WPC= gqWrW]g.]9^Xp@*c2bũ6MB2 9>Pef%EEd*b/I,>jG^i<& fGAt4B6R{ˑ tOc**# LU NW % 0(4U*:U":0bj 0Drw@ 0 0Dx U: U: %0 "U Qw U: AQ S B 0D6 0Dzz D/ B D3 HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($q$ @ d3|xj#,cAZ"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular- -(3$ !   V#W#X#Y#DZ#[#\#]#D^#e_#Ӏ  A$4XXXX   1    XXXInStatev.Carr,861S.W.2d850,856(Tenn.Crim.App.1993),theCourtstatedthatthe  presumptionofcorrectnessappliestothetrialcourtsfactualfindings;and,thatwhentherecordcallsfornofactualfindings,thentheissueonappealiswhether,asamatteroflaw,theprosecutorabusedhisdiscretionindenyingdiversion.TherewerenofactualfindingsineitherPinkhamorCarrsothere @ seemstobeaconflictintheappropriatestandardofreviewinsuchcases.(Z(2#$ !  4XXXX   0  (#$  0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular   "  XXXX=7XX   Ad FILEDXX=7   July16,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.rXXAppellateCourtClerk       G    #Xd#  ,cAZ"Arial Regular! #$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d(3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd""""'dxd !  ^#^#^#^#4XXXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  PuC_#r )<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$, rߛ_#INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  *,XXXX* @  @  @<  @  @ ATKNOXVILLE34XDX,XXX3Ӏ @ MARCH1998SESSION  `  @ ' 44XDX' 474  STATEOFTENNESSEE#XeXXXM#XXXXe, 7 )  :   4 747  7 )C.C.A.No.03C019706CR00227 Appellant, 7 )     7 )SevierCountyV. 7 )     7 )HonorableBenW.Hooper#XeXXX$#XXXXe,II,Judge n     7 )  T  DEWEYL.CLARK,#XeXXXҫ#XXXXe  7 )(Rule9) :   7 ) Appellee. 7 )  \ 4c4 #XeXXXS#XXXXeFORTHE#XeXXXB#XXXXeԀAPPELLEE:#XeXXXҋ#XXXXe c FORTHEAPPELLANT:#XeXXX#XXXXe  JeffD.^#^#^#^#Rader^#^#^#^# c JohnKnoxWalkup V #XeXXX7#XXXXeOgle,^#^#^#^#Wynn^#^#^#^#&^#^#^#^#Rader^#^#^#^# c AttorneyGeneral&Reporter < AttorneysatLaw103E.BruceStreet c TimothyF.^#^#^#^#Behan^#^#^#^# X P.O.Box5365 c AssistantAttorneyGeneral > ^#^#^#^#Sevierville^#^#^#^#,TN37864 c CriminalJusticeDivision $  c ^#^#^#^#Cordell^#^#^#^#HullBuilding,^#^#^#^#2nd^#^#^#^#FloorJamesH.Ripley c 425FifthAvenueNorth !  Sharp&Ripley c Nashville,TN372430493 "! AttorneysatLaw c  l#" P.O.Box4630 c AlfredC.^#^#^#^#Schmutzer^#^#^#^#,Jr. R$# ^#^#^#^#Sevierville^#^#^#^#,TN37864 c DistrictAttorneyGeneral 8% $  c  c CharlesE.^#^#^#^#Atchley^#^#^#^#,Jr. c AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral c 125CourtAvenue,Room301E c ^#^#^#^#Sevierville^#^#^#^#,TN37862OPINIONFILED:___________________ AFFIRMED  06,1  PAULG.SUMMERS,  2.3 Judge44c_#uC  7eXXdXXd7   uC  7eXXdXXd7   uC  7eXXdXXd7   uC  7eXXdXXd7   uC  7eXXdXXd7   _##XeXXX# XXXXe   4 D4 Q(DOPINION  :$6< uC  7eXXdXXd7   _#uC    #Xd#    _#4 4 DXXXX #XXXX6#XXXXԼ The^#^#^#^#Sevier^#^#^#^#CountyGrandJuryindictedtheappellee,DeweyL.Clark#XXXX҄#XXXX,on | fourcountsofillegallydispensingcontrolledsubstances#XXXXA#XXXXԀwhileemployedasa H pharmacistandonecountoftheftofproperty(controlledsubstances)over$500.T#XXXX#XXXXhestatedeniedClarksapplicationforpretrialdiversion.Hefiledapetitionfor  0 certiorariinthetrialcourtchallengingthestatesdecision.Thetrialcourtfoundthattheprosecutorhadabusedhisdiscretionindenyingdiversion.ThisCourtgrantedthestatesapplicationforaninterlocutoryappealpursuanttoRule9oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.Theissueiswhetherthetrialcourtsdecision#XXXXғ#XXXXԀissupportedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Weaffirm. ,  #XXXXҟ#XXXXClarkfiledarequestwiththedistrictattorneygeneraltosuspend t prosecutionand^#^#tobe^#^#^#^#placedondiversionpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated^#^#4015105^#^#^#^#(Supp.1994).Thisstatuteprovidesthatcertainqualifiedoffendersmayenterintoamemorandumofunderstanding#XXXX@#XXXXԀwiththestateto ( suspendprosecutionforaperiodoftimeduringwhichadefendantmustcomplywiththetermsoftheagreement#XXXX#XXXX.Uponthesuccessfulcompletionofthe p!  program,allpendingchargesmustbedismissed.Inenactingthestatute,thelegislaturethoughtthatsocietywouldbebetteroffifcertainoffenderswereplacedondiversionasopposedtoimprisonment.Statev.Herron,767S.W.2d &$"& 151,156(Tenn.1989).  Thepartiesstipulatedtothefacts.Theappelleewas^#^#fortythreeyears^#^#^#^#oldwhenheappliedfordiversion.Hehasnopriorcriminalrecord.HegraduatedfromHiwasseeCollegein1972andtheUniversityofTennesseeSchoolofPharmacyin1975.^#^#Beforethe^#^#^#^#presentallegations,hehadworkedforRevcoasapharmacistsince1975.Hehasbeenmarriedfor^#^#twentyfouryears^#^#^#^#andhastwoteenagechildren. Theappelleesubmittedevidenceinsupportofhisapplicationforpretrialdiversion.ClarkhaslivedinEastTennesseeallofhislife,asdidhisparents.In :5< 1991,theappelleesufferedabackinjurywhileduckhunting.Theappelleesphysician,Dr.^#^#Alan^#^#Whiton^#^#,^#^#statedinaletterthattheappelleesbackconditionwasapainfulconditionthatrequiredprescriptionpainmedication.Theappellee#XXXXQ#XXXX 0  hadcontinuousproblemswithhisbackuntilheunderwentsurgerytofusehisspinein1995.#XXXX#XXXXClarkisadevotedandlovinghusbandandfather.Heisan @  activememberinhischurch.Manymembersofthecommunity,includingpersonsinthemedicalandpharmaceuticalprofession,wrotelettersonClarksbehalf.#XXXX#XXXXԀThelettersestablishthathehasbeenarespectedmemberofhis  community.#XXXX#XXXX p #XXXXq#XXXX Theprosecutorisvestedwiththediscretiontoevaluateanddecidewhichapplicationsforpretrialdiversionshouldbegranted.Id.;SeeStatev.Carr,861 ` S.W.2d850,855(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).#XXXX#XXXXԀThefollowingfactorsshouldbe @ consideredindeterminingwhetherdiversionisappropriate:^#^#(1)^#^#^#^#thecircumstancesoftheoffense;^#^#(2)^#^#^#^#thecriminalrecord,socialhistoryandpresentconditionofthedefendant,includinghismentalandphysicalconditionswhereappropriate;^#^#(3)^#^#^#^#thedeterrenteffectofpunishmentuponothercriminalactivity;^#^#(4)^#^#defendant'samenabilitytocorrection;^#^#(5)^#^#^#^#thelikelihoodthatpretrialdiversionwillservetheendsofjusticeandthebestinterestsofboththepublicanddefendant;and^#^#(6)^#^#^#^#theapplicant'sattitude,behaviorsincearrest,priorrecord,homeenvironment,currentdrugusage,emotionalstability,pastemployment,generalreputation,maritalstability,familyresponsibilityandattitudeoflawenforcement.Statev.Washington#XXXX!#XXXX,866S.W.2d950,951(Tenn.1993)#XXXX#%#XXXXԀ(citing 1-0 Statev.Markham,755S.W.2d850,852-53(Tenn.Crim.App.1988)). 3.2 #XXXX%#XXXX#XXXXD&#XXXX Inhiswrittendenialofdiversion,theprosecutorstatesthathehas P726  reviewedthematerialssentandconsideredallofthefactors.Hestatesthatthedenialisbasedonthenatureoftheoffense,anabuseofapositionoftrust, ;`6: deterrence,andtheappelleesfailuretoanswercertainquestionsontheapplicationfordiversion.TheprosecutorstatedthatClarksactivitywasanongoingcriminalenterpriseandnotmerelyaberrantbehavior.Hesaidthat1,150pillswereseizedwhenasearchwarrantwasexecutedattheClarkresidence;thattheappelleewascaughton^#^#videotape^#^#^#^#takingcontrolledsubstancesfrom^#^#^#^#Revco^#^#^#^#;thataninventoryofthebayinwhichtheappelleeworkedshowedashortageof11,907pills;andthatthestatehadawitnesswhohadpurchasedillegaldrugsfromtheappellee.Theprosecutorssecondbasiswasthatasaprofessionalpharmacist,ClarkabusedhispositionoftrustwithRevcoandthecommunity.TheprosecutorsthirdbasiswasthattheillegalsaleofcontrolledsubstancesisanescalatingprobleminSevierCounty,andtheneedforgeneralandspecificdeterrenceisgreat.Finally,theprosecutorsaidthatClarksfailuretorespondtotwoquestionsonthestatesapplicationfordiversionreflectedadverselyonhisattitude.ThequestionswerewhetherClarkwasundertheinfluenceofdrugsoralcoholwhentheoffense(s)occurredandarequestforarecitationofthefactsoftheoffense(s)fromhisstandpoint. Clarkfiledawritofcertiorariwiththetrialcourt.Thecourtmayoverturnadenialofanapplicationfordiversionuponafindingofanabuseofdiscretion.Tenn.CodeAnn.4015105(b)(3).#XXXX&#XXXXThetrialcourtmustdefertothe P(#& prosecutorsdiscretionwhentherecordcontainsanysubstantialevidenceto^#^#supportthe^#^#^#^#prosecutorsdecision.Carr,861^#^#^#^#S.W.2d^#^#^#^#at856.#XXXX-#XXXXԀ ,`'*  Therecordbeforethecourtwastheappelleesapplicationforpretrialdiversion,thestatesresponsedenyingdiversion,andtheappelleespetitionforcertiorari.Althoughtheappelleedisputesthefactsrelieduponbythestate,noevidentiaryhearingwasheldtoresolvethedisputes.SeeStatev.Pinkham,955 p504 ^#^#^#^#S.W.2d^#^#956^#^#(Tenn.1997).Thecourtheard^#^#argumentsof^#^#^#^#counselandtookthematterunderadvisement.Initsverythoughtfulandthoroughorder,thecourtfoundthattheprosecutorfailedtoconsidertheappelleesamenabilityto ;`6: correctionandfactorsthatfavoredgrantingdiversion.Theprosecutoralsofailedtoexplainwhythefactorsfavoringdiversionwereoutweighedbythosefactorsreliedupontodenydiversion.Thecourtfoundthatthestateabuseditsdiscretionand^#^#thatthere^#^#^#^#wasnosubstantialevidencetosupportthedenialofdiversion.Thecourtfoundthattherearenoadversecircumstancesrelativetotheappelleeshistory,attitude,behaviorsincearrest,homeenvironment,currentdruguse,currentalcoholuse,emotionalstability,employmenthistory,generalreputationinthecommunity,maritalstability,familyresponsibility,orattitudetowardlawenforcement.Thecourtfoundthethatappelleesbackgroundandcharacterwere absolutelyexemplaryand especiallycompelling.#XXXXU/#XXXXԀ#XXXX5#XXXX p  4 4  Thecourtfoundthattheprosecutorhadfailedtoarticulatefactsordetailstosupportgeneralorspecificdeterrenceasabasisfordenyingdiversion.Thecourtfoundthattheappelleesfailuretoanswerthequestionsonthestatesformforpretrialdiversiondidnotreflectadverselyontheappelleessuitabilityfordiversion.Thecourtsaidthattheappelleewasnotrequiredtoadmitguilttoapplyfororreceivediversion.SeeStatev.King,640S.W.2d30(Tenn.Crim. "  App.1982).Thecourtdidnotaddressthestatespositionthattheappelleeviolatedapositionoftrust.Thecourtsaidthat,inthiscase,theoffensesandthefactssurroundingtheoffenseswereinsufficient,standingalone,todenypretrialdiversion.#XXXX5#XXXX 0*%( 4 4 N )6 #XXXX9#XXXXOnappeal,thestatearguesthattheevidenceintherecordpreponderates -@), againstthetrialcourt#XXXX :#XXXXsfindingofanabuseofdiscretion.Thestateconcedes / +. thatitdeniedpretrialdiversionmainlyonthe overwhelmingnatureandcircumstancesoftheoffense.Thestatearguesthatthecircumstancesalonemaybethesolebasisfordenyingdiversion.Thestatefurtherarguesthatamenabilitytocorrectiononlycomesintoplayifthecircumstancesoftheoffensearenotoverwhelming.Theappelleearguesthatthetrialcourtcorrectlyheldthattheprosecutorabusedhisdiscretionbecause^#^#(1)^#^#^#^#hedidnotarticulatethefactors ;`6: andparticularizethereasonsuponwhichhisdenialwasbasedand^#^#(2)^#^#^#^#becausetheprosecutor#XXXX:#XXXXԀfailedtoconsiderevidencewhichtendstoshowthattheappellee  isamenabletocorrectionandnotlikelytocommitfurtheracts. Onappeal,wereviewtherecordtodeterminewhetherthetrialcourtsdecisionissupportedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.  #  1      ׀Statev.Pinkham, `  955S.W.2d956,960(Tenn.1997).First,theprosecutorshouldhave^#^#statedinhiswrittendenialall^#^#^#^#factorsthatheconsidered^#^#indenyingdiversion.^#^#^#^# Ifthedistrictattorneydeniespretrialdiversion,thedenialmustincludebothanenumerationoftheevidencethatwasconsideredandadiscussionofthefactorsconsideredandweightaccordedtoeach.Id.at960.Althoughthismayseem p unnecessaryandtimeconsumingtotheprosecutor,itisnecessaryfortrialcourtandappellatereview.Inthiscase,theprosecutorwasallowedtoaddressthecourt.#XXXX=#XXXXHowever,therecordstilldoesnotestablishthattheprosecutor ` consideredthefactorsfavoringamenabilitytorehabilitation.Atthehearing,theprosecutorsaidthattherewasnoneedtodiscussthefactorswhichwerenotthebasisofthedenialinhislettertotheappellee.#XXXXjB#XXXXԀIndeedonappeal,thestate "  arguesthattheprosecutordoesnothavetoconsidersuchfactorsifthenatureoftheoffenseisparticularlysignificantorflagrant.Wedisagree.Whilethenatureoftheoffensealonecansupportadenialofdiversionincertaincases,theprosecutormustconsiderallrelevantfactorsinmakinghisorherdecisiontograntordenydiversion.Id.at95960;Carr,861S.W.2dat855.Amenabilityto ,`'* correctionisdefinitelyanimportantandrelevantfactor.SeeCarr,861S.W.2dat -@), 855#XXXXC#XXXX.Therefore,theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourts / +. findingofanabuseofdiscretionbasedonthefailuretoconsidertheappropriatefactors. p504 P   Theevidencesupportsthetrialcourts^#^#findingthatthereisnoevidenceofaneedforgeneralorspecific^#detereence^#^#deterrence^#.^#^#Theprosecutoroffersnospecificfactordetail^#^#tosupporthisconclusion^#^#^#^#thattheillegalsaleofcontrolledsubstancesisanescalatingprobleminSevier^#^#County.Weagreethattheappelleesfailureto tellhissideofthestoryandadmitwhetherornothewasondrugsatthetimeoftheoffense,asrequestedbythestate,U#P#P#U#V#V#isnotindicative^#^#^#^#ofafailureto^#^#cooperate.Bothquestionscanbereadtoaskforadmissionsofguilt.^#^#^#^#^#^#Refusingtoanswerthesetypesofquestionsshould^#^#^#^#notreflectpoorlyontheappelleesattitudeoramenabilitytocorrectionespeciallywhenhewasinstructed^#^#byhisattorneynotto^#^#^#^#^#^#answer.^#^#^#^#Thetrialcourtdidnotaddresstheabuseofapositionoftrust. Thedeterminationoftheexistenceofapositionoftrustdoesnotdependonthelengthorformalityoftherelationship,butuponthenatureoftherelationship.Thus,thecourtshouldlooktoseewhethertheoffenderformallyorinformallystoodinarelationshiptothevictimthatpromotedconfidence,reliability,orfaith.Iftheevidencesupportsthatfinding,thenthecourtmustdeterminewhetherthepositionoccupiedwasabusedbythecommissionoftheoffense.Statev.   Leggs,955S.W.2d845,849(Tenn.Crim.App.^#^#1997)W#W#(quoting^#^#^#^#Statev. !  Kissinger,922S.W.2d482,488(Tenn.1996)).#XXXXyF#XXXXThisfactorisnotapplicableto d#" theappellantspositionasapharmacistonthefactsofthiscase.Finally,theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatthenatureoftheoffensealoneisinsufficientinthiscasetosupportadenialofdiversion. Thestatenotesthatduringoralargument,thecourtsaidthattheevidencecouldsupporteitheradenialor^#^#X#aX#grant^#^#^#^#ofdiversion.Whentheevidencewillsupporteitheragrantordenial,thentheprosecutorhasnotabusedhisorherdiscretion.^#^#^#^#Carr^#^#^#^#,861S.W.2dat855.However,thecourttookthematterunder d2.2 advisementandwroteathoroughexplanationofthelaw^#^#andY#hisY#Z#Z#findings[#o[#\#ffact\#]#[#g[#]#.^#^#^#^#Webelievethatthetrialcourtsordercontrols.#XXXXN#XXXX Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed. 9`6: Ї#XXXXS#XXXX 4 a&4 #XXXXS#! 4 pa&4 !  p ______________________! 4 4 p!_ $   4 p4 N   p PAULG.SUMMERS,JudgeCONCUR:_______________________________JOHNH.PEAY,Judge_______________________________CORNELIAA.CLARK,SpecialJudge