ÿWPC •j³ Ú¥DšI K¨ÂÇ6Ë4x‚e;£'Ë 2 r &ìÝ w§\xòþ7@üŸe#’ñò+õIí_Çï]L~Ì­e…U =ù]XÞô»düJQTì à„ Ú¶3aBÂÈA`•·˜‡§ý™QÄ.•ó ¶=¬ûÐþ•‰Ó67·èQm|S{×JÎ\<—üÆ1£*ðà|æ2"œúF'ªpš™€;šdäì„T'Ƹ[m™ K”d{fHL+¸z»Á'X„²þs?ò"£ˆ£l8²^s ƒŸ™ôóñ±–Ø.–ÃÛǘ">Ò}Ç_U÷êAVâMEúIyåø^ÿ„AÖm{ª½“î.FÅ#ÀñqÞL&Ù-óšDNß§‰®j©]í‘’DЭɬ,INÏ9Fe¶·&½CÖÜA®cB9ˆ‰ßý»·æ>C÷Û|8-‹Ø†šSéÄ’ýqnF+ùp—ý¢Î+•èTëî)àøuöÖ^ÎAä ‘î%q¥$­5Õ‘»PCŠ]¯÷È%Y"KšŸLÏ5cóÊXë®Çex¬}¿D»šZg°×ld=Îö/§lTµÎâmÇê qÅ…Õ|Tdÿ°ŒÍFaíV¬›ø¾§ÖYæ¤ùb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1-÷N$$$E& 0D(llllllllllllllllllllllbtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt 0ë|||| Bgg 0¤„ D5( D-] 0KŠŠ ASÕÆ( 0¤î 0D’ A«Ö˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0 »*pS+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularòK+¥(ÏxCorel ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 #Ý ƒR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ ôÊW ò» »ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„102(5)€states€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôc]onvictedÔ_Ô€felons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,Ð ° Ðpossessing€criminal€histories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€pastÐ tÄ Ðefforts€at€rehabilitation€shall€be€given€first€priority€regarding€sentencing€involving€incarceration€.€.€.€.ðð(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó - ù-(|G2$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F<»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô6ò»»Ô d(|3 ù$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F<»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 ù$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F<»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J¤»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ ¼l»» »ÔÑ8€$tXXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡ îe®î» ¼lÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#† ¼l»î îe® #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€September€11,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡ X?ãX» ¼lÔÌò òÔ#† ¼l»X X?ã!#ÔòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóÔ_ÔARHONDAÔ_Ô€RICEÔ‡ X?ãX» ¼lÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00„05935€€€€€€James€C.€Beasley,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„03004„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€16,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant€pled€guilty€to€theft€over€$1,000.00,€a€Class€D€felony,€and€the€trial€court€sentenced€herÐ xÈ  Ðto€two€years€incarceration€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender.€€The€trial€court€suspended€the€DefendantððsÐ d´ Ðsentence€and€placed€her€on€seven€years€probation.€€The€trial€court€also€ordered€the€Defendant€to€serveÐ P  Ðone€hundred€weekends€at€the€Shelby€County€Correctional€Center,€perform€five€hundred€hours€ofÐ <Œ Ðcommunity€service,€and€pay€$8,400.00€in€restitution.€€The€Defendant€now€appeals,€arguing€(1)€theÐ (x Ðtrial€court€erred€in€denying€her€judicial€diversion,€and€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€her€fullÐ d Ðprobation.€€Finding€no€error,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ô#† ¼l»X X?ãµ#ÔÔ‡ X?ãX» ¼lÔÐ P ÐÓâÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#† ¼l»à X?ã4#ÔÔ‡ X?ãX. ¼lÔRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€Woodallóó€andÐ ° ÐòòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌTony€N.€Brayton,€Assistant€Public€Defender€(on€appeal),€Memphis,€Tennessee;€and€Phyllis€Ô_ÔAlukoÔ_Ô,Ð tÄ ÐAssistant€Public€Defender€(at€trial),€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Ô_ÔArhondaÔ_Ô€Rice.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Laura€McMullen€Ford,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ 8!ˆ  ÐGeneral;€William€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Kevin€Ô_ÔRardinÔ_Ô,€Assistant€DistrictÐ $"t! ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð #`" ÐÓæÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONÐ è$8 $ ÐÌI.€€Factsó óÔ#† ¼l»X X?ã #ÔÔ‡ X?ãX» ¼lÔÐ À&"& ÐÌòòóóÔ#† ¼l»X X?ãÅ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ X?ãX» ¼lÔà  àThe€Defendant,€Ô_ÔArhondaÔ_Ô€Rice,€worked€as€a€certified€nursing€assistant€for€Trained€MedicalÐ ˜(è#( ÐStaffing,€a€temporary€medical€personnel€agency.€€According€to€William€Brewer,€an€employee€ofÐ „)Ô$) ÐTrained€Medical€Staffing,€between€May€18,€1998€and€August€28,€1998,€the€Defendant€turned€in€overÐ p*À%* Ðone€hundred€fraudulent€time€sheets€for€hours€she€had€allegedly€worked€at€Highpoint€Ô_ÔRehabÔ_Ô€in€ShelbyÐ \+¬&+ ÐCounty,€Tennessee.€€Each€of€these€time€sheets€was€supposedly€signed€by€either€Sandra€Ô_ÔAyresÔ_Ô€orÐ H,˜', ÐGertrude€Fry,€registered€nurses€at€Highpoint€Ô_ÔRehabÔ_Ô;€however,€both€signed€affidavits€stating€that€theÐ 4-„(-ý Ðsignatures€on€those€forms€were€not€theirs.€€When€confronted€by€her€employer,€the€DefendantÐ ° Ðadmitted€to€the€theft.€€According€to€the€State,€Trained€Medical€Staffing€suffered€a€loss€of€$10,086.50.€Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€a€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suspend€her€sentence,€the€Defendant€testified€that€she€padded€herÐ tÄ Ðhours€because€she€needed€extra€money€to€ð ðpay€a€few€bills€off.ðð€€According€to€the€Defendant,€at€leastÐ `° Ðone€other€girl€with€whom€she€worked€was€doing€the€same€thing,€and€that€is€how€she€got€the€idea€toÐ L œ Ðfalsify€her€time€sheets.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€she€felt€guilty€about€what€she€had€done.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐHowever,€the€Defendant€went€to€work€soon€thereafter€for€Critical€Care€Nursing,€where€she€ð ðdid€theÐ $ t Ðsame€thing.ðð€€At€the€time€of€her€plea,€the€Defendant€was€also€charged€with€forgery€and€theft€ofÐ  ` Ðproperty€over€$500.00€for€defrauding€Critical€Care€Nursing€of€$816.70€by€submitting€falsified€timeÐ ü L  Ðsheets.€€As€part€of€the€plea€agreement,€the€State€did€not€submit€that€case€to€the€Grand€Jury.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà@éé$ìàò òII.€€AnalysisˆÐ À  ÐÌà@®®$ìàA.€€òòProbationóóó óˆÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€her€full€probation.€€When€aÐ pÀ Ðcriminal€defendant€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€the€reviewingÐ \¬ Ðcourt€must€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÐ H˜ Ðmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption,€however,Ð 4„ Ðð ðis€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÐ  p Ðsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ð  \ Ð169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€the€event€that€the€record€fails€to€show€such€consideration,€the€review€of€theÐ øH Ðsentence€is€purely€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencingÐ ¼  Ðhearing,€determines€the€range€of€sentence€and€then€determines€the€specific€sentence€and€the€proprietyÐ ¨ø Ðof€sentencing€alternatives€by€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÐ ”ä Ðsentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÐ €Ð Ðsentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved,€(5)Ð l¼ Ðevidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€(6)€anyÐ X ¨ Ðstatements€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendant's€behalf€about€sentencing,€and€(7)€theÐ D!” Ðpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€òòóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„210(a),€(b),€„103(5);€òòState€v.Ð 0"€  ÐWilliamsóó,€920€S.W.2d€247,€258€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€presumptive€sentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D€or€E€felony€isÐ ô$D # Ðthe€minimum€within€the€applicable€range€unless€there€are€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€present.€Ð à%0!$ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€If€there€are€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€startÐ Ì&"% Ðat€the€presumptive€sentence,€enhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors,€andÐ ¸'#& Ðthen€reduce€the€sentence€in€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(e).€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐThe€weight€to€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854Ð )à$( Ðâ âS.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€However,€the€sentence€must€be€adequately€supportedÐ |*Ì%) Ðby€the€record€and€comply€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€Ð ° ÐòòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€237€(Tenn.€1986).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àWhen€imposing€a€sentence,€the€trial€court€must€make€specific€findings€of€fact€on€the€recordÐ tÄ Ðsupporting€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„209(c).€€The€record€should€also€include€anyÐ `° Ðenhancement€or€mitigating€factors€applied€by€the€trial€court.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(f).€€Thus,€if€the€trialÐ L œ Ðcourt€wishes€to€enhance€a€sentence,€the€court€must€state€its€reasons€on€the€record.€€The€purpose€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðrecording€the€courtððs€reasoning€is€to€guarantee€the€preparation€of€a€proper€record€for€appellateÐ $ t Ðreview.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔErvinÔ_Ôóó,€939€S.W.2d€581,€584€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Because€the€record€in€thisÐ  ` Ðcase€indicates€that€the€trial€court€adequately€considered€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€asÐ ü L  Ðwell€as€the€underlying€facts,€our€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€that€theÐ À  Ðcourt€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€theÐ ¬ü  Ðfactors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€areÐ ˜è  Ðadequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€"even€if€we€would€haveÐ „Ô  Ðpreferred€a€different€result."€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€TheÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence€imposed.€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÐ \¬ Ðat€169.òòóóÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àWith€certain€exceptions,€a€defendant€is€eligible€for€probation€if€the€sentence€actually€imposedÐ  p Ðis€eight€years€or€less.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a).€€ð ðAlthough€probation€ððmust€be€automaticallyÐ  \ Ðconsidered€as€a€sentencing€option€for€eligible€defendants,€the€defendant€is€not€automatically€entitledÐ øH Ðto€probation€as€a€matter€of€law.ðððð€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€940€S.W.2d€558,€559€(Tenn.€1997)€(citing€Tenn.Ð ä4 ÐCode€Ann.€òòóóðð€40„35„303(b)€sentencing€Ô_ÔcommððnÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcmtsÔ_Ô).€€In€determining€whether€to€grant€or€denyÐ Ð  Ðprobation,€the€trial€court€may€consider€the€circumstances€of€the€offense;€the€defendantððs€criminalÐ ¼  Ðrecord,€background€and€social€history;€the€defendantððs€physical€and€mental€health;€the€deterrentÐ ¨ø Ðeffect€on€other€criminal€activity;€and€the€likelihood€that€probation€is€in€the€best€interests€of€both€theÐ ”ä Ðpublic€and€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Parkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€945,€958€òòóó(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€TheÐ €Ð ÐDefendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b);Ð l¼ ÐòòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€€An€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,Ð X ¨ ÐD€or€E€felony€who€does€not€fit€within€certain€parametersÔ_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidateÐ D!” Ðfor€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð 0"€  Ð35„102(6).€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àHowever,€we€further€note€that€even€if€a€defendant€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidateÐ ô$D # Ðfor€alternative€sentencing€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„102(6),€the€statutoryÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âpresumption€of€an€alternative€sentence€may€be€overcome€ifÐ Ì&"% Ðà8  àà ` à(A)€[Ô_Ôc]onfinementÔ_Ô€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendantÐ ° Ðâ âwho€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;МìÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(B)€[Ô_Ôc]onfinementÔ_Ô€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðoffense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrent€toÐ tÄ Ðothers€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€orÐ`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(C)€[Ô_Ôm]easuresÔ_Ô€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€or€recentlyÐ L œ Ðbeen€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant€.€.€.€.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A)„(C).Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€she€should€have€received€full€probation.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€nature€of€the€offense€warranted€some€incarceration€and€sentenced€her€to€two€years€incarcerationÐ è 8  Ðas€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€the€minimum€sentence€for€a€Class€D€felony.€€The€trial€courtÐ Ô$  Ðsuspended€the€Defendantððs€sentence,€and€placed€her€on€seven€years€probation.€€The€trial€court€alsoÐ À  Ðordered€the€Defendant€to€serve€one€hundred€weekends€at€the€Shelby€County€Correctional€Center,Ð ¬ü  Ðperform€five€hundred€hours€of€community€service,€and€pay€$8,400.00€in€restitution.€The€DefendantÐ ˜è  Ðargues€that€the€trial€court€denied€her€probation€based€solely€on€the€nature€of€the€offense.€€However,Ð „Ô  Ðthis€Court€has€held€that€probation€may€be€denied€based€solely€on€the€circumstances€of€the€offenseÐ pÀ Ðwhen€they€outweigh€all€other€factors€favoring€probation.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€788„89Ð \¬ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€presented€at€the€sentencing€hearing€showed€that€the€Defendant€repeatedlyÐ  p Ðforged€documents€and€stole€from€her€employer.€€She€claimed€that€she€needed€money€to€pay€her€bills,Ð  \ Ðbut€when€asked€if€she€tried€to€find€a€second€job,€she€replied€that€she€ð ðdidnððt€make€an€effort,€at€all.ððÐ øH ÐWhen€the€Defendant€was€approached€about€the€thefts€by€her€employer,€she€left€Trained€MedicalÐ ä4 ÐStaffing,€and€eventually€began€working€for€another€company€where€she€also€forged€time€sheets.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðtrial€court€noted€the€ð ðsystematic€nature€of€the€theftsðð€and€the€ð ðwell€thought€out€and€planned€natureÐ ¼  Ðof€the€crime.ðð€€The€court€also€noted€that€ð ð[w]hen€caught€and€confronted€with€it,€[the€Defendant]Ð ¨ø Ðmove€on€to€another€location€and€did€it€again.ðð€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€that€she€plans€to€pay€restitution,€and€she€testified€that€in€order€to€doÐ l¼ Ðso,€she€plans€on€working€for€Circle„K€and€getting€help€from€her€parents.€€The€Defendant€had€aÐ X ¨ Ðconsistent€work€history€since€December€1996;€however,€she€was€unemployed€at€the€time€of€theÐ D!” Ðsentencing€hearing.€€The€Defendant€has€no€prior€criminal€convictions.€€No€enhancement€orÐ 0"€  Ðmitigating€factors€were€filed.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€including€transcripts€of€the€plea€agreement€hearing€andÐ ô$D # Ðthe€sentencing€hearing,€the€presentence€report,€as€well€as€the€principles€of€sentencing,€we€concludeÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€Defendant€full€probation.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà@VVìàò òB.€€òòJudicial€Diversionóóó óˆÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€declining€to€impose€a€sentenceÐ |*Ì%) Ðpursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„313,€commonly€referred€to€as€judicial€diversion.€Ð h+¸&* ÐSpecifically,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properly€articulate€how€it€weighed€theÐ ° Ðfactors€in€deciding€to€deny€judicial€diversion.€According€to€this€statute,€the€trial€court€may€in€itsÐ œì Ðdiscretion,€following€a€determination€of€guilt,€defer€further€proceedings€and€place€a€qualifiedÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant€on€probation€without€entering€a€judgment€of€guilt.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð tÄ Ð313(a)(1)(A).€€A€qualified€defendant€is€one€who€pleads€guilty€or€is€found€guilty€of€a€misdemeanorÐ `° Ðor€a€Class€C,€D€or€E€felony;€who€has€not€previously€been€convicted€of€felony€or€a€Class€AÐ L œ Ðmisdemeanor;€and€who€is€not€seeking€deferral€for€a€sexual€offense€or€a€Class€A€or€Class€B€felony.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„313(a)(1)(B)(I)(a)„(c);€òòState€v.€Parkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€at€958.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àWhen€a€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€in€refusing€to€grant€judicialÐ ü L  Ðdiversion,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€failing€toÐ è 8  Ðsentence€pursuant€to€the€statute.€€òòState€v.€Electroplating,€Inc.óó,€990€S.W.2d€211,€229€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Ô$  ÐApp.€1998);€òòState€v.€Cutshawóó,€967€S.W.2d€332,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Judicial€diversionÐ À  Ðis€similar€to€pretrial€diversion;€however,€judicial€diversion€follows€a€determination€of€guilt,€and€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdecision€to€grant€judicial€diversion€is€initiated€by€the€trial€court,€not€the€prosecutor.€€òòState€v.Ð ˜è  ÐAnderson,óó€857€S.W.2d€571,€572€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€When€a€defendant€challenges€the€trialÐ „Ô  Ðcourtððs€denial€of€judicial€diversion,€we€may€not€revisit€the€issue€if€the€record€contains€any€substantialÐ pÀ Ðevidence€supporting€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€òòCutshawóó,€967€S.W.2d€at€344;€òòParkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€atÐ \¬ Ð958.€€As€this€Court€said€in€òòAndersonóó,Ð H˜ Ðà8  àà ` à[w]e€conclude€that€judicial€diversion€is€similar€in€purpose€to€pretrial€diversionÐ 4„ Ðand€is€to€be€imposed€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€subject€only€to€the€sameÐ  p Ðconstraints€applicable€to€prosecutors€in€applying€pretrial€diversion€under€T.C.A.€ðð€40„Ð  \ Ð15„105.€€Therefore,€upon€review,€if€ð ðany€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€refusalððÐ øH Ðexists€in€the€record,€we€will€give€the€trial€court€the€benefit€of€its€discretion.€€Only€anÐ ä4 Ðabuse€of€that€discretion€will€allow€us€to€overturn€the€trial€court.à  àà x àà @x àà @x àÐÐ Ð Ð  Ð857€S.W.2d€at€572€(citation€omitted).€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€criteria€that€the€trial€court€must€consider€in€determining€whether€a€qualified€defendantÐ ”ä Ðshould€be€granted€judicial€diversion€include€the€following:€(1)€the€defendantððs€amenability€toÐ €Ð Ðcorrection;€(2)€the€circumstances€of€the€offense;€(3)€the€defendantððs€criminal€record;€(4)€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendantððs€social€history;€(5)€the€defendantððs€physical€and€mental€health;€and€(6)€the€deterrenceÐ X ¨ Ðvalue€to€the€defendant€and€others.€€òòCutshawóó,€967€S.W.2d€at€343„344;€òòParkeróó,€932€S.W.2d€at€958.€Ð D!” ÐAn€additional€consideration€is€whether€judicial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€of€justice,€i.e.,€theÐ 0"€  Ðinterests€of€the€public€as€well€as€the€defendant.€€òòCutshawóó,€967€S.W.2d€at€344;€òòParkeróó,€932€S.W.2dÐ #l! Ðat€958.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€denied€judicial€diversion€in€this€case.€€It€is€wellÐ à%0!$ Ðsettled€that€€ð ð[t]he€same€guidelines€are€applicable€in€diversion€cases€as€are€applicable€in€probationÐ Ì&"% Ðcases,€but€they€are€more€stringently€applied€to€diversion€applicants.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€661€S.W.2dÐ ¸'#& Ð91,€93€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€There€is€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€decisionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€deny€judicial€diversion,€and€thus€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court€in€doing€so.Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* Їà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ð ° ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGE