WPCX L3i/nxklSE9,2OZO7$#/!\ˇmdXd(C:I#ps:Bj+m ~Bl:w<ݧ=t+>Ѓ7ji'jTF X J7Kdj;}&D|Iə^,]{;'${݅)5/io~\SèP@Z(&%u-]xn[~W2r|Wuxq %l@_x?5Sx5qCm4^c p]52=ߪm ="R ୉pQ?ݠXrwhȃ19#O&^w)dUigqJ׆@=f S?/1۞,L.*jx^` `@ER` 8ttxP% t@PPDINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@*DATJACKSON@jj%D(HEARDATDYERSBURG) STATEOFTENNESSEE,@##/D) | t @##/D) APPELLEE,@##/D) H@  @##/D)v.@##/D)  NO.02S019709CC00079   @##/D)CAROLYNL.CURRY,@##/D)   @##/D) APPELLANT.@##/D)    @MM&DDISSENTINGOPINION  D<  Idisagreewiththemajority'sholdinginthiscasethatthedistrictattorneygeneralabusedhisdiscretionindenyingpretrialdiversion. XXXXThedefendanthas  committedanextremelyseriousoffenseinthiscase.Shehasadmittedtoembezzlingapproximately$27,400.00fromheremployer.Hercrimewasnotanisolatedincidentbutacomplicated,calculated,anddeliberatecriminalschemethatoccurredrepeatedlyoveracourseoftwoyearsuntilshewasultimatelycaught.#XXX X #  XXXXPretrialdiversionisalegislativelargessaswellasextraordinaryrelief. +#' Pretrialdiversionrelievescriminaldefendantsoftheburdenofbeingtriedfororconvictedofacrimeforwhichtheyareguilty.#XXX X # XXXXԀOncedefendantshavecompleted .'+ adiversionprogram,theyareundernolegalobligationtodisclosetheiroffensestoprospectivettemployers,ttandtheirpublicrecordsareexpunged.Mereeligibilityfordiversionshouldnotprovideapresumptionforprogramsuitability.tttw ww'wttt  #  1      tt d4\-1 Defendants,therefore,shouldatalltimescarrytheburdenofestablishing D6XX X># X>XXX> (  #X>XX X>## X>XXX> InStatev.Helms,720S.W.2d474(Tenn.Crim.App.1986),the  defendantwaschargedwithacrimeofacontinuingnaturewherebythedefendantfraudulentlyobtained$3,271.00fromtheStateofTennessee.Thedistrictattorneydeniedpretrialdiversionbasedonthefollowingreasonsaslistedbythecourt:8 1)thelongterm,continuingnatureofthettoffense;ee  ! ! eett8 2)thedeceitfulnatureofthecriminalviolationsttinvolved;ee  ! ! eett8 3)thedeterrenteffectofprosecution,ttandcceecceed  ! ! dttj%8 4)thestrongpublicpolicyagainstdiversionwheretheStateisdefrauded.?'  ! ! ttId.at475.Thetrialcourtfoundthedenialtobeanabuseofdiscretion.The x-p&) CourtofCriminalAppealsreversed,approvingthebasingofadenialofdiversion X/P(+ onthecircumstancessurroundingtheoffenseandondeterrence.Thecourtheldthattherewassubstantialevidenceintherecordtosupportthedenial.Id.tt   InStatev.Holland,661S.W.2d91(Tenn.Crim.App.1983),the   defendantwaschargedwithdefraudingMadisonCountybypresentingfalseweightticketspurportingtorepresentgraveldeliveredtotheMadisonCountyHighwayDepartment.Thedistrictattorneydenieddiversionbasedonthefollowingvalidgrounds:(1)theoffensesinvolvedplanning,ttdeliberation,ttandcooperationamongseveralpeople;(2)thecrimesinvolveddeceptionanddeceitandwerenotcrimesofimpulse;and(3)theseriousnatureoftheoffenseswouldbenegatedbyplacingthedefendantonpretrialdiversion.Theappellatecourtfoundsubstantialevidenceintherecordtosupportthedenialandupheldthetrialcourt'sfindingthattherewasnoabuseofdiscretion. InStatev.Carr,861S.W.2d850(Tenn.Crim.App.1993),thedefendant's H!@ crimeswereverysimilartothecrimesinthecasenowbeforeus.Pretrialdiversionwasdeniedbasedonthefollowingfactors:8 (1)Thecircumstancesshow"asystematicschemetodefraud...notacrimeofimpulse,"involvingconsiderableplanningwhichwouldhavecontinuedabsentdiscovery.  ! ! 8 (2)Themagnitudeoftheoffense,notingtheamountofmoney($23,370.85)reflectedbyapartialauditcoveringAugust1,1988,throughOctober31,1989.  ! ! 8 (3)Thenumberofindividualclaimsandcontinuingnatureoftheoffense.  ! ! 8 (4)TheparticularneedfordeterrencebecauseoftheconsiderableopportunityforMedicaidfraud,whichisseriousandprevalent.  ! ! 8 (5)Thedefendant'sstatementsindicatelittleremorseandfailuretoacceptresponsibility.  ! !  - 704 ttId.ttat854.Theappellatecourtstatedthat"theintentofthelegislaturewasto   givetheprosecutor,notthecourt,theauthoritytodecidewhichdefendantsshouldproceedtotrialandwhichonesshouldbedivertedbeforetrial.Therefore,inaclosecase,thecourtsshoulddefertotheprosecutor'sdecision."ttId.ttat858.Theappellatecourtheldthatsubstantialevidenceintherecord  supportedthedenialbasedonthecircumstancesofthecrimeandtheneedforttdeterrence. InStatev.Lutry,938S.W.2d431(Tenn.Crim.App.1996),thedefendant  waschargedwithforgeryforsigningastudentoutofschool.Pretrialdiversionwasdeniedbasedon:(1)thenatureandthecircumstancesofthecrime;(2)thedefendant'sbehaviorsincethearrest;and(3)generaldeterrence.ttTheappellatecourtconcludedthatforgeryorcasesinvolvingfraudbytheirverynatureneednoextrinsicprooftoestablishtheneedfordeterrence.Thecourtfoundevidenceintherecordtosupportthethreereasonscitedbythedistrictattorneyforthedenialandaffirmedthedistrictattorney'sdecisiontodenypretrialdiversion.#X>XX X>## X>XXX> Thecircumstancesofacriminaloffensealonehavebeenheldtottjustifydenialsttttofpretrialdiversion.ttInStatev.Watkins,607S.W.2d486(Tenn.Crim. *#& App.1980),thedefendantwasarrestedforpossessionofthreepoundsttofmarijuana.ttTheappellatecourtheldthat"possessionofthreepoundsttofmarihuanatt...isindicativeofmorethanacasualflirtationwithmarihuanaandttissufficientttbasisfortherefusalttof[pretrialdiversion]."ttttId.ttat489.InStatev. (2 +. Sutton,668S.W.2d678(Tenn.Crim.App.1984),thedefendantwasindictedfor 4-0 unlawfullyconcealingastolenautomobilevaluedatovertt$200.00ttandforalteringaserialnumber.Thenatureofthedefendant'scrimewasongoing.Theappellatecourtheldthatongoingcriminalactivityfitsinto"socialhistorywhichis 926 avalidfactorforconsideration."ttId.ttat680.Thecourtnotedthatttpretrialtt  diversionwasanextraordinarylargessofthelawandaffirmedthedenialofdiversionbaseduponthecircumstancesoftheoffense.#X>XX X>26# X>XXX>   #X>XX X>;# X>XXX> Inthecasenowbeforeus,Ibelievethattherecordisrepletewithsubstantialevidencesupportingthedistrictattorney'sreasonsfordenyingpretrialdiversion.UtilizingthefactorssetforthbythisCourt'srecentdecisioninStatev. H@  Pinkham,955S.W.2d956(Tenn.1997),Iwouldfindthefollowing: (  8 1.Thedistrictattorneymorethanadequatelyaddressedthecircumstancesoftheoffenseandtheseriousnatureoftheoffense;  ! ! 8 2.Thedefendant'ssocialhistoryindicatesthatforatleasttwoyearsthedefendantwasinvolvedinasustainedcriminalschemetodefraudacityandembezzleasubstantialamountofmoney;  ! ! 8 3.Thedefendant'sphysicalandmentalconditionwerelikelynotappropriatefactorsforconsiderationsinthiscase;and  ! ! #X>XX X><#8 4.ttPretrialttdiversionwouldnotservethebestinterestofboththepublicandthedefendantasdiversionwoulddiminishtheseriousnatureofthiscrimeanddiminishthepublic'sconfidenceinthecriminaljusticesystem'sabilitytoaddresscrimesofaseriousandongoingnature.  ! !  Iwouldholdttthattheldistrictattorney'slletterdenyingdiversionmorethanadequatelyaddressedthecriteriasetforthinPinkham,955S.W.2dat95960, 704 eventhoughthettttmdistrictattorney'smletterttcouldhavebeenmorettdetailedn,no.ottThereasonscitedforthe 926 denialaresimilarorgreaterinbothsubstanceandformtogroundsheldadequateinnumerouspublishedcases.Thecircumstancesofthedefendant'soffenseandtheneedtodeterfraudaswellastheftsoflargesumsofmoneyaresufficientlyoverwhelmingtojustifydenialofpretrialdiversioninthiscase.Moreover,thedefendant'soffensesaremoreseriousthanoffensesdiscussedinpublishedcasesinwhichdenialshavebeenupheldbasedsolelyuponthecircumstancesoftheoffenseandtheneedfordeterrence. Themajority'sholdingallowsthedefendanttoavoidbeingtriedforhercrimesmerelybecausetheprosecutorfailedtoexplicitlyincludeintheletterdenyingpretrialdiversionwordsttreferencing,ttasthemajorityttstatesp,ptt"thedefendantsfavorablesocialhistory,lackofacriminalrecord,andpotentialfor  rehabilitation." XUXXXUԀ(emphasisadded).Idisagreewiththemajority'sfindingthatthe  defendanthasa"favorable"socialhistoryandbackground.#XUXX XUsG# XUXXXUIbelievethat h` someonewhocontinuallycommitsseriouscrimesinvolvingdeception,ttplanning,andttfraudoverttatwoyearperiodttoftimehasalessthanfavorablesocialhistory,hasanextensivecriminalbackground,andisapoorcandidateforrehabilitation.Moreover,thedefendantttceasedhercriminalactivityonlyttwhenshewasttcaught,ttandhercriminalactivitywouldlikelyhavecontinuedhadshenotbeencaught.#XUXX XUJH# XUXXXU (!$  Idisagreewiththemajority'sdecisionthatanabuseofdiscretionoccurredmerelyduetoadistrictattorney'sfailuretospecificallyorexplicitlyaddressnonstatutorycriteria.#XUXX XUJ#Ifurtherdisagreewiththemajority'sconcernthatttaremand H0@), createsttadanger"thatnewreasonsforconsiderationwillbeintroducedduringthetthearing."Unlikettjudicialdiversion,applicationsforttpretrialttdiversiongenerallyoccurwhileacriminalproceedingisttinitsttttinfancy.Witnesseshavettnottestified,discoveryisongoing,andapresentencereporthasnotbeenprepared.Ibelievethatthepublic'sneedforprotectionfromoffendersofseriouscrimesandthe 926 ttpublic'sttinterestinavoidingthedepreciationoftheseriousnessofttcrimesoutweighanyttprejudiceadefendantmaysufferifadditionalbutvalidandpertinentconsiderationsarelaterintroducedwhichwouldrenderthedefendantanunsuitablecandidatefordiversion.Accordingly,Ibelievearulewhichpromotesaccuracyandsubstanceoverformwouldbeabetterrule.tt^qtwww,wtttqq"q^^^  #  3      tt    XUXXXUPretrialdiversionisalargessandisnotaright.Iquestionwhetherttthe H@  legislaturettintendedthatacriminalcommittingaseriesttofserious,sustained,planned,ttanddeceptivecrimesoverttatwoyearperiodttoftimeautomaticallybegranteddiversionmerelybecauseadistrictattorneyfailedtottemployttttapreferredtermintttheletterdenyingdiversion.Themajority'sholding#XUXX XUP# XUXXXUcouldeffectivelyallow  defendantscommittingseriousoffensessuchasmanslaughter,kidnapping,andvehicularhomicidetoavoidprosecutionmerelybecauseadistrictttattorneycommitsttanonprejudicialomissionaffectingttneitheraconstitutionalnorastatutoryttright.#XUXX XU"S# XUXXXU H!@ #XUXX XUT#   <      D T$T$MT$ &"    <      D JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE~  ' # ~TRY`3' Letter[A'Legal Red 3' LetterA'Legal RedT.rG:\IB013S2\OPINION\ACTIVE\CURRY\CIRC'D\FINAL\CURRYCAR.DISG:\IB013S2\OPINION\ACTIVE\CURRY\CIRC'D\FINAL\CURRYCAR.DIS/    Note:explanationonpage4ofattacheddraft2additionalchangesonpage4circledingreenhighlighterquestiononpage7