ÿWPC} qàÜBq<%&d«©«zje~Z£ÝXâ…Œ:òØl×l§ñn‚šÞÃ…÷NÕtÁâ§’fYÍ„°h±øÏ»s!ÈÄ0T…ÈbÔUÛPh^8Î1ÔäºW°¶nÝ-]3jW‚gGA|˜vêoÀ' {Ù ¥Û´®­Uœóî\SY˜ãPIW×"Qçé³àõ™LøÝ ¨>1Dò½ ðܳN{cƒ©qüðßéE‰ð™ˆÜ&‰®jõúÖC”Ë=“ p£^WÐoØ=¸Xo{|îxŒôæÇ,ùºhŒ;ÿÃ>$ït¶”i¹žÐËèØ¼ÚDðçÛÙi&c:o&[kÅ`N=²̬qÙc®,ïþŸ™RÚ­NÙ–ÅFI›jÃ+ì[™<éd0X<ìþ–öJÁžbUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ 1‡‘ Æ ÆÞ Ƥ Æj 0c0N“UN• 0DãE'š) 1uà 728jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 0ëzzzz Bee 0¤‚ D3& D-Y 0K†† ASÑÆ$ 0¤ê 0DŽ A«Ò(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó®r9+â òK+  3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒRg+$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô‘ù ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔUnder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„207(d)€(1998),€ð ðthe€person€cited€[for€a€traffic€offense]€may€elect€not€to€contestÐ ° Ðthe€charge€and€may,€in€lieu€of€appearance€in€court,€submit€the€fine€and€costs€to€the€clerk€of€the€court.ðð€€A€jurisdictionÐ tÄ Ðwhich€allows€payment€of€a€prescheduled€amount€employs€the€ð ðcafeteriaðð€system.€€òòWilliams€v.€Brownóó,€860€S.W.2d€854,Ð 8ˆ Ð856€(Tenn.€1993)€(citing€òòHannah€v.€Ike€Topper€Structural€Steel€Co.óó,€201€N.E.2d€63,€65€(1963)).€3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) - ù-(|G2g+$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€*M»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôG‘ò»»Ô d(|3 â$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€*M»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 â$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€*M»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€3…»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼$É»»»ÔÑ8€_•XXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î $ÉÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼$É»îî  #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€7,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XbX»¼$ÉÔÌò òÔ#†¼$É»XXb#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€TERRY€A.€ROGIERòòóóÔ‡XbX»¼$ÉÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òInterlocutory€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Madison€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00„381€€€€€€Donald€H.€Allen,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„00551„CCA„R9„CD€€Ô_Ô„Ô_Ô€Filed€September€19,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Appellant,€Terry€A.€Rogier,€by€means€of€an€interlocutory€appeal€seeks€review€of€the€trial€courtððsÐ xÈ  Ðdecision€affirming€the€district€attorney€generalððs€denial€of€pre„trial€diversion.€€Rogier€was€indictedÐ d´ Ðby€a€Madison€County€Grand€Jury€for€the€offenses€of€reckless€endangerment,€a€class€E€felony,€andÐ P  Ðreckless€driving,€a€class€B€misdemeanor.€€After€review,€we€find€that€the€prosecutor€failed€to€considerÐ <Œ Ðall€the€relevant€factors€in€denying€diversion.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÐ (x Ðthe€prosecutor€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€and€remand€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings.Ð d ÐÔ#†¼$É»XXb‰#ÔÔ‡XbX»¼$ÉÔÓØÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Reversed€and€Remanded.ó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼$É»àXbæ#ÔÔ‡XbX.¼$ÉÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòAlan€E.€Glennóó,Ð Ä ÐJJ.,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌKyle€C.€Atkins,€Humboldt,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Terry€A.€Rogier.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€LauraÐ `° ÐMcMullen€Ford,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€James€G.€(Jerry)€Woodall,€District€Attorney€General;Ð L œ Ðand€Shaun€A.€Brown,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÔ#†¼$É»XXb¯#ÔÔ‡XbX»¼$ÉÔÌÓ€ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼$É»XXbH #ÔÔ‡XbX»¼$ÉÔÐ ü#L# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼$É»XXb» #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XbX»¼$ÉÔà@!ìàò òFactual€Backgroundó óˆÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌà  àOn€September€15,€1999,€the€thirty„six„year„old€Appellant€was€driving€in€a€residential€areaÐ ¬'ü"' Ðin€Jackson€when€he€lost€control€of€his€vehicle€while€rounding€a€curve.€€At€the€time€of€the€impact,€itÐ ˜(è#( Ðwas€estimated€that€the€Appellant€was€traveling€74€mph€in€a€30€mph€zone.€€The€vehicle€overturnedÐ „)Ô$) Ðseriously€injuring€both€the€Appellant€and€his€passenger.€€The€EMTððs€report€noted€an€odor€of€alcoholÐ p*À%* Ðon€the€Appellant,€however,€no€blood€alcohol€tests€were€performed€by€the€police.€€Following€hisÐ \+¬&+ Ðindictment€for€class€E€reckless€endangerment€and€reckless€driving,€the€Appellant€applied€for€pre„trialÐ H,˜', Ðdiversion.€€After€the€Appellantððs€initial€application€was€supplemented€with€additional€backgroundÐ 4-„(-ý Ðinformation,€the€district€attorney€general€notified€the€Appellant€by€letter€that€his€application€for€pre„Ð ° Ðtrial€diversion€was€denied.€€The€district€attorney€cited€six€reasons€for€denial€of€the€application€forÐ œì Ðdiversion.€€We€recite€below€the€prosecutorððs€stated€reasons€and€the€proof€which€was€submitted€toÐ ˆØ Ðthe€district€attorney€by€the€Appellant€relative€to€each.Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ€ (5h83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£ÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝThe€defendants€(sic)€crimes€were€not€the€result€of€impulse€but€required€considerableÐ L œ Ðeffort€and€planning.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€661€S.W.2d€91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).݃3£MÝŒÐ8 ˆ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌAs€argued€by€the€Appellant,€the€defined€mental€state€of€the€crimes€for€which€the€Appellant€wasÐ  ` Ðindicted€reflect€that€the€offenses€were€committed€recklessly,€òòi.e.óó,€with€gross€deviation€from€theÐ ü L  Ðstandard€of€care,€essentially€the€opposite€of€ð ðconsiderable€effort€and€planning.ððÐ è 8  ÐÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£ÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝThe€defendant€has€expressed€no€remorse€for€their€(sic)€conduct€nor€has€he€made€anyÐ À  Ðeffort€to€make€the€victim€whole.€€òòState€v.€Neaseóó,€713€S.W.2d€90.݃3£<݌Ьü ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌProvided€to€the€district€attorney€was€a€release€of€all€claims€by€the€passenger€indicating€that€theÐ „Ô  ÐAppellantððs€insurance€carrier€paid€the€passenger€$100,000.00,€the€policy€limit.€€Also€included€wasÐ pÀ Ða€letter€from€the€passenger,€supporting€the€Appellantððs€efforts€seeking€diversion,€€which€containedÐ \¬ Ðthe€following€relevant€comments:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àAfter€the€accident,€[the€Appellant]€had€his€family€to€bring€him€by€to€visit€me€onÐ  p Ðseveral€occasions€when€he€was€unable€to€drive€himself.€€When€he€was€unable€to€visitÐ  \ Ðhe€would€call€to€see€how€I€was€doing.€€His€family€also€gather€(sic)€several€people€toÐ øH Ðdonate€blood€on€my€behalf€when€I€was€in€the€hospital.€€We€still€are€friends€andÐ ä4 Ðcontinue€to€talk€to€each€other€and€visit€each€other€on€occasions.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£1ÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝThe€defendant€has€a€poor€work€history€indicating€a€serious€lack€of€motivation€toÐ ¨ø Ðsuccessfully€complete€pretrial€diversion.݃3£1j݌Дä` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌLetters€from€the€Appellantððs€former€employers€were€provided€to€the€district€attorney€detailing€theÐ l¼ ÐAppellantððs€exemplary€employment€history€and€work€ethic.€€The€Appellant€was€first€employed€atÐ X ¨ Ðage€fourteen€and€worked€throughout€high€school.€€Later,€he€worked€six€to€seven€nights€a€week€forÐ D!” Ðthirteen€years,€while€at€the€same€time€building€a€successful€construction€company€during€the€day.€Ð 0"€  ÐThe€Appellant€currently€owns€and€operates€Rogier€Construction€Company.€€He€holds€both€anÐ #l! Ðelectrical€contractors€license€and€a€building€contractors€license.Ð $X" ÐÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£5ÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝNo€family€or€friends€are€forthcoming€to€aid€or€encourage€the€defendant€in€any€pretrialÐ à%0!$ Ðdiversion€program.€€Without€such€encouragement€the€defendant€cannot€hope€toÐ Ì&"% Ðsuccessfully€complete€pretrial€diversion.݃3£5n݌и'#&` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌTwenty„four€letters€from€former€employers,€bank€officers,€businessmen€in€the€community,€the€parishÐ )à$( Ðpriest,€friends€and€others€were€included€in€the€Appellantððs€application€for€diversion.€€These€lettersÐ |*Ì%) Ðattest€to€the€Appellantððs€excellent€reputation€in€his€community,€his€honesty€and€his€integrity,€€his€roleÐ h+¸&* Ðas€a€devoted€father€and€as€someone€who€was€always€willing€to€help€others€in€need€without€askingÐ ° Ðanything€in€return.€€He€is€married€to€his€wife€of€sixteen€years€and€they€have€two€children,€agesÐ œì Ðsixteen€and€two.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£ƒ"ÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú5Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝCrimes€involving€the€reckless€use€of€vehicles€is€(sic)€a€serious€problem€in€thisÐ `° Ðjurisdiction€and€allowing€the€defendant€to€participate€in€pretrial€diversion€wouldÐ L œ Ðgreatly€undermine€law€enforcement€efforts€at€curtailing€this€type€of€criminal€activity.݃3£ƒ"¼"ÝŒÐ8 ˆ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£|$ÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú6Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝThe€defendant€has€a€criminal€history.݃3£|$µ$݌Р`` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÒe°ÒFor€the€past€sixteen€years,€the€Appellant€has€not€been€cited€for€any€traffic€violation€or€charged€withÐ è 8  Ðany€criminal€offense.€€The€pre„sentence€report€noted€no€problems€with€alcohol€or€drug€use.€€DuringÐ Ô$  Ðthe€Appellantððs€early€youth€(ages€17„20),€he€was€issued€five€citations€by€the€Humboldt€municipalÐ À  Ðcourt.€€The€pre„sentence€report€reflects€forfeitures€for€the€following€ordinance€violations:€speeding,Ð ¬ü  Ðtwo€public€intoxications,€resisting€arrest,€failure€to€maintain€control€and€reckless€driving.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà ½ àThe€district€attorneyððs€letter€stated€in€conclusion€that,€in€addition€to€the€above€specific€reasonsÐ pÀ Ðfor€denial,€the€Appellantððs€ð ðextremely€excessive€speed,€prior€driving€history€and€the€apparent€use€ofÐ \¬ Ðalcoholðð€factored€heavily€into€his€decision€to€deny€diversion.Ð H˜ ÐÌà ½ àAt€the€hearing€for€writ€of€certiorari,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€district€attorney€improperlyÐ  p Ðconsidered€factors€1€through€4€as€grounds€for€denial€of€diversion€as€the€proof€indicated€to€theÐ  \ Ðcontrary.€€Notwithstanding,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€district€attorney€did€not€abuse€his€discretionÐ øH Ðby€denying€pre„trial€diversion€based€upon€the€appropriate€determinations€that€(1)€the€reckless€use€ofÐ ä4 Ðvehicles€was€a€serious€problem€in€the€jurisdiction;€(2)€the€facts€of€this€case€suggested€that€alcohol€wasÐ Ð  Ðinvolved€in€the€accident;€and€(3)€the€Appellant€was€not€a€suitable€candidate€for€diversion€because€of€Ð ¼  Ðhis€past€criminal€record€and€the€fact€that€his€record€was€directly€related€to€the€present€offense.€Ð ¨ø ÐFollowing€this€ruling,€an€application€for€interlocutory€appeal€was€filed€and€granted.Ð ”ä ÐÌò òà@ÌÌ&ÆàANALYSISˆÐ l¼ Ðó óÌà ½ àThe€decision€to€grant€pre-trial€diversion€rests€within€the€discretion€of€the€district€attorneyÐ D!” Ðgeneral.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-15-105(b)(3)€(1994€Supp.);€òòsee€also€óóòòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€352,€353€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Houstonóó,€900€S.W.2d€712,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.Ð #l! Ðto€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995)òòóó.€€In€òòHammersleyóó,€our€supreme€court€held:Ð $X" ÐÌà8 ½ à[a]€prosecutor€should€focus€on€the€defendantððs€amenability€to€correction.€€Any€factorsÐ à%0!$ Ðwhich€tend€to€accurately€reflect€whether€a€particular€defendant€will€or€will€not€becomeÐ Ì&"% Ða€repeat€offender€should€be€considered€.€.€.€.€Among€the€factors€to€be€considered€inÐ ¸'#& Ðaddition€to€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€are€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€socialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhistory,€the€physical€and€mental€condition€of€a€defendant€where€appropriate,€and€theÐ )à$( Ðlikelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interest€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðboth€the€public€and€the€defendant.€òòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€355.€€Ðh+¸&*½Ð ½Ð  ЇòòóóOther€factors€which€have€been€held€relevant€in€determining€suitability€for€pre„trial€diversion€are:€theÐ ° Ðdeterrent€effect€of€punishment€upon€other€criminal€activity,€the€applicant's€attitude,€behavior€sinceÐ œì Ðarrest,€home€environment,€current€drug€usage,€emotional€stability,€past€employment,€generalÐ ˆØ Ðreputation,€marital€stability,€family€responsibility,€and€attitude€of€law€enforcement.€€òòState€v.Ð tÄ ÐWashingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950,€951€(Tenn.1993)€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHoustonóó,€900€S.W.2dÐ `° Ðat€714.Ð L œ ÐÌà ½ àThe€district€attorney€general's€decision€regarding€pre-trial€diversion€is€presumptively€correct.€Ð $ t ÐòòState€v.€Pinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€956,€960€(Tenn.1997).€€If€pre„trial€diversion€is€denied,€Ð  ` ÐÌà8 ½ àthe€denial€must€be€in€writing€and€must€include€an€enumeration€of€the€evidence€thatÐ è 8  Ðwas€considered€and€a€discussion€of€the€factors€considered€and€weight€afforded€each.Ð Ô$  ÐThis€requirement€entails€more€than€an€abstract€statement€in€the€record€that€the€districtÐ À  Ðattorney€general€has€considered€these€factors.€€òòState€v.€Curryóó,€988€S.W.2d€153,€157Ð ¬ü  Ð(Tenn.€1999)€(citations€omitted).Ð˜è ½Ð ½Ð  ÐÌà ½ àFor€purposes€of€our€review,€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€binding€on€this€court€unless€theÐ pÀ Ðevidence€preponderates€against€such€findings.€€òòHoustonóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€715.€€We€review€the€case,€notÐ \¬ Ðto€determine€if€the€trial€judge€has€abused€his€discretion,€but€to€determine€if€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ H˜ Ðagainst€the€finding€of€the€trial€judge€who€holds€that€the€district€attorney€general€has€or€has€not€abusedÐ 4„ Ðhis€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€607€S.W.2d€486,€489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Thus,€theÐ  p Ðunderlying€issue€for€our€determination€remains€whether€or€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,€the€prosecutorÐ  \ Ðabused€his€discretion€in€denying€pre-trial€diversion.€€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861€S.W.2d€850,€856€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð øH ÐApp.€1993).€€With€these€principles€firmly€established,€we,€in€turn,€examine€those€reasons€which€wereÐ ä4 Ðarticulated€by€the€prosecutor€and€accredited€by€the€trial€judge€in€denying€diversion.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@ññ%Æàò òDeterrenceó óˆÐ ¨ø Ðò òó óÌà ½ àThe€district€attorney€denied€pre„trial€diversion€in€part€because€ð ðcrimes€involving€the€recklessÐ €Ð Ðuse€of€vehicles€is€(sic)€a€serious€problem€in€this€jurisdiction€and€allowing€the€defendant€to€participateÐ l¼ Ðin€pre„trial€diversion€would€greatly€undermine€law€enforcement€efforts€at€curtailing€this€type€ofÐ X ¨ Ðcriminal€activity.ðð€€The€trial€court€also€noted€such€a€problem.Ð D!” ÐÌà ½ àð ðNo€one€is€in€a€better€position€to€be€informed€of€criminal€activity€in€a€circuit€than€the€DistrictÐ #l! ÐAttorney€General.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€661€S.W.2d€91,€93€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(diversion€wasÐ $X" Ðdenied€based€in€part€upon€the€problem€of€serious,€similar€crimes€within€the€circuit€and€the€need€toÐ ô$D # Ðdeter€such€crimes).€€In€the€present€case,€the€district€attorney€general€was€entitled€to€rely€upon€his€ownÐ à%0!$ Ðinstitutional€knowledge€of€criminal€activity,€but€he€was€constrained€to€identify€the€factual€basis€andÐ Ì&"% Ðrationale€for€the€use€of€deterrence.€€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€No.€E„1999„00615„CCA„R9„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¸'#& Ðat€Knoxville,€June€1,€2000),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€òòPinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€òòòòóóóóatÐ ¤(ô#' Ð960).€€The€record€reflects€that€no€factual€basis€or€rationale€for€the€application€of€deterrence€wasÐ )à$( Ðoffered€by€the€prosecutor.òòóóÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà@çç"Æàò òCriminal€Historyó óˆÐ ° Ðò òÌà ½ àó óDiversion€was€also€denied€because€ð ðthe€defendant€has€a€criminal€history.ðð€€€Although€we€doÐ ˆØ Ðnot€dismiss€the€Appellantððs€previous€sixteen„year„old€plus€municipal€ordinance€violations,€we€believeÐ tÄ Ðit€important€to€distinguish€between€municipal€proceedings€and€convictions€from€a€court€with€criminalÐ `° Ðjurisdiction.€Ð L œ ÐÌà ½ àThe€Appellantððs€ð ðcriminal€historyðð€is€€based€upon€violations€of€Humboldt€city€ordinances,Ð $ t Ðwhich€resulted€from€forfeitures.€€Therefore,€no€court€appearances€were€made€by€the€Appellant;€heÐ  ` Ðsimply€paid€fines.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ð ðCases€involving€violation€of€city€ordinances€are€not€criminal€prosecutions€.€.€.€Ð ü L  Ðthey€are€civil€in€nature€having€as€their€object€the€vindication€of€domestic€regulations."€€€òòBriggs€v.€CityÐ è 8  Ðof€Union€Cityóó,€531€S.W.2d€106,€107€(Tenn.1975)€(citing€òòMetro.€Govððt€of€Nashville€&€DavidsonÐ Ô$  ÐCounty€v.€Allenóó,€529€S.W.2d€699,€707€(Tenn.1975)).€€Additionally,Ð À  ÐÌà0 ½ àpayment€of€a€traffic€fine€in€lieu€of€an€appearance€in€court€is€neither€a€guilty€plea€nor€anÐ ˜è  Ðexpress€acknowledgment€of€guilt.€€There€are€many€legitimate€and€plausible€reasons€forÐ „Ô  Ðchoosing€to€pay€such€a€fine€by€mail€or€otherwise,€without€intending€to€concede€guilt.€Ð pÀ ÐCommon€experience€demonstrates€that€the€payment€of€a€traffic€citation€is€simply€a€matter€ofÐ \¬ Ðexpedience.€€The€cost€of€defense€compared€with€the€amount€of€the€fine€and€the€inconvenience,Ð H˜ Ðas€well€as€the€indirect€economic€losses€of€court€appearances,€are€practical€considerationsÐ 4„ Ðwhich€often€motivate€an€individual€cited€for€a€traffic€violation€to€simply€pay€the€fine.€Ð  p ÐòòWilliams€v.€Brownóó,€860€S.W.2d€at€856€(citations€omitted).€€€€€€Ð \½(#½(# ÐÌà ½ àFurthermore,€the€offenses€occurred€within€a€relatively€short€period€of€time,€a€three€year€period,Ð ä4 Ðand€most€importantly,€occurred€sixteen€years€ago.€€€In€the€past€sixteen€years,€the€proof€indicates€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€Appellant€has€been€a€responsible€and€law„abiding€citizen.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà@——Æàò òCircumstances€of€the€Offenseó ó€€€ˆÐ ”ä Ðò òó óÌà ½ àThe€district€attorney€general€in€his€November€13,€2000,€letter€stated,€ð ðI€especially€find€that€...Ð pÀ Ðthe€apparent€use€of€alcohol€in€this€case€warrant(s)€denying€your€request€for€diversion.ðð€€Also,€the€trialÐ \ ¬ Ðcourt€found,€ð ðthe€facts€and€circumstances€indicate,€perhaps€drinking€was€involved.ðð€€The€trial€court€Ð H!˜ Ðnoted€that€the€EMTs€smelled€alcohol€when€they€arrived€on€the€scene.€€No€blood€alcohol€test€wasÐ 4"„  Ðconducted.€€€No€substantial€evidence€exists€to€find€that€alcohol€was€involved€in€this€accident.€Ð  #p! ÐÌÌÌÐ Ð& "% Їà@  %Æàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà ½ àCase€law€has€firmly€established€that€the€focus€of€a€pre„trial€diversion€request€is€upon€theÐ ˆØ Ðapplicantððs€amenability€to€correction.€€Any€denial€of€diversion€must€be€accompanied€by€considerationÐ tÄ Ðof€all€relevant€factors€with€a€discussion€of€those€factors€considered€and€the€weight€afforded€each.€Ð `° ÐòòState€v.€Curryóó,€988€S.W.2d€153,€157€(Tenn.€1999)€(citing€òòState€v.€Pinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€960).€€InÐ L œ Ðother€words,€the€prosecutor€may€not€focus€entirely€upon€the€charged€offense,€but€must€also€considerÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€offender,€his€or€her€amenability€to€correction€and€whether€the€offender€is€likely€to€reoffend.€€ThisÐ $ t Ðprocedure€was€not€followed€in€the€instant€case.€€It€is€apparent€from€the€record€that,€by€focusing€almostÐ  ` Ðexclusively€upon€the€need€for€deterrence,€the€undermining€of€law€enforcement€efforts,€theÐ ü L  Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€and€a€stale€criminal€history,€the€Appellantððs€almost€entire€adult€life€asÐ è 8  Ða€contributing€member€of€society€is€of€no€importance.€€After€review,€we€find€those€factors€which€areÐ Ô$  Ðindicative€of€amenability€to€correction,€òòi.e.óó,€the€Appellantððs€excellent€employment€history,€hisÐ À  Ðreputation€for€honesty€and€integrity€and€acts€of€charity€in€his€community,€a€stable€marriage€andÐ ¬ü  Ðdevoted€father€of€two,€and€his€status€as€a€law€abiding€citizen€for€the€past€sixteen€plus€years€outweighÐ ˜è  Ðthose€reasons€cited€by€the€prosecutor€in€denying€diversion.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà ½ àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€the€prosecutor€did€notÐ \¬ Ðabuse€his€discretion€in€denying€pre„trial€diversion.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€withÐ H˜ Ðinstructions€that€a€memorandum€of€understanding€be€entered€for€a€period€of€two€years€with€impositionÐ 4„ Ðof€appropriate€conditions€as€provided€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105(a)(2)(A)„(H).Ð  p ÐØ!+ !ØÌÌÌÌÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à___________________________________€Ð ¨ø Ðà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE