WPC&  0VU<q 0 0 0W 0L+ w 0C  0JL 0C  B D39 0C 0(B AMj D+ 0C 0T%yUN % 0 (w 4 0^# 0h 0r 0|[ 0 0] 1u 0dbB )DC' AMjU*DCv~v AO$8% 0D% D/B& Bq&<uj:Default Para  Q\  `$Times NewRomanQXXXQ\  `$Times NewRomanQ\  `$Times NewRoman<jj:Footnote TexQ\  `$Times NewRomanQXXXQ\  `$Times NewRomanQ<mm:Footnote RefQ\  `$Times NewRomanQXXXQ\  `$Times NewRomanQ0.Footer !(#XXXQ\  `$Times NewRomanQ;1R Z bj #;XXXQ\  `$Times NewRomanQ:j8Page NumberQ\  `$Times NewRomanQ>4,JR Z bj #>XXXQ\  `$Times NewRomanQ' IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE *Marilyn Hathaway 0 .   (2Y$ !  2 0Indent123  (2Y$ !  Text9 d 'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2Y$ !  ($A<< c'dxd($    2" 0Indent20 23  #|x (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ӀuM%pz2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    !"#$ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X  !  4  X  ` p%&      X ` 4X    !  4  X  ` p%&      X ` 4X  % Line 7 d////7Border 1dd0C << G<  9p`(Arial !  22   YYY FILED2XAugust20,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  ////7Border 2dd  !  4  X  `  XԀ         ݀InAlberd,thiscourtconcludedthatstatutoryfinesmaynotbeimposedincasesinvolvingpretrialdiversionPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .   4  X -.     `  X\RA'\R130A1-j|`  `@R INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLEAPRIL1998SESSION    STATEOFTENNESSEE,     APPELLEE         VS.       C.C.A.No.01C019707CC00244       WILLIAMSONCOUNTY       HON.HENRYDENMARKBELLANTONIOJOHNSON,     APPELLANT   (JUDICIALDIVERSION)FORTHEAPPELLANT    FORTHEAPPELLEENilesS.Nimmo     JohnKnoxWalkupRealtorsBldg.,Suite200    AttorneyGeneralandReporter306GaySt.      425FifthAvenue,NorthNashville,TN37201    Nashville,TN37243%  G146&"h \  `G!!!!!%  C  H@!FC       DarylJ.Brand       AssistantAttorneyGeneral       425FifthAvenue,North       Nashville,TN378243       DerekK.Smith       AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral       P.O.Box937       Franklin,TN370650937OPINIONFILED:_______________________AFFIRMEDL.T.LAFFERTY,SPECIALJUDGE   X    ` Xǀ OPINION 4  X    `  X Followingabenchtrial,theappellant,AntonioJackson,wasconvictedoftheunlawfulpossessionofcocaine,aClassAmisdemeanor.Thetrialcourtsentencedthedefendanttoservesixty(60)days,dayforday,andpayafineof$2,500.Thetrialcourtsuspendedthesixty(60)daysentenceandplacedthedefendantonsupervisedprobationforeleven(11)monthsandtwentynine(29)days.Followingadirectappeal,thisCourtfoundthatthetrialcourthadabuseditsdiscretioninsentencingthedefendantandremandedthecaseforresentencingpursuanttojudicialdiversion.Statev.AntonioJackson,WilliamsonCounty,No.01C019601CC00014(Tenn.Crim.App.Nashville,December13,1996).Inresentencingthedefendant,thetrialcourtimposedjudicialdiversionbutretainedtheconditionsofprobationfromtheoriginaljudgment. Thedefendantpresentsoneissueforreview: WhetherthetrialcourterredbyimposingafineaspartofasentenceenteredunderauthorityofTenn.CodeAnn.4035313.Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,thebriefssubmittedbybothparties,andthelawgoverningtheissuepresentedforreview,itistheopinionofthisCourtthatthesentenceimposedbythetrialcourtshouldbeaffirmed.  A.   Whenanaccusedchallengesthelengthandmannerofserviceofasentence,itisthedutyofthisCourttoconductadenovoreviewontherecordwithapresumptionthatthe determinationsmadebythecourtfromwhichtheappealistakenarecorrect.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d).Thispresumptionis conditionedupontheaffirmativeshowingintherecordthatthetrialcourtconsideredthesentencingprinciplesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances.Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,169(Tenn.1994).Thepresumptiondoesnotapplytothelegalconclusionsreachedbythetrialcourtinsentencingtheaccusedortothedeterminationsmadebythetrialcourtwhicharepredicateduponuncontrovertedfacts.Statev.Butler,900S.W.2d305,311(Tenn.Crim.App.1994);Statev.Smith,891S.W.2d922,929(Tenn.Crim.App.1994),per.App.Denied(Tenn.1994);Statev.Bonestel,871S.W.2d1634,166(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).However,thiscourtisrequiredtogivegreatweighttothetrialcourtsdeterminationofcontrovertedfactsbecausethetrialcourtsdeterminationofthesefactsispredicateduponthewitnessesdemeanorandappearancewhentestifying. Thepartychallengingthesentencesimposedbythetrialcourthastheburdenofestablishingthatthesentencesareerroneous.SentencingCommissionCommentstoTenn.CodeAnn.4035401;Ashby,823S.W.2dat169;Butler,900S.W.2dat311.Inthiscase,thedefendanthastheburdenofillustratingthatthesentencesimposedbythetrialcourtareerroneous. Therecordindicatesthatduringtheresentencinghearingthetrialcourtfailedtoarticulatetheconditions.Thetrialcourtmerelystated puton11/29supervisedprobation,reportbymail,onordinaryconditionsanddrugscreens.Therefore,thestandardofreviewonappealisdenovowithoutapresumptionofcorrectness.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035402(d).  B.   Thedefendantarguesthatjudicialdiversionissimilarinpurposeto pretrial diversion,therefore,thisCourtsholdinginStatev.Alberd,908S.W.2d414(Tenn.Crim.App.1994),controls.         / u`  5   ׀Additionally,thedefendantassertsthetrialcourtlackedauthoritytoimposeafineinconjunctionwithjudicialdiversion.  (1)   Pretrialdiversionandjudicialdiversionaresimilarinnaturebutdifferstatutorily.ThepretrialdiversionstatuteislocatedinTenn.CodeAnn.4015101,seq.Thejudicialdiversionstatute,however,islocatedinTenn.CodeAnn.4035313,andwasincorporatedintheSentencingActof1989.Underpretrialdiversion,Tenn.CodeAnn.4015105(a),adefendantwhomeetscertaincriteria,entersintoamemorandumofunderstandingwiththeDistrictAttorneyGeneral,wherebybothpartiesagreethattheprosecutionofcertaincrimeswillbesuspendedforaspecifiedperiod,nottoexceedtwo(2)yearsfromthefilingofthememorandum.Thepartiesagreethatthedefendantwillbesupervisedbyanappropriateagency,department,program,grouporassociationandattheconclusionofthesupervisedperiod,ifnoviolationsofthememorandumofunderstandingareproven,thetrialcourtmaydismisstheprosecutionswithprejudice. Thejudicialdiversionstatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.4035313(a)(1)(A)states:   X  ` [hX IfanypersonwhohasnotpreviouslybeenconvictedofafelonyofaClassAmisdemeanorisfoundguiltyorpleadsguilttoamisdemeanorwhichispunishablebyimprisonmentofaClassC,DorEfelony,thecourtmay,withoutenteringajudgmentofguiltyandwiththeconsentofsuchperson,deferfurtherproceedingsandplacethepersononprobationuponsuchreasonableconditionsasitmayrequire,andforaperiodoftimenotlessthantheperiodofthemaximumsentenceforthemisdemeanorwithwhichthepersonischarged,ornotmorethantheperiodofthemaximumsentenceofthefelonywithwhichthepersonischarged.... (2)...If,duringtheperiodofprobation,suchpersondoesnotviolateanyoftheconditionsoftheprobation,thenuponexpirationofsuchperiod,thecourtshalldischargesuchpersonanddismisstheproceedingsagainsttheperson.Dischargeanddismissalunderthissubsectioniswithoutcourtadjudicationofguilt,butanonpublicrecordthereofisretainedbythecourtsolelyforthepurposeofusebythecourtsindeterminingwhetherornot,insubsequentproceedings,suchpersonqualifiesunderthissubsection,orforthelimitedpurposesprovidedinsubsection(b).Suchdischargeanddismissalshallnotbedeemedaconvictionforpurposesofdisqualificationsordisabilitiesimposedbylawuponconvictionofacrimeorforanyotherpurpose,exceptasprovidedinsubsection(b).Dischargeanddismissalunderthissubsectionmayoccuronlyoncewithrespecttoanyperson. 4  X  `  X InStatev.Alberd,908S.W.2d414(Tenn.Crim.App.1994),apanelofthiscourtconcludedthatmandatoryminimumfinesfordrugoffensemaynotberequiredasaconditionofamemorandumofunderstandingforpretrialdiversion.Thiscourtheldthatmandatoryminimumfinesmayonlybeimposedfollowingaconviction,andpretrialdiversionwasnotaresultofconviction.Becausejudicialdiversionfollowsadeterminationofguilt,Alberd,doesnotgoverncasesinvolvingjudicialdiversion.However,evenincasesinvolvingpretrialdiversion,trialcourtshavetheauthoritytorequiredefendantstopayrestitution,courtcosts,andcostsofsupervision.Tenn.CodeAnn.4015105(a)(2).  (2)    Thejudicialdiversionstatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.4035313authorizestheimpositionofprobation uponsuchreasonableconditionsasitmayrequire.Conditionsofprobation mustbereasonableandrealisticandmustnotbesostringentastobeharsh,oppressive,orpalpablyunjust.Stillerv.State,516S.W.2d617,620(Tenn.1974).TrialcourtsmayimposeanytermsandconditionsnotinconsistentwiththeTennesseeSentencingReformAct.SeeStatev.Huff,760S.W.2d633,639(Tenn.Crim.App.1988). TheCourtfindstheimpositionofafineorcontributionofamonetaryamount,notexceedingthemaximumstatutoryfine,tobeareasonableconditionofjudicialdiversion.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035313.TheUnitedStatesSixthCircuitCourtofAppealsaddressedasimilarquestioninconstruingTenn.CodeAnn.4021109(nowTenn.CodeAnn.4035313)regardingthepaymentofcostsasaconditionofprobation.TheCourtconcludedInreHollis,810F.2d106,108(6thCir.1987):   X  ` X Thestatecriminalcourtclearlyintendedtheassessmentofcoststobeaconditionofappelleesprobationundersection4021109.Tenn.CodeAnn.4021109(1982).Anassessmentofcosts,moreover,appearstobeanappropriateconditionofprobationunderthissection....Webelievethatsection4024105(b)oftheTennesseeCode,whichprovidesthatcostsshallnotbedeemedparttothepenaltyinacriminalcase,anduponwhichthedistrictcourtreliedinreachingitsdecision,isdisplacedinthisinstancebythemorespecificprovisionsofsection4021109. 4  X  `  X Federalcourtshavealsoheldtheimpositionoffinestobepermissiblepursuanttotheparallelfederalstatuteforpostconvictiondeferral.See18U.S.C.3651;UnitedStatesv.Tepfer,748F.Supp.310,311(E.D.Pa.1990). Althoughpretrialdiversionandjudicialdiversionaresimilarinnature,thereisasignificantdifferencebetweentheimpositionofprobationpursuanttopretrialdiversionandjudicialdiversion.Thepurposeofjudicialdiversionistoavoidplacingthestigmaandcollateralconsequencesofacriminalconvictiononthedefendant,inadditiontoprovidingthedefendantameanstoberestoredfullyandtousefulandproductivecitizenship.Statev.Porter,885S.W.2d93,95(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).ThisCourthasrecognizedthevery factthatadefendantseekingjudicialdiversionstandsbeforethecourthavingalreadybeenfoundguiltyreadytobesentenced,placesthedefendantindramaticallydifferentposturethanthatofapersonseekingpretrialdiversion.SeeStatev.Porter,885S.W.2dat9495. AsomewhatanalogoussituationwasaddressedbythisCourtinStatev.Vasser,870S.W.2d543(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Thedefendant,Vasser,uponbeingfoundguiltyofdrivingundertheinfluenceofanintoxicantcontendedhewasentitledtojudicialdiversionafterservingfortyeight(48)hours,perTenn.CodeAnn.4035313.ThisCourtinconstruingTenn.CodeAnn.5510403(B)(1)PenaltiesforDrivingundertheinfluenceofintoxicantsconcludedthata convictedpersonmustservethe minimumsentenceandthusisnoteligiblefortheprovisionsofTenn.CodeAnn.4035313.Thusinageneralsense,a convictionhasbeendefinedasthe resultofacriminaltrial(orguiltyplea)whichendsinajudgmentorsentencethattheaccusedisguiltyascharged.Technically,aconvictioninvolvesnotonlyaverdict,butalsoasentencepassedbythecourt.SeeStatev.Vasser,870S.W.2d543,at545;Rule32(e)TennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure.Sincethetrialcourtdidnotenteranorderofconviction,butorderedthedefendanttojudicialdiversion,thetrialcourtwasentitledtosetreasonableconditionsofprobationincludingthepaymentoffines. Inconclusion,thisCourtfindsthattheorderofthetrialcourtrequiringthedefendanttopayafineof$2,500asaconditionofhisprobationpursuanttojudicialdiversionwasappropriate.Theimpositionofastatutorymandatoryminimumfineisacceptableincasesinvolvingjudicialdiversionbecausejudicialdiversion,unlikepretrialdiversion,involvesanadjudicationofguiltbythetrialcourt.Finally,finesarepermissibleconditionsofprobationunderjudicialdiversionsolongastheydonotexceedthemaximumspecifiedbystatutefortheoffensecommitted.      __________________________      L.T.Lafferty,SpecialJudgeCONCUR:______________________________GaryWade,PresidingJudge______________________________ThomasWoodall,Judge