ÿWPC£ 6UN %R 0(Xw@€4ÀÔ 0lã 0DO“# › 0J¦ 0Tð 0^D 0h¢ 0r  0|| 0†ø 0~ 1u 0dƒ AQç Æ8 0Dþ 0@B 0D‚ D/Æ Bõ B D3/ U>b U*  B)Ê DCó AM6 ƒ ÈŠv~RvÓÐ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ¢D£D¤[¥¦E§D¨©EªÓ€¶ ƒ‰#3|x¶((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd "0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ýÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òDecember€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€-ôÔÔ€.ÔA€defendant€now€has€the€option€of€raising€this€issue€by€interlocutory€appeal,€extraordinaryÏappeal€or€an€appeal€as€a€matter€of€right€after€a€final€judgment€of€conviction.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€38Ï(effective€July€1,€1997).Ô€-ÔÔ€-XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÙ€ ÙÓ  ÓÔ€.ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œßR€120A1-j|î` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àNOVEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€02C01„9704„CC„00161ó óÌà àAppellee,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òCARROLL€COUNTYó óÌò òVS.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHON.€JULIAN€P.€GUINN,ÌDUANE€A.€HEDRICK,ó óà@ à)à àò òJUDGEó óÌà@ à)Ìà àAppellant.à@ à)à à(Denial€of€Pre„Trial€Diversion)ÌÌÌÌÒ†„èyÒò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:ÌÌJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMSÌó óP.€O.€Box€468ÌHuntingdon,€Tennessee€38344ÌÉò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ì€ÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òELIZABETH€T.€RYANó óÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òG.€ROBERT€RADFORDó óÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òELEANOR€CAHILLó óÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌP.€O.€Box€686ÌHuntingdon,€Tennessee€38344ÌÉÒÒÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÌÌØØÑ7€EtXXdìXXdì7Ñ€€ó óà@ àò òòòOPINIONóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àAppellant,€Duane€A.€Hedrick,€was€indicted€for€the€offense€of€vehicularÏhomicide€and€appeals,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9,€from€the€denial€of€pre„trialÏdiversion€and€subsequent€denial€of€certiorari€by€the€trial€court.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€AppellantÏcomplains€that€the€prosecutor€abused€her€discretion€in€denying€pre„trialÏdiversion,€and€further€complains€he€was€denied€an€adequate€hearing€on€hisÏpetition€for€writ€of€certiorari€in€violation€of€the€due€process€provisions€of€theÏTennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.Ìòòò òÌà@ àFACTSó óóóÌÌà àOn€or€about€June€11,€1996,€appellant,€a€commercial€truck€driver,€leftÏGoodlettsville,€Tennessee,€at€about€2:00€a.m.€and€drove€to€Indianapolis,€Indiana,Ïwhere€he€had€about€three€hours€of€rest.€€Leaving€Indianapolis€at€approximatelyÏ1:00€p.m.,€he€arrived€in€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€around€8:00€p.m.€and€attendedÏhis€sonððs€little€league€game.€€He€left€Clarksville€around€10:30€p.m.€and€began€hisÏjourney€to€œSouthaven›,€Mississippi,€his€ultimate€destination.€€About€midnight€on€U.ÏS.€Highway€79€in€Carroll€County,€appellantððs€truck€veered€into€the€oncoming€laneÏand€struck€the€car€of€the€victim,€resulting€in€her€death.€€Appellant€did€not€knowÏwhether€he€went€to€sleep€beforehand.€€It€is€undisputed€that€appellant€drove€inÏviolation€of€governmental€regulations€of€the€trucking€industry€in€that€he€did€notÏhave€the€œrequired›€rest.ÌÌà@ àò òòòPRE„TRIAL€DIVERSIONó óóó€ÌÌà àThe€Pre„trial€Diversion€Act€provides€a€means€of€avoiding€theÏconsequences€of€a€public€prosecution€for€those€who€have€the€potential€to€beÏrehabilitated€and€avoid€future€criminal€charges.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105.€€Pre„trial€diversion€is€extraordinary€relief€for€which€the€defendant€bears€theÏburden€of€proof.€€òòState€v.€Baxteróó,€868€S.W.2d€679,€681€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);ÏòòState€v.€Poplaróó,€612€S.W.2d€498,€501€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).Ìà àThe€decision€to€grant€or€deny€an€application€for€pre„trial€diversion€is€withinÏthe€discretion€of€the€district€attorney€general.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(b)(3);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Pinkhamóó,€òò€€€€€óó€S.W.2d€òò€€€€€óó€(Tenn.€1997);€œòòState€v.›ÏHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€353€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Houstonóó,€900€S.W.2dÏ712,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861€S.W.2d€850,€855€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€€In€making€the€determination,€the€district€attorney€general€mustÏconsider:€Ìà8 àÓÓthe€defendant's€amenability€to€correction.€€Any€factors€which€tend€toÏaccurately€reflect€whether€a€particular€defendant€will€or€will€notÏbecome€a€repeat€offender€should€be€considered€.€.€.€.€€Among€theÏfactors€to€be€considered€in€addition€to€the€circumstances€of€theÏoffense€are€the€defendant's€criminal€record,€social€history,€theÏphysical€and€mental€condition€of€a€defendant€where€appropriate,Ïand€the€likelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€ofÏjustice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.ÌÌÓÓòòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€355;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950,Ï951€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Parkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€945,€958€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ìà àDeterrence€of€both€the€defendant€and€others€is€a€factor,€the€importance€ofÏwhich€varies€according€to€the€individual€circumstances€of€each€case.€ÏòòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€354.€€The€circumstances€of€the€crime€and€the€needÏfor€deterrence€may,€in€the€appropriate€case,€outweigh€the€other€relevant€factorsÏand€justify€a€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion.€€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€855.€€Ìà àA€prosecutor's€decision€to€deny€diversion€is€presumptively€correct,€and€theÏtrial€court€should€only€reverse€that€decision€when€the€appellant€establishes€œan›Ïabuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Lutryóó,€938€S.W.2d€431,€434€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1996);€òòHoustonóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€714.€€The€record€must€be€lacking€in€anyÏsubstantial€evidence€to€support€the€district€attorney€generalððs€decision€before€anÏabuse€of€discretion€can€be€found.€€òòPinkhamóó,€òò€€€€€óó€S.W.2d€at€òò€€€€€óó;€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2dÍat€856.€€The€trial€court€may€not€substitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€districtÏattorney€general€when€the€decision€of€the€district€attorney€general€is€supportedÏby€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€607€S.W.2d€486,€488€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).ÌÌÌÖ€ÖÖ€Öà@ àò òòòAPPLICATION€AND€LETTER€OF€DENIALóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellantððs€application€for€pre„trial€diversion€indicated€he€had€no€priorÏcriminal€record,€had€only€two€(2)€speeding€tickets,€was€married€with€four€(4)€minorÏchildren,€was€active€in€his€church,€was€loyal€to€his€friends,€was€honest,€and€didÏnot€smoke,€drink€alcohol,€or€use€illicit€drugs.€€In€her€letter€of€denial,€the€assistantÏdistrict€attorney€considered€all€of€these€positive€factors€as€reflected€in€numerousÏletters€of€support€attached€to€the€application.Ìà àIn€spite€of€these€favorable€factors,€the€assistant€district€attorney€noted€thatÏappellantððs€crime€resulted€in€a€death.€€The€death€was€the€direct€result€of€theÏappellantððs€violation€of€governmental€regulations€designed€to€protect€the€safety€ofÏthe€public.€€She€also€noted€the€appellant€did€not€know€if€he€fell€asleep€just€prior€toÏhitting€the€other€vehicle.€Ìà àMost€importantly,€the€assistant€district€attorney€noted€the€need€forÏdeterrence.€€The€appellant€was€a€commercial€truck€driver€subject€to€regulationsÏdesigned€to€protect€the€safety€of€the€public.€€The€prosecutor€concluded€that€pre„trial€diversion€would€send€a€message€to€other€commercial€truck€drivers€that€thereÏwould€be€no€criminal€responsibility€for€violating€the€regulations€and€endangeringÍthe€public.ÌÌà@ àò òòòANALYSISóóó óÌÌà àThe€case€before€us€is€difficult€in€that€we€have€on€the€one€hand€a€man€whoÏhas€been€a€good€citizen€and€a€dedicated€father€and€husband€who€has€beenÏactive€in€his€church€and€community.€€On€the€other€hand,€we€have€the€loss€of€life€ofÏa€young€woman,€a€terrible€and€irrevocable€consequence€of€appellantððsÏmisguided€decision.€€However,€the€only€question€subject€to€our€review€is€whetherÏthe€prosecutor€abused€her€discretion€in€denying€œpre„trial›€diversion.€Ìà àAppellant€specifically€complains€that€the€prosecutor€failed€to€considerÏappellantððs€amenability€to€correction.€€Our€review€of€the€letter€of€denial€revealsÏthat€the€assistant€district€attorney€indeed€considered€all€information€submitted.€ÏImpliedly,€this€included€appellantððs€amenability€to€correction.€€The€prosecutorÏsimply€concluded€that€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense€and€the€needÏfor€deterrence€in€the€trucking€industry€outweighed€the€favorable€factors.€€TheseÏtwo€(2)€factors€may€justify€denial€of€pre„trial€œdiversion€if€properly€weighed€againstÏother€relevant€factors.›€œ€òòCarróó,›€861€S.W.2d€at€855.€€Ìà àIt€is€not€for€this€Court€to€judge€whether€the€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion€wasÏwise€or€unwise.€€It€is€only€for€this€Court€to€determine€whether€the€district€attorneyððsÏdenial€of€diversion€was€œan›€œabuse›€of€discretion.€€Since€(1)€the€assistant€districtÏattorney€considered€the€relevant€factors€and€concluded€that€the€nature€of€theÏoffense€and€the€need€for€deterrence€dictated€the€denial€of€diversion,€and€(2)€thereÍis€substantial€evidence€to€support€this€decision,€there€was€no€œabuse›€of€discretionÏin€the€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€Ìà àà@ àÌà@ àò òòòHEARING€ON€PETITION€FOR€WRIT€OF€CERTIORARIóóÌó óÌà àAppellant€also€contends€that€he€was€denied€an€adequate€hearing€on€hisÏpetition€for€writ€of€certiorari€in€violation€of€the€due€process€provisions€of€theÏTennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions.€€The€only€authorities€cited€byÏappellant€are€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(b)(3),€for€the€general€proposition€thatÏdenial€of€pre„trial€diversion€is€reviewable€by€writ€of€certiorari,€and€òòState€v.€Poplaróó,Ï612€S.W.2d€498€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€€1980),€for€the€proposition€that€defendant€hasÏthe€burden€to€show€that€he€is€entitled€to€this€extraordinary€relief.€€Neither€of€theseÏœauthorities›€œsupport›€his€argument.€€This€issue€is€waived€as€the€appellant€has€failedÏto€cite€authority€to€support€his€€argument.€€Tennessee€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏRule€10(b);€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€231€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Ìà àIn€spite€of€this,€we€choose€to€consider€appellantððs€argument.€€AppellantÏcontends€that€he€was€deprived€of€a€fair€hearing€because€he€was€not€allowed€toÏintroduce€testimony€of€the€State€Trooper€in€charge€of€the€investigation.€€TheÏappellant€argues€that€the€trooper€would€testify€as€to€the€cooperation,€meekness,Ïand€remorse€of€appellant,€as€well€as€his€attitude€toward€law€enforcement.€€TheÏofficer€was€not€allowed€to€testify.€€In€òòPoplaróó,€this€Court€found€that:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€trial€court€then€must€determine€whether€the€prosecutingÏattorney€abused€his€discretion€in€refusing€to€divert€a€defendant'sÏprosecution.€By€necessity,€a€de€novo€hearing€is€not€appropriate;€theÍtrial€judge€should€bring€before€him€only€the€evidence€madeÏavailable€to€and€considered€by€the€District€Attorney€General€inÏdetermining€whether€to€grant€a€diversion€of€prosecution.€The€statuteÏvests€discretion€only€with€the€District€Attorney€General€and€not€withÏthe€trial€judge;€for€this€reason,€a€determination€of€whether€theÏDistrict€Attorney€General€abused€his€discretion€could€only€beÏdetermined€by€considering€what€evidence€was€before€the€DistrictÏAttorney€General€when€he€considered€the€application€for€diversion.€ÌÓÓÌ612€S.W.2d€at€500.Ìà àWe€note€that,€as€appellant€has€already€pointed€out,€the€burden€is€not€onÏthe€prosecutor,€but€on€the€defendant€to€submit€all€desired€evidence€to€theÏprosecutor.€€The€trial€court€properly€excluded€this€testimony.€€Ìà àAppellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€required€theÏDistrict€Attorney€to€testify€regarding€every€factor€the€District€Attorney€GeneralÏð ðfailed€to€consider,ðð€meaning€his€amenability€to€correction€and€favorable€attitudeÏtoward€law€enforcement.€€œÌà àAs›€was€stated€in€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€an€evidentiary€hearing€is€unneeded€inÏthe€usual€case;€however,€a€hearing€may€be€useful€to€clarify€matters€about€whichÏthere€may€be€some€dispute.€€882€S.W.2d€806,€810€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€InÏthe€case€before€us,€the€appellant€desired€the€testimony€of€the€assistant€districtÏattorney€relating€to€the€failure€to€consider€appellantððs€amenability€to€correctionÏand€her€reliance€upon€deterrence.€€We€find€that€the€appellant€was€not€prejudicedÏby€the€failure€to€require€testimony.€€It€is€apparent€from€the€letter€of€denial€that€allÏpositive€factors€submitted€by€appellant€were€considered.€€It€is€implicit€that€thisÏincluded€appellantððs€amenability€to€correction.€€It€is€also€apparent€from€the€letterÏof€denial€that€the€deterrence€factor€related€to€other€commercial€€truckers.€€We€findÍthis€to€be€a€proper€consideration€for€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion.€€In€short,€theÏappellant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€refusal€to€require€the€prosecutor€to€testify.€ÏNor,€does€there€œappear›€to€be€any€factual€œdisputes›€that€œneeded›€clarification€byÏtestimony.€€òòSeeóó€œòòPinkhamóó,›€òò€€€€€óó€S.W.2d€œat€òò€€€€€óó.€€›€€Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ìà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóó óÌò òGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóó óÌò òDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEó ó