ÿWPCO3 wĆÂO¥‡GÜ| | •N¹ › 8ßY¿@Ø·U¡iàAf²M+QäþÄêáÿç>Ié¼Yɵ‡HG] {˱¸ÍJñÚIYojôBPXlHCÐÀ€€£ <ÈW[òx",œ)þ1Ç~M˜Ø¡´H……WS·•]§Û»×³¤”adV FèèUò0Šh‡„µÂ/ ˳CÒ—(z ²(Ußú£È.`ÎT7ä~%ãÇ懥†½Ü8ˆìï:Hɧ9ËZTóQæÓ­I¨MjA/™ið‰l„ÐVææX–&‰³ºeâÂâÝÁ;`DŠ—èiáÆæóv™\q:˜¨ß;W ôŠ°ÕðzÔwêáŠá'¨µE7œÍ9qÎ/‘Ѳ‹3ÞÙNš3ØÊ!4¼•ÈÛÈ>I gZíÝÞðƒÍèeÒîޚЮ6ÈßÓ¹‡ÛЂ᙮sŸ†u›§sxm8Õ½ŒfR„ª¨EÚ\ˆø°QsӘ¯ԃx(§ÿ2Œ š*Ð.Ëg 3V}ªr/‹;4ÃÜcØÅÈ:;ÇZÒ›QD÷•âeͧQЫEž\7 f]^Ä÷=)DÐ*¯Öæ%Þã3{×I©Ëþ>ÜàL§=ÿtkmP&õb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ¯‘ Æ@ÆÆÌÆ’ 0DXNœ²žPEXX—Z%ñ 0''µF+Iû,û,û,û,û,û,û,û,û,û,û,û,û,û,û,û,û,bD.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D. 0ëL.L.L.L. B7/7/ 0¤T/ D3ø/ D-+0 0KX0X0 AS£0Æö0 0¤¼1 0D`2 A«¤2˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»t–) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'<è¦ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ¥Ý ƒR—å$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô5„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€following€chronology,€gleaned€from€the€record,€is€not€disputed:Ð ° Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àEarly€1996à0` x` xàWhile€separated€from€wife,€who€remains€in€Dallas,€Texas,€withÐ n¾ Ðtheir€three€children,€defendant€moves€to€Nashville€to€assistÐ ,| Ðelderly€grandmother.Ðê:xx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àApril€1996à0` x` xàDefendant€begins€work€for€Skyline€MidSouth,€Inc.,€as€managerÐ ¨ø Ðof€finance€and€accounting;€defendantððs€age€is€37.Ðf¶xx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMay„Septà0` x` xàDefendant€embezzles€funds€totaling€some€$16,000Ð$ txx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1996à0¸ ` x` xàà0¸ x¸ xàfrom€Skyline.Ðâ 2xx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àSept.€1996à0` x` xàDefendant€and€wife€reconcile€and€she€moves€with€children€toÐ   ð ÐNashville.Ð^ ® xx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àNov.€1996à0` x` xàDefendant€is€fired€from€position€at€Skyline.Ð l xx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àDec.€1997à0` x` xàDefendant€begins€treatment€for€alcoholism€with€Ann€Doak.ÐÚ * xx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àJuly€1997à0` x` xàDefendant€begins€work€with€new€firm,€P.I.C.,€in€Franklin,Ð ˜ è  ÐKentucky.ÐV¦ xx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFeb.€1998à0` x` xàDefendant€begins€construction€on€$225,000€home€in€Lebanon,Ð d  ÐTennessee.ÐÒ" xx Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àJune€1998à0` x` xàDefendant€is€indicted€for€theft€of€funds€from€Skyline.à8@ƒRàà8@Ð Ð à€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ¨Ý ƒR—å$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô5„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendant€in€his€petition€to€the€trial€court€challenged,€òòinter€aliaóó,€the€district€attorney€generalððs€finding€ofÐ ° Ðð ðrecurring€criminal€behavior.ðð€€The€petition€should€include€the€ð ðrecord€.€.€.€thus€far€compiledðð€and€should€identify€anyÐ n¾ Ðð ðdisputed€factðð€which€the€prosecutor€failed€to€identify€in€the€denial€letter.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔWinsettÔ_Ôóó,€882€S.W.2d€806,€810€(Tenn.Ð ,| Ð1993).€€In€our€view,€this€ð ðdisputed€factðð€justified€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€was€held€in€response€to€the€defendantððsÐ ê: Ðpetition€for€writ€of€òòcertiorarióó.€€At€the€hearing,€the€defendant€called€the€assistant€prosecutor€who€wrote€the€denial€letterÐ ¨ø Ðand€questioned€her€about€the€ð ðrecurring€criminal€behaviorðð€which€she€relied€upon€to€deny€the€diversion€request.€Ð f¶ ÐHowever,€we€remind€trial€courts€that€evidentiary€hearings€on€the€Ô_ÔpetititionÔ_Ô€for€òòcertiorarióó€must€be€used€ð ðonly€to€resolveÐ $ t Ðany€factual€disputes€raised€by€the€prosecutor€or€the€defendant€.€.€.[,]€but€[the€trial€courts€are]€not€to€hear€additionalÐ â 2 Ðevidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Curryóó,€988€S.W.2d€153,€157„58€(Tenn.€1999).  Ý ƒR—å$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô5„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAccording€to€this€section,€a€ð ðqualified€defendantðð€must€meet€each€of€the€following€requirements:Ð ° Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(a)€The€defendant€has€not€previously€been€granted€pretrial€diversion€underÐ n¾ Ðthe€provisions€of€this€chapter;Ð,|` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(b)€€The€defendant€does€not€have€a€prior€misdemeanor€conviction€forÐ ê: Ðwhich€a€sentence€of€confinement€is€served€or€a€prior€felony€conviction€within€aÐ ¨ø Ðfive„year€period€after€completing€the€sentence€or€probationary€program€for€suchÐ f¶ Ðprior€conviction;€andÐ$ t` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(c)€The€offense€for€which€the€prosecution€is€being€suspended€is€not€a€ClassÐ â 2 ÐA€or€Class€B€felony,€a€sexual€offense,€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicantÐ   ð Ðas€prohibited€by€ðð€55„10„401,€or€vehicular€assault€as€prohibited€by€ðð€39„13„106.€ Ý ƒR—å$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô5„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€applicable€law€states:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(e)€òòDismissal€with€Prejudice.óó€€The€trial€court€shall€dismiss€with€prejudice€anyÐ ,| Ðwarrant€or€charge€against€the€defendant€upon€the€expiration€of€ninety€(90)€daysÐ ê: Ðafter€the€expiration€of€the€period€of€suspension€specified€in€the€memorandum€ofÐ ¨ø Ðunderstanding€is€filed;€provided,€that€no€termination€of€the€memorandum€ofÐ f¶ Ðunderstanding€has€been€filed€under€the€provisions€of€subsection€(d).€€If€theÐ $ t Ðprosecution€is€dismissed€with€prejudice,€jeopardy€shall€attach,€and€the€court€shallÐ â 2 Ðmake€a€minute€entry€to€that€effect.€€Upon€dismissing€any€warrant€or€charge€againstÐ   ð Ðthe€defendant€pursuant€to€this€section,€the€judge€shall€send€or€cause€to€be€sent€aÐ ^ ®  Ðcopy€of€the€order€of€dismissal€to€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€for€entryÐ  l  Ðinto€its€expunged€criminal€offender€and€pretrial€diversion€database.€€Such€orderÐ Ú *  Ðshall€include€the€name€of€the€defendant,€the€defendantððs€date€of€birth€and€socialÐ ˜ è  Ðsecurity€number,€the€offense€for€which€diversion€was€granted,€the€date€diversionÐ V¦  Ðwas€granted€and€the€date€the€charge€or€warrant€was€dismissed.Ðd ` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(e)€(Supp.€1999). &Ý ƒR—å$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô5„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€this€approach€appears€to€vary€from€that€stated€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòCurryóó€where€the€courtÐ ° Ðreferred€to€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€standard€without€distinguishing€whether€this€was€to€be€applied€to€theÐ n¾ Ðfindings€of€fact€where€there€is€a€dispute€or€to€the€final€conclusions€of€the€trial€court.€€This€difference€is€significant€sinceÐ ,| Ðð ðpreponderance€of€the€evidenceðð€is€a€stricter€standard€than€is€ð ðany€substantial€evidence.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòLaws€v.€Celebrezzeóó,€368Ð ê: ÐF.2d€6409,€642€(4th€Cir.€1966)€(defining€substantial€evidence€as€ð ðmore€than€a€mere€scintilla€of€evidence€but€may€beÐ ¨ø Ðsomewhat€less€than€a€preponderanceðð).€€Even€if€we€were€to€apply€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€standard€to€theÐ f¶ Ðconclusion€of€the€trial€court€here,€the€outcome€of€this€appeal€would€not€be€altered. «Ý ƒR—å$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô5„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€district€attorney€generalððs€letter€refers€to€ð ðthe€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€offense€as€summarized€inÐ ° Ðthe€attached€Memoranda,ðð€but€no€attached€memoranda€are€included€as€part€of€the€defendantððs€appendix€to€petition€forÐ n¾ Ðwrit€of€certiorari.€€€€ ?Ý ƒR—å$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô5„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAccording€to€the€defendant,€a€treacherous€cousin€called€his€present€employer€with€information€about€hisÐ ° Ðcriminal€activities€at€Skyline,€and€this€forced€him€to€come€forward.€- ù-(|G2—å$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô5„ò»»Ô d(|3–‚$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3–‚$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼J€»»»ÔÑ8€9XXdæ»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îvJ€ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼J€»îîv #ԈРР ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àDecember€1999€SessionÐ ð@ ÐÔ‡X9X»¼J€ÔÌò òÔ#†¼J€»XX9#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€TIMOTHY€C.€HUTSONÔ‡X9X»¼J€Ôó óÐ ä4 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ Ø ( Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„B„1496€€€€€€Steve€R.€Dozier,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<o` AßÐ pÀ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„00329„CCA„R9„CD€„€Filed€August€18,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ eµ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<0` AßÐ 1  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€arises€from€the€order€of€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court€upholding€the€districtÐ &v  Ðattorney€generalððs€refusal€to€accept€the€application€of€the€defendant,€Timothy€C.€Hutson,€for€pretrialÐ  \ Ðdiversion.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€determine€that€the€districtÐ òB Ðattorney€general€abused€his€discretion€by€relying€on€facts€not€supported€by€the€evidence€and€byÐ Ø( Ðfailing€to€consider€all€relevant€factors.€€We€conclude€that€substantial€evidence€was€before€the€districtÐ ¾ Ðattorney€general€to€support€the€validity€of€each€factor€relied€on€in€denying€pretrial€diversion€and€thatÐ ¤ô Ðthere€was€substantial€evidence€to€show€that€the€district€attorney€general€considered€all€relevantÐ ŠÚ Ðfactors.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ô#†¼J€»XX9†#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼J€ÔÐ pÀ ÐÓ©ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€Interlocutory€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ <Œ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼J€»àX9k#ÔÔ‡X9X.¼J€ÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòJames€CurwoodÐ X ÐWitt,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð î> ÐÌCharles€R.€Ray€and€Jeffery€S.€Frensley,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Timothy€C.€Hutson.Ð º  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€T.€Ryan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð † Ö  ÐVictor€S.€(Torry)€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Kymberly€L.A.€Haas,€Assistant€DistrictÐ l!¼! ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð R"¢" ÐÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼J€»XX9N #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼J€ÔÐ $n$ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼J€»XX9! #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X9X»¼J€Ôà  àThe€defendant,€Timothy€C.€Hutson,€appeals€by€permission€€the€order€of€the€Davidson€CountyÐ ê%:!& ÐCriminal€Court€upholding€the€district€attorney€generalððs€refusal€to€accept€the€defendantððs€applicationÐ Ð& "' Ðfor€pretrial€diversion.€The€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€determine€that€theÐ ¶'#( Ðdistrict€attorney€general€abused€his€discretion€by€relying€on€factors€not€supported€by€the€evidenceÐ œ(ì#) Ðand€denying€the€defendantððs€application€without€considering€all€relevant€factors.€€We€conclude€thatÐ ‚)Ò$* Ðthe€trial€court€properly€determined€that€the€district€attorney€general€acted€within€his€discretion€inÐ h*¸%+ Ðdenying€the€defendantððs€application€for€pretrial€diversion.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trialÐ N+ž&, Ðcourt€is€affirmed.Ð 4,„'- ÐÐ -j(.ýE Ðà@%ìàò òBACKGROUNDó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€record€establishes€that€the€defendant,€over€a€period€of€time€from€May€to€September€1996,Ð |Ì Ðembezzled€some€$16,000€from€his€former€employer,€Skyline€MidSouth,€Inc.,€on€seventeen€differentÐ b² Ðoccasions.€€As€manager€of€accounting€and€finance,€the€defendant€was€in€a€position€to€divert€fundsÐ H˜ Ðthat€were€rightfully€owed€to€vendors€of€his€employer€into€his€own€personal€account.€€The€defendantÐ . ~ Ðwas€indicted€June€16,€1998,€for€theft€of€property€valued€at€$10,000€or€more€but€less€than€$60,000,Ð  d Ða€Class€C€felony,€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„14„103.Ð ú J ÐÌà  àThe€defendant,€through€counsel,€applied€for€pretrial€diversion€by€letter€addressed€to€theÐ Æ   Ðdistrict€attorney€generalððs€office€dated€October€9,€1998.€€That€request€was€formally€denied€by€letterÐ ¬ ü  Ðfrom€the€Office€of€the€District€Attorney€General€dated€February€3,€1999.€€The€defendant€filed€aÐ ’â  Ðpetition€for€writ€of€certiorari€with€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court€in€conformity€withÐ xÈ  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„15„105(b)(3)€(Supp.€1999),€for€review€of€the€denial€of€hisÐ ^®  Ðapplication.Ð D”  ÐÌà  àPursuant€to€the€petition€for€certiorari,€a€hearing€was€held€in€the€trial€court€on€February€12,Ð ` Ð1999.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€the€hearing,€the€sole€witness€was€General€Haas,€who€had€authored€the€letter€on€behalf€ofÐ öF Ðthe€Davidson€County€District€Attorney€General€denying€the€defendantððs€request€for€pretrialÐ Ü, Ðdiversion.€€She€was€called€as€a€witness€by€the€defendant.Ð Â ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€district€attorney€general€had€notÐ ŽÞ Ðabused€his€discretion€in€denying€the€defendantððs€application€and€set€the€matter€back€on€the€docket.€Ð tÄ ÐThe€defendant€applied€to€the€trial€court€for€permission€to€appeal€its€order€to€this€court,€and€the€trialÐ Zª Ðcourt€granted€permission€to€appeal.€€This€€interlocutory€appeal€is€now€before€us€for€disposition.Ð @ ÐÌà@òò&ìàò òANALYSISˆÐ  \ ÐÌà  àó óOur€legislature€has€provided€that€the€decision€to€grant€pretrial€diversion€should€rest€withinÐ Ø( Ðthe€discretion€of€the€district€attorney€general.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.Ð ¾ ÐCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€153,€157€(Tenn.€1999)€(ð ð[W]hether€to€grant€pretrial€diversion€to€a€qualifiedÐ ¤ô Ðdefendant€who€is€statutorily€eligible€is€a€determination€that€lies€in€the€discretion€of€the€districtÐ Š Ú Ðattorney€general.ðð).€€The€discretion€vested€in€the€prosecutor€is€not€unbridled;€ð ð[i]t€must€be€exercisedÐ p!À  Ðso€as€to€serve€the€interests€of€justice.ðð€€òòPace€v.€Stateóó,€566€S.W.2d€861,€864€(Tenn.€1978).€€Thus,€uponÐ V"¦! Ðproper€application€of€the€defendant,€the€decision€of€the€prosecutor€is€subject€to€review€by€the€trialÐ <#Œ" Ðcourt€for€abuse€of€prosecutorial€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(b)(3).€€The€decisionÐ ° Ðof€the€prosecutor€is€presumptively€correct,€and€the€trial€€court€will€reverse€that€decision€only€uponÐ –æ Ða€showing€by€the€applicant€that€there€has€been€a€patent€or€gross€abuse€of€prosecutorial€discretion.€Ð |Ì ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Houstonóó,€900€S.W.2d€712,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citing€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,Ð b² Ð650€S.W.2d€352,€356€(Tenn.€1993)).€€An€abuse€of€discretion€in€this€context€requires€that€the€recordÐ H˜ Ðshow€ð ðan€absence€of€any€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€refusal€of€the€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ . ~ Ðto€enter€into€a€memorandum€of€understanding.ðð€€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€356;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCurryóó,Ð  d Ð988€S.W.2d€at€158€(noting€that€the€record€ð ðmust€show€an€absence€of€any€substantial€evidence€toÐ ú J Ðsupport€the€refusal€of€the€district€attorney€general€to€enter€into€a€memorandum€of€understandingÐ à 0 Ðbefore€a€reviewing€court€can€find€an€abuse€of€discretionðð).€€Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àOur€supreme€court€has€observed€that€ð ð[t]he€task€thus€imposed€upon€prosecutors€of€decidingÐ ’â  Ðwhich€defendants€are€worthwhile€candidates€for€diversion€is€indeed€a€demanding€one.ðð€Ð xÈ  ÐòòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€353.€€It€is€demanding€because,€as€stated€by€our€supreme€court:Ð ^®  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAlmost€all€criminal€defendants,€whether€first€offenders€or€not,€wouldÐ *z  Ðclaim€remorse€and€ascribe€to€themselves€a€desire€to€walk€the€straightÐ ` Ðand€narrow€if€presented€an€opportunity€to€avoid€prosecution;€theÐ öF Ðresponsibility€placed€upon€prosecutors€to€pick€and€choose€among€theÐ Ü, Ðlot€based€upon€a€particular€candidateððs€amenability€to€rehabilitationÐ Â Ðor€recidivism€requires€the€exercise€of€unusual€powers€ofÐ ¨ø Ðdiscrimination.ÐŽÞ` x` x ÐÌòòIdóó.€€While€our€legislature€has€defined€a€ð ðqualified€defendantðð€as€one€who€meets€statutoryÐ Zª Ðrequirements€set€out€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„15„105(a)(1)(B)(i),׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€courts€haveÐ @ Ðprovided€guidance€to€prosecutors€in€determining€which€defendants€among€those€who€pass€theÐ &v Ðstatutory€requirements€are€then€suitable€for€pretrial€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€òòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€157€(ð ðOneÐ  \ Ðwho€is€statutorily€eligible€is€not€presumptively€entitled€to€diversion.ðð).€€The€factors€that€are€relevantÐ òB Ðto€the€prosecutorððs€determination€should€focus€on€the€defendantððs€ð ðamenability€to€correction.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð Ø( Ð(quoting€òòState€v.€Pinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€956,€959„60€(Tenn.€1997)).€€With€this€focus€in€mind,€theÐ ¾ Ðprosecutor€should€consider€the€following:Ð ¤ô ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[T]he€defendantððs€criminal€record,€social€history,€the€physical€andÐ p!À  Ðâ âmental€condition€of€a€defendant€where€appropriate,€and€the€likelihoodÐ V"¦! Ðthat€pretrial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€bestÐ ° Ðinterest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.Жæ` x` x Ðâ âÌòòIdóó.€(relying€on€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€355).€€Pretrial€diversion€represents€the€benevolence€ofÐ b² Ðthe€State€in€that€diversion€may€result€in€dismissal€of€the€prosecution€and€expungement€of€theÐ H˜ Ðdefendantððs€record.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð . ~ ÐÌÓ*°,XƒX" –X°œX*Óà  àIf€the€decision€is€to€refuse€to€enter€into€a€memorandum€of€understanding€for€pretrialÐ ú J Ðdiversion,€the€prosecutorððs€response€must€be€formal€and€in€writing€given€the€limited€nature€ofÐ à 0 Ðcertiorari€review€and€should€include:€Ð Æ   ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€à8" ` x` xàAn€enumeration€of€all€the€evidence€considered;€Ð’â " ¶" ¶ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€à8" ` x` xàAn€enumeration€of€the€relevant€factors€considered€andÐ xÈ  Ðhow€some€factor€or€factors€controlled€the€decision€orÐ ^®  Ðoutweighed€other€factors;ÐD” " ¶" ¶ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€(3)€à8" ` x` xàAn€identification€of€any€disputed€issues€of€fact.Ð*z " ¶" ¶ Ѐ€Ð ` ÐòòSeeóó€òòidóó.,€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€806,€810€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÐ öF Ð(Tenn.€1994).€€The€only€evidence€the€trial€court€may€consider€on€a€grant€of€certiorari€is€the€evidenceÐ Ü, Ðthat€was€considered€by€the€district€attorney€general.€€òòSeeóó€òòCurryóó,€988€S.W.2d€at€157€(citing€òòWinsettóó,Ð Â Ð882€S.W.2d€at€810).€€A€hearing€in€this€context€should€be€ð ðonly€to€resolve€any€factual€disputes€raisedÐ ¨ø Ðby€the€prosecutor€or€the€defendant€concerning€the€application,€but€not€to€hear€additional€evidenceÐ ŽÞ Ðthat€was€not€considered€by€the€prosecutor.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€157„58.€€A€hearing€ð ðmay€be€useful€to€clarifyÐ tÄ Ðmatters€already€in€the€record€about€which€there€may€be€some€dispute.ðð€€òòWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€810.€Ð Zª ÐThe€role€of€the€trial€court€is€to€determine€whether€there€is€any€substantial€evidence€in€the€record€toÐ @ Ðsupport€the€district€attorney€generalððs€refusal€to€enter€into€a€memorandum€of€understanding€forÐ &v Ðpretrial€diversion€because,€if€there€is€any€substantial€evidence,€the€district€attorney€general€cannot,Ð  \ Ðas€a€matter€of€law,€have€abused€his€discretion€in€denying€diversion.€Ð òB ÐÐ Ø( Ðà  àThe€appropriate€standard€of€review€for€the€appellate€court€is€somewhat€less€clear.€€Cases€haveÐ ° Ðindicated€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€pretrial€diversion€cases€are€presumed€correct€unlessÐ –æ Ðthe€evidence€of€record€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lutryóó,€938€S.W.2d€431,Ð |Ì Ð434€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(ð ðFor€purposes€of€our€review,€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€bindingÐ b² Ðon€this€court€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€such€findings.ðð).òòóó€The€presumptiveÐ H˜ Ðcorrectness€relates€to€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings,€and€these€are€presumed€correct€unless€theÐ . ~ Ðevidence€of€record€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Helmsóó,€720€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.Ð  d ÐCrim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1986)€(ð ðIt€is€true€that€on€appeal€from€the€action€of€the€trialÐ ú J Ðjudge€in€diversion€cases,€the€trial€judgeððs€finding€of€fact€is€binding€on€this€court€unless€we€find€thatÐ à 0 Ðthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€judgeððs€finding.ðð).€Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àIn€òòHelmsóó,€this€court€went€on€to€distinguish€the€standard€when€the€facts€were€not€in€dispute:€Ð ’â  Ðð ðHowever,€in€the€case€at€bar,€the€facts€are€undisputed.€€Therefore,€the€trial€judge€erroneouslyÐ xÈ  Ðreversed€the€action€of€the€District€Attorney€General€since€there€was€substantial€evidence€to€supportÐ ^®  Ðthe€prosecutorððs€refusal€to€enter€into€a€memorandum€of€understanding.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861Ð D”  ÐS.W.2d€850,€856€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€the€evidence€was€also€undisputed,€and€this€court€stated,Ð *z  Ðð ð[O]ur€review€relates€solely€to€whether€or€not€there€is€any€substantial€evidence€in€the€record€toÐ ` Ðsupport€the€prosecutorððs€refusal€to€enter€into€a€memorandum€of€understanding€for€pretrial€diversion.ðð€Ð öF ÐòòóóSimilarly,€we€recently€described€our€role€in€appeals€taken€from€a€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€in€theÐ Ü, Ðfollowing€way:€€ð ðOur€role€is€limited€to€determining€whether€any€substantial€evidence€exists€toÐ Â Ðsupport€that€decision€within€the€frame€work€of€these€factors€[the€òòHammersleyóó€factors].€.€.€.€€[T]heÐ ¨ø Ðtrial€courtððs€findings€of€facts€are€binding€on€us€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€suchÐ ŽÞ Ðfindings.ðð€€òòState€v.€Houstonóó,€900€S.W.2d€712,€714„15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€òòóó€TheÐ tÄ Ðð ðpreponderance€of€the€evidenceðð€standard,€then,€applies€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€whereÐ Zª Ðfacts€are€disputed.€€ð ðAny€substantial€evidenceðð€is€the€abuse€of€discretion€standard,€which€the€trialÐ @ Ðcourt€applies€to€the€determination€of€the€prosecutor€and€which€we,€in€turn,€apply€to€the€judgment€ofÐ &v Ðthe€trial€court.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€It€is€logical€that€this€court€not€apply€a€stricter€standard€to€the€conclusions€of€the€trialÐ  \ Ðcourt€than€the€trial€court€applied€in€reaching€those€conclusions€in€the€first€place.€€ThisÐ òB Ðstandardð"ðabuse€of€discretion€based€on€whether€or€not€there€is€any€substantial€evidence€in€the€recordÐ Ø( Ðto€support€the€determination€of€the€prosecutorð"ðweighs€heavily€in€favor€of€the€decision€of€theÐ ¾ Ðprosecutor€and€then€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.Ð ¤ô ÐÌà@’’'ìàò òISSUESˆÐ p!À  ÐÌà  àó óHere,€there€are€no€facts€in€dispute.€€The€defendant€has€not€contested€the€prosecutorððsÐ <#Œ" Ðâ âportrayal€of€the€circumstances€under€which€he€embezzled€monies€from€Skyline€MidSouth,€Inc.;€theÐ "$r# Ðamount€embezzled;€or€the€extent€of€time€during€which€the€criminal€conduct€continued.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Therefore,Ð ° Ðâ âwe€review€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€to€determine€whether€there€is€any€substantial€evidence€toÐ –æ Ðsupport€the€prosecutorððs€denial€of€pretrial€diversion.€€Ð |Ì ÐÌà  àThe€defendantððs€complaint€is€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€the€position€taken€by€theÐ H˜ Ðdistrict€attorney€general€in€the€letter€of€denial€and€that€he€failed€to€consider€all€the€relevant€factors,Ð . ~ Ðrelying€instead€on€circumstances€of€the€crime€and€deterrence.€Ð  d ÐÌà@µµ ìàò òA.€€Letter€of€DenialˆÐ à 0 ÐÌó óà  àThe€district€attorney€generalððs€letter€of€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€enumerates€the€evidenceÐ ¬ ü  Ðhe€considered,€which€includes€the€report€of€the€sheriffððs€office,€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€theÐ ’â  Ðoffense,׃.×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€the€taped€interview€with€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€contends€that€this€evidence€doesÐ xÈ  Ðnot€support€the€five€reasons€stated€for€denying€his€request€for€pretrial€diversion.Ð ^®  ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€first€reason€for€the€denialð"ð€the€circumstances€of€the€crimeð"ðthe€letter€noted€theÐ *z  Ðrecurring€nature€of€the€criminal€behavior€of€the€defendant€as€signifying€that€this€was€not€a€single,Ð ` Ðimpulsive€act,€which€is€more€easily€explained,€but€an€ongoing€plan€of€criminal€conduct.€The€recordÐ öF Ðalso€indicates€that€the€activity€stopped€only€when€Skyline€discovered€the€theft.€€The€followingÐ Ü, Ðexchange€took€place€at€the€interview€between€the€defendant€and€the€prosecutor€on€January€4,€1999:Ð Â Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€At€what€point€in€time€did€it€become€apparent€to€you€that€what€youÐ ¨ø Ðwere€doing€was€illegal?ÐŽÞ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Well,€after€my€wife€came€back€up€.€.€.€ÐZª` x` x ÐÐ @ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€And€when€did€she€come€in?а` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€It€was€in,€like€in€the€beginning€of€ðð97€[sic]€after€this,€you€know,Ð |Ì Ðwhen€she€came€up€to€start€the€new€school€year€and€she€saw€how€muchÐ b² Ðthat€I€was€drinking,€that€I€had€been€drinking€and€had€really€said,€youÐ H˜ Ðknow,€that€ð ðYou€need€to€get€help,ðð€and€I€was€really€ugly€and€hatefulÐ . ~ Ðto€her€about€that.€.€.€.€[A]nyway,€then€I€finally€went€to€Skyline€andÐ  d Ðtold€them€I€am€having€a€real€bad€time€with€my€alcohol€and€I€needÐ ú J Ðhelp,€I€need€help.€€And,€you€know,€then€subsequent€to€that€I€wasÐ à 0 Ðterminated€from€my€job.ÐÆ  ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Why€do€you€believe€you€were€terminated?Ð’â ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Well,€I€mean,€they€didnððt€give€me€any€reason,€you€know,€at€theÐ ^®  Ðtime.€€They€just€sent€me€a€letter.€€They€did€ask€me€about€the€checksÐ D”  Ðand€I€was€going,€ð ðWell,€I€donððt€know.€€I€cannot€tell€you.ðð€€And,€uh,Ð *z  Ðso€I€donððt€know€whether€it€was€that€or€was€the€alcohol€or€that€I€justÐ ` Ðdidnððt€have€a€good€excuse€as€to€what€I€had€done.€.€.€.€ÐöF` x` x ÐÌà  àWhen€asked€about€the€shape€of€the€accounting€system€at€Skyline,€the€defendant€describedÐ Â Ðit€as€ð ða€€total€mess.ðð€€The€prosecutor€questioned€him€on€this€point:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Mr.€Hutson,€do€you€think€that€somebody,€a€logical€person,€couldÐ tÄ Ðeasily€see€the€situation€that€you€were€in€as€one€where€you€realizedÐ Zª Ðwhen€you€started€working€for€Skyline,€that€it€was,€in€essence,€aÐ @ Ðperfect€opportunity€to€steal€from€the€company€without€the€companyÐ &v Ðknowing€it€because€of€the€state€of€their€accounting€procedures?Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€.€.€.€€€ÐØ(` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€I€mean,€it€was€easy€for€you,€wasnððt€it?Фô` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Yes,€it€.€.€.Ðp!À ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€And€you€got€away€with€it?Ð<#Œ"` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€No,€I€didnððt.Ð%X $` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Well,€you€did€for€quite€some€time,€didnððt€you?ÐÔ&$"&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€And,€you€know,€there€was€no€controls€there.€Ð (ð#(` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€had€been€in€a€trusted€position€for€approximately€one€month€when€he€embarkedÐ l*¼%* Ðâ âon€a€pattern€of€stealing€from€his€employer.€€The€fact€that€he€was€in€a€position€to€take€criminalÐ R+¢&+ Ðadvantage€of€a€state€of€disarray€and€quickly€and€repeatedly€did€so€is€substantial€evidence€thatÐ ° Ðsupports€the€circumstances€of€the€crime€as€a€ground€for€denying€pretrial€diversion.Ð –æ Ðâ âÌà  àSecond,€the€prosecutor€points€to€the€defendantððs€failure€to€take€action€to€admit€hisÐ b² Ðwrongdoing€in€a€timely€fashion€and€to€respond€appropriately€to€his€responsibilities€for€the€wrongsÐ H˜ Ðcommitted.€€The€defendant€responded€to€questions€concerning€what€he€did€with€the€thousands€ofÐ . ~ Ðdollars€he€stole€in€the€following€way:Ð  d ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€What€did€you€do€with€the€money€that€you€received?Ðà 0` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Well,€that€was€one€of€the€things€that€my€wife€had€asked€me€asÐ ¬ ü  Ðwell.€€And€like€I€told€her,€I€donððt€have€a€good€.€.€.€I€donððt€haveÐ ’â  Ðanything€to€show€for€it.ÐxÈ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Can€you€give€us€a€hint?€€Because€over€a€five€month€period€of€timeÐ D”  Ðwe€show€that€you€stole€$16,000.€€What€happened€to€that€money?€Ð *z  ÐWhat€did€you€do€with€it?Ð`` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Well,€I€mean,€I€donððt€know.€€Thereððs€a€long€period€of€timeÐ Ü, Ðbetween€that€I€have€no€recognition,€or€recollection€of€it€at€all.€€I€meanÐ Â Ð.€.€.Шø` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Do€you€have€a€clue€as€to€what€you€did€with€it?ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€No,€maððam,€I€donððt.Ð@` x` x ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€defendant€blamed€alcohol€for€his€troubles,€he€admitted€that€he€did€go€to€workÐ  \ Ðð ðpretty€muchðð€on€a€daily€basis€during€this€period.€€The€prosecutor€also€pointed€out€that€the€checksÐ òB Ðwritten€by€the€defendant€on€Skylineððs€account€to€himself€were€neatly€and€carefully€written€in€veryÐ Ø( Ðspecific€amounts,€such€as€$596.53,€usually€amounts€Skyline€owed€to€vendors,€and€showed€no€signsÐ ¾ Ðof€being€written€by€someone€incapacitated€by€alcohol.€€There€was€substantial€evidence€to€supportÐ ¤ô Ðthe€district€attorney€generalððs€second€ground,€a€failure€to€accept€responsibility€in€a€timely€fashion.Ð Š Ú ÐÌà  àThird,€the€letter€contends€that€criminal€prosecution€is€necessary€to€deter€the€defendant€fromÐ V"¦! Ðfuture€criminal€acts.€€The€prosecutor€questioned€the€defendant€about€his€relationship€with€his€newÐ <#Œ" Ðemployer€during€their€interview,€and€the€following€facts€emerged:Ð "$r# ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€What€did€you€tell€them€[new€employer]€that€the€reason€was€forÐ î%>!% Ðyour€termination€by€Skyline?ÐÔ&$"&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€told€them€the€truth€that€I€had€been€.€.€.€that€I€was€an€alcoholic€andÐ  (ð#( Ðthat€when€I€was€working€for€Skyline€that€I€had€taken€some€money€andÐ †)Ö$) Ðthat€I€was€working€to€get€that€resolved,€you€know,€through€the€courts.Ðl*¼%*` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Who€did€you€tell€at€your€current€place€of€employment?Ð8,ˆ',` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Blake€Russell,€who€is€my€boss.а` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Ok.€€So,€youððre€saying€that€he€knew€that€before€he€hired€you?Ð|Ì` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€€No,€he€did€not;€he€did€not€know€that€until€recently.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌ€The€prosecutor€also€questioned€the€defendant€concerning€his€present€situation:Ð  d ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€And€what€house€is€it€that€you€are€living€in€in€Lebanon€now?Ðà 0` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Itððs€over€on€Point€Barton€Lake.Ь ü ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Can€you€tell€me€the€approximate€value€of€the€home€that€youÐ xÈ  Ðcurrently€have?Ð^® ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€$225,000.Ð*z ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€And€when€did€you€purchase€that€home?ÐöF` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Weððre€buying€it€now.€€Well,€we€built€the€house.ÐÂ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Tell€me€the€date€please€that€you€began€construction€on€this€homeÐ ŽÞ Ðin€Lebanon?ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Well,€it€was€in€February€of€last€year.Ð@` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Ok.€€February€of€ðð98?Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Yes,€maððam.à8h` x` xàà8ÀhphpàÐØ(ÀÀ Ðà  àBoth€the€district€attorney€general€and€the€trial€court€attached€great€weight€to€the€factor€ofÐ ¾ Ðdeterrence.€€The€trial€court,€in€upholding€the€prosecutorððs€denial€of€pretrial€diversion,€stated€that€ð ðtheÐ ¤ô ÐCourt€attached€great€weight€to€the€deterrence€factor,€and€agrees€with€the€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ Š Ú Ðthat€practices€such€as€this€require€deterrence.ðð€€Although€the€defendant€asserts€that€his€currentÐ p!À  Ðemployment€does€not€involve€writing€checks€or€touching€any€money,€the€evidence€considered€byÐ V"¦! Ðthe€district€attorney€general,€including€the€defendantððs€speedy€move€to€take€advantage€of€the€stateÐ <#Œ" Ðof€affairs€at€Skyline;€his€pursuit€of€an€affluent€lifestyle€at€the€very€time€he€was€facing€criminalÐ "$r# Ðcharges,€including€building€a€$225,000€home;€and€his€tendency€to€manipulate€responses€to€questionsÐ %X $ Ðso€that€an€answer€appears€favorable€until€skilled€questioning€reveals€otherwise€all€are€substantialÐ î%>!% Ðevidence€and€support€the€factor€of€need€for€deterrence.Ð Ô&$"& Ðâ âÓ6°,XƒX× –X°,XƒX" –X6ÓÐ º' #' Ðà  àAs€to€the€fourth€reason€in€the€letter€of€the€district€attorney€generalð"ðthe€fact€that€theÐ ° Ðâ âdefendant€had€not€made€any€attempt€to€pay€restitutionð"ðthe€defendant€provided€the€followingÐ –æ Ðevidence€during€the€taped€interview:Ð |Ì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à × àOkay.€€What€attempts€did€you€make€to€make€restitution€toÐ H˜ ÐSkyline?Ð. ~` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à × àWell,€when,€as€I€mentioned,€when€they€were€asking€me€to€tellÐ ú J Ðthem€how€much€I€had€done€and€I€told€them€I€didnððt€know.€€And€theyÐ à 0 Ðwere€going,€ð ðWell,€youððve€got€to€tell€us.ðð€€Well,€thatððs€when€I€soughtÐ Æ   Ðlegal€help€just€to€make€sure€that,€you€know€.€.€.Ь ü ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à × àJust€to€make€sure€what?ÐxÈ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à × àJust€to€make€sure€I€was€doing€the€right€things.€à8@e` x` xàà8  àÐD” Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€explained€that€it€was€his€attorney€who€advised€him€to€do€nothing€and€wait€andÐ ` Ðsee€what€Skyline€would€do.€€Within€seven€months€of€being€fired€from€Skyline,€the€defendant€wasÐ öF Ðearning€$45,000€a€year€at€P.I.C.€and€yet€took€no€steps€to€restore€the€funds€he€stole€from€Skyline.€€TheÐ Ü, Ðdistrict€attorney€general€pointed€to€this€failure€as€indicative€of€the€defendantððs€willingness€to€blameÐ Â ÐSkyline€for€lacking€proper€control€rather€than€taking€full€responsibility€for€his€criminal€acts.€€ThisÐ ¨ø Ðfourth€factor€is€supported€by€substantial€evidence€and€is€a€valid€factor.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà  àThe€fifth€and€final€factor€on€which€the€district€attorney€general€based€the€denial€of€pretrialÐ Zª Ðdiversion€is€the€defendantððs€lack€of€remorse,€which€the€prosecutor€contends€indicates€that€theÐ @ Ðdefendant€is€not€amenable€to€correction.€€The€defendantððs€partial€denial€of€the€crimeð"ðfor€example,Ð &v Ðhis€€response€that€he€had€no€idea€about€a€check€he€issued€to€a€fictitious€company,€T.A.E.ð"ðindicatedÐ  \ Ðto€the€district€attorney€general€that€the€defendant€was€not€amenable€to€correction€because€of€his€lackÐ òB Ðof€appreciation€of€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€remorse€for€having€hurt€his€employer.€€ThatÐ Ø( Ðis€not€to€say€that€the€defendant€is€not€sorry€to€be€in€the€situation€in€which€he€finds€himself.€€As€heÐ ¾ Ðstated€in€his€interview,€he€wants€to€make€amends,€just€not€at€too€high€a€price.€€There€was€substantialÐ ¤ô Ðevidence€to€support€the€factor€of€lack€of€remorse.Ð Š Ú ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€each€of€the€factors€set€out€by€the€district€attorney€general,€we€conclude€thatÐ V"¦! Ðsubstantial€evidence€was€before€the€district€attorney€general€to€support€the€validity€of€each€factorÐ <#Œ" Ðrelied€on€in€denying€pretrial€diversion.Ð "$r# ÐÌà@Ý Ý ìàò òB.€€Consideration€of€All€Relevant€Factors€€ó óˆÐ î%>!% ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€district€attorney€general€abused€his€discretion€in€denying€hisÐ º' #' Ðapplication€for€pretrial€diversion€by€failing€to€consider€all€relevant€factors€and€relying€primarily€onÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€circumstances€of€his€crime€and€the€need€for€deterrence.€€The€defendant€correctly€asserts€that€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðcircumstances€or€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€the€need€for€deterrence€may€alone€justify€a€denialÐ l*¼%* Ðof€diversion,€but€only€if€all€of€the€relevant€factors€have€been€considered.€€òòSeeóó€òòCurryóó,€988€SW.2d€atÐ R+¢&+ Ð158€(citing€òòState€v.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950,€951€(Tenn.€1993)).€€€€Ð 8,ˆ', Їà  àCriteria€for€the€letter€of€denial€are€judicially€imposed.€€Our€supreme€court€has€made€itÐ ° Ðimminently€clear€that€this€letter€must€be€more€than€a€mere€ð ðabstract€statement.ðð€€òòState€v.€Herronóó,€767Ð –æ ÐS.W.2d€151,€156€(Tenn.€1989).€€ð ðOnly€by€analyzing€all€of€the€relevant€factors,€including€thoseÐ |Ì Ðfavorable€to€the€defendant,€can€appropriate€candidates€for€this€legislative€largess€be€identified€in€aÐ b² Ðmanner€consistent€with€the€purpose€of€the€pretrial€diversion€act.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€If€the€district€attorney€generalÐ H˜ Ðbases€the€decision€on€factors€felt€to€outweigh€others€submitted€for€consideration,€there€must€be€anÐ . ~ Ðindication€why€those€factors€outweigh€others.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€€Without€this€complete€analysis,€no€prosecutorÐ  d Ðshould€be€surprised€when€either€the€trial€court€or€this€court€determines€that€prosecutorial€discretion,Ð ú J Ðwhich€is€significant€in€pretrial€diversion€cases,€has€been€abused.€€Although€we€have€determined€thatÐ à 0 Ðno€prosecutorial€abuse€of€discretion€occurred€in€this€case,€the€letter€of€denial€here€was€not€fully€inÐ Æ   Ðcompliance€with€òòHerronóó.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àWe€conclude,€however,€that€the€prosecutorððs€denial€of€the€diversion€request€was€not€basedÐ xÈ  Ðentirely€upon€the€circumstances€of€the€offense.€€The€letter€communicates€the€prosecutorððs€substantialÐ ^®  Ðconcerns€with€the€defendantððs€lack€of€amenability€to€correction€based€upon€his€failure€to€tenderÐ D”  Ðrestitution€and€his€lack€of€remorse€and€candor,€factors€which€are€outside€the€nature€andÐ *z  Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€itself.€€As€indicated€above,€we€believe€the€record€contains€substantialÐ ` Ðevidence€supporting€these€conclusions,€and€we€believe€these€concerns€justify€a€denial€of€pretrialÐ öF Ðdiversion€in€this€case.Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€denial€letter€does€not€expressly€articulate€that€the€prosecutor€considered€all€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€òòHammersleyóó€factors,€it€referenced€an€ð ðattached€Memoranda,ðð€upon€which€the€prosecutor€relied.€Ð ŽÞ ÐThe€memoranda€were€not€made€a€part€of€the€record€via€the€defendantððs€petition€for€writ€of€òòcertiorarióó.€Ð tÄ ÐIt€was€the€defendantððs€responsibility€to€present€with€his€petition€the€record€as€had€been€compiled€toÐ Zª Ðthat€point.€€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€806,€810€(Tenn.€1993).€€Without€the€complete€letter€andÐ @ Ðits€incorporated€components,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€prosecutor€failed€to€consider€all€of€theÐ &v Ðrequired€factors.Ð  \ ÐÌÐ  Ø( Ðà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  à€We€conclude€that€there€is€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€district€attorney€generalððsÐ |Ì Ðdenial€of€pretrial€diversion,€and,€therefore,€the€district€attorney€general€did€not€abuse€his€discretionÐ b² Ðin€refusing€to€enter€into€a€memorandum€of€understanding€for€pretrial€diversion€with€the€defendant.€Ð H˜ ÐAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Ð . ~ ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà × àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¬ ü  Ðà  àà ` àà × àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE