WPC]3 %ථbs؜rܙt1S`g!W[dL ab\E\gܤ~VkŸ6.(-Tt@*.!e#:6vp&膸85MSihTW"ҿCGR+1Wgly TP.{a`7|L]EuR#N$!6 #B[C =Y77&ed-Wuo X4$pVChժ`E'/D# UN % 0 DU:[U:w@4#2 0: 0 U:  U: d U':~ b   cEz 7 WU#:c 0`U:b7?bU:#]U: B1U:NU:U:  C$U:&U::&t&U:( 0`1)e )U:)U:)*U:- AQ-$.. 0D/ 0D/ 0D!0 D/e0 B00 D31U:1!2U:#3HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(r+$4,  AZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular 99D9D9D9D999e9D9Ӏ9cl&#, 3|x9.r(s(2$ r+!4  4XXX `   0  ("WV$XX  0  bX'?Xb,rAZ"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular Z  d$444֏XX   1    ݀Weobservethatoftheremainingoffenseschargedbythetrialcourt,attemptedrape, `  aggravatedsexualbattery,attemptedaggravatedsexualbattery,sexualbattery,andattemptedsexualbatteryarelessergradesorclassesofoffensesofattemptedaggravatedrape.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913501to522.Forthesamereasonsdescribedhereinabove,assaultisneitheralessergradeofoffenseoralesserincludedoffense.+zAZ"Arial Regular- -rOctober&nove y  $444XX   5    (ԀWeobservethatoftheremainingoffenseschargedbythetrialcourt,attemptedrape,  aggravatedsexualbattery,attemptedaggravatedsexualbattery,sexualbattery,andattemptedsexualbatteryarelessergradesorclassesofoffensesofattemptedaggravatedrape.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913501to522.Forthesamereasonsdescribedhereinabove,assaultisneitheralessergradeofoffenseoralesserincludedoffense.  $444GXX   1    GGԀThejurywasnotsequestered. y  $444GXX   2    !GGԀAlthoughthedefendanthasbriefedseveraladditionalissues,ourreviewislimitedtothe  twoissuesraisedbytheStatesapplicationforpermissiontoappeal.  )4  .J2:G:\TSC1\OPINIONS\CLEVELAN.OPNJG:\TSC1\OPINIONS\CLEVELAN.OPN/     $444XX   4    $ԀWealsoobservethatthecasesrelieduponbythedefendantinsupportofhisclaim  werealldecidedpriortoTrusty.See,e.g.,Statev.Reed,689S.W.2d190(Tenn.Crim.App. x 1984).rOctober&nove   $444GXX   3    GGԀBothpartiesindicatethatthejurormissedtwentyminutesofargument.,rAZ"Arial Regular(83$ r+!4  +K AZ"Arial Regular- -   $44XXX `   2    ݀Thetranscriptsindicatethatthetrialcourtinitiallyvoiceditsconcernthattheoutcomebe  consistentwithanunrelatedembezzlementcaseinwhichdiversionhadbeengranted.Thecourtlaterclarified,however,thatitwasapplyingthecontrollingstandardstothefactsinthiscase.- -+K AZ"Arial Regular   $44XXX `   1    ݀OralargumentwasheardinthiscaseonMarch4,1998,inDyersburg,DyerCounty,  Tennessee,aspartofthisCourtsS.C.A.L.E.S.( S upreme C ourt A dvancing L egal E ducationfor S tudents) Lp project.   $444&GXX   2    'GGԀAlthoughthedefendanthasbriefedseveraladditionalissues,ourreviewislimitedtothe  twoissuesraisedbytheStatesapplicationforpermissiontoappeal. [RODDISCHECKINGON x YOURQUESTION: ISHILLISSUEEXCLUDED?] +K AZ"Arial Regular d,rAZ"Arial Regular+K AZ"Arial Regular+K AZ"Arial Regular   $44X4PXX `   1    ݀OralargumentwasheardinthiscaseonMarch4,1998,inDyersburg,DyerCounty,  Tennessee,aspartofthisCourtsS.C.A.L.E.S.( S upreme C ourt A dvancing L egal E ducationfor S tudents)  project.   $44XXX `   3    ݀ Thedissent,quotingonlythelastsentenceofthispassagefromPinkham,concludesthat   potentialforrehabilitationisnota factorthatmustbeclearlyarticulatedandstatedintherecordbytheprosecutor.ThisconclusionissimplyatoddswiththelanguageinPinkhamwhenreadinitsentirety. }  $44XXX `   4    ݀ThedissentcitesseveralCourtofCriminalAppealsopinions,someunpublished,forthe  propositionthatthecircumstancesoftheoffensemayalonejustifythedenialofdiversion.Althoughthesecasesnecessarilyinvolvecasebycasedeterminations,theydonotnegatetheprosecutionsobligationtoconsiderallrelevantfactors,includingthosefactorsthatpertaintoadefendantspotentialforrehabilitation.E.g.,Pinkham,955S.W.2dat959;Washington,866S.W.2dat951;Herron,767S.W.2dat156;Statev.  Lutry,938S.W.2d431,433(Tenn.Crim.App.1996);Statev.Carr,861S.W.2d850,858(Tenn.Crim. D h App.1993).   $444-XX   4    .ԀWealsoobservethatthecasesrelieduponbythedefendantinsupportofhisclaim  werealldecidedpriortoTrusty.See,e.g.,Statev.Reed,689S.W.2d190(Tenn.Crim.App. x 1984).,rAZ"Arial Regular+K AZ"Arial Regular y  $4440XX   5    3ԀWeobservethatoftheremainingoffenseschargedbythetrialcourt,attemptedrape,  aggravatedsexualbattery,attemptedaggravatedsexualbattery,sexualbattery,andattemptedsexualbatteryarelessergradesorclassesofoffensesofattemptedaggravatedrape.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913501to522.Forthesamereasonsdescribedhereinabove,assaultisneitheralessergradeofoffenseoralesserincludedoffense.,rAZ"Arial Regular(83$ r+!4   +K AZ"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular   $44X6PXX `   4    ݀ThedissentcitesseveralCourtofCriminalAppealsopinions,someunpublished,forthe  propositionthatthecircumstancesoftheoffensemayalonejustifythedenialofdiversion.Althoughthesecasesnecessarilyinvolvecasebycasedeterminations,theydonotnegatetheprosecutionsobligationtoconsiderallrelevantfactors,includingthosefactorsthatpertaintoadefendantspotentialforrehabilitation.E.g.,Pinkham,955S.W.2dat959;Washington,866S.W.2dat951;Herron,767S.W.2dat156;Statev.  Lutry,938S.W.2d431,433(Tenn.Crim.App.1996);Statev.Carr,861S.W.2d850,858(Tenn.Crim.   App.1993).,rAZ"Arial Regular8:;<=C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 )4  .H28G:\TSC1\OPINIONS\CURRYCL.OPNHG:\TSC1\OPINIONS\CURRYCL.OPN/  (3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  >>' dxdP Pd :"  AXnXXXA)uXAXn   Ad FILEDAXnXA)u  March15,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh %%%%'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular :"  CXnXXXC)uXCXn   Ad FILEDCXnXC)u  March8,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular r+!4  47nXXdd7  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  9999r7?@<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  r9999999999999t7B@>.*jx ` `@E` 8ttxP7u tߛ9@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @88)ATJACKSON@$(HEARDATDYERSBURG) `     h      p FORPUBLICATION  & J  `     h      p Filed:March8,1999 XnXXXԛ    ̜STATEOFTENNESSEE, h     )    `     h     ) p CARROLLCRIMINAL  (# #XnXXXn#XnXXXn    `  Appellee, h     )    `     h     ) p         `     h     ) p   МVs. `     h     ) p HON.C.CREEDMCGINLEY,#XnXXXn#XnXXXnԛ t  `     h     ) p   JUDGE x   (#  d  `     h     ) p    Tx CAROLYNL.CURRY h     ) Dh  `     h     ) p NO.02S019709CC00079 4X  `  Appellant. h     ) $H  `     h      p ForAppellant:   h      p ForAppellee:   МDonaldE.Parish   h      p JohnKnoxWalkup x    IVEY,PARISH&JOHNS h      p AttorneyGeneral&Reporter ! МHuntingdon,Tennessee#XnXXXn##XnXXXn "  `     h      p MichaelE.Moore `     h      p SolicitorGeneral#XnXXXn #XnXXXnԛ `     h      p TimothyF.Behan `     h      p AssistantAttorneyGeneral `     h      p Nashville,Tennessee̜ `     h      p AtTrial: +(%( М `     h      p RobertRadford `     h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h      p EleanorCahill `     h      p AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h      p Huntingdon,Tennessee  (#  0*.  `     h XXn @88(OPINION  T5x/3 #XnX#̛̜COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS#XnXXXn # |:48 REVERSED;JUDGMENTOFTHE l;59 TRIALCOURTREINSTATED.XnXXXn     p     ANDERSON,C.J   99#XlXXXl#99 ` Wegrantedthisappealtodeterminewhetherthetrialcourtproperlyruledthat  theprosecutionabuseditsdiscretionbyfailingtoconsideralloftherelevantfactorsindenyingthedefendantsapplicationforpretrialdiversion,andwhethertheCourtofCriminalAppealserredinremandingthecaseforanevidentiaryhearing.999"99)9  VXXl  1  XlX    99The @ d CourtofCriminalAppealsagreedthattheprosecutorswrittenletterdenyingdiversiondidnotdiscussalloftherelevantfactors,butremandedforanevidentiaryhearingtoallowtheprosecutortotestifyastothefactorsthatwereconsideredindenyingpretrialdiversion. ` Afterreviewingtherecordandcontrollingauthority,weconcludethatthetrialcourtproperlydeterminedthatthe99prosecution99abused99its99discretionbyfailingtoconsideralloftherelevantfactorsbeforedenyingpretrialdiversion.WealsoconcludethattheCourtofCriminalAppealserredinremandingthecasetoallowtheprosecutoranopportunitytocorrectthesedeficienciesduringanevidentiaryhearing.Accordingly,wereversetheCourtofCriminalAppealsjudgmentandreinstatethejudgmentofthetrialcourt.@) BACKGROUND  h$"  ` Thedefendant,CarolynC.Curry,workedasanassistantclerkfortheCityofMcKenzie,Tennessee,from1985to1995.OveratwoyearperiodfromJulyof1993toJulyof1995,Curryembezzledover$27,000fromtheCity.Shelaterwasindictedfortheftofpropertyvaluedbetween$10,000and$60,000. ` Curryappliedforpretrialdiversion.Accordingtoherapplication,shewasadivorced,34yearoldmotherofthreechildren,ages19,13,and8.Curryhadgraduatedfromcollegewithhonorsin1983,andsheservedintheTennesseeNationalGuardfrom1983to1990,whenshewashonorablydischarged.Shewasanactivememberofherchurchandnumerouscharitableandcommunity `606 organizationsincludingtheUnitedWay,UnitedNeighbors,ConcernedCitizens,andyouthsoftball.Numerouslettersincludedwithherapplicationattestedtohercharitableandcommunityinvolvement. ` Curryhadnopriorarrestsorconvictions.Shecooperatedwithauthoritiesinthiscasewhenheractionswerediscovered,admittingthatshetookmoneyforfamilyandlivingexpensesandproposingarestitutionprogram.Shestatedthat: Isincerelyregretmyactionsandregrettheshamethatmyactionshavebroughttobearonmyselfandmyfamily. ` Indenyingtheapplicationforpretrialdiversion,theprosecutor,inawrittenresponse,gavethefollowingreasons:8 ` 8 ` !` !99  We99areinreceiptofyourapplicationforpretrial99diversion.99...99We99havecarefullyreviewedtheapplicationandtheattachedletters.     `    99.99..8 ` 8 ` !` !99  During99aperiodofapproximatelytwoyears,fromJuly1,1993,throughJuly11,1995,approximately$27,368.73incityfundswereembezzledbyher.Thiswasnotaonetimeembezzlementortheft,butacomplicated,wellthoughtoutcriminalschemetotakemoneyfromtheCityofMcKenzie.     `    99.99..8 ` 8 ` !` !99  We99haveconsideredthedefendantspasthistoryandherconductfortwoyearsindefraudingtheCityofMcKenzie.Thiswasacalculatedcriminalschemethattookplanningandthought.Itmanifestsacriminalintentforalongperiodoftimeandnotsomethingthathappenedatonce.    8 ` 8 ` !` !99  We99cannotbelievethatitwouldbeinthebestinterestsofthepublic,thedefendant,andjusticetooverlookacriminalschemeofthisproportionandgrantpretrial99diversion.99...    99 ` Currysoughtreviewoftheprosecutorsdecisionbyfilingapetitionforwritof certiorariinthetrialcourt.Afterhearingargumentofcounsel,thetrialcourtfound ,8P28 thatdiversionhadbeendeniedsolelybaseduponthecircumstancesoftheoffense,specifically,thetwoyearduration,andruled: 998 ` 8 ` !` !99  After99consideringtheApplicationforPreTrialDiversionoftheDefendant,theletterresponsefromtheofficeoftheDistrictAttorneyGeneral...,andargumentsofcounsel,theCourtfoundthattheOfficeoftheDistrictAttorneyGeneralhadabuseditsdiscretionindenying99pretrial99diversionandthattheDefendantshouldbeplacedon99pretrial99diversion....    99The99trialcourtdeniedtheStatesmotiontoreconsiderbutgrantedamotionforinterlocutoryappeal.  VXXl  2  XlX    ׀TheCourtofCriminalAppealsagreedthattheresponse "F denyingpretrialdiversiondidnotsufficientlystatetherelevantfactorswhichhadbeenconsideredbytheprosecutor,yetfurtherheld:998 ` 8 ` !` ![99T]he99trialcourtshouldscheduleanevidentiaryhearingandallowthedistrictattorneygeneraltotestifyinordertofillinthegapsleftbytheletter.Onlyinthiswaycanthetrialcourthaveassurancesthatitisconsideringthesameevidenceconsideredbytheprosecutorinhisorherdecisiontodenypretrialdiversion.Onlyinthiswaycanitdeterminewhethertheprosecutorabusedhisorherdiscretionindenyingdiversion.99    9999 ` Wegrantedthedefendantsapplicationforpermissiontoappealtoreviewthesufficiencyoftheprosecutorswrittendenialofdiversionandthequestionofpermittingtheprosecutortocorrectitsdeficienciesbytestifyinginanevidentiaryhearing.@* ANALYSIS  0/T). XlXXXl ` Thepretrialdiversionprogram,draftedandenactedbytheLegislature,allows 0 +0 theDistrictAttorneyGeneraltosuspendaprosecutionagainstaqualifieddefendantforaperiodofuptotwoyears.Tenn.CodeAnn.4015105(a)(1)(A)(1997&Supp.1998).Aqualifieddefendantpursuanttothestatuteisonewhohasnot `606 previouslybeengranteddiversionanddoesnothaveapriormisdemeanorconvictionforwhichconfinementwasservedorapriorfelonyconvictionwithinafiveyearperiodaftercompletingthesentenceorprobationaryperiodfortheconviction.Tenn.CodeAnn.4015105(a)(1)(B)(i)(a)(b)(Supp.1998).TheoffenseforwhichdiversionissoughtmaynotbeaclassAfelony,aclassBfelony,asexualoffense,  0 drivingundertheinfluence,orvehicularassault.Tenn.CodeAnn.4015105#XlXXXl-#XlXXXl(a)(1)(B)(i)(c)(Supp.1998).#XlXXXlJ1#XlXXXl    ` Anygrantofdiversionmustbeconditionedononeormoreofthefollowingconditions:thatthedefendantnotcommitanycriminaloffense;thatthedefendantrefrainfromactivities,conduct,orassociationsrelatedtothecharge;thatthedefendantreceiverehabilitativetreatment,counselingandeducation;thatthedefendantmakerestitutiontothevictim;thatthedefendantpaycourtcostsandthecostsofthediversion;andthatthedefendantabidebyanyothertermsorconditionsasmaybeagreedupon.Tenn.CodeAnn.4015105(a)(2)(A)(H)(1997&Supp.1998).Ifthedefendantviolatesatermorcondition,theprosecutionmayterminatediversionandresumethecriminalprosecution.Tenn.CodeAnn.4015105(d)(1997&Supp.1998).  h$" #XlXXXl1# ` Onewhoisstatutorilyeligibleisnotpresumptivelyentitledtodiversion. ($"& Instead, whethertograntpretrialdiversiontoaqualifieddefendantwhoisstatutorily )#( eligibleisadeterminationthatliesinthediscretionofthedistrictattorneygeneral.Statev.Pinkham,955S.W.2d956(Tenn.1997).Therelevantconsiderationsfor d-', theprosecutorareasfollows:99998 ` Whendecidingwhethertoenterintoamemorandumofunderstandingunderthepretrialdiversionstatuteaprosecutorshouldfocusonthedefendantsamenabilitytocorrection.Anyfactorswhichtendtoaccuratelyreflectwhetheraparticulardefendantwillorwillnotbecomearepeatoffendershouldbeconsidered.Suchfactorsmust,ofcourse,beclearlyarticulableandstatedintherecordinorderthatmeaningfulappellatereviewmaybehad.Amongthefactorstobeconsideredinadditiontothecircumstancesoftheoffensearethedefendantscriminalrecord,socialhistory,thephysicalandmentalconditionofadefendantwhereappropriate,andthelikelihoodthatpretrialdiversion 94: willservetheendsofjusticeandthebestinterestofboththepublicandthe99defendant. ` !` ! 99Id.at95960(quotingStatev.Hammersley,650S.W.2d352,355(Tenn.1983)).*  VXXl  3  XlX     t   ` Ifthedistrictattorneygeneraldeniespretrialdiversion,thedenialmustbeinwritingandmustinclude anenumerationoftheevidencethatwasconsideredandadiscussionofthefactorsconsideredandweightaccordedeach.Pinkham,955   S.W.2dat960.This requiremententailsmorethananabstractstatementintherecordthatthedistrictattorneygeneralhasconsideredthesefactors.Statev. <` Herron,767S.W.2d151,156(Tenn.1989).Instead,thefactorsconsidered must , beclearlyarticulableandstatedintherecord....Id.;seealsoStatev.  Washington,866S.W.2d950(Tenn.1993).Thatadefendant,obviously,bearsthe  burdenofdemonstratingsuitabilityfordiversiondoesnotrelievetheprosecutorsobligationtoexaminealloftherelevantfactorsandtosetforththerequiredfindings.E.g.,Pinkham,955S.W.2dat960. (  ` Theprosecutorsresponsemustbeinwriting.AstheCourtofCriminalAppealshasobserved,thereareatleastthreereasonsforrequiringawrittenresponse:8 ` 8 ` !` !First,thestatementwouldcompeltheprosecutortothinkaboutandjustifyhisdenialintermsoftheapplicablestandards.Second,thestatementofreasonswoulddefinetheareaofcontroversyattheevidentiaryhearing.Finally,thestatementofreasonswouldrestricttheprosecutortoaparticularrationaleandinsurethattheprosecutorwouldoffernonewreasonsattheevidentiaryhearing.    Statev.Brown,700S.W.2d568,570(Tenn.Crim.App.1985)(quotingStevenW. 2,2 99Feldman99,TheTennesseePretrialDiversionAct:APractitionersGuide,1399Mem99.St. 4.4 U.L.Rev.285,302n.106(1983)).Theprosecutorswrittenresponsemustalso `606 identifyanyfactualdisputesbetweentheevidencerelieduponandtheapplicationfiledbythedefendant.Id.   ` Iftheapplicationforpretrialdiversionisdenied,thedefendantmayappealbypetitioningthetrialcourtforawritofcertiorari.Tenn.CodeAnn.4015105(b)(3)(1997&Supp.1998).Theonlyevidencethatmaybeconsideredbythetrialcourtistheevidencethatwasconsideredbythedistrictattorneygeneral.Statev.Winsett,   882S.W.2d806,810(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Thetrialcourtmayconductahearingonlytoresolveanyfactualdisputesraisedbytheprosecutororthedefendantconcerningtheapplication,butnottohearadditionalevidencethatwasnotconsideredbytheprosecutor.SeePinkham,955S.W.2dat960.   ` Theactionoftheprosecutorispresumptivelycorrect,anditissubjecttoreviewbythetrialcourtonlyforanabuseofdiscretion.Therecordinthisregardmustshowanabsenceofanysubstantialevidencetosupporttherefusalofthedistrictattorneygeneraltoenterintoamemorandumofunderstandingbeforeareviewingcourtcanfindanabuseofdiscretion.Theappellatecourtmustdeterminewhetherthetrialcourtsdecisionissupportedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Id. 4&X $  ` TheStatecontendsthatthetrialcourtimproperlysubstituteditsdecisionforthatoftheprosecutorwho,afterconsideringalloftherelevantfactors,denieddiversionbecauseoftheseriousnessoftheoffenseandtheneedfordeterrence.Thedefendantmaintainsthetrialcourtproperlyfoundanabuseofdiscretioninthattheprosecutorfailedtoconsiderherfavorablesocialhistoryandamenabilitytocorrection.Shealsoarguesthattheprosecutorisnotentitledtotestifyatanevidentiaryhearingtocorrectthedeficiencies. ` Ourreview,likethatofthelowercourts,indicatesthattheprosecutorsprimaryconsiderationinthewrittendenialofdiversionwasthecircumstancesofthe 94: offense,specifically,theamountofmoneytakenandthedurationofthecriminalactivity.Thedenialletterstatedthatdiversionwasnot inthebestinterestofthepublic,which,althoughimprecise,arguablyincludesdeterrence.Althoughtheprosecutorassertsthathehad carefullyreviewedtheapplicationandtheattachedletters,thedenialdoesnotdiscussthedefendantsfavorablesocialhistory,lackofacriminalrecord,andpotentialforrehabilitation.Moreover,assumingtheseessentialfactorswere,infact,considered,thereisnoexplanationastohowmuchweighttheywereaffordedandnorationaleastowhytheywereoutweighedbytheotherfactorsindenyingdiversion.E.g.,Herron,767S.W.2dat156. <`  ` TheStateargues,andthedissentwrites,thattheseriousnessoftheoffenseitselfmayjustifyadenialofdiversion. Areviewofthecaselawreveals,however,  thatthecircumstancesoftheoffenseandtheneedfordeterrencemayalonejustifyadenialofdiversion,butonlyifalloftherelevantfactorshavebeenconsideredas 8\ well.E.g.,Washington,866S.W.2dat951( circumstancesofthecaseandthe ( needfordeterrencemaybeconsideredastwoofthemanyfactors,[but]theycannotbegivencontrollingweightunlesstheyareofsuchoverwhelmingsignificancethatthey...outweighallotherfactors).Thefactsandcircumstancesofnearlyallcriminaloffensesarebydefinitionserious;onlybyanalyzingalloftherelevantfactors,includingthosefavorabletothedefendant,canappropriatecandidatesforthislegislativelargessbeidentifiedinamannerconsistentwiththepurposeofthepretrialdiversionact.Herron,767S.W.2dat156.999+9959  VXXl  4  XlX    99 +%*  ` InPinkham,forinstance,thedefendantwaschargedwithfalselyrepresenting 0/T). himselfasalawyer,impersonatingalicensedprofessional,andaggravatedperjury.Thedenialofdiversionemphasizedthecircumstancesoftheoffense,thelosses 2,2 sustainedbythevictim,andthe systematicandcontinuingcriminalactivity,butalsogaveextensiveconsiderationtotheotherrelevantfactors:8 ` 8 ` !` !Inmakingthisdecisiontorejectthedefendantsdiversionapplication,Ihaveconsideredthat[thedefendant]isa50yearoldmanwithnocriminalrecord.Ihaveconsideredhisexemplarysocialhistory.Ihaveconsideredthat[thedefendant]appearstobealeaderinhiscommunity,asevidencedbythecharacterandreferencelettersfromlawyers,teachers,professors,ministers,doctors,etal.Ihaveconsideredalloftheparametersof[thedefendants]social,family,personal,educationalandprofessionalbackground.    8 ` 8 ` !` !Ihaveweighedallthosefactorsindecidingwhethertheinterestsofjusticewouldbeservedbestbyplacing[thedefendant]ondiversion.Ihaveconcludedthattheinterestsofthepublicsubstantiallyoutweightheinterestsofthedefendant.Since[thedefendant]isahighlyeducatedpersonwhoholdsalawdegree,[thedefendant]knewthathisconductwasunlawfulandunethical.Unquestionably,[thedefendant]madeadeliberatechoicetoviolatethelaw.Havingviolatedthecriminallaws...,[thedefendant]madeanunconscionabledecisiontoengageinacontinualpatternofdeceptionanddishonesty.    Id.at959.Inaffirmingthedenialofdiversion,thisCourtobservedthatthedistrict   attorneygeneralextensivelydiscussedtherelevantfactors,identifiedtheevidenceconsidered,andsetforththeweightaffordedtoeachfactoraswellastherationaleforhisconclusion.Id.at961. 4&X $  ` Incontrast,thedefendantinHerron,a24yearoldwomanwithnoprior )#( criminalrecord,waschargedwithtwocountsoflarcenybytrick,oneoffenseinvolving$5000andtheotherinvolving$6000.Theprosecutorsdenialofpretrialdiversionwasbasedprimarilyonthecircumstancesofthe contrived,deliberateoffensesandtheneedtodetersuchoffenses.Althoughthetrialcourtdeniedthedefendantspetitionforcertiorari,theCourtofCriminalAppealsconcludedthatthedistrictattorneygeneralfailedtoconsiderotherrelevantfactorsthatwerefavorabletothedefendant.  ,8P28  ` ThisCourtagreedwiththeintermediatecourtsdeterminationthatboththe prosecutorandthetrialcourtfailedtoconsider thatdefendantdidnothaveanycriminalrecord,hersocialhistory,herphysicalandmentalcondition,includinghereducationalbackground,heremploymenthistoryaswellasthestabilityandcontinuedsupportofherfamily.Id.at155.Moreover,theCourtonceagain  0 stressedthat XlXXXlifthedistrictattorneygeneralbaseshisdecisiononlessthanthefull   complementoffactors...hemust,fortherecord,statewhyheconsidersthatthosehereliesonoutweightheotherssubmittedforhisconsideration.Id.at156.#XlXXXl