ÿWPC< ðvº]àJP‚4¯!Q*—Ÿþ}c:uòwé¼-î¼m)R-à“ö¤E}Ò° Ç(fq$#‰v½¿úXÉÄz÷$Ó+mäpJI¶õ+;[ÇX’Ñš¿ã45¿›íž$PÜR(õ "KO‚‡ê¾œ,¼E¿¥™ˆp•Þ±‚ØyKìíËÿ7f:gt—øµyŠ&®z@ngùŽºä±éÐ}Ø/Â[MÍly'9TÒÓÿ@× ÎÚaKäͼ[™J‡xT¯PK)cM\¾ú…†­Ø¼™Ñêa 9gCFïÍNá“bY¼þX40+Ð`S†ÞÀ–ÃKiß4V“DÒ«Öă“¾5ó†‡àbZ.-¨ÐÁøÞx2cþØÚ$,Fc7¶šôÍ*õH‰V˜Rn΀,8 ô·ýÕ¦†¢ì{·(`ëß]åMgÍÿ*P@Og˜Ñ./ý‘ÜÜ¢ŽL[£Ò¦Œ&ª÷˜³g ØSÌ $ùh׈$ü%Ní·>ÑO˜^^*8+k¸Ñºå^ eL C&úË9¶ì&¿äqÖ¥I‘Gy¿úÄÜi³´3š·3›n/.(—½-éù^#>†q¬·Ö/@?<¤2Y¦ËŸ(40$vÙb#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% U N­ œû 0D— zÛ ÒU z'Ò¡^ swƃÆIÆÆÕ4›N¯±ÀE mÄÛÛÛéU@ññññññññññññññññññb111111111111111111111111111111111111 0ë9999 B$$ 0¤A D3å D- 0KEE ASÆã 0¤© 0DM A«‘˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ’Ý ƒRÉ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëUò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôëUòòôëUÔApparently,€the€defendant€was€cited€for€and€perhaps€convicted€of€a€misdemeanor€offense,€for€which€he€servedÐ ° Ðno€period€of€incarceration,€in€Michigan€in€January,€1999.€€Some€six€months€later,€at€the€time€of€the€hearing€on€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendant's€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari,€the€conviction€did€not€appear€on€the€defendant's€record.€€The€state€did€not€assertÐ 8ˆ Ðat€the€hearing€that€the€offense€disqualified€the€petitioner€from€diversion€consideration.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ˜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.wpt ˜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.wptøž"*â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5•jW)ø[¢3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒRÉ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëUò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôëUòòôëUÔAt€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€petitioner€qualified€for€pretrial€diversion.€€This€year,€however,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ° Ððð€40„15„105€was€amended€to€disqualify€those€charged€with€aggravated€burglary.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„Ð tÄ Ð105(a)(1)(B)(iii)(c)€(Supp.€2000).€€The€statute€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€charged€offense€applies.€€òòSeeóó€òòBoykins€v.€Stateóó,Ð 8ˆ Ð584€S.W.2d€194,€196€(Tenn.€1979)€(holding€that€retroactive€application€of€stricter€probation€standard€would€be€violativeÐ üL Ðof€prohibition€against€ex€post€facto€laws). (ÀÊO Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2É$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëUò»»Ô d(|3‡y$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡y$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_ »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼_ »»»ÔÑ8€ ‘XXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼_ »»¼_ Ôà@ttìàÔ‡îbÂ_ ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼_ »îîbÂ+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€November€22,€2000Ð üL ÐÔ‡X ‘X»¼_ ÔÌò òÔ#†¼_ »XX ‘A#ÔòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóMICHAEL€HARLEY€SMITHÔ‡X ‘X»¼_ Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òInterlocutory€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Jefferson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€5799€€€€€€O.€Duane€Slone,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„02722„CCA„R9„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐJanuary€2,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Michael€Harley€Smith,€was€charged€with€aggravated€burglary€and€one€count€of€theftÐ xÈ  Ðover€$1,000.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„14„403,€39„14„103.Ô#†¼_ »XX ‘½#ÔÔ‡X ‘X»¼_ Ô€€The€state€denied€his€application€forÐ d´ Ðpretrial€diversion.€€Upon€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€assistant€districtÐ P  Ðattorney€general€had€not€abused€his€discretion.€€Because€the€office€of€the€district€attorney€failed€toÐ <Œ Ðproperly€consider€the€defendant's€application,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.Ð (x ÐÓòÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Reversed.ó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼_ »àX ‘Ü#ÔÔ‡X ‘X.¼_ ÔGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòThomas€T.Ð Ø( ÐWoodallóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌEdward€C.€Miller€(on€appeal)Ô#†¼_ »XX ‘:#ÔÔ‡X ‘X»¼_ Ô,€Public€Defender,€Fourth€Judicial€District,€and€Lu€Ann€Ballew€(atÐ œì Ðtrial)Ô#†¼_ »XX ‘B #ÔÔ‡X ‘X»¼_ Ô,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€for€the€appellant,€Michael€Harley€Smith.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Marney,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð `° Ðand€Charles€L.€Murphy,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼_ »XX ‘á #ÔÔ‡X ‘X»¼_ ÔÐ $"t! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼_ »XX ‘˜ #ÔÔ‡X ‘X»¼_ ÔÓ  Óà  àÔ#†¼_ »XX ‘ö #ÔÔ€X ‘X»¼_ ÔCount€one€of€the€indictment€alleges€that€the€defendant€entered€a€residence€with€the€intent€toÐ ü#L# Ðcommit€theft;€count€two€alleges€that€the€defendant€stole€a€"television€.€.€.€VCR€and€assortedÐ è$8 $ Ðhousehold€items."€€The€record€demonstrates€that€the€defendant€and€two€other€individuals€madeÐ Ô%$!% Ðconfessions€to€the€police.€€Little€else€regarding€the€circumstances€of€the€offenses€is€included€in€theÐ À&"& Ðrecord.€Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌà  àOn€June€20,€1996,€the€defendant€applied€for€pretrial€diversion€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð „)Ô$) Ððð€40„15„105.€€The€application€included€the€following€information:Ð p*À%* ÐÌà  à1.à0 ` àThe€defendant€was€20€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€He€is€a€resident€ofÐ H,˜', ÐSevierville,€Tennessee.Ð#4-„(-` (#` (#ýø #Ðà  à2.à0 ` àThe€defendant€is€single.€€His€parents€live€and€work€in€Michigan.а` (#` (# Ðà  à3.à0 ` àThe€defendant€has€no€history€of€mental€illness.Мì` (#` (# Ðà  à4.à0 ` àThe€defendant€is€a€high€school€graduate€and,€at€the€time€of€the€application,€wasÐ ˆØ Ðemployed€full„time€by€Manis€Electric€and€part„time€by€Damon's€Restaurant,€both€ofÐ tÄ Ðwhich€are€located€in€Pigeon€Forge,€Tennessee.Ð`°` (#` (# Ðà  à5.à0 ` àWith€the€exception€of€the€charged€offenses€and€one€speeding€ticket,€the€defendantÐ L œ Ðhad€never€been€arrested€for€or€convicted€of€any€criminal€offense.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð8 ˆ` (#` (# Ðà  à6.à0 ` àWhen€the€defendant€was€confronted€by€law€enforcement€officers€about€hisÐ $ t Ðinvolvement€in€the€crimes,€he€immediately€confessed.€€He€is€willing€and€able€to€payÐ  ` Ðcourt€costs€and€"his€fair€share€of€restitution."Ðü L ` (#` (# ÐÌThe€application€also€included€a€personal€letter€of€reference€from€a€friend€and€a€statement€from€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant's€landlord€establishing€the€timely€payment€of€rentals€for€approximately€one€year.Ð À  ÐÌà  àOn€April€13,€1999,€almost€three€years€after€the€application,€an€assistant€district€attorneyÐ ˜è  Ðdenied€the€request€for€pretrial€diversion.€€While€noting€that€it€was€"to€[the€defendant's]€credit"€thatÐ „Ô  Ðhe€paid€his€rent€on€time,€was€employed,€and€had€incurred€no€new€arrests€or€convictions€since€theÐ pÀ Ðcharged€offenses,€the€assistant€district€attorney€cited€the€following€reasons€for€denial:Ð \¬ ÐÌà  à1.à0 ` àThat€denial€of€the€application€was€supported€by€the€need€for€deterrence:€€"HomeÐ 4„ Ðburglary€is€a€serious€problem€in€Jefferson€County€and€the€prosecution€of€homeÐ  p Ðburglaries€is€an€effective€deterrent€to€others€who€would€commit€home€burglaries€andÐ  \ Ðsends€a€strong€message€that€burglaries€will€be€punished."ÐøH` (#` (# Ðà  à2.à0 ` àThat€the€circumstances€of€the€offenses€justified€denial€of€the€application:€"TheÐ ä4 Ðcircumstances€in€this€case€show€that€this€defendant€willfully€committed€a€homeÐ Ð  Ðburglary€and€theft€of€a€family's€property€while€they€were€away€from€home."м ` (#` (# Ðà  à3.à0 ` àThat€denial€of€the€application€was€"necessary€.€.€.€to€avoid€depreciating€theÐ ¨ø Ðseriousness€of€the€offense[s]."Дä` (#` (# Ðà  à4.à0 ` àThat€a€grant€of€pretrial€diversion€"would€not€serve€the€interests€of€justice€and€wouldÐ €Ð Ðbe€a€failure€of€the€Criminal€Justice€System€to€protect€the€citizens€of€Tennessee€andÐ l¼ ÐJefferson€County€.€.€.€."ÐX ¨` (#` (# ÐÌà  àPursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€38,€the€defendant€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari,Ð 0"€  Ðcontending€that€the€prosecutor€had€abused€his€discretion€by€denying€the€application€for€diversion.€Ð #l! ÐAt€the€hearing€on€the€petition,€the€trial€court€expressed€concern€regarding€the€length€of€time€that€hadÐ $X" Ðelapsed€between€the€application€and€the€denial.€€Nevertheless,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€there€wasÐ ô$D # Ðno€abuse€of€discretion:Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€do€find€that€the€District€Attorney€General€considered€carefully€thisÐ ° Ðdefendant's€request€to€be€placed€on€pretrial€diversion€status.€€They€didÐ œì Ðconsider€the€positive€factors€as€outlined€by€this€defendant€as€well€asÐ ˆØ Ðthe€other€factors,€particularly€the€nature€of€the€crime€which€is€burglaryÐ tÄ Ðof€a€home€and€theft€of€a€family's€property€while€they€were€away€fromÐ `° Ðhome.€€They€cite€that€as€punishment€confinement€would€be€necessaryÐ L œ Ðto€avoid€deprecating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€However,€whileÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€may€not€be€exactly€the€case€it€was€at€least€appropriate€for€theÐ $ t ÐDistrict€Attorney€General's€Office€to€consider€that.Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThey€also€cite€that€home€burglary€is€a€serious€problem€inÐ è 8  ÐJefferson€County,€and€the€prosecution€of€home€burglaries€is€anÐ Ô$  Ðeffective€deterrent€to€others€who€are€similarly€situated.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWhile€that€in€and€of€itself€can't€be€a€basis€for€denial,€it€can€beÐ ˜è  Ða€factor€that's€weighed€heavily€in€deciding€whether€to€grant€theÐ „Ô  Ðextraordinary€relief€that€this€defendant€requests.€.€.€.€ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà@bbìà*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBut€the€Court€cannot€find€under€the€facts€of€this€particular€case€thatÐ  p Ðthere's€a€patent€and€gross€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€District€AttorneyÐ  \ ÐGeneral's€Office€in€failing€to€enter€into€the€memorandum€ofÐ øH Ðunderstanding.€€So€the€request€to€order€the€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ ä4 Ðto€enter€into€a€memorandum€of€understanding€for€patent€and€grossÐ Ð  Ðabuse€of€their€discretion€is€denied.м ` x` x ÐÌà@bbìà*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ ”ä ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àI€like€giving€young€people€an€opportunity€to€preserve€a€cleanÐ l¼ Ðrecord,€but€.€.€.€I€don't€think€a€pretrial€diversion€agreement'sÐ X ¨ Ðappropriate.€€You're€not€pleading€guilty.€€You€may€not€be.€€But€thisÐ D!” Ðisn't€an€appropriate€case€for€that€and€I'm€of€the€opinion€people€oughtÐ 0"€  Ðto€go€to€jail€for€these€types€of€offenses.€€How€much€depends€on€theÐ #l! Ðperson.€€But€you€can€plead€guilty€just€about€any€time€you€want€to€andÐ $X" Ð.€.€.€in€open€Court.Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà  àPretrial€diversion€authorizes€a€district€attorney€general€to€suspend€prosecution€against€aÐ Ì&"% Ðâ âqualified€defendant€for€a€period€of€up€to€two€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-15-105(a)(1)(A)€(Supp.Ð ¸'#& Ð1995).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€defendant€that€is€statutorily€eligible€for€pretrial€diversion€is€not€presumptively€entitled€toÐ ° Ðâ âthe€program.€€Whether€a€qualified€defendant€receives€a€grant€of€pretrial€diversion€is€discretionaryÐ œì Ðwith€the€district€attorney.€€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€353€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Carróó,Ð ˆØ Ð861€S.W.2d€850,€855€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àIn€making€the€initial€determination€upon€a€request€for€diversion,€the€district€attorney€generalÐ L œ Ðshould€consider€(1)€the€circumstances€of€the€offense;€(2)€the€defendant's€criminal€record;€(3)€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant's€social€history;€(4)€the€defendant's€physical€and€mental€condition;€(5)€the€deterrent€effectÐ $ t Ðof€punishment€upon€other€criminal€activity;€(6)€the€defendant's€amenability€to€correction;€(7)€theÐ  ` Ðlikelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interests€of€the€defendantÐ ü L  Ðand€the€public;€and€(8)€the€defendant's€"'attitude,€behavior€since€arrest,€prior€record,€homeÐ è 8  Ðenvironment,€current€drug€usage,€emotional€stability,€past€employment,€general€reputation,€maritalÐ Ô$  Ðstability,€family€responsibility€and€attitude€of€law€enforcement.'"€€òòState€v.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2dÐ À  Ð950,€951€(Tenn.€1993)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Markhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€850,€852„53€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¬ü  Ð1988)).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àA€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€must€be€in€writing€and€must€include€"an€enumeration€of€theÐ pÀ Ðevidence€that€was€considered€and€a€discussion€of€the€factors€considered€and€weight€afforded€each."€Ð \¬ ÐòòState€v.€Pinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€956,€960€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€this€court€provided€threeÐ H˜ Ðreasons€for€requiring€a€written€response:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFirst,€the€statement€would€compel€the€prosecutor€to€think€about€andÐ  \ Ðjustify€his€denial€in€terms€of€the€applicable€standards.€€Second,€theÐ øH Ðstatement€of€reasons€would€define€the€area€of€controversy€at€theÐ ä4 Ðevidentiary€hearing.€€Finally,€the€statement€of€reasons€would€restrictÐ Ð  Ðthe€prosecutor€to€a€particular€rationale€and€insure€that€the€prosecutorÐ ¼  Ðwould€offer€no€new€reasons€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.Шø` x` x ÐÌ700€S.W.2d€568,€570€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€There€must€be€"more€than€an€abstract€statement€inÐ €Ð Ðthe€record€that€the€district€attorney€general€has€considered€these€factors."€€òòState€v.€Herronóó,€767Ð l¼ ÐS.W.2d€151,€156€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€factors€considered€"must€be€clearly€articulable€and€stated€in€theÐ X ¨ Ðrecord€.€.€.€."€€òòId.óó€€While€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€his€suitability€for€diversion,Ð D!” Ðthat€does€not€relieve€the€district€attorney€of€the€obligation€to€examine€all€relevant€factors.€òòId.óóÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€district€attorney€should€identify€any€areas€of€factual€dispute.€€òòBrownóó,€700€S.W.2d€at€570.€Ð $X" ÐThe€circumstances€of€the€case€and€the€generalized€need€for€deterrence,€when€relied€upon€by€theÐ ô$D # Ðdistrict€attorney,€"cannot€be€given€òòcontrollingóó€weight€unless€they€are€'of€such€overwhelmingÐ à%0!$ Ðsignificance€that€they€[necessarily]€outweigh€all€other€factors.'"€€òòWashingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€at€951Ð Ì&"% Ð(quoting€òòMarkhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€at€853)€(emphasis€in€original).€€Where€there€are€no€"suchÐ ° Ðexceptional€circumstances,€'the€district€attorney€general€must€consider€evidence€which€tends€to€showÐ œì Ðthat€the€applicant€is€amenable€to€correction€[by€diversion]€and€is€not€likely€to€commit€furtherÐ ˆØ Ðcriminal€acts.'"€€òòId.óó(quoting€òòMarkhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€at€853).€€"The€decision€of€a€district€attorneyÐ tÄ Ðgeneral€granting€or€denying€pretrial€diversion€to€an€accused€is€said€to€be€'presumptively€correct';€andÐ `° Ðthe€decision€should€not€be€set€aside€unless€there€has€been€a€'patent€or€gross€abuse€of€prosecutorialÐ L œ Ðdiscretion.'"€€òòState€v.€Perryóó,€882€S.W.2d€357,€360€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(quoting€òòPace€v.€Stateóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð566€S.W.2d€861,€870€(Tenn.€1978)).Ð $ t ÐÌà  àWhen€an€application€for€pretrial€diversion€has€been€denied€by€the€district€attorney,€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendant€may€appeal€to€the€trial€court€for€a€writ€of€certiorari.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-15-105(b)(3)Ð è 8  Ð(Supp.€1995).€€The€trial€court€may€only€consider€the€evidence€considered€by€the€district€attorneyÐ Ô$  Ðgeneral.€€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€806,€810€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€trial€court,€after€firstÐ À  Ðdetermining€whether€the€defendant€is€eligible€for€diversion,€may€conduct€a€hearing€to€resolve€anyÐ ¬ü  Ðfactual€disputes€between€the€state€and€the€defense€but€may€not€hear€evidence€not€considered€by€theÐ ˜è  Ðdistrict€attorney.€€òòPinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€960.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àIn€order€for€the€trial€court€to€grant€relief€to€the€defendant,€the€record€must€show€an€absenceÐ \¬ Ðof€any€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€by€the€district€attorney.€€If€theÐ H˜ Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€supports€the€decision€of€the€trial€court,€the€judgment€must€be€affirmedÐ 4„ Ðon€appeal.€€òòPinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€960;€òòState€v.€Lutryóó,€938€S.W.2d€431,€434€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  p Ð1996).Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Curryóó,€988€S.W.2d€153,€158€(Tenn.€1999),€a€case€in€which€a€City€of€McKenzieÐ ä4 Ðclerk€had€embezzled€$27,000€over€a€three„year€period,€our€supreme€court€reversed€a€district€attorneyÐ Ð  Ðgeneral's€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€because€the€district€attorney€had€relied€almost€solely€on€theÐ ¼  Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAlthough€the€prosecutor€asserts€that€he€had€"carefully€reviewed€theÐ €Ð Ðapplication€and€the€attached€letters,€the€denial€does€not€discuss€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendant's€favorable€social€history,€lack€of€criminal€record,€andÐ X ¨ Ðpotential€for€rehabilitation.€€Moreover,€assuming€these€essentialÐ D!” Ðfactors€were,€in€fact,€considered,€there€is€no€explanation€as€to€howÐ 0"€  Ðmuch€weight€they€were€afforded€and€no€rationale€as€to€why€they€wereÐ #l! Ðoutweighed€by€the€other€factors€in€denying€diversion.€€Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌThereafter,€in€òòState€v.€Norman€Jeffrey€Pipkinóó,€No.€W1998„02738„CCA„RM„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð à%0!$ Ðat€Jackson,€May€24,€2000),€which€was€remanded€to€this€court€for€reconsideration€in€light€of€òòState€v.Ð Ì&"% ÐCurryóó,€this€court€observed€as€follows:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[In€òòState€v.€Curryóó,]€our€supreme€court€cautioned€that€while€theÐ )à$( Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€and€the€need€for€deterrence€may€aloneÐ |*Ì%) Ðjustify€denial€of€diversion,€that€is€so€"only€if€all€of€the€relevant€factorsÐ h+¸&* Ðhave€been€considered€as€well."€€In€several€cases,€this€court€has€ruledÐ ° Ðthat€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€an€alleged€offense€are€not€onlyÐ œì Ðan€appropriate€factor€to€be€considered€upon€application€for€diversion,Ð ˆØ Ðbut€also€may€alone€provide€a€basis€for€denial.€€It€is€important,Ð tÄ Ðhowever,€to€recognize€that€practically€every€criminal€case€is€serious,Ð `° Ðand€that€only€an€analysis€of€all€relevant€factors,€favorable€andÐ L œ Ðotherwise,€assures€proper€consideration€of€an€application€for€pretrialÐ 8 ˆ Ðdiversion.€€In€òòCurryóó,€our€supreme€court€complimented€the€districtÐ $ t Ðattorney€who€had€appropriately€denied€diversion€in€òòPinkhamóó€becauseÐ  ` Ðhe€had€"extensively€discussed€the€relevant€factors,€identified€theÐ ü L  Ðevidence€considered,€and€set€forth€the€weight€afforded€to€each€factorÐ è 8  Ðas€well€as€the€rationale€for€his€conclusion."€€In€òòCurryóó,€.€.€.€[o]ur€highÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€observed€as€follows:ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThere€was€no€apparent€consideration€given€to€the€defendant's€lack€ofÐ ˜è  Ðcriminal€record,€favorable€social€history,€and€obvious€amenability€toÐ „Ô  Ðcorrection.€€Moreover,€the€prosecutor€did€not€articulate€or€state€whyÐ pÀ Ðthose€factors€that€were€considered,€i.e.,€seriousness€of€the€offense€andÐ \¬ Ðdeterrence,€necessarily€outweigh€the€other€relevant€factors.€€TheÐ H˜ Ðevidence€presented€is€a€close€case€on€the€diversion€question;€however,Ð 4„ Ðthe€failure€by€the€prosecutor€to€consider€and€articulate€all€of€theÐ  p Ðrelevant€factors€constitutes€an€abuse€of€discretion.€.€.€.€€Finally,€weÐ  \ Ðalso€conclude€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€in€remandingÐ øH Ðthe€case€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€in€order€for€the€prosecutor€to€"fillÐ ä4 Ðin€the€gaps"€and€correct€any€deficiencies€in€the€record.€€First,€theÐ Ð  Ðprocedure€adopted€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€decreases€theÐ ¼  Ðimportance€of€the€written€response€and€increases€the€risk€that€newÐ ¨ø Ðreasons€or€considerations€will€be€introduced€during€the€hearingÐ ”ä Ðwithout€notice€to€the€defendant.€€Second,€the€standards€of€reviewÐ €Ð Ðgoverning€certiorari€proceedings€require€the€trial€court€to€considerÐ l¼ Ðonly€that€which€has€already€been€considered€by€the€prosecutor.€€ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIn€our€view,€the€decision€in€òòCurryóó€clarifies€and€perhapsÐ 0"€  Ðextends€the€degree€of€analysis€required€by€the€district€attorney€generalÐ #l! Ðin€consideration€of€an€application€for€pretrial€diversion.€€CarefulÐ $X" Ðconsideration€must€be€given€to€the€"defendant's€lack€of€criminalÐ ô$D # Ðrecord,€favorable€social€history,€and€obvious€amenability€toÐ à%0!$ Ðcorrection."ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌSlip€op.€at€7„8€(citations€omitted).Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àLike€òòPipkinóó,€this€case€is€clearly€controlled€by€the€decision€of€our€supreme€court€in€òòCurryóó.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐInitially,€€the€assistant€district€attorney€did€not€recite€the€evidence€that€he€had€considered€in€denyingÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€application.€€Nor€is€there€a€complete€discussion€of€the€various€applicable€factors€and€the€weightÐ ° Ðafforded€each€factor.€€While€the€letter€sets€forth€four€factors€underlying€the€denial,€the€factors€are€noÐ œì Ðmore€than€abstract€statements,€with€no€indication€of€why€they€outweighed€all€other€factors.€Ð ˆØ ÐLikewise,€while€the€letter€makes€note€of€the€defendant's€ability€to€support€himself,€steadyÐ tÄ Ðemployment€history,€and€lack€of€other€arrests€or€convictions,€it€fails€to€assign€any€weight€to€thoseÐ `° Ðfactors€and€fails€to€address€the€defendant's€amenability€to€correction.€€Finally,€there€was€noÐ L œ Ðexplanation€as€to€how€deterrence€might€have€outweighed€all€other€considerations.€€In€our€view,€the€Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòCurryóódecision€requires€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€be€reversed€and€that€the€defendant€beÐ $ t Ðplaced€in€a€pretrial€diversion€program.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€reversed€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court.€€The€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourt€shall€grant€the€defendant€pretrial€diversion€under€such€terms€and€conditions€as€are€deemedÐ Ô$  Ðappropriate€under€all€circumstances.€Ð À  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE