ÿWPCÆ  (fŽ-‚ëØáó” +u–Ж*¨·ƒÂÞ‘%m:ÃQÝñpÀP™> (+°LæÂn´ %¿šþ6íÚ±“öŸ|øz§³IÁ ²KaR2¬.?“R /ºÕÒÆ’϶´Ö&8Ùh·Ñ‰ûY2$Ó•dyȪÖ3ÏŽ>% ýÍ,O»1Ÿ34 >ñ륭M¤zIâçøéÒ”˜,¾S½î\V0¡‘T‚!™\ävˆ~ÇkˆÃ†}¨æ+þ6-ºw wÐT­r¤ßk^ø¥ææÀa÷µ’šwõ®¬® Së×:G­36¦Ø97œóN…ÆçóV(€`¥}»~!#–fÓÕÝ÷´¢Ç'>åšïtz$bTxô¸è22¶ÍÝâÀ/(žtvv¥HIŠÒ²ãÞX&‹i¼cšÌìcÊWÌ…í:G}ûØ—dã)Ö¤E™µ%™ñt0NEQœŒË„KD ƒÐõ˜A9§gó™pP1‘4ÿGœØfËExF›¡öîmÒCÿÄÁ#â·pr€–ßËh·¸ëÌçÆYµ¹€÷{›ðò‰pŒÎsì]SXî¸fFkÏwÊ1óõcÑФÆ~÷ì»ËK·]'¢Il âèéθ{˜[³*UBL %ŽU.”ÂnXÒ 0P*4zŽ 0”– 0D*w@nU:® 0Dè%,U:Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q AQ‹ ÆÜ 0D¢ 0Dæ B* * D/G G Bv D3“ <þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X‡«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó¸LË$(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó sUtuEv£wUxUyDz{|Ó€"Arial Regular($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X¸rXXXÔÔ€'XXX¸rÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X¸rX'XÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€26,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô(É ôXX¸rÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"# &Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýñ|ñ›ñ|ñÑ` °ÑÑX°ÑÒPDÒÒŽ¦ÒÑ7€RtXXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÔ€X™½XXXÔñ|ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eêf ` ttx$"` ð Úrß›ñ|ñà ¨ àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌà@oo:MàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌÓ  Óà@7MàMARCH€1998€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ° àà  àà ` à)ó óÐ Ðp  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)ó óà ¸ àò òC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9708„CR„00320ó óÐ À`  Ðà ¨ àà àAppellee,à ° àò ò€€€€€à  àà ` à)Ð °P  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àSCOTT€COUNTYó óÐ  @  ÐVS.à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)Ð 0  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àHON.€LEE€ASBURY,Ð €  ÐVERONICA€L.€PHILLIPS,à ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àJUDGEÐ p Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)Ìà ¨ àà àó óAppellant.ò òà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó(Pretrial€Diversion)ò òÐ Pð Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà ° àà  àà ` à€€€€€òòà ¸ àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ ° ÐÌÌò òCHARLES€ALLENà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ à€ Ðó óP.O.€Box€5027à X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÐ Ð p Ðó óOneida,€TN€œ€37841ò ò›Ð À!` Ðó óà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIó óÐ °"P Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJohn€Sevier€Bldg.Ð $0 Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à425€Fifth€Ave.,€Northà ! àà p# àÐ €%  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àWILLIAM€PAUL€PHILLIPSó óÐ P(ð! Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àCLIFTON€H.€SEXTONó óÐ  +À!$ Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àP.O.€Box€10Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àHuntsville,€TN€œ€37756›ÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ P7ð-1 ÐÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ  :À04 ÐJudgeÌÐ  < 26S ÐÑXÑÑ7€ ™½ XXdðXXdÈ7ÑñvñÓ  Óñvñà@™™:Màò òòòÔ‡¼7#¼XX™½ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†X™½X¼¼7#3#ԈР`  ÐÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€was€charged€in€the€indictment€with€one€count€of€recklessÏhomicide€and€one€count€of€reckless€aggravated€assault.€€The€defendant€filed€anÏapplication€for€pretrial€diversion€with€the€district€attorney€general,€who€denied€theÏdefendantððs€application€by€written€response.€€The€defendant€then€filed€a€petition€for€writÏof€certiorari€with€the€trial€court,€which€was€denied.€€Pursuant€to€Rule€9€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€the€defendant€sought€and€was€granted€permission€toÏappeal€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€this€Court.€€The€sole€issue€presented€in€this€appeal€isÏwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€that€the€district€attorney€general€did€not€abuseÏhis€discretion€by€denying€the€defendantððs€application€for€pretrial€diversion.€€After€ourÏreview€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€record€indicates€that€on€May€10,€1996,€at€6:30€p.m.,€the€defendant,€whoÏwas€œñyñ20ñyññzñtwentyñzñ›€years€old€at€the€time,€and€a€friend€were€traveling€east€at€a€high€rate€of€speedÏon€State€Highway€63.€€This€stretch€of€highway€was€dry€and€flat.€€As€the€defendant€droveÏeast,€she€passed€a€vehicle€in€front€of€her,€causing€a€driver€traveling€in€the€westbound€laneÏto€pull€to€his€right€in€order€to€avoid€colliding€head„on€with€the€defendantððs€vehicle.€€At€aÏpoint€approximately€two€miles€further,€the€defendant€again€attempted€to€pass€a€vehicleÏin€front€of€her.€€This€vehicle€was€driven€by€Gaylon€Gibson.€€As€the€defendant€pulledÏacross€the€double€yellow€line€into€the€westbound€lane€of€traffic€to€pass€Mr.€Gibsonððs€car,Ïshe€collided€head„on€with€a€vehicle€driven€by€Timothy€Bowling.€€The€defendantððs€carÏcame€to€rest€on€the€roof€of€Mr.€Gibsonððs€car.€€Apparently,€nothing€obstructed€theÏdefendantððs€view€of€the€Bowlingsðð€car€prior€to€impact.€€Nonetheless,€no€skid€marks€wereÏfound€on€the€road,€indicating€that€neither€the€defendant€nor€Mr.€Bowling€applied€theirÐ †6&-0 Ðbrakes€prior€to€impact,€possibly€because€neither€had€time€to€do€so.Ð †6&-2 Їà ¨ àà àNone€of€the€people€involved€in€the€accident€were€wearing€their€œseat€belts.›€ÏMr.€Bowling,€who€was€thirty„four€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€died€as€a€result€ofÏthe€head„on€collision,€and€his€wife,€who€was€traveling€with€him,€sustained€serious€injuries.€ÏMr.€Gibson€and€his€passenger€were€also€injured,€although€not€as€gravely€injured€as€theÏBowlings.€€Both€the€defendant€and€her€passenger€were€also€seriously€injured,€andÏaccording€to€the€accident€report,€neither€remember€the€events€leading€up€to€the€accidentÏor€the€accident€itself.€€Following€the€accident,€the€defendant€was€issued€two€citations,€oneÏfor€improper€passing€and€one€for€reckless€driving.€€Two€months€later,€a€grand€jury€indictedÏthe€defendant€with€the€reckless€homicide€of€Mr.€Timothy€Bowling€and€the€recklessÏaggravated€assault€of€Ms.€Alice€Bowling,€his€wife.ÌÌà ¨ àà àSeveral€months€later,€the€defendant€applied€for€pretrial€diversion.€€TheÏdefendantððs€application€attested€that€she€was€diagnosed€with€cystic€fibrosis€when€sheÏwas€two€years€old,€and€as€a€result,€she€has€always€lived€with€her€parents.€€TheÏdefendantððs€home€life€is€stable,€loving,€and€supportive.€€When€the€defendant€graduatedÏfrom€high€school€in€1995,€she€began€working€at€the€Scott€County€Food€Court€andÏchaperoning€on€a€volunteer€basis€for€the€local€high€school€band.€€Because€of€theÏextensive€nature€of€her€injuries€from€the€accident,€she€was€unable€to€resume€herÏemployment€at€the€food€court,€but€she€has€continued€to€volunteer€as€a€chaperone€andÏshe€began€babysitting€on€a€part„time€basis.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendantððs€application€emphasized€that€the€accident€was€not€causedÏby€alcohol€or€drug€use€and€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€a€history€of€drug€or€alcoholÏuse.€€The€application€attested€that€the€defendant€had€no€criminal€record,€had€no€previousÏdriving€offenses,€and€had€never€been€granted€pretrial€diversion.€€The€defendant€alsoÏdetailed€the€injuries€she€received€from€the€accident.€€She€represented€that€various€platesÐ L6ì,2 Ðand€pins€were€inserted€into€several€parts€of€her€body,€but€that€due€to€complicationsÏcaused€by€her€cystic€fibrosis,€her€body€rejected€the€plates€and€pins,€and€she€wasÏscheduled€for€surgery€to€remedy€this€and€other€problems.€€The€defendant€alsoÏrepresented€that€she€has€been€visiting€a€counselor€on€a€regular€basis€in€order€to€deal€withÏthe€emotional€problems€she€has€suffered€as€a€result€of€the€accident.ÌÌà ¨ àà àIn€support€of€her€application,€the€defendant€submitted€letters€from€friendsÏand€authority€figures€in€her€life.€€These€letters€showed€that€the€defendant€had€a€goodÏgeneral€reputation€and€has€shown€both€family€and€social€responsibility€in€her€life.€€In€sum,Ïthese€letters€vouched€that€the€defendant€was€a€trustworthy,€honest,€considerate,€andÏresponsible€young€woman€who€could€rise€above€the€tragedy€she€œexperienced›€if€given€theÏopportunity.€€The€letters€asked€for€leniency,€mercy,€and€a€ð ðsecond€chanceðð€for€theÏdefendant.€ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€assistant€district€attorney€general€replied€to€the€defendantððs€applicationÏfor€pretrial€diversion€by€letter.€€In€his€letter,€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€statedÏthat€he€had€considered€all€of€the€factors€discussed€in€the€defendantððs€letter€and€he€did€notÏtake€issue€with€any€of€the€facts€the€defendant€enumerated€in€her€application.€€Even€so,Ïhe€denied€the€defendantððs€application€for€diversion,€citing€the€following€reasons:ÌÒ PÒœÓÓ1.›€€The€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense.ÌœÌ2.›€€The€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim.ÌœÌ3.›€€The€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€and€the€amount€of€property€damageÏsustained€by€the€victims€was€particularly€great.ÌœñwñÌñwñ4.›€€The€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€to€gratify€theÏdefendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.ÌœÌ5.›€€The€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€riskÏto€human€life€was€high.ÌœÌ6.›€€Deterrent€effect€upon€the€defendant€and€others.Ð 27Ò-3 М‡7.›€€Denial€of€diversion€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousnessÏof€the€offense.ÌœÌ8.›€€The€ends€of€justice€require€denial€of€diversion.ÌÌÒP ÒœñqññpñÓÓñpññqññrñÌñrññwñ›ñwññsñÌñsñ›ñtñÓÓñtñà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€sought€the€trial€courtððs€review€of€the€denial.€€The€partiesÏscheduled€a€œhearingñuñ,ñuñ›€at€which€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€reiterated€that€he€didÏnot€dispute€any€of€the€facts€presented€by€the€defendant.€€Moreover,€the€assistant€districtÏattorney€general€represented€that€he€had€considered€all€of€the€factors€the€defendantÏdiscussed,€but€what€particularly€influenced€his€decision€to€deny€diversion€was€the€impactÏdiversion€would€have€had€on€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€public€interest.€€The€assistantÏdistrict€attorney€general€also€stated€that€in€his€opinion,€considering€that€the€defendant€wasÏdriving€well€in€excess€of€the€speed€limit€and€passing€on€a€double€yellow€line,€andÏconsidering€that€these€intentional€acts€killed€one€person€and€caused€grave€injuries€toÏthree€others,€diversion€was€not€warranted.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€district€attorney€general€did€not€abuseÏhis€discretion€and€that€the€denial€of€diversion€was€based€upon€sufficient€facts.€€The€trialÏcourt€stated€that€a€reckless€act€resulting€in€the€death€of€an€individual€who€has€done€noÏwrong€is€of€the€nature€and€circumstance€to€warrant€close€scrutiny€when€considering€aÏpretrial€diversion€application.€€The€trial€court€further€agreed€with€the€district€attorneyÏgeneral€that€under€the€circumstances,€denial€of€diversion€was€necessary€to€uphold€theÏends€of€justice€and€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€œñ{ñthe€ñ{ñoffense.›ÌÌà ¨ àà àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€argues€several€reasons€why€the€trial€court€erredÏin€upholding€the€district€attorney€generalððs€denial€of€diversion.€€Primarily,€she€contendsÏthat€the€district€attorney€general€relied€upon€insufficient€proof,€failed€to€look€at€allÏapplicable€factors,€and€instead€relied€too€heavily€on€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€theÐ 27Ò-3 Ðoffense,€which€was€improper€without€some€explanation€of€why€these€factors€shouldÏoutweigh€the€other€factors.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ¨ àà àUpon€application€for€diversion,€the€district€attorney€general€must€considerÏthe€relevant€factors€carefully€in€making€a€decision.€€The€district€attorney€general€ð ðmustÏconsider€all€the€evidence€which€tends€to€show€that€the€applicant€is€amenable€to€correctionÏand€is€not€likely€to€commit€additional€crimes.ðð€€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€806,€810Ð (È  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€To€that€end,€the€district€attorney€general€should€consider,€inÏaddition€to€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€socialÏhistory,€present€physical€and€mental€condition€where€appropriate,€amenability€toÏcorrection,€behavior€since€arrest,€home€environment,€current€drug€usage,€emotionalÏstability,€past€employment,€general€reputation,€marital€stability,€family€responsibility,€andÏattitude.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,Ð ð Ð650€S.W.2d€352€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€addition,€the€district€attorney€general€should€considerÏthe€deterrent€effect€of€punishment€and€the€likelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serve€theÏends€of€justice€and€the€best€interests€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóóÐ T$ô ÐòòWashingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€at€951;€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€355.Ð  &À  ÐÌà ¨ àà àIf€the€district€attorney€general€denies€diversion,€he€or€she€must€inform€theÏdefendant€through€a€formal,€written€response€to€the€application.€€òòSeeóó€òòWinsettóó,€882Ð „+$"& ÐS.W.2d€at€810.€€This€response€should€include€a€recitation€of€all€evidence€considered;€theÏreason€for€the€denial,€including€which€factors€were€considered,€how€some€factorsÏcontrolled€the€decision,€and€why€certain€factors€outweighed€others;€and€an€identificationÏof€any€disputed€issue€of€fact.€€òòId.óó€€ð ðIf€the€[district]€attorney€general€bases€his€decision€onÐ ´2T). Ðless€than€the€full€complement€of€factors€.€.€.€he€must,€for€the€record,€state€why€heÏconsiders€that€those€he€relies€on€outweigh€the€others€submitted€for€his€consideration.ðð€Ð L6ì,2 ÐòòState€v.€Herronóó,€767€S.W.2d€151,€156€(Tenn.€1989).Ð `  ÐÌà ¨ àà àReview€of€the€district€attorney€generalððs€decision€to€deny€diversion€is€via€aÏpetition€for€writ€of€certiorari€filed€with€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„15„105(b)(3).€€TheÐ Äd Ðdistrict€attorney€generalððs€decision€denying€diversion€is€presumptively€correct,€and€the€trialÏcourt€must€affirm€his€or€her€decision€absent€a€finding€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.;Ð \ü  ÐòòState€v.€Lutryóó,€938€S.W.2d€431,€434€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€In€its€review€of€the€districtÐ (È  Ðattorney€generalððs€decision,€the€trial€court€is€limited€to€the€evidence€originally€consideredÏby€the€district€attorney€general.€€òòWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€810.€€However,€where€the€districtÐ À` Ðattorney€generalððs€letter€denying€diversion€is€insufficient€for€the€trial€court€to€determineÏwhat€evidence€the€district€attorney€general€considered,€his€or€her€reasons€for€denying€theÏpetition,€and€whether€there€are€disputed€issues€of€fact,€the€trial€court€should€hold€anÏevidentiary€hearing€in€order€to€allow€the€district€attorney€general€to€place€this€informationÏon€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Carolyn€L.€Curryóó,€No.€02C01„9601„CC„00005,€Carroll€CountyÐ ¼ \ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€January€2,€1997,€at€Jackson).€€Only€in€this€way€can€the€trial€courtÏbe€assured€it€is€considering€the€same€evidence€considered€by€the€district€attorney€generalÏand€ultimately€determine€whether€the€district€attorney€general€abused€his€or€her€discretionÏin€denying€diversion.€€òòId.óóÐ ì'Œ" ÐÌà ¨ àà àFor€the€purposes€of€our€review,€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€are€bindingÏon€this€Court€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€such€findings.€€òòSeeóó€òòLutryóó,€938Ð P-ð#( ÐS.W.2d€at€434;€òòState€v.€Houstonóó,€900€S.W.2d€712,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€WeÐ /¼%* Ðreview€the€case€not€to€ascertain€if€the€trial€court€has€abused€its€discretion,€but€to€ascertainÏif€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court,€whichÏdetermines€whether€the€district€attorney€general€abused€his€or€her€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòLutryóó,Ð €4 +0 Ð938€S.W.2d€at€434;€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€607€S.W.2d€486,€489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€Ð L6ì,2 ÐThus,€the€underlying€issue€for€our€determination€remains€whether,€as€a€matter€of€law,€theÏdistrict€attorney€general€abused€his€or€her€discretion€in€denying€pretrial€diversion.€€òòSeeóóÐ , Ì ÐòòLutryóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€434;€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861€S.W.2d€850,€857€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð ø ˜ ÐÌà ¨ àà àHere,€our€review€of€the€entire€record€reveals€that€the€district€attorneyÏgeneral€considered€all€of€the€relevant€factors€he€was€required€to€consider€and€that€hisÏdecision€to€deny€diversion€was€based€upon€sufficient€proof€in€the€record.€€We€furtherÏconclude€that€the€district€attorney€general€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denyingÏdiversion€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€While€the€record€revealsÏinformation€favorable€to€the€defendantððs€character€and€sympathetic€to€her€situation,€theÏrecord€also€reveals€the€premature€death€of€a€young€man€and€horrible€injuries€to€severalÏyoung€people,€all€caused€by€the€defendantððs€intentional€decision€to€drive€at€excessiveÏspeeds€and€illegally€pass€a€slower€vehicle€on€a€double€yellow€line.€€Although€the€accidentÏoccurred€in€daylight€on€a€flat€road€with€no€apparent€obstructions,€the€defendant€failed€toÏapply€her€brakes€prior€to€hitting€the€Bowlingsðð€car,€which€supports€the€notion€that€theÏdefendant€failed€to€even€look€for€oncoming€traffic€before€pulling€across€the€double€yellowÏline€to€illegally€pass€Mr.€Gibsonððs€car.€€It€is€also€quite€telling€of€the€defendantððs€behaviorÐ  &À  Ðthat€just€prior€to€the€accident,€she€had€passed€another€car€under€similar€circumstances,Ïnarrowly€avoiding€another€careless€accident€and€forcing€another€driver€to€pull€out€of€herÏway.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€cannot€find€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€districtÏattorney€generalððs€decision€to€provide€a€deterrent,€uphold€the€ends€of€justice,€protect€theÏpublic€interest€and€not€depreciate€this€offense€by€denying€diversion.€€€Based€upon€thisÏsame€evidence€in€the€record,€we€also€reject€the€defendantððs€suggestion€that€Mr.€BowlingððsÏdeath€and€the€othersðð€injuries€were€not€the€result€of€an€intentional€act€or€acts.€ÌÌà ¨ àà àMoreover,€we€conclude€that€the€decision€to€deny€diversion€is€sound€evenÐ L6ì,2 Ðthough€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€may€not€have€fully€elaborated€why€he€reliedÏmore€heavily€on€some€factors€than€on€others.€€We€emphasize€that€the€decision€to€rely€onÏsome€factors€more€heavily€than€others€should€be€fully€explained€in€writing€in€order€toÏcreate€a€clearer€record€on€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€810;€€òòHerronóó,€767€S.W.2dÐ Äd Ðat€156.€€Here,€even€though€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€may€not€have€fullyÏexplained€in€writing€his€decision€to€give€certain€factors€priority€over€others,€he€did€stateÏin€writing€that€he€reviewed€each€and€every€factor€presented€by€the€defendant€but€electedÏto€deny€the€defendantððs€request€based€upon€certain€enumerated€reasons.€€The€assistantÏdistrict€attorney€general€offered€further€explanation€at€the€hearing,€where€he€again€statedÏhe€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€did€not€dispute€any€of€the€information€submittedÏby€the€defendant,€but€that€even€so,€he€must€deny€the€defendantððs€application€becauseÏhe€believed€the€public€interest€and€the€ends€of€justice€would€be€better€served€by€a€denial.€ÏContrary€to€the€defendantððs€assertions,€then,€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€didÏstate€for€the€record€that€he€was€giving€some€factors€priority€over€others€and,€to€an€extent,Ïhe€did€explain€his€decision€to€do€so.€While,€as€we€have€previously€stated,€he€could€haveÏbeen€more€explicit€and€unambiguous€in€his€explanation,€we€cannot€find€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€on€this€basis€in€the€record.ÌÌà ¨ àà àWe€address€one€last€point€raised€by€the€defendant.€€Throughout€theÏdefendantððs€argument,€she€reiterates€that€she€met€all€technical€eligibility€requirements€forÏdiversion€and€that€there€is€favorable€evidence€for€each€factor€the€district€attorney€generalÏshould€have€considered.€€This€argument€will€not€afford€the€defendant€relief.€€While€theÏdefendant€bears€the€initial€burden€to€demonstrate€to€the€district€attorney€general€bothÏeligibility€for€and€entitlement€to€pretrial€diversion,€òòseeóó€òòHerronóó,€767€S.W.2d€at€156;€òòWinsettóó,Ð ´2T). Ð882€S.W.2d€at€809„10,€mere€statutory€eligibility€under€T.C.A.€ðð€40„15„105(a)€does€not,Ïstanding€alone,€entitle€a€defendant€to€pretrial€diversion.€€Instead,€statutory€eligibility€setsÐ L6ì,2 Ðthe€stage€for€the€district€attorney€general€to€review€the€information€provided€by€theÏdefendant€on€the€diversion€application€or€gathered€through€a€pretrial€investigationÏpursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„15„104€and€to€determine€if€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€pretrialÏdiversion.€€Here,€the€fact€that€the€defendant€has€favorable€evidence€relating€to€eachÏrelevant€consideration€does€not€mean€she€is€automatically€entitled€to€diversion.€€NeitherÏdoes€it€discount€the€factors€the€district€attorney€general€determined€should€have€priority.€ÏQuite€simply,€the€district€attorney€generalððs€failure€to€grant€diversion€to€a€defendant€whoÏis€merely€technically€eligible€does€not€itself€amount€to€an€abuse€of€discretion.ÌÌà ¨ àà àIn€sum,€none€of€the€defendantððs€arguments€show€how€the€district€attorneyÏgeneral€abused€his€discretion€in€denying€her€application€for€pretrial€diversion.€ÏAccordingly,€we€affirm.ÌÌÓÓà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à_______________________________Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌœñxñÌÌñxñCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€Special€Judge