ÿWPC  \͵$1*>¹¤Hñû¬<ž§'Ê÷Áy°*V'ž„ñ£Ñ #%¥e¾“õ|pŽS{Ñ¥³d8¿Š–œú—†åP°„«!É9³âßz´¥ÂŸJèAÛ Ž)^^}†Ãs>!¼ëÍ<64-Ýç²ÜC%õ–¡[.G2§7Ââ€Hh@%Šý¾­œUœ^²†®B¨c'úÛîþ1Ò;þf)!4Ñj ß ÀŸËÙà.™ЏŸc 5Òc?HˆM T® ço";e/áçŸ,[Öçç#{JXuPh*÷ãöž­Z«X%üÌ€D¼,˜]ïNCÊ÷¸À¡•­ø‚ÐÈkK”! ¹Ð®´Ô€ XtN XXXÔÔ€ &<¨ & X XtNÔ(‚*2©?$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X¯»XXXÔÔ€&;x&XX¯»ÔÓ  Óà ` àòò€€Ú  Ú0Ú  Úóó(AU$Ô€XDXXXÔÔ€ŠW. ŠXXDÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular%ä2¼A`ArialTT ïÝ ƒ ˆ{$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XO£XXXÔÔ€&[0&XXO£ÔÓ  Óà ` àòò€€Ú  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„201.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X¯»XXXÔÔ€l6 XX¯»ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X¯»X l6ÔÐ  ÐÌò òSeptember€10,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôãÃôXX¯»ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ïÝ ƒ ©?$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X¯»XXXÔÔ€&;x&XX¯»ÔÓ  Óà ` àòò€€Ú  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„201., øð AZ"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š ŠXXÔÔ€ŠmŠŠŠ ÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÑ7€ —™ ˆˆdXXdð7Ññíñßr€)<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` ttx$,` ð ÚrßñíñI›N€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9801„CR„00016Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellant,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àSULLIVAN€COUNTYÐ `  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€R.€JERRY€BECKó óÐ `  Ðò òVELMA€JEAN€FREEMAN,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellee.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àó ó(Pretrial€Diversion)ò òÐ ` Ðó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÐ Pð ÐCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€SULLIVAN€COUNTYó óÐ Pð ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:Ð @ à ÐÌRICHARD€A.€SPIVEYà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ 0"Ð Ð142€Cherokee€Streetà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ (#È ÐKingsport,€TN€37660Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTODD€R.€KELLEYÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGREELEY€WELLSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOSEPH€EUGENE€PERRINÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSullivan€County€Justice€CenterÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBlountville,€TN€37617ÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ  50,-S ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°JS°ŠŠmÔò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€Šmа°JSÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àThis€is€an€interlocutory€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€9€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure.€€The€State€of€Tennessee€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€that€the€District€Attorney€General€abused€his€discretion€by€denyingÏpretrial€diversion.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€was€indicted€on€one€count€of€possession€of€marijuana€andÏone€count€of€introducing€the€marijuana€into€a€penal€institution.œñìñ׃×ñìññìñ׃×ñìñÝ ƒ UÝÔ€ŠŒž ŠŠŠmÔÔ€ŠŒž Š ŠŠŒžÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñëñ׃ `×Ý ƒ UÝÔ€ŠÜÖ Š ŠŠÜÖÔÔ€ŠÜÖ Š ŠŠÜÖÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñëñ›€€The€basic€factsÐ ¾^ Ðare€that€the€Defendant€attempted€to€deliver€approximately€7.9€grams€of€marijuanaÏto€her€adult€son,€who€was€incarcerated€in€the€Sullivan€County€jail.€€SheriffððsÏdeputies€observed€her€placing€a€white€envelope€under€the€cell€block€door.€€WhenÏit€was€determined€that€the€envelope€contained€marijuana,€she€was€arrested.ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€applied€for€pretrial€diversion€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ðð€40„15„105.€€Under€our€law,€she€was€entitled€to€be€considered.€€TheÏDistrict€Attorney€denied€the€Defendantððs€application,€setting€forth€his€reasons€forÏdenial€in€a€written€response.€€The€Defendant€submitted€a€petition€for€writ€ofÏcertiorari€to€the€Criminal€Court€of€Sullivan€County,€asserting€that€the€DistrictÏAttorney€abused€his€discretion€by€denying€pretrial€diversion.€€The€District€AttorneyÏsubmitted€his€record€concerning€his€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€and,€afterÏâ âreviewing€this€record,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€District€Attorney€had€abusedÐ .4Î** Ðhis€discretion€and€ordered€that€the€Defendant€be€granted€pretrial€diversion.€€It€isÏfrom€this€order€of€the€trial€court€that€the€State€appeals.Ìâ âÌà ` àThe€Pretrial€Diversion€Act€provides€a€means€of€avoiding€the€consequencesÏof€a€public€prosecution€for€those€who€have€the€potential€to€be€rehabilitated€andÏœwho€may€thus€avoid›€future€criminal€charges.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105.€Ð ˆ(  ÐPretrial€diversion€is€extraordinary€relief€for€which€the€Defendant€bears€the€burdenÏof€proof.€€òòState€v.€Baxteróó,€868€S.W.2d€679,€681€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòStateÐ ˜8 Ðv.€Poplaróó,€612€S.W.2d€498,€501€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€The€general€criteria€forÐ  @ Ðprobation€and€pretrial€diversion€are€similar,€but€should€be€more€stringently€appliedÏto€diversion€applicants.€€òòPoplaróó,€612€S.W.2d€at€501.Ð °P ÐÌà ` àThe€œdistrict›€œattorney›€is€vested€with€the€discretion€to€approve€or€deny€pretrialÏdiversion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(b)(3).€€€œA›€defendant€who€appliesÐ È#h Ðfor€and€is€denied€pretrial€diversion€may€ð ðpetition€for€a€writ€of€certiorari€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€an€abuse€of€prosecutorial€discretion.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„¼105(b)(3).€€The€trial€judge€cannot€substitute€his€judgment€for€that€of€the€œdistrict›Ïœattorney›€when€reviewing€a€denial€of€pretrial€diversion.€€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€607Ð è+ˆ"" ÐS.W.2d€486,€488€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€The€œdistrict›€œñâñañâññâñ›Añâñttorneyððs›€decision€isÏviewed€as€œððpresumptively›€œcorrectðð›€and€will€not€be€set€aside€unless€there€is€aÐ ø/˜&& Ðfinding€of€gross€and€patent€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650Ð 2 (( ÐS.W.2d€352,€356€(Tenn.€œ1983)€(citing€òòPace€v.€Stateóó,€566€S.W.2d€861,€870€(Tenn.Ð 4¨** Ð1978)).›Ìâ âÐ 8¸.. Ðà ` à€The€trial€courtððs€scope€of€review€is€limited€to€the€information€provided€inÏâ âthe€record€upon€which€the€district€attorney€based€the€decision.€€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861Ð h  ÐS.W.2d€850,€œ855„ñãñ5ñãñ6›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòPoplaróó,€612€S.W.2d€at€œ500ñäñ)ñäñ.›€€œð ðIn›Ð p  Ðview€of€this€evidentiary€restriction,€an€evidentiary€hearing€would€seem€unneededÏin€the€usual€case.€€However,€a€hearing€may€be€useful€to€clarify€matters€alreadyÏin€the€record€about€which€there€may€be€some€dispute.ðð€€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882Ð ˆ(  ÐS.W.2d€806,€810€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€If€there€is€a€factual€dispute,€the€trialÏjudge€should€conduct€an€evidentiary€hearing€to€resolve€the€dispute€beforeÏdetermining€whether€there€has€been€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€denying€diversion.€ÏòòState€v.€Pinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€956,€960€(Tenn.€1997).Ð ¨H ÐÌà ` à€In€cases€in€which€the€facts€are€undisputed,€as€they€generally€are€in€thisÏcase,€the€issue€primarily€becomes€a€question€of€law,€and€this€Court€therefore€isÏnot€bound€by€the€lower€œcourtððs›€decision.€€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€œ856.Ô‡ŠW. Š ŠŠW.Ô›€€In€such€aÐ È#h Ðcase,€the€underlying€issue€is€whether,€as€a€matter€of€law,€the€œdistrict›€œattorney›Ïgeneral€abused€his€or€her€discretion.€€òòIdóó.€€Our€review€focuses€on€whether€thereÐ Ø'x Ðis€substantial€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€œdistrict›€œattorneyððs›€refusal€toÏdivert.€€€In€a€close€case,€if€the€record€supports€the€decision€to€grant€or€denyÏpretrial€diversion,€œð ðððit›€cannot€be€an€abuse€of€discretion€to€decide€the€case€eitherÐ ð-$$ Мway.ððð𛀀òòCarróó,€€861€S.W.2d€at€856€(quoting€òòState€v.€Grearóó,€568€S.W.2d€285,€286Ð ø/˜&& Ð(Tenn.€1978)).€Ô#†ŠW. Š ŠŠW.`!#ÔÔ‡ŠW. Š ŠŠW.ÔÐ 2 (( ÐÌà ` àWhen€a€pretrial€diversion€request€is€denied,€the€district€attorney€must€stateÏthe€specific€reasons€for€denial€in€the€record€to€preserve€those€reasons€forÏmeaningful€appellate€review.€œ€òòState›€v.€Herronóó,€767€S.W.2d€151,€156€(Tenn.Ð  :À00 Ð1989).€€Ô#†ŠW. Š ŠŠW."$#ÔÔ‡ŠW. Š ŠŠW.ÔThe€following€factors€should€be€considered€to€determine€whether€pretrialÐ `  Ðdiversion€should€be€granted:€¹Ó „ÓÒ` ÒÓÓœðð[the]›€circumstances€of€the€offense;€the€criminal€record,€socialÐ p  Ðhistory€and€present€condition€of€the€defendant,€including€hisÏmental€and€physical€conditions€where€appropriate;€the€deterrentÏeffect€of€punishment€upon€other€criminal€activity;€defendantððsÏamenability€to€correction;€the€likelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€willÏserve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interests€of€both€the€publicÏand€œdefendant;›€and€the€applicantððs€attitude,€behavior€sinceÏarrest,€prior€record,€home€environment,€current€drug€usage,Ïemotional€stability,€past€employment,€general€reputation,€maritalÏstability,€family€responsibility€and€attitude€of€law€œenforcement.ðð›ÌÒ` 6&ÒÓ „(&ÓœÓD&ÓÓÓÌòòÌÓÓState›€v.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950,€951€(Tenn.€1993)€(quoting€òòState€v.Ð  @ ÐMarkhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€850,€852„53€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)).€€Ð ¨H ÐÔ#†ŠW. Š ŠŠW.Ž%#ÔÌà ` àDue€to€the€limited€scope€of€certiorari€review,€a€formal€written€response€isÏrequired€to€demonstrate€that€the€district€attorney€considered€all€the€relevantÏfactors€and€œto€explain›€why€certain€factors€outweighed€others.€€The€narrow€scopeÏof€review€has€made€the€district€attorneyððs€written€response€of€primary€importance.€ÏIndeed,€in€a€review€in€which€no€hearing€is€held,€the€district€attorneyððs€letter€is€theÏonly€concrete€record€from€which€to€evaluate€whether€an€abuse€of€discretion€hasÏoccurred.€ÌÌÔ‡ŠW. Š ŠŠW.Ôà ` àAs€our€œsupreme›€œcourt›€recently€stated,€a€district€attorney€general€is€notÐ ø/˜&& Ðrequired€to€include€in€the€record€all€the€evidence€relied€upon€to€deny€diversion.€ÏòòState€v.€Pinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€956,€960€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€district€attorneyÐ 4¨** Ðgeneral€is€required€to€identify€the€factual€basis€and€rationale€for€the€decision€toÏdeny€pretrial€œdiversion.€€òòId.ó󛀀The€information€should€be€sufficiently€detailed€so€thatÐ 8¸.. Ðthe€defendant€can€ascertain€the€existence€of€any€factual€disputes.€€œòòId.óóÔ#†ŠW. Š ŠŠW.E,#ԛР :À00 Їà ` àIn€his€letter€denying€the€Defendantððs€application€to€pretrial€diversion,€theÏDistrict€Attorney€referred€to€the€Defendantððs€ð ðformal€requestðð€for€diversion.€ÏAlthough€no€written€application€for€pretrial€diversion€is€in€the€record,€the€partiesÏstipulated€for€a€background€investigation€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏðð€40„15„104.€€The€report€œof€this€investigation€reflects›€that€the€Defendant€wasÏforty„three€years€old,€œdivorced,›€and€the€mother€of€four€children.€€She€has€beenÏmarried€five€times.€€She€dropped€out€of€school€after€the€sixth€grade€and€œwas›Ïmarried€for€the€first€œtime€at€age€fourteen.›€€The€Defendant€reported€her€health€asÏð ðfairðð€and€stated€that€she€has€no€history€of€alcohol€abuse€and€has€never€usedÏillegal€drugs.€€At€the€time€the€background€investigation€was€œprepared,›€she€wasÏemployed€as€a€œhousekeeper€at›€a€œKingsport,€Tennesseeñåñ,ñåñ€motel›€and€her€employerÏconfirmed€that€she€was€a€good€employee.€€Prior€to€this€job€she€had€briefly€workedÏas€a€œhousekeeper€at›€another€motel€in€the€Kingsport€œarea,›€and€that€employer€alsoÏconfirmed€that€she€was€a€good€worker.€€Prior€to€that€she€reported€that€she€wasÏemployed€for€seven€years€as€a€cook€at€a€club€in€Kingsport.€€One€of€her€daughtersÏand€a€granddaughter€lived€with€her.€€Another€child,€along€with€five€of€theÏDefendantððs€siblings,€lived€near€her€in€the€Kingsport€area.€€Her€only€prior€recordÏof€criminal€activity€was€a€conviction€of€driving€without€a€license€and€a€charge€ofÏviolation€of€ð ðlight€law,ðð€both€of€which€occurred€some€five€years€prior€to€theÏpreparation€of€the€pretrial€diversion€report.ÌÌà ` àThe€pretrial€diversion€report€contained€the€following€statement€from€theÏDefendant€concerning€the€charges€against€her:€ÌÓÓà8 ` àœOn›€the€date€of€the€offense,€it€was€requested€that€I€bring€in€a€baggieÏwith€marijuana€in€it.€€I€was€told€to€put€it€in€an€envelope€and€kick€itÏunder€the€bars.€€I€made€a€big€mistake€by€doing€this.€€I€had€a€seriousÐ  :À00 Ðlack€of€judgment.€€I€wish€I€had€never€done€this.€€It€was€stupid€andÏirresponsible.€€I€will€never€in€this€or€any€other€life€ever€do€it€again.€ÏI€would€be€suitable€for€probation€because€I€have€never€been€inÏtrouble€before,€and€I€guarantee€I€will€never€be€in€trouble€again.€€IÏtruly€am€sorry€and€I€regret€that€this€œhappened.›Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àIn€his€letter€denying€the€Defendantððs€application€for€pretrial€diversion,€theÏDistrict€Attorney€General€stated€that€his€decision€was€based€on€the€followingÏfactors:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ à(1)à  àThe€defendantððs€actions€of€attempting€to€introduceÐ ”4  Ðdrugs€into€the€Sullivan€County€Jail€is€of€special€concern€to€the€StateÏdue€to€problems€regarding€the€possession€and€use€of€drugs€byÏinmates€of€this€facility.€€The€defendantððs€deliberate€and€intentionalÏact€endangered€the€inmates€incarcerated€at€this€facility€as€well€asÏendangered€the€men€and€women€employed€at€this€facility.€€TheÏintroduction€of€drugs€and€other€contraband€into€the€jail€is€a€seriousÏproblem€of€epidemic€proportions.€€The€granting€of€pre„trial€diversionÏfor€such€a€crime€will€reduce€the€resistance,€if€not€encourage,€othersÏwho€might€engage€themselves€in€like€or€similar€conduct.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à(2)à  àThe€defendantððs€unstable€work€record,€her€family€andÐ À!` Ðsocial€history,€as€well€as€her€lack€of€education€demonstrate€her€to€beÏan€unacceptable€candidate€for€diversion.€€It€should€be€noted€that€theÏdefendant€was€trying€to€pass€drugs€to€her€own€child€who€wasÏincarcerated€on€felony€charges€at€the€time.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à(3)à  àThe€defendant€has€previously€been€convicted€of€noÐ Ø'x Ðdriverððs€license.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àAfter€reviewing€the€record€submitted€by€the€District€Attorney€General,€theÏtrial€judge€entered€a€memorandum€order€which€included€findings€of€fact€and€hisÏanalysis€of€the€applicable€law.€€The€trial€judge€observed€that€the€first€factor€reliedÏupon€by€the€District€Attorney€General€could€be€generally€categorized€as€ð ðtheÏcircumstances€of€the€case€and€the€need€for€deterrence.ðð€€The€trial€judgeÏœrecognized€that›€under€Tennessee€law,€œððthe›€circumstances€of€the€case€and€œtheÐ 6°,, Ðneed›€for€deterrence€œ.€.€.€cannot›€be€given€òòcontrollingóó€weight€œ[in›€determiningÐ 8¸.. Ðwhether€to€grant€pretrial€œdiversion]›€unless€œ[these›€œfactors]›€are€œððof›€suchÐ  :À00 Ðoverwhelming€significance€that€they€œ(necessarily)›€outweigh€all€other€œfactors.ðððð›€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Washingtonóó,€866€œS.W.2d›€950,€951€(Tenn.€œ1993)€(quoting€òòState€v.Ð h  ÐMarkhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€850,€853€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)).›€€œððIn›€the€absence€ofÐ p  Ðsuch€exceptional€circumstances,€œððthe›€œdistrict›€œattorney›€œgeneral›€must€considerÐ x Мevidence›€which€tends€to€show€that€the€œ(defendant)›€is€amenable€to€correction€œ.€.Ï.€and›€œis€not›€likely€to€commit€further€criminal€œacts.ððð𛀀òòId.ó󀀜(quoting€òòMarkhamóó,€755Ð ˆ(  ÐS.W.2d€at€853).€€The›€trial€court€further€noted€that€the€District€AttorneyððsÏgeneralized€statement€concerning€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€and€the€needÏfor€deterrence€would€apply€to€any€Class€C,€œD,›€or€E€felony,€but€noted€that€theÏlegislature€has€specifically€provided€that€a€defendant€charged€with€introducingÏmarijuana€into€a€penal€institution€œñæñwañæññçñiñçñs›€eligible€for€pretrial€diversion.ÌÌà ` àConcerning€the€second€factor€set€forth€by€the€District€Attorney€General€inÏdenying€diversion,€the€trial€judge€noted€that€the€Defendant€was€forty„three€yearsÏold€and€had€no€significant€criminal€record.€€The€judge€noted€that€ð ðthe€DefendantÏleft€school€at€age€fourteen,€got€married,€and€had€four€children.€€She€is€obviouslyÏunder„educated,€works€as€a€maid,€and€is€described€as€a€good€worker.ðð€€The€trialÏjudge€expressed€his€concerns€œabout€the›€constitutionality€of€denying€diversionÏbased€upon€a€lack€of€formal€education€and€further€noted€that€the€legislature€hadÏset€no€educational€requirements€for€a€person€seeking€diversion.€€œÌÌà ` àWe›€can€understand€why€a€œdistrict›€œattorney›€œgeneral›€would€œprefer€not›€œto›Ïgrant€pretrial€diversion€to€œanyone€charged›€with€trying€to€deliver€marijuana€to€anÏinmate€in€a€local€jail€or€other€penal€institution.€€However,€as€the€trial€judge€pointedÏout,€the€law€enacted€by€our€legislature€provides€that€someone€who€commits€suchÐ  :À00 Ða€crime€is€eligible€for€diversion€unless€the€personððs€prior€criminal€record€rendersÏthem€ineligible.€€While€the€œdistrict›€œattorney›€has€the€discretion€to€grant€or€denyÏdiversion€to€eligible€defendants,€that€discretion€is€not€absolute.ÌÌà ` àAfter€reviewing€the€record€submitted€by€the€District€Attorney€General,€theÏtrial€court€implicitly€found€that€the€conclusory€statements€asserted€by€the€DistrictÏAttorney€General€did€not€set€forth€a€sufficient€basis€for€denying€pretrial€diversionÏto€the€œDefendantñèñ,ñèñ›€and€œbased€on€the›€œrecordñéñ,ñéñ€the€trial›€judge€determined€thatÏdenying€the€Defendant€pretrial€diversion€constituted€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€FromÏour€review€of€œthe›€record,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€erred.€ÏThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€accordingly€affirmed.ÌÔ‡ŠW. Š ŠŠW.ÔÌÔ#†ŠW. Š ŠŠW.L#ÔÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ð À!` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE