€appropriate.€€òòHerronóó,€767€S.W.2d€at€156;€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€858.€Ð  $\" ÐEssentially,€òòHerronóó€provides€that€in€reviewing€whether€the€prosecutor€has€abused€his€or€herÐ ø$H # Ðdiscretion€regarding€whether€diversion€should€be€granted,€the€trial€court€must€undertake€the€sameÐ ä%4!$ Ðprocess€required€of€the€prosecutor€in€considering€and€weighing€the€relevant€factors.€€In€this€respect,Ð Ð& "% Ðthe€trial€court€may€consider€only€the€record€that€was€before€the€prosecutor.€€òòSeeóó€òòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2dÐ ¼' #& Ðat€157€(holding€that€in€reviewing€the€denial€of€diversion,€the€trial€court€is€limited€to€the€evidenceÐ ¨(ø#' Ðconsidered€by€the€prosecutor).€€Because€the€trial€court€is€limited€to€the€record€considered€by€theÐ ”)ä$( Ðprosecutor,€the€trial€court€will€not€surprise€the€defendant€by€basing€its€determination€upon€newÐ €*Ð%) Ðreasons€not€in€the€record.€€In€turn,€this€court€will€defer€to€the€trial€courtððs€determination€unless€it€isÐ l+¼&* Ðnot€supported€by€substantial€evidence€in€the€record.€€In€other€words,€we€review€the€trial€courtððsÐ ° Ðdetermination€regarding€the€defendantððs€entitlement€to€diversion€for€an€abuse€of€discretion.Ð œì ÐÌà  à€€To€the€extent€that€this€procedure€gives€some€measure€of€discretion€over€the€decision€ofÐ tÄ Ðwhether€to€divert€to€the€trial€court,€it€is€the€legislature€that€gave€the€trial€court€that€discretion€byÐ `° Ðemploying€the€term€ð ðmayðð€in€section€40„15„105(b)(3)€as€discussed€above.€€Furthermore,€the€grantÐ L œ Ðof€discretion€to€the€trial€court€is€wholly€appropriate:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà ` àDiversion€may€not€be€regarded€as€a€mere€extension€of€the€charging€process.€Ð  ` ÐIt€does€not€come€into€play€until€after€the€indictment.€€The€plan€of€diversion,€or€theÐ ü L  Ðdenial€thereof,€òòfollowsóó€indictment€and€comes€after€the€€prosecutor€has€fullyÐ è 8  Ðdischarged€all€discretionary€functions€and€after€the€prosecutorial€die€has€been€cast.€Ð Ô$  ÐOnce€committed€to€prosecution,€the€case€is€òòbefore€the€courtóó€for€disposition.€€TheÐ À  Ðprocess,€at€this€stage,€becomes€fundamentally€judicial€and€must€end€in€a€verdict,€aÐ ¬ü  Ðòònolleóó€[òòprosequióó,]€or€pretrial€diversion.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à.€.€.€.€€€[T]he€jurisdiction€of€the€court€has€been€invoked€by€indictment€andÐ pÀ Ðdisposition€becomes€a€judicial€responsibility.Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌòòPace€v.€Stateóó,€566€S.W.2d€861,€870€(Tenn.€1978)€(Henry,€C.J.,€concurring)€(footnote€omitted).Ð 4„ ÐFinally,€the€alternative€ð!ð€the€automatic€grant€of€pretrial€diversion€upon€a€finding€that€the€prosecutorÐ  p Ðhas€abused€his€or€her€discretion€ð!ð€could€result€in€the€award€of€pretrial€diversion€for€a€whollyÐ  \ Ðundeserving,€yet€ð ðeligible,ðð€applicant.€€òòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€163€(Holder,€J.,€dissenting)€(warningÐ øH Ðthat€an€automatic€grant€of€pretrial€diversion€based€upon€a€procedural€error€by€the€prosecutor€couldÐ ä4 Ðresult€in€diversion€for€ð ðdefendants€committing€serious€offenses€such€as€manslaughter,€kidnapping,Ð Ð  Ðand€vehicular€homicideðð).€€òòóóSuch€a€reflexive€award€of€pretrial€diversion€belies€the€fact€that€pretrialÐ ¼  Ðdiversion€is€a€legislative€largess€granted€only€to€those€who€can€show€their€entitlement.€€òòCf.óó€òòCurryóó,Ð ¨ø Ð988€S.W.2d€at€158€€(holding€that€the€ð ðfacts€and€circumstances€of€nearly€all€criminal€offenses€are€byÐ ”ä Ðdefinition€serious;€only€by€analyzing€all€of€the€relevant€factors,€including€those€favorable€to€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant,€can€appropriate€candidates€for€this€legislative€largess€be€identified€in€a€manner€consistentÐ l¼ Ðwith€the€purpose€of€the€pretrial€diversion€actðð).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€conclusionÐ 0"€  Ðthat€the€prosecutor€abused€his€discretion€in€failing€to€consider€all€of€the€relevant€factors.€€We€alsoÐ #l! Ðaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€consider€the€stateððs€amended€response.€€However,€because€the€trialÐ $X" Ðcourt€failed€to€undertake€the€weighing€process€required€by€òòHerronóó,€we€reverse€the€grant€of€diversionÐ ô$D # Ðand€remand€the€case€for€the€trial€court€to€consider€and€weigh€the€relevant€factors€in€relation€to€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendantððs€entitlement€to€pretrial€diversion.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE