WPCB aJP 4?9??(yP&F^:| \9gR )%@ƒTe;&*^\s~bW\)PR5Mj,l|s1r(vL/@9لBP0-7{ڭ yL^@+: zlXោv8~[Ȍy#E`Լ欣s*9Q,,ȣeRJw.P#)R6خV"Olb\|PZ3!N~ϱeiVClN|ngp!RE_gMXed0v-|2n¦ jZuڃu)Uc}y$55ШFD\j.Wyb[̟' 0v' 0`Z( 0`( 0`) 0`z) 0`) 08:* 0r* 02D+ 0v+ 0:r, 0Y, 0_- 0 d- 0jn. 0/ B*\1 D/1 01 D/93 0h3 0664 0l4 0:t5 0^5 0< 6 0H6 1e37 0N7U67 B8U>98 0w8 D39 D-N9 0K{9U*9 AS9C: 0 ; 0D; A;<Y@ 1u[A 72A( Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular Rx%$      2    _TheDefendantsmotherwasinFloridaatthetimeofthefire.  Rx%$      1    _BothpartiesrefertotheDefendantas Theresa_Holtsford_intheirbriefs.However,itisthepolicyofthis  Courttorefertoadefendantbythenamelistedinthecharginginstrument,which,inthiscase,isTheresa_Hallsford_. 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.wptѠ-s PH,:i+003|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5UHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (#$  0  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7I(X7  ?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dH)1dxd<:zTop of For7K(X7  ?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7H)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (|G2x%$ !.8%dd8         0   !"#$%&' 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New d\  `&Times New Roman(|3b$ !.8%dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  %2A`Arial^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3b$ !.8%dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK  Rx%$      3    _Obviously,ifthetrialjudgedisagreeswiththedistrictattorneygeneralsdecisiontodenypretrialdiversion,  thetrialjudgecouldgrantjudicialdiversionunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4035313afteraguiltypleaor t afindingofguilt.Judicialdiversion,ifsuccessful,hasasimilareffectaspretrialdiversion,resultinginadismissalof 8 thecharges.Id. L    S !"#$%&'(03d4c TO  5  C  6TOR  7 !/research/buttonTFLink?_m=a8836f529f34feaf11ac98d73382a269&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b1994%20Tenn.%203#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)di) !.8%dd8     _   %8NIXXdd8@tt %INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#% #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsOctober1,2002 L XNIX% #%XXNI #STATEOFTENNESSEEv.THERESA_HALLSFORD_XNIX%  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMauryCounty  J @@No.11932JimT.Hamilton,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200200959CCAR3CDFiledDecember20,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     TheStateappealsfromtheorderoftheMauryCountyCircuitCourtreversingthedistrictattorney x  generalsdecisiontodenytheDefendantpretrialdiversionforthechargeofarson.Wereversethe d judgmentofthetrialcourt. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtReversed;Remanded  (x   #%XNI#XNIX.%DavidH.Welles,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJames_Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.and P AlanE.Glenn,JJ.,joined. < PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;DavidH._Findley_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;  MikeBottoms,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellant,StateofTennessee.#%XXNI#XNIX%  J.RussellParkes,Columbia,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Theresa_Hallsford_.     `     h     @@OO& OPINION #%XXNI#XNIX% 8!    #%XXNI( #XNIX%XNIXXXNI  TheDefendant,Theresa_Hallsford_,_ *#  1      _#XNIXXXNI #XNIXXXNIԀwasindictedononecountofarson,aclassCfelony.She #L# filedanapplicationforpretrialdiversion,whichwasdeniedbytheState.Shethenfiledapetition $8 $ forwritofcertiorari,appealingthedenialofpretrialdiversion.Thetrialcourtenteredanorder %$!% findingthatthedistrictattorneygeneralabusedhisdiscretionindenyingtheDefendantsrequestfor &"& pretrialdiversionandorderedthatamemorandumofunderstandingbeenteredforatwoyearperiod. '"' ItisfromthisorderthattheStateappealsasofright. (#(   )$) _  Inherapplicationforpretrialdiversion,theDefendantdoesnotmentionthefactsofthe   allegedoffenseordiscussherinvolvementtherein.Thefactswegleanfromtherecordrevealthat  afirebrokeoutshortlyaftermidnightonSeptember3,2000at904HillcrestAvenueinColumbia.  Firefightersextinguishedthisfire,andtheelectricalpowertothehousewasturnedoff.However, t asecondfirestartedatapproximately10:00a.m.onthesameday.Shortlybeforethesecondfire, ` aneighbornoticedthattheDefendantsmotherscarwasparkedfurtherfromthehousethanusual. *#  2      ׀ L  Aninvestigationofthecauseofthefirerevealedthepresenceofanaccelerantgenerallydescribed 8  asa mediumpetroleumdistillate.Thefirecausedapproximately$70,000indamage.The $ t Defendantcarriedrentersinsuranceintheamountof$50,000onthecontentsofthepremises.#XNIXXXNI #XNIXXXNIThe  ` Defendantwaschargedwithknowinglydamagingastructurebyfirewiththeintenttodamageor  L  destroythestructureforthepurposeofcollectinginsuranceforthedamageordestructionin  8  violationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3914301(a)(2). $    Thepretrialdiversionstatuteallowsadistrictattorneygeneraltosuspendtheprosecutionof   aneligibledefendantforaperiodnottoexceedtwoyears.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4015   105(a)(1)(A).Inordertoqualifyforpretrialdiversion,thedefendantmustnothavepreviouslybeen   granteddiversion;mustnothaveapriormisdemeanorconvictionforwhichasentenceof p confinementwasservedorapriorfelonyconvictionwithinafiveyearperiodaftercompletingthe \ sentenceorprobationaryperiodforsuchconviction;andmustnotbechargedwithaclassAfelony, H aclassBfelony,certainclassCfelonies(notincludingarson),asexualoffense,drivingunderthe 4 influence,orvehicularassault.Id.4015105(a)(1)(B)(i)(a)(c).  p   Thereisnopresumptionthatapersoneligibleforpretrialdiversionisentitledtodiversion. H SeeStatev.Curry,988S.W.2d153,157(Tenn.1999).The defendantbearstheburdenof 4 establishingthatpretrialdiversionisappropriateandintheinterestofjustice;therefore,itisthe   responsibilityofthedefendanttoprovide substantialfavorableevidenceforthedistrictattorney   generalsconsideration.Statev.Bell,69S.W.3d171,179(Tenn.2002).    Thedecisiontograntordenyanapplicationforpretrialdiversionrestswithinthediscretion  ofthedistrictattorneygeneral.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4015105(b)(3). Whendecidingwhether l toenterintoamemorandumofunderstandingunderthepretrialdiversionstatute[,]aprosecutor X  shouldfocusonthedefendantsamenabilitytocorrection.Anyfactorswhichtendtoaccurately D! reflectwhetheraparticulardefendantwillorwillnotbecomearepeatoffendershouldbe 0"  considered.Statev.Hammersley,650S.W.2d352,355(Tenn.1983). #l! 8  Amongthefactorstobeconsideredinadditiontothecircumstancesoftheoffense $D # arethedefendantscriminalrecord,socialhistory,thephysicalandmentalcondition %0!$ ofadefendantwhereappropriate,andthelikelihoodthatpretrialdiversionwillserve &"% theendsofjusticeandthebestinterestofboththepublicandthedefendant.'#&    )$( Id.Ifpretrialdiversionisdenied,thedenialmustbewritten,mustlisttheevidenceconsidered,  discusswhichfactorswereconsidered,anddiscusstheweightaccordedtoeachfactor.Statev.  Pinkham,955S.W.2d956,960(Tenn.1997). Thisrequiremententailsmorethananabstract  statementintherecordthatthedistrictattorneygeneralhasconsideredthesefactors.Curry,988 t S.W.2dat157(citationsomitted). `   Ifanapplicationforpretrialdiversionisdenied,thedefendantmayappealtothetrialcourt 8  forawritofcertiorari.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4015105(b)(3).Onreview,thetrialcourtis $ t constrainedtoconsideronlytheevidenceconsideredbythedistrictattorneygeneralandmust  ` determinewhetherthedistrictattorneygeneralhasabusedhisorherdiscretion.SeeBell,69S.W.3d  L  at177.Anabuseofdiscretionmayonlybefoundwheretheprosecutorfailstoconsiderallthe  8  relevantfactorsandtheirweightorreachesadecisionnotsupportedbysubstantialevidence.See $  id.Onreview,thedecisionmadebythedistrictattorneygeneralispresumedtobecorrect.Curry,   988S.W.2dat158.Therefore,inaclosecasewheretheprosecutorcouldhavelegitimatelygranted   ordeniedtheapplication,thetrialcourtmustdefertothejudgmentoftheprosecutor.SeeStatev.   Carr,861S.W.2d850,856(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Forpurposesofourreview,thisCourtis    boundbythefactualfindingsmadebythetrialcourtunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainst p them.Bellat177. \    However,iftheevidenceofrecordisundisputedandcallsfornofindingoffacttoresolve 4 theissue,atrialcourtsdeterminationsconstituteconclusionsoflawtowhichanappellatecourtis  p notbound.Carr,861S.W.2dat856(citationsomitted).Therefore,whenthefactsareundisputed,  \ theunderlyingissuethatthisCourtmustdetermineonappealremainswhether,asamatteroflaw, H thedistrictattorneygeneralabusedhisorherdiscretionindenyingpretrialdiversion.Id.;Statev. 4 TerryA.Rogier,No.W200100551CCAR9CD,2001Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS783,at*9   (Jackson,Sept.19,2001);Statev.Brooks,943S.W.2d411,413(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).     Inthewrittenresponsedenyingpretrialdiversion,thedistrictattorneygeneralstates:  8  theStateisconcernedwiththemagnitudeofthedamagetothehome,aswellasthe l veryrealpotentialfordamagetosurroundinghomesintheneighborhood.In X  addition,theStateisalsoconcernedwiththedangerposedbythisfiretoneighbors D! andtofiredepartmentpersonnelrespondingtothescene.0"    Theprosecutorcitesthedamagetothehome,whichwasestimatedat$70,000,andthepotential $X" damagetootherhomesinthecommunity,neighbors,andfirefightersinsupportoftheneedtodeter $D # similaractivity: %0!$ 8  TheStatecontendsthatarson,byitsverynature,isacrimewithrealpotentialnot '#& onlyforpropertydamage,butphysicaldamageaswell....Clearly,suchactivity (#' mustbedeterredandsocietyprotectedfromthismagnitudeofdamage...aswellas )$( protectingsocietyfrompotentialphysicalharmaswell.|*%)    h+&* TheprosecutornotedintheresponsethattheDefendant,athirtysixyearoldmotheroftwo,hasno  priorcriminalhistoryandpossessesagoodfamilyandsocialhistory.Thedocumentalsomentions  thesixteenlettersofrecommendationthataccompaniedtheDefendantsrequestforpretrial  diversionassomeevidencethattheDefendantisamenabletocorrection. t   InitsorderregardingtheDefendantspetitionforwritofcertiorari,thetrialcourtstatedthat L  thedistrictattorneygeneralsdenialofpretrialdiversionappearstobe basedonthenatureofthe 8  offenseandtheneedfordeterrence.Thetrialcourtexplaineditsfindingasfollows: $ t 8  theprosecutorfailedtoadequatelyconsiderevidencefavorabletotheDefendantsuch  L  ashercompleteabsenceofanycriminalrecord,workhistory,substantialfamilyties  8  aswellasthenumerouslettersofrecommendationandratherimpressiveDiversion $  ApplicationincludingtheDefendant[]ssocialhistoryandcontributionsshehas   madetoherfamilyincludingdrivingherlegallyblindchildtoandfromNashvilleon   adailybasis.      Wenotethatifthedistrictattorneygeneralhasdenieddiversionandfailedtoconsider p evidencefavorabletoadefendant,thedecisionshouldbereversedandthematterremandedtothe \ districtattorneygeneralforfurtherconsideration.SeeBell,69S.W.3dat179.However,in H determiningwhetheradefendantisentitledtopretrialdiversion,thetrialjudge maynotreweigh 4 theevidenceorsubstituteitsviewforthatofthedistrictattorneygeneral.Id.at171.#XNIXXXNI^#XNIXXXNIԀ Itiscritical  p toemphasizethatthediscretiontograntordenypretrialdiversionrestswiththedistrictattorney  \ general,notthetrialcourt.Id.b *#  3      #XNIXXXNIl7#XNIXXXNI H   TheTennesseeSupremeCourtstatedinCurrythat thecircumstancesoftheoffenseandthe   needfordeterrencemayalonejustifyadenialofdiversion,butonlyifalloftherelevantfactorshave   beenconsideredaswell.988S.W.2dat158.Theprosecutorsletterdescribedthedangerous  circumstancesoftheoffense"theriskofdamagetonearbyresidencesandtheriskofharmto  neighborsandfirefighters.Theprosecutoralsocitedinthelettertheextensivedamagecausedby  thefireandtheneedfordeterrence. l   Inthiscase,therewerenofactualdisputestoberesolvedbythetrialcourt.Theissueis D! primarilywhether,asamatteroflaw,theprosecutorabusedhisdiscretionbydenyingtheDefendant 0"  pretrialdiversion.SeeCarr,861S.W.2dat856.Weconcludethatthedistrictattorneygeneraldid #l! notabusehisdiscretionbydenyingtheDefendantsapplicationforpretrialdiversion.Whilehe $X" consideredrelevantfactorsinfavorofdiversion,suchastheDefendantslackofapriorcriminal $D #  historyandhergoodfamilyandsocialhistory,heconcludedthattheywereoutweighedbytheextent %0!$ ofthedamageofthefireandtheriskofharmtootherpersonsandproperty.Suchadecisionwas  withinhisdiscretion.     ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtorderingtheDistrictAttorneyGeneraltogranttheDefendant t pretrialdiversionisreversed.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings. ` #XNIXXXNI8#   `     h     ___________________________________  L     `     h     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE