ÿWPC"# …U.V %„bŠ 0JŽØn­è• 0(U:Åw@ÿ4? 0TS 0§§ 0DN U:’ 0^Ì 0h* 0r’ 0| 0†€ 0 1u– 0d  BoB)ŒDCµU*ø AM"ëofZ”À D3T ‡q' 0@˜v~ØvÓV 0T)! AO}!ÆÌ! 0D’" D/Ö" B#<þ6X9`(CourierX ù2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô3|xá «<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular Í DÎ Ï DÐ DÑ FeÒ Ó DÔ Õ Ö Ó€Úƒç"2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(W(2³?$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÔ€XùÛXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ áÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òOctober€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ŠÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€%Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€better€practice€would€have€been€for€these€documents€toÏhave€been€included€as€exhibits€to€the€defendant's€application€for€diversion,€weÏhave€considered€them€based€upon€the€assistant€district€attorney's€recitation€ofÏtheir€contents€in€his€denial€letter.€€It€is€obvious€from€the€assistant€districtÏattorney's€letter€that€he€considered€the€mental€evaluations€in€reaching€theÏdetermination€we€are€called€upon€to€scrutinize€in€this€appeal.€Ì""""'ÿÿdxd –Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€%Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€there€are€some€additional€psychiatric€records€in€the€technicalÏrecord€which€might€be€construed€somewhat€more€favorably€to€the€defendant,Ïthese€records€were€not€included€with€the€application€submitted€to€the€districtÏattorney's€office.€€Where,€as€here,€the€defendant€seeks€to€blame€allegedlyÏculpable€conduct€on€legal€insanity,€he€should€be€prepared€to€demonstrate€in€anÏapplication€for€pretrial€diversion€that€his€alleged€disability€has€either€beenÏremoved€or€does€not€pose€any€further€threat€to€the€public.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Herronóó,Ï767€S.W.2d€151,€156€(Tenn.€1989)€(burden€of€proof€on€defendant€to€provideÏprosecution€with€sufficient€information€to€support€grant€of€denial€of€pretrialÏdiversion).Ì gÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€%Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€his€brief,€the€defendant€argues€the€Department€of€Safety€had€theÏdiscretion€to€decline€to€reinstate€the€defendant's€driver's€license€based€onÏmental€disability€but€did€not€do€so.€€After€reviewing€the€documents€the€defendantÏprovided€the€district€attorney,€we€find€no€evidence€the€Department€of€Safety€wasÏeven€aware€of€the€defendant's€alleged€mental€disability€or€that€it€considered€theÏissue€on€its€merits.€€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔ€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔßR€&'$A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌó óÌà@ àJUNE€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9612„CR„00480Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHamilton€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òTHEODORE€FOSTER,à àó óà àà à)à àHonorable€Stephen€M.€Bevil,ÏJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à à(Denial€of€Pre„Trial€Diversion)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌMARTIN€J.€LEVITTà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€at€Lawà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ312€Vine€St.ÌChattanooga,€TN€€37403à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àMARVIN€E.€CLEMENTS,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌÌà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àWILLIAM€H.€COXÌà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBATES€BRYAN,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€St.,€Ste.€310Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€€37402ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌó óÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÑ€(ÑÇÑ7€ÒXXdðXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑØØÙ  ÙØØÑ ` ÑÓÓÑ7€ b: XXdðXXdð7Ñà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌà àà àThe€defendant,€Theodore€Foster,€is€aggrieved€of€the€HamiltonÏCounty€District€attorney's€denial€of€his€application€for€pretrial€diversion€and€theÏHamilton€County€Criminal€Court's€denial€of€his€petition€seeking€reversal€of€thatÏdetermination.€€Foster€is€under€indictment€for€vehicular€homicide,€a€Class€CÏfelony.€€In€this€interlocutory€appeal,€Foster€contends€the€District€Attorney's€officeÏacted€arbitrarily€in€denying€his€application€for€diversion.€€After€a€thorough€reviewÏof€the€record,€we€affirm.ÌÌà àà àThe€record€reveals€that€on€April€14,€1995,€Theodore€Foster€wasÏinvolved€in€a€vehicular€accident€in€which€he€is€alleged€to€have€injured€severalÏindividuals,€one€fatally.€€According€to€a€traffic€accident€report€in€the€technicalÏrecord,€the€defendant€was€traveling€at€a€high€rate€of€speed€in€downtownÏChattanooga€and€hit€a€car€stopped€at€a€traffic€light,€then€went€on€to€hit€anotherÏvehicle.€€There€was€no€evidence€the€defendant€was€intoxicated€or€otherwiseÏunder€the€influence.€€However,€following€the€incident,€psychiatric€professionalsÏemployed€by€the€state€and€the€defense€concurred€that€an€insanity€defense€wasÏappropriate.€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€the€incident,€the€defendant€was€a€29€year€old€studentÏat€UT€Chattanooga€who€had€no€past€criminal€convictions.€€Historically,€heÍreceived€in„patient€psychiatric€care€in€September€1994€for€acute€ParanoidÏSchizophrenic€reaction€and€Major€Depression€with€Psychosis.€€At€first,€he€wasÏmaintained€on€medication,€although€his€symptoms€later€went€into€remission,Ïand€by€the€time€of€the€incident€upon€which€the€indictment€is€based€he€had€beenÏweaned€off€the€medication€by€his€psychiatrist.€€According€to€the€defendant'sÏpsychiatric€records,€he€was€given€medication€to€take€in€the€event€he€hadÏsymptoms€of€a€recurrence.€€The€record€reflects€the€defendant€has€no€memory€ofÏthe€incident€under€indictment,€and€thus€we€are€without€knowledge€whether€theÏdefendant€had€any€advance€warning€he€was€becoming€psychotic,€as€he€allegesÏin€his€insanity€defense.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€applied€for€and€was€denied€pre„trial€diversion.€€InÏsupport€of€his€application,€the€defendant€submitted€psychiatric€recordsÏconsisting€of€notes€from€his€1994€inpatient€admission€and€an€April€24,€1995Ï"Psychiatry€Consult"€by€Jon€Cohen,€M.D.€€In€Dr.€Cohen's€notes,€he€posits,€"[It€is]Ïdifficult€to€say€how€much€underlying€schizophrenia€may€be€[a]€current€factor€inÏ[the€defendant's]€behavior,€or€perhaps€even€contributed€to€[the€incident]."€ÏDoctor€Cohen€also€observed€the€defendant€suffered€at€that€time€from€deliriumÏand€that€physical€restraints€were€appropriate€for€the€defendant's€own€safety.€€AtÏthe€time€of€the€diversion€application,€the€results€of€the€two€mental€evaluationsÍhad€been€filed€with€the€court.× ƒ) ××  ×ÌÌà àà àIn€his€letter€denying€diversion,€the€assistant€district€attorney€basedÏthe€denial€on€(1)€the€need€not€to€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€andÏprovide€effective€deterrence€to€others€in€light€of€the€death€of€one€of€the€victims,Ï(2)€the€need€to€protect€the€public€from€"any€future€mental€problems€theÏ[d]efendant€may€have€behind€the€wheel€of€a€car,"€and€(3)€the€lack€of€suitability€ofÏthe€mechanism€of€diversion€to€determine€and€provide€for€the€mental€healthÏneeds€of€the€defendant€and€the€protection€of€the€public.€€The€assistant€districtÏattorney€went€on€to€express€his€€reservations€about€his€ability€to€fashion€anÏappropriate€mental€health€program€to€address€the€defendant's€needs€andÏprovide€"appropriate€remedies"€in€the€event€public€safety€became€an€issue.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€hearing€on€the€defendant's€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari,€theÏparties€stipulated€the€defendant's€driver's€license€had€been€revoked€by€theÏDepartment€of€Safety€and€later€reinstated,€the€defendant€had€graduated€fromÍcollege,€and€the€defendant€had€obtained€employment€with€an€insuranceÏcompany.€€The€defendant€offered€a€letter€from€Dr.€William€C.€Greer€dated€twoÏmonths€after€the€district€attorney's€letter€denying€diversion,€which€generallyÏasserted€the€defendant€was€receiving€psychiatric€treatment,€was€on€medication,Ïand€was€able€to€drive.€€The€doctor€conceded€there€was€no€way€to€predictÏwhether€the€defendant€would€have€another€psychotic€episode€while€behind€theÏwheel€of€a€car,€although€he€believed€this€could€happen€to€any€member€of€theÏpublic,€as€well.€€After€considering€the€record€before€it,€the€trial€court€concludedÏthe€district€attorney's€office€had€not€abused€its€discretion€in€denying€pretrialÏdiversion.ÌÌà àà àThe€decision€of€whether€to€grant€pre„trial€diversion€rests€within€theÏdiscretion€of€the€district€attorney€general.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(b)(3)Ï(Supp.€1996);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€353€(Tenn.Ï1983);€òòState€v.€Houstonóó,€900€S.W.2d€712,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€app.Ïdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861€S.W.2d€850,€855€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).€When€deciding€whether€to€grant€an€application€for€pre„trial€diversion,€theÏdistrict€attorney€general€should€consider€the€circumstances€of€the€offense;€theÏcriminal€record,€social€history,€and€present€condition€of€the€defendant,€includingÏhis€mental€and€physical€conditions€where€appropriate;€the€deterrent€effect€ofÍpunishment€upon€other€criminal€activity;€the€defendant's€amenability€toÏcorrection;€the€likelihood€that€pre„trial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€of€justiceÏand€the€best€interests€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant;€and€the€applicant'sÏattitude,€behavior€since€arrest,€prior€record,€home€environment,€current€drugÏusage,€emotional€stability,€past€employment,€general€reputation,€maritalÏstability,€family€responsibility,€and€attitude€of€law€enforcement.€òòState€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950,€951€(Tenn.€1993)€(citations€omitted);€òòseeóóÏòòHoustonóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€714.€€In€appropriate€cases,€the€nature€andÏcircumstances€of€the€offense€and€the€need€for€deterrence€may€outweigh€allÏother€relevant€factors€and€justify€a€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion.€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2dÏat€855.€€Indeed,€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense€may€alone€supportÏthe€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion.€€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€668€S.W.2d€678,€680€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1984).€ÌÌà àà àIf€the€district€attorney€denies€pretrial€diversion,€a€defendant€mayÏfile€a€writ€of€certiorari€to€the€trial€court.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105€(b)(3)Ï(Supp.€1996).€€In€that€first„tier€appeal,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€provingÏthe€district€attorney€grossly€abused€his€discretion€in€denying€diversion.€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(b)(3)€(Supp.€1996);€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€607€S.W.2d€486,Ï488€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€"The€record€must€[also]€show€an€absence€of€anyÍsubstantial€evidence€to€support€the€refusal€of€the€District€Attorney€General€toÏ[grant€pretrial€diversion]."€€òòWatkinsóó,€607€S.W.2d€at€488;€òòseeóó€òòHoustonóó,€900ÏS.W.2d€at€714.€€When€reviewing€the€district€attorney's€denial,€"the€trial€judgeÏ[has]€to€[not€only]€confine€his€consideration€to€the€evidence€considered€by€theÏDistrict€Attorney€General€at€the€time€he€considered€the€application,€but€.€.€.€heÏmust€also€confine€his€review€to€the€reason€or€reasons€given€by€the€DistrictÏAttorney€General€at€that€time.€€Fairness€demands€that€the€defendant€know€whatÏallegations€he€must€meet€when€he€comes€before€the€trial€judge€on€hisÏapplication."€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€700€S.W.2d€568,€570€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€IfÏthe€trial€court€upholds€the€district€attorney's€denial€of€diversion,€the€defendantÏmay€seek€permission€to€appeal€to€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9.€€InÏreviewing€the€matter,€this€court€may€not€substitute€its€own€judgment€for€that€ofÏthe€district€attorney.€€òòHoustonóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€714.€€The€standard€of€review€forÏthis€court€is€"whether€the€finding€of€the€trial€court€that€the€district€attorney€generalÏdid€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€[the]€application€of€pretrial€diversion€isÏsupported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence."€€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882€S.W.2dÏ806,€809€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€does€not€allege€that€the€districtÏattorney's€office€failed€to€consider€all€of€the€appropriate€factors;€rather,€heÍalleges€the€district€attorney's€office€reached€the€wrong€conclusion€on€the€facts€ofÏthe€case.€€The€defendant's€application€for€pretrial€diversion€consisted€of€his€ownÏstatements€in€the€application,€records€of€previous€psychiatric€treatment,€andÏsome€of€the€records€from€his€psychiatric€treatment€following€the€incident€underÏindictment.€€Based€on€the€information€in€the€application€and€its€exhibits,€theÏassistant€district€attorney€found€three€factors€outweighed€the€others.€€The€threeÏwere€(1)€the€defendant's€mental€condition,€(2)€the€deterrent€effect€of€punishmentÏupon€other€criminal€activity,€and€(3)€the€likelihood€that€pre„trial€diversion€wouldÏnot€serve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interests€of€both€the€public€and€theÏdefendant.€€€òòSeeóó€òòWashingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€at€951.€€Any€one€of€these€factors€is€aÏpermissible€ground€upon€which€denial€may€rest.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Thomas€Daileyóó,ÏNo.€02C01„CR„00008,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€21,€1991)Ï(stating€this€rule€in€the€context€of€judicial€diversion)€(citation€omitted).ÌÌà àà àBased€on€the€record€before€us,€we€cannot€say€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€lower€court's€finding€that€the€district€attorney's€officeÏacted€within€its€discretion€in€denying€pretrial€diversion€to€the€defendant.€€WeÏbelieve€the€concerns€expressed€by€the€assistant€district€attorney€regarding€theÏdefendant's€mental€condition€and€the€likelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€would€notÏserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€best€interests€of€the€public€and€the€defendant€areÍnot€assuaged€by€the€application€and€its€exhibits€or€the€mental€evaluationÏreports.€€The€only€document€considered€by€the€district€attorney's€office€whichÏdiscusses€the€defendant's€on„going€psychiatric€condition€relates,€"During€hisÏvisits€since€the€accident€he€has€reported€occasions€when€he€feels€bombardedÏby€thoughts€and€easily€distracted€and€disturbed€by€noises.€€He€has€recognizedÏthis€as€a€precursor€to€developing€more€serious€symptoms€and€has€started€to€useÏHaldol€at€these€times."€€The€defendant's€application€as€submitted€to€the€districtÏattorney's€office€contained€no€evidence€lending€any€meaningful€support€to€theÏdefendant's€contention€his€psychiatric€condition€no€longer€poses€a€threat€to€theÏpublic.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€Likewise,€the€defendant€places€great€weight€on€the€Department€ofÏSafety's€reinstatement€of€his€driver's€license;€although€he€presented€noÏevidence€to€the€district€attorney€of€the€basis€for€that€reinstatement.× ƒ, ××  ×€€In€seekingÍpretrial€diversion,€the€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€providing€the€districtÏattorney's€office€with€sufficient€information€from€which€a€reasoned€decisionÏregarding€the€grant€or€denial€of€diversion€may€be€made.€€òòState€v.€Herronóó,€767ÏS.W.2d€151,€156€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€district€attorney's€office€acted€within€itsÏdiscretion€in€denying€pretrial€diversion€based€upon€the€facts€submitted€by€theÏdefendant.€ÌÌà àà àIn€reaching€our€conclusion,€we€feel€compelled€to€point€out€that€weÏhave€not€considered€some€of€the€additional€evidence€the€defendant€attemptedÏto€present€at€the€hearing€on€the€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari.€€This€evidenceÏconsists€of€opinions€stated€in€a€letter€from€Dr.€Greer€written€after€the€assistantÏdistrict€attorney's€denial€letter,€in€which€the€doctor€attempts€to€rebut€theÏconclusions€drawn€in€the€denial€letter€regarding€the€threat€of€the€defendant€toÏpublic€safety.€€Technically,€this€letter€was€not€properly€before€the€lower€court€inÏthe€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari,€although€in€this€case€the€assistant€districtÏattorney€agreed€to€stipulate€to€the€factual€statements€in€the€letter,€which€dealtÏwith€the€defendant's€compliance€with€psychiatric€care€and€medicinalÏmaintenance.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€declined€to€stipulate€to€theÍconclusions€drawn€by€the€doctor.€€We€have€not€considered€the€latter.€€InÏgeneral,€certiorari€by€its€very€nature€requires€the€court€to€review€the€earlierÏproceeding€for€any€irregularities.€€òòWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€809€(citing€òòBlackððsÏLaw€Dictionaryóó,€288€(6th€ed.€1990)).€€Thus,€the€trial€court's€inquiry€is€properlyÏlimited€to€that€information€which€was€offered€to€the€district€attorney's€office€at€theÏtime€of€the€application€for€diversion.€€However,€in€this€case€the€few€additionalÏfacts€stipulated€into€the€record€do€not€change€the€result.€€As€a€general€principle,Ïwe€discourage€trial€courts€from€allowing€defendants€a€forum€for€attempting€toÏrelitigate€the€issue€of€the€propriety€of€pretrial€diversion€itself€based€uponÏevidence€the€defendant€failed€to€present€to€the€prosecutor.€ÌÌà àà àFinding€no€reversible€error€below,€we€affirm€the€trial€court's€denialÏof€the€defendant's€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€and€remand€the€matter€for€furtherÏproceedings.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌœJOHN€H.€PEAY,›€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌœJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,›€JUDGEÌÌÌ