ÿWPCN XcjIAK£ÉI˜ç¬“•V€ÙAUqyè;`´ƒôȸÜøöo 7Éd Ìyk– #ŒŠÿ+‘&oLõ§»Å®×§¸ ”0BD½ó<Þì{C"îUM]1®•bOr Ùó<š=¨!wyÓó¶F?‡[Ì »d]9ó¸´t'óäà÷úçi/þ@™U–¡¶öÌu¹kðë'ü»½Ò >Öjú_í$U?èµþ¡YLîx»¦e³¶mG‚¬vä N°fByiÙuj¨ <²ÛQo&Ö'†zPõÕþ ÍÑ#.µ,Wä )² ÏŸ ¸.îÊ…µ:osðÚ ènß'—VcK*¥?]ì©VC~vßé O< Î).úÀÂá_þÊ@»a°¨{¬S ‰ á– B™ƒŒ‘ߘäRKÂR†•nvïª-ñ–­]Ùt”’ºÜ1êÿEŒª"<~¥=ãŒ&Œº$«¤÷)%“¶œéÑ÷Æà2üL#ìôû_¨mJýÃÉwGŠuï³¹ÇSI9/¼9·˜Ü$lïBQ>stÀo–…ß‚§ûƒj4P¢ŠnÁNÔ‡Ô%*¯¬"½»g¡Rb*K=Ö«™36e :gçoXš¾ãºäOùë§Âî?±×îöab#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% U N­ û û z Ò} zO ÒÉ ^ › w§ Æ« Æq Æ7Æý4ÃN×ÙèEê mìU@bCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 0ëKKKK B66 0¤S D3÷ D-* 0KWW AS¢Æõ 0¤» 0D_ A«£˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular  ˜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.wptî®u+s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Yo†)p¡‚ ¢£3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2C $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C=»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿEò»»Ô d(|3‡x$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C=»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡x$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C=»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C=»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼C=»»»ÔÑ8€!XXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼C=»»¼C=Ôà@ttìàÔ‡îJÓC=ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼C=»îîJÓ;#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€October€2,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X!X»¼C=ÔÌò òÔ#†¼C=»XX!M#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€TONY€WILLIAMSÔ‡X!X»¼C=Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òInterlocutory€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00„06333„35€€€€€€Bernie€Ô_ÔWeinmanÔ_Ô,€Judge€Ð æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„00788„CCA„R9„CD€„€Filed€November€21,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Tony€Williams,€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€after€a€petitionÐ xÈ  Ðfor€certiorari€from€the€decision€of€the€district€attorney.€€In€this€discretionary€appeal€under€Rule€9€ofÐ d´ Ðthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€the€single€issue€presented€for€review€is€whether€theÐ P  Ðdenial€of€pretrial€diversion€qualified€as€an€abuse€of€prosecutorial€discretion.€€The€judgment€denyingÐ <Œ Ðrelief€is€affirmed.Ð (x ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼C=»àX!¶#ÔÔ‡X!X.¼C=ÔGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€and€òòRobertÐ Ø( ÐW.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌJerome€C.€Payne,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Tony€Williams.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Kim€R.€Helper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð tÄ ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€John€Campbell,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ `° ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÓŠÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼C=»XX!¹#ÔÔ‡X!X»¼C=ÔÐ $"t! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼C=»XX!º #ÔÔ‡X!X»¼C=ÔÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant,€an€employee€of€Pretrial€Services€in€Shelby€County,€was€indicted€for€solicitingÐ ü#L# Ðmonies€Ô#†¼C=»XX! #ÔÔ€X!X»¼C=Ôfrom€inmates€in€the€Shelby€County€Jail€in€exchange€for€assistance€in€lowering€the€amountsÐ è$8 $ Ðof€their€bail:Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌà8  àò òà ` àó óA€public€servant€commits€an€offense€who,€with€intent€to€obtain€a€benefit€orÐ ¬'ü"' Ðto€harm€another,€intentionally€or€knowingly:И(è#(Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(1)€Commits€an€act€relating€to€the€servant's€office€or€employment€thatÐ p*À%* Ðconstitutes€an€unauthorized€exercise€of€official€power€.€.€.€.€€Ð\+¬&+Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„402(a)(1).€€Ð 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àAn€indictment€also€issued€against€the€defendant€for€bribery€for€accepting€"a€pecuniary€benefitÐ ° Ðfrom€Kadrian€Davis€upon€an€understanding€that€[the€defendant's]€action€as€a€public€servant€wouldÐ œì Ðthereby€be€influenced."€€The€applicable€statute€is€as€follows:€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àò òà ` àó óA€person€commits€an€offense€who:Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà@$$(ìà*€*€*ˆÐ L œ Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€While€a€public€servant,€solicits,€accepts€or€agrees€to€accept€any€pecuniaryÐ 8 ˆ Ðbenefit€upon€an€agreement€or€understanding€that€the€public€servant's€vote,€opinion,Ð $ t Ðjudgment,€exercise€of€discretion€or€other€action€as€a€public€servant€will€thereby€beÐ  ` Ðinfluenced.€€Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„102(a)(2).€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€allegedly€committed€the€crimes€between€September€1,€1999,€and€February€1,Ð ¬ü  Ð2000.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€district€attorney€general€denied€an€application€for€pretrial€diversion€because€the€crimeÐ pÀ Ðwas€"systemic€in€nature,"€extending€over€a€six„month€period;€because€the€defendant€misused€theÐ \¬ Ðcriminal€justice€system€by€setting€bonds€based€upon€the€amount€of€money€he€personally€received;Ð H˜ Ðbecause€the€defendant€violated€public€trust€by€using€his€authority€to€set€bonds€in€misdemeanor€casesÐ 4„ Ðand€certain€of€the€felony€cases;€because€the€defendant€exposed€members€of€the€public€to€potentialÐ  p Ðdanger€and€risk;€and€because€prosecution€of€the€crimes€would€have€a€deterrent€effect.€€WhileÐ  \ Ðconceding€that€the€defendant€had€no€prior€criminal€record€and€was€a€college€graduate,€the€districtÐ øH Ðattorney€general€also€observed€that€the€defendant€was€unemployed€and€had€a€poor€work€history.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€his€petition€for€certiorari,€the€defendant€challenged€each€of€the€reasons€for€denial,Ð ¼  Ðexplaining€that€his€job€opportunities€were€limited€because€of€his€frequent€court€appearances€relatingÐ ¨ø Ðto€these€charges;€that€the€duration€of€his€criminal€conduct€was€only€three€months€instead€of€six;€thatÐ ”ä Ðhis€conduct€in€pretrial€services€was€subject€to€review€by€a€supervisor€and€did€not€include€absoluteÐ €Ð Ðauthority€to€set€bail€in€either€misdemeanors€or€felonies;€and€that€there€was€no€basis€for€the€conclusionÐ l¼ Ðthat€prosecution€would€have€a€deterrent€effect.€€The€defendant€submitted€that€the€grant€of€diversionÐ X ¨ Ðwould€afford€supervisory€authority€over€the€defendant's€future€conduct.€€While€admitting€that€heÐ D!” Ðviolated€a€position€of€public€trust,€the€defendant€claimed€that€denial€based€upon€the€nature€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðoffense€would€qualify€as€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€affirmed€the€decision€made€by€the€district€attorney€general€and€denied€theÐ ô$D # Ðpetition€for€a€writ€of€certiorari.€€After€considering€both€the€contents€of€the€petition€and€the€reasonsÐ à%0!$ Ðfurnished€by€the€district€attorney€general€for€the€denial€of€diversion,€the€trial€court€concluded€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðwhether€the€misconduct€lasted€three€or€six€months€or€whether€the€defendant€himself€set€bail€orÐ ¸'#& Ðfurnished€the€information€for€others€to€do€so€was€"of€little€consequence"€on€the€issue€of€pretrialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdiversion:€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àThis€type€of€conduct€if€perceived€by€the€public€went€unpunished,€the€entire€criminalÐ ° Ðâ âjustice€system€would€be€damaged.€€Not€only€would€public€trust€in€the€system€beÐ œì Ðdiminished€but€the€message€sent€to€the€inmates€who€paid€bribes€would€be€devastatingÐ ˆØ Ðto€the€system€of€justice.€€It€would€appear€from€the€record€that€the€district€attorneyÐ tÄ Ðgeneral€considered€all€of€the€relevant€factors€concerning€the€defendant's€suitabilityÐ `° Ðfor€pretrial€diversion€including€the€defendant's€social€history,€the€circumstances€ofÐ L œ Ðthe€offense,€and€what€effect€the€granting€of€diversion€would€have€on€deterring€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðtype€crime.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€insists€that€the€district€attorney€general€failed€to€consider€allÐ ü L  Ðrelevant€factors€and€concentrated€primarily€upon€the€circumstances€of€the€offense.€€The€defendantÐ è 8  Ðcomplains€that€the€district€attorney€general€failed€to€give€appropriate€weight€to€his€lack€of€criminalÐ Ô$  Ðhistory€and€his€college€diploma.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àPretrial€diversion€authorizes€a€district€attorney€general€to€suspend€prosecution€against€aÐ ˜è  Ðqualified€defendant€for€a€period€of€up€to€two€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-15-105(a)(1)(A).€€AÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€who€is€statutorily€eligible€for€pretrial€diversion€is€not€presumptively€entitled€to€theÐ pÀ Ðprogram.€€Whether€a€qualified€defendant€receives€a€grant€of€pretrial€diversion€is€discretionary€withÐ \¬ Ðthe€district€attorney.€€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€353€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€850,€855€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€making€the€initial€determination€upon€a€request€for€diversion,€the€district€attorney€generalÐ  \ Ðshould€consider€(1)€the€circumstances€of€the€offense;€(2)€the€defendant's€criminal€record;€(3)€theÐ øH Ðdefendant's€social€history;€(4)€the€defendant's€physical€and€mental€condition;€(5)€the€deterrent€effectÐ ä4 Ðof€punishment€upon€other€criminal€activity;€(6)€the€defendant's€amenability€to€correction;€(7)€theÐ Ð  Ðlikelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€of€justice€and€the€best€interests€of€the€defendantÐ ¼  Ðand€the€public;€and€(8)€the€defendant's€"'attitude,€behavior€since€arrest,€prior€record,€homeÐ ¨ø Ðenvironment,€current€drug€usage,€emotional€stability,€past€employment,€general€reputation,€maritalÐ ”ä Ðstability,€family€responsibility€and€attitude€of€law€enforcement.'"€€òòState€v.€Washingtonóó,€866€S.W.2dÐ €Ð Ð950,€951€(Tenn.€1993)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Markhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€850,€852„53€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð l¼ Ð1988)).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àA€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€must€be€in€writing€and€must€include€"an€enumeration€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðevidence€that€was€considered€and€a€discussion€of€the€factors€considered€and€weight€afforded€each."€Ð #l! ÐòòState€v.€Pinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€956,€960€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€this€court€provided€threeÐ $X" Ðreasons€for€requiring€a€written€response:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àFirst,€the€statement€would€compel€the€prosecutor€to€think€about€and€justify€his€denialÐ Ì&"% Ðin€terms€of€the€applicable€standards.€€Second,€the€statement€of€reasons€would€defineÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€area€of€controversy€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€Finally,€the€statement€of€reasonsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwould€restrict€the€prosecutor€to€a€particular€rationale€and€insure€that€the€prosecutorÐ )à$( Ðwould€offer€no€new€reasons€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ð700€S.W.2d€568,€570€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€There€must€be€"more€than€an€abstract€statement€inÐ ° Ðthe€record€that€the€district€attorney€general€has€considered€these€factors."€€òòState€v.€Herronóó,€767Ð œì ÐS.W.2d€151,€156€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€factors€considered€"must€be€clearly€articulable€and€stated€in€theÐ ˆØ Ðrecord€.€.€.€."€€òòId.óó€€While€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€his€suitability€for€diversion,Ð tÄ Ðthat€does€not€relieve€the€district€attorney€of€the€obligation€to€examine€all€relevant€factors.€òòId.óó€€In€òòStateÐ `° Ðv.€Curryóó,€988€S.W.2d€153,€158€(Tenn.€1999),€involving€the€embezzlement€of€$27,000.00€by€a€cityÐ L œ Ðclerk,€our€supreme€court€observed€that€while€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€and€the€need€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðdeterrence€may€alone€justify€denial€of€diversion,€that€is€so€only€if€all€the€relevant€factors€have€beenÐ $ t Ðconsidered€as€well.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€district€attorney€should€identify€any€areas€of€factual€dispute.€€òòBrownóó,€700€S.W.2d€at€570.€Ð è 8  ÐThe€circumstances€of€the€case€and€the€generalized€need€for€deterrence,€when€relied€upon€by€theÐ Ô$  Ðdistrict€attorney,€"cannot€be€given€òòcontrollingóó€weight€unless€they€are€'of€such€overwhelmingÐ À  Ðsignificance€that€they€[necessarily]€outweigh€all€other€factors.'"€€òòWashingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€at€951Ð ¬ü  Ð(quoting€òòMarkhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€at€853)€(emphasis€in€original).€€Where€there€are€no€"suchÐ ˜è  Ðexceptional€circumstances,€'the€district€attorney€general€must€consider€evidence€which€tends€to€showÐ „Ô  Ðthat€the€applicant€is€amenable€to€correction€[by€diversion]€and€is€not€likely€to€commit€furtherÐ pÀ Ðcriminal€acts.'"€€òòId.óó(quoting€òòMarkhamóó,€755€S.W.2d€at€853).€€"The€decision€of€a€district€attorneyÐ \¬ Ðgeneral€granting€or€denying€pretrial€diversion€to€an€accused€is€said€to€be€'presumptively€correct';€andÐ H˜ Ðthe€decision€should€not€be€set€aside€unless€there€has€been€a€'patent€or€gross€abuse€of€prosecutorialÐ 4„ Ðdiscretion.'"€€òòState€v.€Perryóó,€882€S.W.2d€357,€360€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(quoting€òòPace€v.€Stateóó,Ð  p Ð566€S.W.2d€861,€870€(Tenn.€1978)).Ð  \ ÐÌà  àWhen€an€application€for€pretrial€diversion€has€been€denied€by€the€district€attorney,€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€may€appeal€to€the€trial€court€for€a€writ€of€certiorari.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-15-105(b)(3).Ð Ð  ÐThe€trial€court€may€only€consider€the€evidence€considered€by€the€district€attorney€general.€€òòState€v.Ð ¼  ÐWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2d€806,€810€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€After€first€determining€whether€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€is€eligible€for€diversion,€the€trial€court€may€conduct€a€hearing€to€resolve€any€factualÐ ”ä Ðdisputes€between€the€state€and€the€defense€but€may€not€hear€evidence€not€considered€by€the€districtÐ €Ð Ðattorney.€€òòPinkhamóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€960.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€order€for€the€trial€court€to€grant€relief€to€the€defendant,€the€record€must€show€an€absenceÐ D!” Ðof€any€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€by€the€district€attorney.€€OurÐ 0"€  Ðscope€of€review€is€limited€to€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€finding€of€the€trialÐ #l! Ðcourt,€which€has€held€that€the€district€attorney€did€not€abuse€his€discretion.€€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861Ð $X" ÐS.W.2d€850,€856€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àInitially,€the€crimes€alleged€against€the€defendant€would€not€disqualify€him€from€a€pretrialÐ Ì&"% Ðdiversion€program.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„105.€€Yet€the€circumstances€of€the€charged€crimesÐ ¸'#& Ðwere€particularly€bothersome€to€the€district€attorney€because€they€were€committed€within€a€criminalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðjustice€system€designed€to€assure€the€confidence€of€the€public.€€The€record€demonstrates€that€theÐ )à$( Ðdistrict€attorney€examined€relevant€factors,€including€the€two€factors€weighing€most€heavily€in€favorÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€the€grant€of€diversion,€and€articulated€why€the€particular€nature€of€these€offenses€and€the€deterrentÐ h+¸&* Ðvalue€of€prosecution€outweighed€those€favorable€factors.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Fieldsóó,€40€S.W.3d€450€(Tenn.Ð ° Ð2001);€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€10€(Tenn.€2000).Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€allegations€by€the€state€are€that€the€defendant€committed€the€crimes€over€a€period€of€timeÐ tÄ Ðextending€from€three€to€six€months.€€A€public€official€employed€in€the€Pretrial€Services€for€ShelbyÐ `° ÐCounty,€the€defendant€allegedly€had€the€authority€in€certain€instances€to€establish€the€amount€of€bailÐ L œ Ðfor€the€release€of€jail€inmates€and€solicited€payment€in€exchange€for€the€reduction€of€bail.€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðdistrict€attorney€considered€the€appropriate€factors:€the€nature€of€the€offense,€the€defendant's€lack€ofÐ $ t Ða€prior€criminal€record,€the€defendant's€social€history,€the€deterrent€effect€on€other€criminal€activity,Ð  ` Ðthe€defendant's€amenability€to€correction,€the€interests€of€the€defendant€and€the€state,€and€otherÐ ü L  Ðfactors,€including€the€defendant's€employment€record€before€and€after€the€arrest.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€all€factors€except€for€the€duration€and€nature€of€the€offenses,€the€need€forÐ À  Ðdeterrence,€the€interests€of€the€state,€and,€to€a€limited€degree,€employment€history,€weigh€in€favor€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€grant€of€pretrial€diversion.€€In€this€instance,€however,€the€defendant,€entrusted€with€the€difficultÐ ˜è  Ðresponsibility€of€assisting€in€the€establishment€of€conditions€for€pretrial€release€of€inmates,€allegedlyÐ „Ô  Ðmisused€his€authority€for€purposes€of€profit.€€Corruption€of€this€kind€does,€in€fact,€discredit€theÐ pÀ Ðcriminal€justice€system,€which€is€entirely€dependent€upon€the€continuing€integrity€of€those€who€haveÐ \¬ Ðearned€the€right€to€participate€in€the€process.€€The€burden€of€responsibility€is€particularly€onerousÐ H˜ Ðupon€those€involved€in€this€area€of€criminal€justice.€€The€public€trust€is€at€issue.€€It€is€difficult€toÐ 4„ Ðexaggerate€the€potential€risks€and€consequences€of€the€misuse€of€that€trust.€€òòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,Ð  p Ð922€S.W.2d€482€(Tenn.€1996).€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àHere,€the€defendant€stands€accused€of€placing€a€price€on€freedom€from€incarceration€andÐ ä4 Ðcommunicating€to€jail€inmates€his€willingness€to€compromise€the€criminal€justice€system.€€This€isÐ Ð  Ðone€of€those€rare€occasions€when€general€deterrence€for€similar€crimes€is€an€appropriateÐ ¼  Ðcircumstance.€€There€is€no€particular€evidence€suggesting€these€crimes€are€more€prevalent€in€ShelbyÐ ¨ø ÐCounty€than€others€areas€of€the€state.€€Yet€it€is€our€view€that€prosecution€in€this€instance€isÐ ”ä Ðparticularly€suitable.€€The€honesty€of€personnel€within€the€criminal€justice€system€is€essential€toÐ €Ð Ðpublic€safety.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€nature€of€the€charged€crimes,€the€public€interest€in€the€preservation€of€the€integrity€of€theÐ D!” Ðcourts€and€their€processes,€and€the€deterrent€value€of€€the€prosecution€of€a€public€employee€entrustedÐ 0"€  Ðwith€critical€duties€within€the€criminal€justice€system,€when€weighed€against€favorable€factors€to€theÐ #l! Ðdefense,€support€the€denial€of€diversion.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court'sÐ $X" Ðconclusion€that€the€district€attorney€did€not€abuse€his€discretionary€authority.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE