ÿWPC^ d$‡K±é?õ’ü »V‹HŠ Üó…cÑŽoúÐJégP7—¹ŽìQLBˆÕœx¯úrDD0O ûö‡xyß»²œ¥­Ç ûx†ºÄbA{Àù¯Z„[ëpæÅSc²Ç¸ª‡¦±æö|®Rr¥õV}K—ZÌÇ•dIÙp}öëhÉ“Uñ+ÕRx+Åbà„íÀ%ÁñDö‰¶@KaH¸PÔ –œd{ßgÊvJ*È’Gis_§)æFk%ñ˜½hPÚ¥§'M>¶¨ŸoB¶ˆø€ é Óòë|­l„fÿ× ùËöeœ´ ñ Ú‹WɃPQíûþŸ{ÅÞ–& Åû/¡i!¶­ýÅ?unåŸÅ¤BªKƒ5fÌ»¢žÉñQPJ0î‰~Y=ÒÞ¶!·Åî)WcPY„ߤaÑo¼·ÁϳE±œ*Ù. ¶ÂÍA"®ùÍÜœ1µ˜Ð"•A`vP·øžaèÞ¶µ@óòª¦¶b9 UutÌ]ÁBcX…ðâéã ×´)ö­ë~{N¦áÓF“Ü»µIC:… Ë?£ Eù%•AJ·‘#tjÎXâ×3kt[Üi4R—#ÙÌÿ– î•ÑÐøzw‚cÁ©UiGÄ}~¦×¥÷¿4º—kpb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz õ‘ Ɔ ÆL ÆÆØžN¦¦¦E¨ 0DªcîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîbQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ 0ëYYYY BDD 0¤a D5 D-: 0Kgg AS²Æ 0¤Ë 0Do A«³˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»W›+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*\K¡ ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ëÝ ƒR±¿$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔBrackettÔ_Ô€made€notes€regarding€the€conversation,€which€she€gave€to€the€police.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó YÝ ƒR±¿$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔStatutory€rape€is€not€included€as€a€ð ðsexual€offenseðð€for€which€a€defendant€would€be€disqualified€from€seekingÐ ° Ðpre„trial€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(a)(1)(B)(ii)(a)„(h).- ù-(|G2±¿$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç ò»»Ô d(|3v$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3v$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E%»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼E%»»»ÔÑ8€éXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îNdE%ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼E%»îîNd #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMay€22,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XéX»¼E%ÔÌò òÔ#†¼E%»XXé#ÔòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóSTEVE€Ô_ÔHILLIARDÔ_ÔÔ‡XéX»¼E%Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€224113€and€224114€€€€€€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„02819„CCA„R9„CD€Ð ¥õ  ÐAugust€17,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant€was€indicted€for€one€count€of€extortion€and€one€count€of€theft€of€property€over€$1000,Ð xÈ  Ðboth€Class€D€felonies.€€The€Defendant€requested€pretrial€diversion,€which€the€prosecutor€denied.€Ð d´ ÐThe€Defendant€then€filed€a€writ€of€certiorari€to€the€trial€court€alleging€an€abuse€of€prosecutorialÐ P  ÐdiscretionÔ#†¼E%»XXé¨#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼E%Ô.€€The€trial€court€affirmed€the€prosecutorððs€decision.€€The€Defendant€now€appeals,€arguingÐ <Œ Ðthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€prosecutor€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€pretrialÐ (x Ðdiversion.Ô#†¼E%»XXé†#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼E%Ô€€Finding€no€error,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð d ÐÓæÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€Interlocutory€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼E%»àXéÂ#ÔÔ‡XéX.¼E%ÔRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€andÐ Ä ÐòòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌJerry€H.€Summers,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee;€and€Gary€D.€Ô_ÔGerbitzÔ_Ô,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ ˆØ Ðappellant,€Steve€Ô_ÔHilliardÔ_Ô.Ð tÄ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð L œ ÐWilliam€H.€Cox,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€C.€Ô_ÔParkeÔ_Ô€Masterson,€Jr.,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ 8!ˆ  ÐGeneral;€and€Rodney€C.€Strong,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General;€for€the€appellee,€State€ofÐ $"t! ÐTennessee.Ð #`" ÐÓ¶ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONÐ è$8 $ Ðó óÔ#†¼E%»XXéå#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼E%ÔÌFACTSÐ À&"& ÐòòóóÔ#†¼E%»XXé% #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XéX»¼E%ÔÌà  àThe€victim,€Dixon€Gilbert€Ô_ÔBrackettÔ_Ô,€testified€that€on€July€21,€1998€someone€broke€into€herÐ ˜(è#( Ðcar€and€stole€various€items,€including€a€laptop€computer.€€Ô_ÔBrackettÔ_Ô€reported€the€theft€to€police€andÐ „)Ô$) Ðâ âdescribed€her€computer€by€type,€model€and€serial€number.€€Ô_ÔBrackettÔ_Ô€testified€that€on€August€21,Ð p*À%*ý ÐÔ_Ô1998,€the€Defendant€called€her.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Defendant€was€the€manager€of€Household€Pawnshop.€Ð ° Ðâ âAccording€to€Brackett,€the€Defendant€claimed€that€he€had€a€laptop€computer€that€belonged€to€her.€Ð œì ÐThe€Defendant€told€Brackett€that€he€would€return€the€computer€if€she€would€pay€him€one€hundredÐ ˆØ Ðand€forty€dollars.€€Brackett€testified€that€the€Defendant€told€her€that€she€could€go€through€the€courtÐ tÄ Ðsystem€to€get€the€computer€back,€but€that€would€be€ð ðinefficient.ðð€€Brackett€testified€that€she€wasÐ `° Ðsuspicious€of€the€Defendant€because€of€his€ð ðtone€of€conversationðð€which€she€described€asÐ L œ Ðð ðaggressive.ðð€€After€telling€the€Defendant€that€she€used€the€computer€for€her€work,€the€DefendantÐ 8 ˆ Ðtold€her€that€she€could€come€down€to€the€pawn€shop€and€copy€the€files€off€of€the€computer.€Ð $ t ÐFollowing€her€conversation€with€the€Defendant,€Brackett€spoke€to€a€police€officer€friend€whoÐ  ` Ðadvised€her€not€to€go€to€the€pawn€shop.€€Instead,€Brackett€contacted€Sergeant€Alan€Chance€of€theÐ ü L  ÐChattanooga€Police€Department€and€they€went€to€the€pawn€shop€together.€€Once€there,€ChanceÐ è 8  Ðsigned€a€document€indicating€that€he€had€received€the€computer€and€then€gave€it€to€Brackett.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àSergeant€Chance€testified€that€he€is€the€detective€in€charge€of€the€pawn€shop€unit€for€theÐ ¬ü  ÐChattanooga€Police€Department.€€According€to€Chance,€he€became€involved€in€this€case€whenÐ ˜è  ÐBrackett€made€a€report€regarding€the€phone€conversation€she€had€with€the€Defendant.€€As€requestedÐ „Ô  Ðby€the€State,€Chance€wrote€a€memo€in€which€he€discussed€his€past€experiences€with€the€DefendantÐ pÀ Ðand€Household€Pawn.€€In€the€memo,€Chance€indicated€that€he€had€previously€had€conversations€withÐ \¬ Ða€man€named€Anthony€Brislin€who€was€a€manager€at€Value€Plus€Pawn€Number€1,€a€sister€storeÐ H˜ Ðowned€by€Standon,€Incorporated.€€According€to€Chance,€Brislin€provided€him€with€informationÐ 4„ Ðregarding€Brackettððs€computer,€as€well€as€other€stolen€property€involving€the€Defendant.€€One€otherÐ  p Ðinstance€noted€in€the€memo€involved€an€out„of„town€company€that€paid€the€Defendant€to€have€theirÐ  \ Ðproperty€returned.€€Chance€testified€that€Barbara€Lawson,€manager€of€the€sister€store€to€the€one€theÐ øH ÐDefendant€managed,€told€him€that€the€Defendant€asked€her€to€ð ðclear€the€memory€of€the€laptopÐ ä4 Ðcomputer€in€an€effort€to€hide€the€identity€of€the€owner.ðð€€Chance€stated€that€the€Defendant€had€beenÐ Ð  Ðrepeatedly€warned€about€settling€the€recovery€of€stolen€property€with€victims.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€that€he€had€been€the€store€manager€for€Household€Pawn€for€nineÐ ”ä Ðyears.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€Household€Pawn€purchased€Brackettððs€computer€for€forty€dollars.€Ð €Ð ÐAccording€to€the€Defendant,€the€computer€was€held€in€storage€for€the€requisite€twenty€days;€it€wasÐ l¼ Ðthen€set€aside€because€the€Defendant€wanted€to€consult€with€another€employee,€Anthony€Brislin,Ð X ¨ Ðabout€pricing.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€he€never€had€any€contact€with€Brackett€during€the€twentyÐ D!” Ðdays€that€the€computer€was€in€storage.€€The€Defendant€stated€that€Brislin€told€him€that€the€computerÐ 0"€  Ðwas€worth€much€more€than€forty€dollars,€so€he,€along€with€his€supervisor€and€the€owner€of€theÐ #l! Ðcompany,€decided€to€do€ð ðthe€right€thingðð€and€ð ðreturn€it€to€the€rightful€owner.ðð€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€that€he€asked€Brislin€to€determine€who€the€owner€was€by€goingÐ à%0!$ Ðthrough€the€computer.€€Brislin€complied€and€found€Dixon€Brackettððs€name.€€The€Defendant€testifiedÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€he€could€not€find€Brackettððs€number€in€the€phone€book.€€Realizing€from€the€files€contained€onÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€computer€that€Brackett€used€the€computer€for€business,€the€Defendant€testified€that€he€contactedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€Hamilton€County€Clerkððs€Office€and€the€Chattanooga€City€Clerkððs€Office€to€see€if€Brackett€hadÐ )à$( Ða€business€license.€€Having€no€success€at€locating€Brackett,€the€Defendant€then€called€the€TennesseeÐ ° ÐDepartment€of€Revenue,€the€clerksðð€offices€in€Catoosa€County,€Georgia€and€Walker€County,Ð œì ÐGeorgia.€€Still€unable€to€locate€Brackett,€the€Defendant€testified€that€contacted€David€Rodery,€aÐ ˆØ ÐHamilton€County€detective,€and€Tommy€Kennedy,€a€Chattanooga€City€detective.€€The€DefendantÐ tÄ Ðtestified€that€he€was€finally€able€to€locate€Brackett€by€searching€through€the€computer,€finding€herÐ `° Ðcompany€name,€Southern€Surveyors,€and€looking€that€name€up€in€the€phone€book.€€According€to€theÐ L œ ÐDefendant,€he€called€Brackett€and€left€a€message,€and€she€called€him€back.€€The€Defendant€testifiedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€he€told€Brackett€that€she€could€bring€a€detective€with€her€to€retrieve€the€computer.€€TheÐ $ t ÐDefendant€stated€that€he€never€requested€any€money€for€the€computer.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€decision€of€the€prosecutorÐ è 8  Ðdenying€the€Defendant€pretrial€diversion€was€not€an€abuse€of€prosecutorial€discretion.€€The€trial€courtÐ Ô$  Ðnoted€that€the€Defendant€contacted€the€victim,€asked€another€employee€to€remove€the€victimððs€nameÐ À  Ðfrom€the€computer,€and€demanded€money€from€the€victim€before€he€would€give€her€computer€back.€Ð ¬ü  ÐThe€trial€court€went€on€to€state€the€following:Ð ˜è  Ðà8  àWell,€thereððs€no€question€that€.€.€.€[the€Defendant]€is€probably€a€good€man,€has€anÐ „Ô  Ðexcellent€reputation,€heððs€got€many€favorable€letters€and€all€in€there,€but€[theÐ pÀ ÐDefendant]€did€not€handle€this€situation€right€and€he€did€not€tell€the€truth€on€theÐ \¬ Ðwitness€stand€in€the€manner€in€which€he€handled€this.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà@&ìàANALYSISˆÐ  p ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€prosecutor€did€not€abuse€hisÐ øH Ðdiscretion€in€denying€him€pretrial€diversion.€€Specifically,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€DistrictÐ ä4 ÐAttorney€General€acted€arbitrarily€and€capriciously€in€denying€the€Defendant€pretrial€diversion.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àPretrial€diversion€allows€a€district€attorney€general€to€suspend€prosecution€for€a€period€of€upÐ ¨ø Ðto€two€years€against€a€defendant€who€meets€certain€statutory€requirements.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ”ä Ððð€40„15„105(a)(1)(A).€€In€order€to€qualify€for€pretrial€diversion,€the€defendant€must€not€haveÐ €Ð Ðpreviously€been€granted€diversion€under€this€statute;€must€not€have€a€prior€misdemeanor€convictionÐ l¼ Ðfor€which€a€sentence€of€confinement€was€served€or€a€prior€felony€conviction€within€a€five„year€periodÐ X ¨ Ðafter€completing€the€sentence€or€probationary€period€for€such€prior€conviction;€and€must€not€beÐ D!” Ðseeking€diversion€for€a€Class€A€or€B€felony,€a€sexual€offense,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€driving€under€the€influence,€orÐ 0"€  Ðvehicular€assault.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„15„105(a)(1)(B)(i)(a)„(c).€€Such€eligibility€does€not€presumptively€entitleÐ #l! Ða€defendant€to€pretrial€diversion,€but€rather€places€such€a€decision€within€the€discretion€of€the€districtÐ $X" Ðattorney€general€so€long€as€the€defendant€is€statutorily€qualified.€€òòState€v.€Curryóó,€988€S.W.2d€153,Ð ô$D # Ð157€(Tenn.€1999).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àIt€is€the€defendant's€duty€to€demonstrate€suitability€for€pretrial€diversion.€€òòState€v.€Herronóó,€767Ð ¸'#& ÐS.W.2d€151,€156€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€806,€809„10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐHowever,€this€requirement€does€not€relieve€the€prosecutor€of€his€or€her€duty€to€consider€andÐ ° Ðarticulate€all€the€relevant€factors.€€òòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€157.€€The€district€attorney€is€required€toÐ œì Ðconsider€all€relevant€factors€when€determining€whether€or€not€to€grant€pretrial€diversion.€€òòState€v.Ð ˆØ ÐCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€850,€855€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€outlinedÐ tÄ Ðthe€criteria€that€should€be€considered€by€the€prosecutor€in€granting€or€denying€pretrial€diversion:Ð `° Ðà8  àWhen€deciding€whether€to€enter€into€a€memorandum€of€understanding€under€theÐ L œ Ðpretrial€diversion€statute€a€prosecutor€should€focus€on€the€defendant's€amenability€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðcorrection.€€Any€factors€which€tend€to€accurately€reflect€whether€a€particularÐ $ t Ðdefendant€will€or€will€not€become€a€repeat€offender€should€be€considered.€€SuchÐ  ` Ðfactors€must,€of€course,€be€clearly€articulable€and€stated€in€the€record€in€order€thatÐ ü L  Ðmeaningful€appellate€review€may€be€had.€€Among€the€factors€to€be€considered€inÐ è 8  Ðaddition€to€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€are€the€defendant's€criminal€record,€socialÐ Ô$  Ðhistory,€the€physical€and€mental€condition€of€a€defendant€where€appropriate,€and€theÐ À  Ðlikelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interestÐ ¬ü  Ðof€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.€Ð˜è Ð Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€355€(Tenn.€1983);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€157.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àWhere€pretrial€diversion€is€denied€by€the€district€attorney,€the€factors€and€evidenceÐ \¬ Ðconsidered€in€making€the€decision€must€be€clearly€set€forth€in€writing€along€with€the€weight€accordedÐ H˜ Ðto€each€factor.€€òòPinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€960;€òòWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€806.€€The€district€attorneyÐ 4„ Ðgeneral€must€do€more€than€abstractly€state€that€he€or€she€has€considered€each€of€the€factors.€€òòHerronóó,Ð  p Ð767€S.W.2d€at€156.€€Rather,€the€factors€must€be€"clearly€articulable€and€stated€in€the€record."€Ð  \ ÐòòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€355.€€Failure€to€consider€and€articulate€all€of€the€relevant€factorsÐ øH Ðconstitutes€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€157„58.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àA€defendant€who€has€been€denied€pretrial€diversion€by€the€district€attorney€has€the€right€toÐ ¼  Ðpetition€for€a€writ€of€certiorari€to€the€trial€court€for€an€abuse€of€prosecutorial€discretion.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ¨ø ÐAnn.€ðð€40„15„105(b)(3).€€Although€presumptively€correct,€a€trial€court€may€overrule€a€districtÐ ”ä Ðattorney's€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€where€there€has€been€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€However,€the€trialÐ €Ð Ðjudge€cannot€simply€substitute€his€or€her€own€judgment€for€that€of€the€district€attorney.€òòState€v.Ð l¼ ÐWatkinsóó,€607€S.W.2d€486,€488€(Tenn.€Crim.€App€1980).€€To€show€prosecutorial€abuse€of€discretion,Ð X ¨ Ðthe€record€must€lack€any€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€denial€of€pretrial€diversion.€€òòCurryóó,€988Ð D!” ÐS.W.2d€at€158.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€legislature€has€vested€the€authority€to€prosecute€a€case€or€divert€it€with€the€prosecutorÐ $X" Ðrather€than€the€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105;€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€858.€€In€reviewing€theÐ ô$D # Ðprosecutorððs€denial€of€diversion,€the€trial€court€must€look€at€all€the€relevant€factors€to€determineÐ à%0!$ Ðwhether€the€prosecutor€considered€them,€and€if€he€or€she€did€not,€to€determine€whether€pretrialÐ Ì&"% Ðdiversion€is€appropriate.€€òòHerronóó,€767€S.W.2d€at€156;€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€858.€€In€reviewing€whetherÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€prosecutor€has€abused€his€or€her€discretion€regarding€diversion,€the€trial€court€must€undertakeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€same€process€required€of€the€prosecutor€in€considering€and€weighing€the€relevant€factors.€Ð )à$( ÐòòHerronóó,€767€S.W.2d€at€156.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€the€Defendant€pretrial€diversion€in€this€case,€the€prosecutorÐ ° Ðstated€that€he€reviewed€and€considered€the€following:€(1)€the€facts€of€this€particular€case,€(2)€theÐ œì ÐPawnbrokers€Act€of€1988,€(3)€the€Defendantððs€pretrial€diversion€application,€(4)€letters€of€supportÐ ˆØ Ðfrom€friends€and€acquaintances€of€the€Defendant,€(5)€information€provided€by€Detective€AlanÐ tÄ ÐChance€regarding€prior€dealings€with€the€Defendant€and€his€employer,€Household€Pawn,€and€(6)€anÐ `° Ðinterview€with€the€victim.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€district€attorney€general€clearly€articulated€the€following€reasons€for€denying€theÐ $ t ÐDefendant€pretrial€diversion:€(1)€that€the€Defendant€should€be€held€to€a€higher€standard€of€conductÐ  ` Ðbecause€the€pawn€shop€business€ð ðhas€a€direct€impact€on€the€ability€of€the€police€and€community€toÐ ü L  Ðcontrol€theft€and€burglary€by€the€quick€recovery€of€stolen€property,ðð€(2)€that€the€Defendant€was€notÐ è 8  Ðamenable€to€rehabilitation,€as€evidenced€by€his€failure€to€heed€prior€warnings€regarding€his€conduct,Ð Ô$  Ð(3)€the€interest€of€the€public€in€preventing€the€illegal€trafficking€in€stolen€goods,€(4)€the€deterrentÐ À  Ðfactor€to€the€Defendant€and€others€in€the€pawn€shop€business€from€profiting€from€the€crimes€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðothers,€and€(5)€that€the€granting€of€diversion€would€hamper€law€enforcement€because€pawnshopÐ ˜è  Ðemployees€must€be€willing€to€assist€police€in€finding€and€identifying€stolen€property.€€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€district€attorney€general€also€noted€certain€factors€weighing€in€the€Defendantððs€favor.€Ð \¬ ÐThe€prosecutor€acknowledged€that€the€Defendant€had€no€prior€record,€stable€employment€and€aÐ H˜ Ðstable€marital€history.€€The€prosecutor€stated€that€the€Defendant€received€positive€reports€from€hisÐ 4„ Ðfriends€and€acquaintances.€€However,€the€prosecutor€ultimately€denied€the€Defendant€pretrialÐ  p Ðdiversion.€€Because€the€prosecutor€clearly€articulated€the€relevant€factors€that€were€considered,€weÐ  \ Ðconclude€that€there€was€no€abuse€of€discretion.€€As€such,€the€trial€court€properly€ruled€that€theÐ øH Ðprosecutorððs€decision€to€deny€pretrial€diversion€was€not€an€abuse€of€prosecutorial€discretion.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ð ¼  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGE