ÿWPCß  …# VU>a %Ÿ 0 ¥UB® 4ð  n­ U:À ú w@ 0MB 0D 0JÓ 0T 0^q 0hÏ 0r7 0|© 0†% 0« 1u; 0d° BU61U.gU*•B)¿DCè AM+ D3x…«0 0@Cfƒv~évÓg AO:Ɖ 0DO D/“ B ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLlÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(á×0$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€{¿XXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÚƒç"3|x2 «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular   D ! D" # $ D% & D' Ó€(ý(3`j$¤¤Ý ƒ×0!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€+ÌXXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ'ÿÿdxd {Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ21,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔÑ7ÀË×XXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€The€trial€court€granted€a€petition€to€rehear€in€this€case€because€it€concluded€that€it€erredÏby€considering€the€victim€impact€statement€when€it€denied€the€defendantððs€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari.€ÏHowever,€consideration€of€the€victim€impact€statement€was€proper€in€so€far€as€the€statement€wasÏconsidered€by€the€prosecutor€and€reflects€the€circumstances€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861ÏS.W.2d€850,€855€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ÔÑ7€ <œ XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€FEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à à€No.€03C01„9511„CC„00344Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Sullivan€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€R.€Jerry€Beck,€Judge€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌRANDY€SCOTT€MORRELL,€à à)à à€(Denial€of€Pretrial€Diversion)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌStephen€M.€Wallaceà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌ€€€€€andà àà àà àà àà àà àandà àà àà àà àÌTerry€Jordanà àà àà àà àà àœDarian›€B.€TaylorÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€ÌP.€O.€Box€839à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌBlountville,€TN€37617„0839à àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àH.€Greeley€Wells,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àGene€œPerrinÌà àà àà àà àà àNancy€S.€Harr›Ìà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€œAttorneysGeneral›Ìà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€526Ìà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617„025ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌ̛̜à@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€defendant,€Randy€Scott€Morrell,€is€before€us€in€an€extraordinaryÏappeal,€T.R.A.P.€10,€from€the€order€of€the€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Court€affirming€theÏprosecuting€attorneyððs€denial€of€his€application€for€pretrial€diversion.€€The€sole€issue€forÏour€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€affirming€the€denial.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€on€one€count€of€statutory€rape,€a€Class€EÏfelony,€and€two€counts€of€contributing€to€the€unruly€behavior€of€a€minor,€a€Class€AÏmisdemeanor.€€The€defendant€requested€pretrial€diversion,€and€pursuant€to€aÏstipulation€of€the€parties,€the€trial€court€ordered€the€Department€of€Correction€toÍconduct€a€background€investigation€on€the€defendant.€€In€a€letter€dated€January€19,Ï1995,€the€prosecuting€attorney€denied€the€defendantððs€application€for€pretrial€diversionÏfor€the€following€reasons:€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à1.€€The€defendant€is€charged€under€T.C.A.€39„13„506.€€As€ofÏJanuary€1,€1995€this€statute€is€one€of€those€enumerated€inÏT.C.A.€40„39„102,€ð ðDefinitionsðð€(Sex€Offender€RegistrationÏand€Monitoring€Act)€as€constituting€a€sex€offense€requiringÏregistration€under€the€act.€€It€would€be€against€the€publicÏpolicy€of€the€statute€to€grant€pretrial€diversion€and€thusÏevade€the€registration€requirement€of€that€statute.Ìà0 àÌà8 à2.€€The€two€victims€of€these€offenses€were€troubled€youths€inÏState€custody.€€This€factor€is€not€an€element€of€any€chargeÏagainst€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€took€advantage€ofÏthis€particular€vulnerability.ÌÌà8 à3.€€The€defendant€has€expressed€no€regret€regarding€theÏincident,€nor€any€acknowledgment€of€a€realization€that€hisÏactions€were€improper.€€On€the€contrary,€the€defendantÏindicated€to€Detective€Russell€that€he€knew€his€actions€wereÏwrong€but€did€it€anyway.€€This€indicates€no€inclinationÏtoward€rehabilitation.ÌÌà8 à4.€€The€defendant€is€charged€with€a€total€of€three€charges,Ïinvolving€two€victims.€€Further,€the€defendant€isÏapproximately€ten€years€older€than€the€victims€far€in€excessÏof€the€statutory€requirement€of€four€years.ÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€petitioned€the€trial€court€for€a€writ€of€certiorari€to€review€theÏdenial€of€pretrial€diversion.€€The€state€submitted€a€copy€of€the€record€it€relied€upon€toÏdeny€pretrial€diversion€to€the€court.€€The€record€included€the€investigative€report€thatÏwas€prepared€by€the€Department€of€Correction,€a€statement€the€defendant€gave€police,Ía€victim€impact€statement,œ× ƒ, ××  ×›€two€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€missing€childÏreports,€the€indictment,€and€an€affidavit€of€complaint.€€No€further€evidence€wasÏpresented€at€the€certiorari€hearing.ÌÌà àIn€the€statement€he€gave€police,€the€twenty„four„year„old€defendantÏadmitted€that€the€victim€called€him€after€she€and€a€friend€had€run€away€from€theÏSullivan€County€Youth€Center.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€knew€the€girls€wereÏrunaways€and€that€he€tried€to€convince€the€victim€to€return€to€the€youth€center.€€HeÏadmitted€that€he€drove€the€girls€to€Kingsport€where€he€dropped€one€of€them€off.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€and€the€victim€eventually€went€to€a€barn€where€they€had€sexualÏintercourse.€€He€admitted€that€he€penetrated€her€digitally€and€performed€oral€sex€onÏher€later€that€day.€€The€sexual€conduct€was€consensual,€and€the€defendant€admittedÏthat€he€knew€the€victim€was€fourteen€at€the€time.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€victim€impact€statement,€the€victim€stated€that€the€defendant€hurtÏher€mentally.€€She€accused€the€defendant€of€playing€with€her€mind€and€said€that€heÏconvinced€her€to€run€away€and€to€have€sex€with€him.ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€investigative€report,€the€defendant€dropped€out€of€schoolÏin€the€eleventh€grade€to€work€to€help€support€his€family.€€He€is€in€good€health€mentallyÏand€physically€and€does€not€drink€alcohol€or€use€illegal€drugs.€€He€has€no€priorÏcriminal€record€and€is€presently€employed€doing€farm€labor.€€The€report€states€that€theÏdefendant€told€a€detective€that€he€knew€what€he€did€was€wrong€but€that€he€did€itÏanyway.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€held€that€there€was€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€theÏprosecutor€declining€to€grant€the€defendant€pretrial€diversion€because€theÏcircumstances€of€the€offense€sufficiently€support€the€denial€of€pretrial€diversion.€€TheÏcourt€stated€that€the€girls€were€evidently€troubled€and€that€the€defendant€knew€that€theÏgirls€had€run€away€from€state€custody€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€In€reaching€itsÏdecision,€though,€the€court€rejected€the€prosecutorððs€claim€that€the€defendant€shouldÏnot€receive€diversion€because€he€was€charged€with€an€offense€requiring€registrationÏunder€the€Sex€Offender€Registration€and€Monitoring€Act.€€The€court€also€concludedÏthat€based€on€the€record€before€it,€the€factor€about€the€defendantððs€lack€of€remorse€wasÏnot€entitled€to€much€weight.€ÌÌà àThe€decision€to€grant€or€deny€an€application€for€pretrial€diversion€is€in€theÏdiscretion€of€the€prosecuting€attorney.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„15„105;€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650ÍS.W.2d€352,€353€(Tenn.€1983);€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€855.€€On€a€petition€for€certiorari,Ïthe€hearing€conducted€by€the€trial€court€is€limited€to€two€issues:ÌÓ  Óà8 à(1)€whether€the€accused€is€eligible€for€diversion;€andÌÓÓà8 à(2)€whether€there€was€an€abuse€of€discretion€by€theÏprosecuting€attorney€in€refusing€to€divert€the€accused.ÌÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓState€v.€Watkinsóó,€607€S.W.2d€486,€488€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).ÌÌà àIn€making€the€initial€determination,€the€prosecuting€attorney€mustÏconsider€(1)€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€(2)€the€accusedððs€criminal€record,€(3)€theÏaccusedððs€social€history,€(4)€the€accusedððs€physical€and€mental€condition,€(5)€theÏdeterrent€effect€of€punishment€upon€other€criminal€activity,€(6)€the€accusedððsÏamenability€to€correction,€(7)€the€likelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€ofÏjustice€and€the€best€interests€of€the€accused€and€the€public,€(8)€the€accusedððs€attitude,Ïbehavior€since€arrest,€home€environment,€current€drug€usage,€emotional€stability,€pastÏemployment,€general€reputation,€family€stability€and€attitude€of€law€enforcement.€€òòStateÏv.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950,€951€(Tenn.€1993).€€Thus,€the€nature€andÏcircumstances€of€the€alleged€offenses€are€not€the€only€appropriate€factors€to€beÏconsidered€upon€application€for€diversion,€but€they€may€provide€a€sufficient€basis€forÏdenial.€€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€855;€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€668€S.W.2d€678,€680€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1984).€ÌÌà àThe€decision€of€a€prosecuting€attorney€to€grant€or€deny€pretrial€diversionÏis€presumptively€correct€and€it€will€not€be€set€aside€absent€a€ð ðpatent€or€gross€abuse€ofÏprosecutorial€discretion.ðð€€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€356€(quoting€œòòPace€v.€Stateóó,›€566ÏS.W.2d€861,€870€(Tenn.€œ1978)›€œ(Henry,›€œC.J.,€concurring)).›€€Thus,€on€appeal,€the€recordÏmust€be€void€of€any€substantial€evidence€in€support€of€the€decision€before€this€courtÏmay€find€an€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€prosecuting€attorney.€€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2dÏat€356;€òòCarróó,€861€S.W.2d€at€856.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€prosecutor€abused€œher›€discretion€byÏdenying€his€request€for€pretrial€diversion€because€she€failed€to€state€in€the€letter€ofÏdenial€that€she€considered€evidence€showing€that€the€defendant€is€amenable€toÏcorrection.€€The€defendant€argues€that€his€lack€of€a€criminal€record€and€his€admissionsÏof€his€acts€indicate€that€he€is€not€likely€to€offend€again.€€He€correctly€points€out€that€theÏdenial€letter€does€not€specify€that€any€of€his€favorable€traits€were€considered.€€Instead,Ïthe€letter€summarily€states,€ð ðIn€making€this€decision€we€have€considered€all€of€theÏfactors€set€forth€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€[òòState€v.€Herronóó,€767€S.W.2d€151Ï(Tenn.€1989)]€and€subsequent€cases.ðð€€à àÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€defendant€that€the€summary€statement€œis€an›Ïinadequate€explanation€on€the€record€of€the€prosecutorððs€consideration€of€all€theÍrelevant€factors.€€€However,€we€also€note€that€the€defendant€had€the€initial€burden€ofÏsubmitting€information€in€support€of€his€request€for€diversion.€€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àThe€burden€is€on€the€[defendant],€in€the€first€instance,€toÏprovide€the€prosecuting€attorney€with€sufficient€backgroundÏinformation€and€data€to€enable€that€officer€to€make€aÏreasoned€decision€to€grant€or€deny€the€relief€sought.€€OfÏcourse€this€information€may€be€supplemented€by€the€pretrialÏinvestigation€authorized€by€T.C.A.€ðð€40„15„104,€but€theÏinvestigation€does€not€lessen€the€obligation€of€an€applicantÏto€endeavor€to€show€beforehand€he€is€an€appropriateÏsubject€for€diversion.ÌÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓHerronóó,€767€S.W.2d€at€156;€òòseeóó€œòòalsoóó›€òòState€v.€Baxteróó,€868€S.W.2d€679€(Tenn€Crim.€App.Ï1993).€€The€record€before€us€does€not€contain€the€defendantððs€request€for€pretrialÏdiversion€and€does€not€reflect€that€the€defendant€submitted€any€evidence€in€support€ofÏhis€œrequest.›€€Thus,€we€could€question€the€sufficiency€of€the€record€to€support€theÏdefendantððs€entitlement€to€diversion€regardless€of€the€prosecutorððs€œlevel€of€compliance.›€ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€the€record€the€prosecuting€attorney€considered€in€denyingÏthe€defendantððs€request€for€pretrial€diversion€contains€the€defendantððs€statementÏadmitting€his€actions€and€the€investigative€report€that€shows€that€the€defendant€has€noÏcriminal€record.€€The€trial€court€considered€these€facts€but€concluded€that€sufficientÏevidence€in€the€record€supported€the€prosecuting€attorneyððs€decision€to€deny€pretrialÏdiversion.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion.€ÌÌà àÓ#` °‹X)0*ŒX#ÓThe€record€before€us€demonstrates€that€the€defendant€knew€that€theÏfourteen„year„old€victim€had€run€away€from€state€custody€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€ÏAlthough€the€defendant€claimed€in€his€statement€that€he€tried€to€convince€the€victim€toÏreturn€to€the€youth€center,€the€victim€stated€that€the€defendant€played€with€her€mindÏand€convinced€her€to€run€away.€€The€defendant€is€ten€years€older€than€the€victim€and€Ïpenetrated€the€victim€three€different€ways.€€Based€upon€the€circumstances€of€this€case,Ñ€.ÑÇwe€conclude€that€the€prosecutor€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€by€denying€theÏdefendantððs€request€for€pretrial€diversion.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€œjudgment›€is€affirmed.€Ó` °˜XÓÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________òòÌà àà àà àà àà àà àóóJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóThomas€T.€Woodall,€Judge€Ìà@ à