ÿWPC 4# èU>ó %1 0í7UB$4fzn­‰U:6 D/pw@Ÿß 0Jç 0T1 0^… 0hã 0rK 0|½ 0†9 0¿ 1uO 0dÄ 0@( D3h U6› U.Ñ U*ÿ B)) DCR AM• AQâ Æ3 0Dù 0D= 01 B²‡Ï 0DVv~š BvÓ5˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiB\J#3|xÝ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular..'÷ÿ dxd ÉDÊËÌÍDÎÏDÐDÑÓ€Ý2 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("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2222'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd* 'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ*+ , Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(á(3ÌJ$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€Û–XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóüÿP Pd }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òOctober€10,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'` dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔÑ7€ ,¥ XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ*ÙßR€(/'A1-j|^ýå` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JUNE€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€œ02C01„9507„CC„00194›Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Hardin€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€C.€Creed€McGinley,€Judge€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌSHONDA€KAY€McGILL,à à€€€à à)à à€(Pretrial€Diversion)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òDISSENTING€OPINIONóóó óÌÌà àI€respectfully€dissent€from€the€majority€opinion.€€I€believe€that€the€recordÏreflects€a€failure€by€the€District€Attorney€to€give€due€consideration€to€all€of€the€factorsÏrelevant€to€pretrial€diversion€so€as€to€constitute€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€I€believe€thatÏthe€case€should€be€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings.€ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€has€provided€particular€factors€that€prosecutors€are€toÏconsider€in€exercising€their€discretion€to€grant€or€deny€pretrial€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€355€(Tenn.€1983).€€Given€the€judicial€review€processÍprovided€by€law,€this€has€led€to€a€recurring€theme€in€reported€cases€about€prosecutorsÏnot€showing€on€the€record€that€they€have€duly€considered€all€of€the€factors.€€œòòSeeóó,›€òòe.g.óó,ÏòòState€v.€Markhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€850,€853€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Our€supreme€courtÏnoted€the€continuing€problem€and€stated€that€prosecutors€must€articulate€the€reasonsÏfor€denial€and€reflect€on€the€record€their€consideration€of€all€of€the€relevant€factors.€ÏòòState€v.€Herronóó,€767€S.W.2d€151,€155„56€(Tenn.€1989).€€In€fact,€it€stated€that€trial€courtsÏmust€follow€a€similar€path€in€their€review€of€pretrial€diversion€cases.€€òòId.óó€at€œ156.›ÌÌà àThus,€if€a€prosecutor€does€not€show€that€he€or€she€followed€theÏprocedures€and€standards€required€by€law€for€use€and€consideration€in€the€decision„making€process€for€pretrial€diversion,€then€the€ultimate€decision€should€not€be€entitledÏto€deference€by€a€reviewing€court.€€With€the€burden€being€upon€the€prosecutor€toÏinsure€that€the€record€shows€his€or€her€due€consideration€of€all€of€the€required€factors,Ïwe€should€not€presume€that€due€consideration€occurred€when€we€are€faced€with€aÏdeficient€record.€€In€other€words,€I€do€not€believe€that€a€reviewing€court€can€say,€as€aÏmatter€of€law,€that€the€prosecutor€exercised€sound€discretion€in€making€a€decision€thatÏdid€not€result€from€consideration€of€all€of€the€required€factors.€€ÌÌà àOnce€the€trial€court€determines€that€the€prosecutor€failed€to€consider€all€ofÏthe€relevant€factors,€then€it€must€determine€the€relative€merits€of€the€defendantððs€claimÏor,€in€the€appropriate€case,€it€may€remand€the€matter€to€the€prosecutor€for€furtherÍconsideration€under€the€appropriate€guidelines.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882ÏS.W.2d€806€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€the€present€case,€though,€the€trial€court€gaveÏdeference€to€the€prosecutorððs€decision€even€though€that€decision€was€obtained€withoutÏfollowing€the€required€decision„making€process.€€Such€a€deference,€also€given€in€theÏmajority€opinion,€was€and€is€unwarranted.ÌÌà àRelative€to€the€offenses,€the€record€reflects€that€the€defendant€drove€herÏthen€boyfriend€to€locations€where€he€and€another€man€burglarized€homes€„„€two€in€oneÏnight€and€another€fifteen€days€later.€€The€record€indicates€that€no€one€was€home€at€theÏtime€of€these€burglaries.€€ÌÌà àOne€victim€wrote€that€her€sonððs€cash€savings€(amount€undisclosed)€andÏher€jewelry€(not€expensive,€but€of€irreplaceable€sentimental€value)€were€taken€and€thatÏshe€remains€uneasy€at€night.€€She€would€like€things€returned€and€restitution€to€be€paid,Ïbut€no€amount€is€mentioned.€€She€also€stated€that€she€thought€the€defendant€shouldÏreceive€probation€and€community€service€obligations€that€would€profit€the€defendant€inÏpersonal€and€community€responsibility.€€ÌÌà àAnother€victim€wrote€that€her€property€loss€was€approximately€two€toÏthree€thousand€dollars,€including€guns,€jewelry€and€family€photographs.€€She€now€hasÏa€house€dog€and€sleeps€with€a€loaded€gun€nearby.€€She€requested€restitution€for€whatÍher€insurance€has€not€covered.€€Also,€she€did€not€think€that€the€defendant€wasÏremorseful€and€stated€that€the€defendant€should€be€made€ð ðaccountableðð€for€herÏactions.€€There€is€no€information€in€the€record€regarding€the€views€of€the€victims€in€theÏthird€case.€€ÌÌà àRegarding€the€defendant,€the€record€reflects€that€she€was€nineteen€yearsÏold€at€the€time€of€the€burglaries€and€had€no€prior€criminal€record€of€any€type.€€SheÏreceived€a€GED,€is€single,€and€has€resided€with€her€mother€since€her€return€to€HardinÏCounty,€a€matter€of€weeks€before€the€offenses€occurred.€€She€had€a€good,€albeit€short,Ïwork€history,€interrupted€by€her€moves€to€Memphis,€then€Nashville,€and€then€back€toÏHardin€County.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€acknowledged€occasional€use€of€alcoholic€beveragesÏand€the€use€of€marijuana€or€cocaine€a€total€of€five€times,€the€last€being€the€month€of€theÏlast€burglary€and€her€arrest.€€There€is€no€indication€of€any€medical€or€mental€health€œÏproblems.›€€The€petition€for€pretrial€diversion,€signed€under€oath€by€the€defendant,Ïincludes€the€following:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àà à3.€€She€further€avers€that€she€has€a€proper€attitudeÏand€behavior€since€her€arrest;€that€she€has€no€€continuingÏcriminal€involvement,€that€she€has€a€proper€homeÏenvironment€and€that€she€has€no€current€drug€or€alcoholÏuse€problem;€that€she€is€emotionally€stable,€that€she€attendsÏthe€Baptist€church,€that€her€general€reputation€is€good€andÏhas€exhibited€family€responsibility€and€has€a€proper€respectÍand€attitude€for€the€law€enforcement€for€the€State€ofÏTennessee.ÌÌà8 àà à4.€€She€further€avers€that€she€will€not€become€aÏrepeat€offender€and€will€state€and€show€to€the€œCourt›€that€theÏincidents€for€which€she€was€indicted€are€an€isolatedÏincident€in€her€life€and€that€she€has€learned€her€lesson€andÏwill€not€again€violate€the€laws€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€ÌÌà8 àà à5.€€She€avers€that€she€has€and€can€continue€toÏdemonstrate€that€she€should€be€eligible€for€the€preferredÏtreatment€of€pre„trial€diversion€and€that€society€will€be€betterÏserved€if€she€is€placed€on€diversion.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓœThe›€foregoing€rendition€of€the€defendantððs€background,€social€history,€and€expressedÏattitudes€is€detailed€in€this€opinion€in€light€of€the€fact€that€our€supreme€court€has€statedÏthat€the€focus€of€a€diversion€consideration€should€be€on€the€defendantððs€amenability€toÏcorrection,€with€the€ultimate€issue€being€to€what€extent€diversion€serves€the€ends€ofÏjustice€and€the€best€interest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant€in€this€particular€case.€ÏòòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€355.€€ÌÌà àObviously,€as€the€majority€opinion€notes,€the€nature€and€circumstances€ofÏthe€criminal€conduct€or€the€particular€need€for€deterrence€may€be€of€ð ðsuchÏoverwhelming€significance€that€they€outweigh€all€other€factors.ðð€€òòMarkhamóó,€755€S.W.2dÏat€853.€€However,€I€do€not€believe€that€this€case€falls€into€either€such€category€wherebyÏthe€defendant€is€excluded€from€diversion€regardless€of€her€background€andÏrehabilitation€potential.€€Pretrial€diversion€has€been€approved€in€cases€involvingÏgreater€financial€losses€derived€from€intentionally€planned€criminal€conduct€for€aÍgreater€period€of€time€than€reflected€in€the€present€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòHerronóó,€767€S.W.2d€atÏ152,€155€(two€larcenies€by€trick€totaling€eleven€thousand€dollars,€committed€eight€daysÏapart);€òòMarkhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€at€851,€853€(two„count€indictment€regarding€conspiracyÏto€defraud€the€state,€œsix€thousand€four›€hundred€dollars€actually€paid€over€severalÏmonths).€€ÌÌà àThus,€I€would€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€it€to€determine€whetherÏit€is€appropriate€to€remand€the€matter€to€the€prosecutor€for€reconsideration,€with€bothÏparties€having€the€opportunity€to€present€a€more€detailed€record.€€If€the€trial€courtÏdetermines€that€such€remand€would€be€inappropriate€under€the€circumstances,€then€itÏshould€decide€the€issue€of€diversion€upon€full€and€due€consideration€of€all€of€theÏfactors€relevant€to€pretrial€diversion.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌ