ÿWPC* <# XUNc %± 0(·w@ß43 0ªB 0Dì 0J0 AQz 0TËb 0^'… 0h 0rõ 0|gbã 0†ë 0q U: 1u; b° 0d¸ b B$ ÆA 0D 0@K 0D‹ D/Ï Bþ D3 U>N U *Œ B)¶ DCß AM"o|q¿í-¬v~ÙvÓW˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ z)Qe{)U|)P})[~))D€)U)D‚)Uƒ)Ó€Ìqæ$3|xŽ)(Z(2¬±$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XÖ‰XXXÔòòà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô'()*,Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)- ù-P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ- ù- dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó--'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd')4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ øÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ("ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òJuly€7,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó rÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€2Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ôÔ€The€transcript€spells€the€name€Seals,€but€the€letter€in€the€technical€record€spells€the€name€Sills.€Ì€€We€will€use€the€spelling€in€the€hearing€transcript.Ì µÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€2Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ôÔ€The€district€attorneyððs€written€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€states:€ð ðThe€Defendantððs€reputationÌ€with€the€Morristown›€Police€Departmentððs€Narcotics€Unit€is€that€of€a€drug€dealer,€known€as€ð ðLittle€Mike.ððÌ #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€2Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ôÔNeither€side€disputes€the€appellantððs€eligibility€for€pretrial€diversion.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€2Ôò òÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€–XXdðXXdð7ќـ'ÙßR€564A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE€ÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌMARCH€1998€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€œ03C01›„9707„CR„00243Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)€œHamblen›€CountyÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)€œHonorable€›James€E.€œBeckner›,€JudgeÌò òMICHAEL€œDURAND›€HOLMES,ó óà à)€Ìò òà àà à€à àó óà àà à)€(PretrialÏDiversion)à àà àà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌGreg€W.€œEichelman›à àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌEthel€P.€Lawsà àà àà àà àSandy€C.€PatrickÌAssistant€District€Public€Defenderà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ1609€College€Park€Drive,€Box€11à àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌœMorristown›,€TN€37813„1618à àà à425€œ5th›€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ2nd›€Floor,€œCordell›€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Berkeley€Bell€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€General€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à510€Allison€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœMorristown›,€TN€37813Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òÌÌÌO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÑ  ÑÑ7€–XXdðXXdð7ÑØØÑ€ÑÓ  Óà àÌà àThe€appellant,€Michael€œDurand›€Holmes,€appeals€from€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Criminal€Court€of€œHamblen›€County,€affirming€the€district€attorney€generalððsÏdenial€of€pretrial€diversion.€€The€appellant€seeks€to€divert€the€offense€of€deliveryÏof€a€controlled€substance,€crack€cocaine.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellantððs€sole€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏfinding€that€the€district€attorney€general€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denyingÏthe€appellantððs€application€for€pretrial€diversion.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€admitted€to€delivering€0.3€grams€of€crack€cocaine€in€AprilÏ1996€to€an€undercover€buyer€at€the€Ebony€œOutdoorsman›€Club€in€œMorristown›,ÏTennessee.€€He€was€not€arrested€until€November€1996.€€During€the€timeÍbetween€the€delivery€and€his€arrest,€the€appellant€became€a€member€of€theÏPraise€World€Outreach€Center€and€was€apparently€attempting€to€change€his€life.€ÏThe€appellant€requested€pretrial€diversion,€characterizing€the€delivery€as€aÏð ðone„time€incident.ðð€€District€Attorney€General€Berkeley€Bell€denied€his€request.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€no€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€by€the€district€attorney€general.€€His€argument€is€based€upon€threeÏfactors€used€to€deny€him€diversion:€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€his€priorÏcriminal€behavior,€and€his€reputation€in€the€community.€ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€district€attorney€inÏhis€written€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€cited€the€following:ÌÓÓà à€€€€€The€undercover€agent€approached€the€defendant€on€the€Ìà àoutside€of€the€Ebony€club€and€asked€him,€in€the€vernacular€Ìà àof€the€drug€trade,€if€he€had€any€crack€cocaine.€€TheÌà àdefendant,€also€in€the€vernacular€of€the€trade,€respondedÌà àin€the€affirmative€and€sold€the€undercover€agent€seven€(7)Ìà àrocks€of€crack.€€As€the€agent€was€concluding€the€transactionÌà àhe€obtained€the€defendantððs€beeper€number€to€call€forÌà àfuture€transactions.ÌÑ  ÑÓÓÑ € ÑÌFirst,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€district€attorney€abused€his€discretion€byÏconsidering€the€preceding€unsworn€allegations.€€In€his€brief,€the€appellant€notesÏthat€the€district€attorney€ð ðdid€not€file€the€transcript€of€the€transaction,€he€did€notÏsubpoena€the€officers€for€the€certiorari€hearing,€[and]€he€admitted€that€all€theÍcourt€could€go€on€was€his€own€say€so.ðð€€He€contends€that€the€district€attorneyÏgeneral€ð ðdid€not€establish€what€actually€occurred€in€his€investigation€withÏwitnesses,€affidavits,€or€even€letters.ðð€€€At€the€certiorari€hearing,€General€Bell,Ïwho€had€been€counsel€for€the€state,€became€the€only€witness€for€the€state,€andÏAssistant€District€Attorney€John€œDugger›€became€counsel€for€the€state.€€TheÏappellant€argues€that€ð ðthe€Attorney€General€became€the€witness€in€an€attempt€toÏpresent€evidence€he€could€not€otherwise€present.ðð€€€Thus,€the€appellant€arguesÏthat€he€was€not€given€an€opportunity€to€cross„examine€the€officers€regarding€hisÏreputation.€€Furthermore,€the€appellant€notes€that€the€trial€judge€relied€upon€theÏdistrict€attorneyððs€in„court€statements€in€reaching€his€decision€that€the€districtÏattorney€had€not€abused€his€discretion:ÌÓÓà àThe€circumstances€of€the€offense.€€The€circumstances€of€the€offense€areÌà ànot€unusual€except€for€the€indication€that€the€undercover€agent€couldÌà àget€back€in€touch€with€the€defendant€through€his€beeper€to€...€and,€of€Ìà àcourse,€Iððm€relying€upon€the€Stateððs€answer€and€the€allegationsÌà àtherein€.€.€.€could€get€back€in€touch€with€the€defendant€through€hisÌà àbeeper€for€future€drug€transactions.€€So€that€would€be€negative,€ofÌà àcourse.ÓÓÌÌà àSecond,€the€appellant€argues€that€his€criminal€record€should€not€be€usedÏto€disqualify€him€from€pretrial€diversion.€€€€First,€the€charge€for€theft€under€$500,Ïwhich€occurred€on€the€same€day€as€the€charge€in€the€instant€case,€stemmedÏfrom€a€video.€€The€appellant€paid€off€the€video,€and€the€charges€were€dropped.€ÏÑ€ÑSecond,€because€he€forfeited€a€cash€bond,€the€appellant€argues€that€charges€ofÍpublic€intoxication,€disorderly€conduct,€and€public€profanity€on€June€11,€1994€doÏnot€disqualify€him€from€pretrial€diversion.€€Therefore,€the€appellant€maintainsÏthat€his€criminal€record€is€minimal€and€should€not€preclude€him€from€pretrialÏdiversion.€ÌÌà àLastly,€the€appellant€argues€that€he€ð ðpresented€credible€evidence€as€toÏhis€reputation€and€that€evidence€was€not€refuted.ðð€€He€presented€two€letters€fromÏchurches,€an€employer€letter,€and€a€letter€from€his€mother,€which€indicate€that€heÏhas€a€good€reputation€in€the€community.€€Pastor€Ronald€Seals× ƒ7 ××  ×,€who€had€writtenÏone€of€the€letters€for€the€appellant,€testified€at€the€hearing.€€€Also,€in€his€writtenÏdenial,€the€district€attorney€states,€ð ð[œt]here›€is€no€evidence€of€the€defendantððsÏsocial€history€prior€to€his€criminal€conduct€in€this€case.ðð€€The€appellant€arguesÏthat€his€mother,€Barbara€Holmes,€in€her€letter€describes€the€appellantððs€yearsÏfrom€birth€to€college.€€Furthermore,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€district€attorneyÏabused€his€discretion€by€referring€to€and€considering€matters€outside€the€record.ÏSpecifically,€the€district€attorney€repeatedly€referred€to€the€appellant€as€ð ðLittleÏMikeðð€and€stated€that€ð ðLittle€Mikeðð€was€known€as€a€drug€dealer€to€police€officersÏbecause€he€rode€his€bicycle€and€sold€cocaine.€€The€appellant€maintains€thatÏnone€of€these€allegations€was€in€any€of€the€discovery€materials€given€to€theÏappellant€and€none€was€even€mentioned€before€the€denial€of€the€request€forÍpretrial€diversion.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€Therefore,€the€appellant€contends€that€ð ðthe€District€AttorneyÏabused€his€discretion€by€not€reading€and€carefully€considering€the€statementsÏmade€by€the€defendantððs€mother,ðð€and€by€not€providing€any€evidence€to€refuteÏthe€appellantððs€proof€regarding€his€reputation€in€the€community.€€The€appellantÏalso€disputes€the€trial€courtððs€characterization€of€his€criminal€record€as€ð ðsomeÏpretty€horrible€conduct,ðð€arguing€that€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€to€supportÏsuch€a€characterization.ÌÌà àThe€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€concluding€that€theÏdistrict€attorney€general€did€not€abuse€his€discretion.€€On€the€issue€of€theÏcircumstances€of€the€offense,€the€state€asserts€that€the€ð ðconversation€betweenÏthe€defendant€and€the€undercover€agent€clearly€indicated€that€the€defendantÏwas€rather€knowledgeable€in€the€trade€and€intended€to€conduct€additional€drugÏsales€in€the€future.ðð€€The€state€contends€that€the€circumstances€surrounding€theÏoffense€indicate€ð ða€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€lawðð€and€not€a€ð ðone„timeÏincidentðð€as€the€appellant€maintains.€€ÌÌà àNext,€the€state€asserts€that€the€appellantððs€prior€criminal€offenses€wereÏproperly€relied€upon€in€denying€diversion.€€It€argues€that€the€appellantððs€failureÏto€appear€on€one€charge€ð ðreflects€poorly€on€the€defendantððs€rehabilitativeÍqualities.ðð€€Thus,€the€state€maintains€that€the€district€attorney€did€not€abuse€hisÏdiscretion.ÌÌà àThe€state€cites€the€appellantððs€reputation€among€law€enforcement€officersÏas€ð ðLittle€Mike,ðð€a€bicycle„riding€cocaine€dealer,€as€another€reason€for€denyingÏpretrial€diversion.€€In€its€brief,€the€state€contends€that€ð ðthe€prosecution€had,€at€theÏtime€of€its€initial€consideration,€an€affidavit€from€a€Drug€Task€Force€official€statingÏthis€defendantððs€reputation.ðð€ÌÌà àThe€decision€to€grant€pretrial€diversion€rests€within€the€discretion€of€theÏdistrict€attorney€general.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€òòPace€v.€Stateóó,€566€œS.W.2d›€861,€864€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÏWhen€deciding€whether€to€grant€an€application€for€pretrial€diversion,€the€districtÏattorney€general€should€consider€the€following€factors:€circumstances€of€theÏoffense;€the€criminal€record,€social€history,€and€present€condition€of€theÏdefendant,€including€his€mental€and€physical€conditions€where€appropriate;€theÏdeterrent€effect€of€punishment€upon€other€criminal€activity;€the€defendantððsÏamenability€to€correction;€the€likelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serve€theÏends€of€justice€and€the€best€interests€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant;€andÏthe€applicantððs€attitude,€behavior€since€arrest,€prior€record,€home€environment,Ïcurrent€drug€usage,€emotional€stability,€past€employment,€general€reputation,Ímarital€stability,€family€responsibility,€and€attitude€toward€law€enforcement.€ÏòòState€v.€œHammersley›óó,€650€œS.W.2d›€352,€355€(Tenn.€1983).ÌÌà à€The€district€attorney€generalððs€decision€regarding€pretrial€diversion€isÏpresumptively€correct,€and€the€trial€court€will€only€reverse€the€decision€when€theÏappellant€establishes€that€there€has€been€a€patent€or€gross€abuse€ofÏprosecutorial€discretion.€œ€òòState›€v.€Houstonóó,€900€œS.W.2d›€712,€714€(Tenn.€œCrim›.ÏœApp›.€1995).€€To€establish€abuse€of€discretion,€ð ðððthe€record€must€show€anÏabsence€of€any€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€district€attorney€generalððsÏrefusal€to€grant€pretrial€diversion.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€trial€court€may€only€considerÏevidence€considered€by€the€district€attorney€general€in€the€decision€denyingÏpretrial€diversion.€€òòState€v.€œWinsett›óó,€882€œS.W.2d›€806,€810€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.Ï1993).ÌÌà àThe€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€binding€on€this€Court€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€such€findings.€€òòHoustonóó,€900€œS.W.2d›€at€715.€ÏWe€review€the€case€to€determine€if€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏfinding€of€the€trial€judge€who€holds€that€the€district€attorney€general€has€or€hasÏnot€abused€his€discretion,€not€to€determine€if€the€trial€judge€has€abused€his€orÏher€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€607€œS.W.2d›€486,€489€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1980).€Ìà àÌà àÌœà àFirst,›€we€are€troubled€by€the€filing€of€the€affidavit€of€Mike€Long€and€theÏtranscript€of€the€drug€transaction€between€the€appellant€and€the€undercoverÏagent.€€As€the€appellant€notes€in€his€brief,€the€affidavit€of€Mike€Long€of€the€ThirdÏJudicial€Districtððs€Drug€Task€Force€was€filed€on€March€21,€1997,€which€was€twoÏdays€after€the€certiorari€hearing€on€March€19,€1997;€and€it€was€filed€without€aÏcertificate€of€service,€which€the€appellant€argues€is€a€violation€of€Rule€49(a)€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€Also,€the€transcript€of€the€drugÏtransaction€between€the€appellant€and€the€undercover€agent€was€not€filed€untilÏJuly€11,€1997,€some€four€months€after€the€hearing,€although€the€district€attorneyÏand€appellantððs€counsel€referred€to€the€transcript€during€the€hearing.€€We€areÏtroubled€that€when€the€transcript€was€filed,€it€was€not€signed€as€being€receivedÏby€anyone€in€the€clerkððs€office.€€Also,€the€transcript,€which€was€included€as€anÏexhibit,€was€attached€with€the€transcript€of€the€certiorari€hearing,€and€wasÏauthenticated€by€the€trial€judge€on€June€16,€1997,€although€it€was€not€filed€untilÏJuly€11,€1997.€€We€also€note€that€appellantððs€counsel€asked€at€the€close€of€theÏcertiorari€hearing€to€file€as€an€exhibit€a€copy€of€the€discoverable€material.€ÏHowever,€the€record€does€not€contain€such€material€as€a€second€exhibit.€€WeÏnote€the€timing€of€the€filings€and€their€inadequacies,€as€well€as€the€failure€to€fileÏmaterials,€to€emphasize€the€importance€of€maintaining€a€correct€and€completeÏrecord€and€of€following€procedural€rules.€€We€have€only€the€record€upon€whichÏto€base€our€decision,€so€the€importance€of€maintaining€an€accurate€recordÏcannot€be€overstated.€ÌÌà àAlthough€we€find€the€instant€record€troubling,€we€do€have€enoughÏinformation€upon€which€to€adjudicate€this€appeal.€€Appellant€argues€that€he€isÏnot€a€drug€dealer,€and€this€sale€was€an€isolated€incident.€€The€conversationÏbetween€the€appellant€and€his€buyer€indicates€trade€knowledge€and€appellantððsÏwillingness€to€sell€drugs€again€in€the€future.€€The€trial€court€found€in€his€orderÏthat€the€appellantððs€actions€ð ðwere€not€a€casual€flirtation€with€criminal€conduct.€.€.Ï.ðð€€The€appellantððs€ð ðapparent€repetitive€drug€dealing€[is]€strongly€indicative,€evenÏconclusive€„„€that€the€defendant€is€not€amenable€to€correction.ðð€€We€agree€that€itÏappears€the€appellant€knew€what€he€was€doing€and€was€ready€and€willing€to€doÏit€again.ÌÌà àDespite€the€appellantððs€counselððs€persuasive€arguments€about€theÏprosecutionððs€method€of€handling€this€case,€we€are€cognizant€of€the€other€sideÏof€the€coin.€€A€district€attorney€general€cannot€personally€know€everything€aboutÏevery€crime€and€defendant€when€a€diversion€request€is€filed.€€He€or€she€mustÏrely€on€the€collective€knowledge€of€law€enforcement,€including€hearsay;Ïinvestigative€reports;€witness€statements;€memoranda;€and€staff.€€Reliance€onÏhearsay€is€proper€and€reasonable.€€The€prosecutor€should€know€all€he€or€sheÏcan€when€the€diversion€decision€is€made.€€They€should€follow€the€guidance€ofÏòòState€v.€œPinkham›óó,€955€œS.W.2d›€956€(Tenn.€1997)€so€that€factual€disputes€areÏminimal.€€œ›œÌ›Ìà àThe€trial€judge€should€confine€consideration€to€the€evidence€consideredÏby€the€prosecutor€at€the€time€he€or€she€considered€the€application.€€òòState€v.ÏBrownóó,€700€œS.W.2d›€568,€570€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1985).€€The€appellant€arguesÏthat€the€trial€judge€considered€evidence€not€available€to€the€district€attorney€atÏthe€time€of€the€decision€in€making€his€determination€that€there€was€no€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€Appellant€cites€the€drug€transaction€transcript;€Mike€Longððs€affidavit;Ïthe€appellantððs€reputation;€the€Department€of€Correction€Specific€Data€Report;Ïand€other€information.€€This€may€be€true,€but€this€Court€must€apply€reason€to€seeÏif€the€prosecutor€did€his€œjob.Ì›œÌ›à àWe€conclude€that€some€information€not€available€to€the€district€attorney€atÏthe€time€of€his€decision€was€introduced€during€the€certiorari€hearing.€€This€CourtÏdelineated€in€òòState€v.€œWinsett›óó,€882€œS.W.2d›€806,€809„10€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1993)Ïthe€requirements€for€an€application€for€pretrial€diversion,€a€written€denial€ofÏdiversion,€and€the€procedure€for€conducting€a€certiorari€review€hearing.€€WeÏconcluded€in€òòœWinsett›óó€ð ðthat€the€only€evidence€thÔ  Ôe€trial€court€may€consider€at€the€Ìcertiorari€hearing€is€that€evidence€considered€by€the€prosecutor€in€the€decisionÏdenying€pretrial€diversion.ðð€€òòId.òòóó€óóat€810òò.ÌÌà àóóThis€case€is€very€close.€€We€could€remand€for€a€new€hearing€consistentÏwith€òòœWinsett›óó.€€However,€we€believe€the€answer€would€be€the€same.€€AlthoughÍthe€certiorari€hearing€contained€evidence€that€went€beyond€òòœWinsett›óó,€we€believeÏthat€General€Bell€did€have€enough€information,€although€he€could€have€hadÏmuch€more,€to€warrant€a€diversion€denial.€€The€appellant€apparently€had€priorÏdrug€dealing€experience€and€was€willing€to€continue.€€He€had€a€reputation€as€aÏdrug€dealer.€€He€had€prior€criminal€behavior€and€a€modest€record.€€These€wereÏenough€factors€to€allow€General€Bell€to€make€a€cognizant€decision.ÌÌà àThe€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€TheÏjudgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOHN€H.€œPEAY›,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€Special€JudgeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à