ÿWPC‡& …# VUNa %¯ 0"µUF× w@ 4] q 0f€ 0Dæ *UF0 0JvUFÀ 0T 0^Z 0h¸ 0r  B’ 0|¯ 0†+ 0±A 1uI 0d¾ D3" 0@UU>•U .ÓB)DC* AMmU*ºõäªÙ­ƒ³0®ãv~‘vÓ AOâ$Æ1% 0D÷% D/;& Bj&˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(úû$¡¡Ó  ÓÑŒ Œ ÑÑÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€–XXdÖXXdÖ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€X–XXXÔÿ.Courier New Regular ‘’“”D•D– —˜™DšÓ€"Yn#P ÿÿ3|x¥((32$¤¤Ý ƒû!ÝÓ  ÓÑŒ °ÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€.ÇXXdÖdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€X.ÇXXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóH<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô.Courier New Regular2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !" ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd€-1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ëÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔÔ€3ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€3XÔÌÌò òNovemberÏ17,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€3ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„15„101€òòet€seq.óó€(1991).Ì £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€23„3„108€(1994),€a€Class€E€felony.Ì ©Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„301€(1991),€a€Class€B€misdemeanor.Ì ¤Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„703€(1991),€a€Class€D€felony.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€//Xd#ÑÑ#€//Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÔ% € ÔØ ØÓ&€Ðd&ÓÓ&€//XÐd&ÓÑ  ÑÓ` °‚X˜XÓÑ7€.ÇXXdÖXXdÖ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€241A1-j|` ‚- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)€€€FOR€PUBLICATIONÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€FILED:€œNOVEMBER€17,›€1997Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€SHELBY€COUNTYÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€HON.€JULIAN€P.€GUINN,ÌCHARLES€A.€PINKHAM,€JR.à àà àà à)à à€€€JUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)Ì€€€€€à àAppellantà àà à€€€€€€€à à)€€€NO.€02„S„01„9611„CR„00096ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:òòà àà àà àà àà àFor€Appelleeóó:ÌÌLARRY€RICE€€€€€€à àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌMemphis,€TNà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMICHAEL€E.€MOOREà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àELIZABETH€T.€RYANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJUDSON€W.€PHILLIPSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLEE€V.€COFFEEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneysÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TNÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòOPINIONÌÌóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àBIRCH,€J.€€ÌÓÓà àWe€granted€the€application€for€permission€to€appealÏfiled€by€Charles€A.€Pinkham,€Jr.,€in€order€to€determine€the€extentÏto€which€the€district€attorney€general€must€disclose€on€the€recordÏthe€evidence€relied€upon€to€reject€an€application€for€pretrialÏdiversion.œ× ƒ5 ××  ×›ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€district€attorney€general€has€a€duty€toÏinclude€in€the€record€the€factual€basis€and€rationale€for€denyingÏdiversion.€€œIf,€in›€petitioning€the€trial€court€for€review€of€theÏdiversion€decision,€the€petitioner€contests€the€facts€upon€whichÍthe€district€attorney€general€relied,€then€the€trial€court€shouldÏhold€an€evidentiary€hearing€to€resolve€the€factual€dispute.€€TheÏtrial€court€should€not€consider€any€evidence€shown€to€beÏmaterially€false€or€obtained€in€violation€of€constitutional€rightsÏas€it€determines€whether€the€district€attorney€general€abused€hisÏor€her€discretion€in€rejecting€the€pretrial€diversion€application.ÌÌà àIn€the€case€under€submission,€Pinkham€did€not€challengeÏthe€evidence€relied€œupon€by€the€district€attorney€general.›€ÏRather,€he€contended€that€a€portion€of€it€was€irrelevant,€remote,Ïand€unreliable.€€Our€review€of€this€evidence€leads€us€to€concludeÏthat€the€district€attorney€general€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€inÏdenying€pretrial€diversion.€€For€the€reasons€herein€stated,€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌà@ àIÌÌà àThe€record€establishes€that€Pinkham,€at€the€time€not€Ïlicensed€to€practice€law€in€any€jurisdiction,€prepared€andÍsupervised€the€execution€of€the€will€of€Hilda€Bratton.€€AfterÏBrattonððs€death,€proceedings€to€contest€the€will€were€initiated.€ÏBecause€the€will€had€not€been€properly€attested,€Brattonððs€estateÏpassed€according€to€the€law€of€intestacy,€and€the€intendedÏbeneficiaries€received€approximately€$90,000€less€than€they€wouldÏhave€received€had€the€will€been€admitted€to€probate.€€During€theÏwill€contest,€Pinkham€was€asked€by€the€trial€court€if€he€was€anÏattorney€licensed€to€practice€in€Tennessee.€€Pinkham€respondedÏthat€he€was€so€licensed;€this€response€was€untrue.ÌÌà àSubsequently,€Pinkham€was€indicted€for€falselyÏrepresenting€himself€as€a€lawyer,× ƒ6 ××  ×€impersonating€a€licensedÏprofessional,× ƒ7 ××  ×€and€aggravated€perjury.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€As€permitted€by€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„15„101€òòet€seq.óó€(1991),€Pinkham€applied€to€the€districtÏattorney€general€for€pretrial€diversion.ÌÌà àHis€application€shows€that€Pinkham€is€the€fifty„five„year„old€married€father€of€two.€€As€a€youth,€he€attained€the€EagleÏrank€in€scouting,€excelled€in€athletics,€and€served€as€œa€president›Ïof€the€student€body€of€his€high€school.€€He€attended€theÏUniversity€of€California€and€graduated€with€a€degree€in€business.€ÏHe€then€entered€law€school€at€Golden€Gate€University€and€graduatedÏas€one€of€the€top€students€of€his€class.€€Pinkham€was€admitted€toÏthe€practice€of€law€in€California.ÌÌà àPinkham€states€that€in€1983€he€became€addicted€toÏalcohol.€€This€disease,€he€says,€caused€him€to€neglect€his€lawÏpractice.€€In€1986,€he€surrendered€his€California€law€license€andÏwas€admitted€to€a€ten„week€inpatient€rehabilitation€program.€€UponÏrelease€from€this€program,€Pinkham€and€his€family€relocated€toÏMemphis,€where€he€obtained€employment€as€a€financial€planner.ÌÌà àPinkhamððs€application€is€replete€with€letters€of€supportÏfrom€individuals€in€the€community.€€It€is€clear€that€he€hasÏdevoted€substantial€time€and€energy€to€his€church€and€theÏcommunity.€€ÌÌà àAfter€considering€Pinkhamððs€application,€the€districtÏattorney€general€rejected€his€application€for€pretrial€diversionÏand€gave€the€following€explanation:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àA.€€The€circumstances€of€the€caseÏindicate€that€the€defendant€engagedÏin€a€systematic€and€continuingÏcriminal€activity.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àHaving€engaged€in€the€unauthorizedÏpractice€of€law,€Mr.€PinkhamÏcompounded€[the]€original€criminalÏbehavior€by€lying€under€oath€whenÏquestioned€by€Judge€Southern„„someÏten€months€later€.€.€.€.€€InÏaddition€to€committing€three€(3)Ïseparate€offenses€for€which€he€isÏindicted,€Mr.€Pinkham€has€a€fourthÏuncharged€offense€in€which€heÏcontracted€to€prepare€another€WillÏfor€a€Charles€E.€Shartle€on€MarchÏ23,€1993.ÌÌà8 àà8 àB.€€The€magnitude€of€the€lossesÏsuffered€by€the€victim€mandateÏagainst€Mr.€Pinkhamððs€applicationÏfor€diversion.€.€.€.€€The€actualÏor/and€potential€amounts€ofÏrestitution€are€so€enormous€thatÏpre„trial€diversion€is€not€onlyÏinappropriate€but€also€impractical.ÌÌà8 àà8 àC.€€I€believe€further€that€Mr.ÏPinkham€is€not€a€suitable€candidateÏfor€pre„trial€diversion€because€Mr.ÏPinkham,€unfortunately,€has€aÏhistory€of€dishonesty€and€unethicalÍbehavior.€€Mr.€Pinkham€voluntarilyÏresigned€from€the€California€Bar€onÏDecember€31,€1986,€while€aÏdisciplinary€proceeding€was€pendingÏto€disbar€Mr.€Pinkham.€€The€State€ofÏCalifornia€alleged€that€Mr.€Pinkham:Ïengaged€in€professional€misconduct;Ïviolated€his€oath€and€duties€as€anÏattorney;€misappropriated€orÏconverted€client€funds;€abandonedÏhis€clients;€and/or€committed€actsÏinvolving€moral€turpitude,Ïdishonesty€and/or€corruption.€ÏHaving€voluntarily€surrendered€hisÏCalifornia€law€license,€Mr.€PinkhamÏengaged€in€the€criminal€andÏegregious€conduct€which€led€to€hisÏcurrent€indictments.€.€.€.€€Lastly,ÏMr.€Pinkham€continued€to€demonstrateÏan€inability€or€unwillingness€toÏtell€the€truth€when€he€spoke€with€anÏinvestigator€with€the€AttorneyÏGeneralððs€office€on€November€23,Ï1993.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àD.€€There€is€an€overwhelming€needÏfor€deterrence€in€this€case.€.€.€.ÏWe€must€deter€individuals€fromÏunlawfully€engaging€in€theÏunauthorized€practice€of€law.€€IfÏthis€defendant€were€placed€onÏdiversion,€other€citizens€may€beÏencouraged€to€practice€law€without€aÏlicense.€€Other€individuals€mayÏreceive€a€false€message€that,€ifÏdetected€engaging€in€the€practice€ofÏlaw€without€a€license,€theÏpunishment€is€minimal.€€We€cannotÏœsend›€a€message€to€this€communityÏthat€a€defendant€will€not€beÏpunished€if€that€defendant€has€theÏfinancial€wherewithal€to€ð ðbuy€hisÍway€out€of€trouble.ðð€€We€shall€notÏsend€a€message€that€the€AttorneyÏGeneral€condones€a€defendantððsÏintentionally€lying€to€a€JudgeÏ....€ÌÌà8 àà8 àIn€making€this€decision€to€rejectÏthe€defendantððs€diversionÏapplication,€I€have€considered€thatÏMr.€Pinkham€is€a€50€year€old€manÏwith€no€criminal€record.€€I€haveÏconsidered€his€exemplary€socialÏhistory.€€I€have€considered€that€Mr.ÏPinkham€appears€to€be€a€leader€inÏhis€community,€as€evidenced€by€theÏcharacter€and€reference€letters€fromÏlawyers,€teachers,€professors,Ïministers,€doctors,€et€al.€€I€haveÏconsidered€all€of€the€parameters€ofÏMr.€Pinkhamððs€social,€family,Ïpersonal,€educational€andÏprofessional€background.ÌÌà8 àà8 àI€have€weighed€all€those€factors€inÏdeciding€whether€the€interests€ofÏjustice€would€be€served€best€byÏplacing€Mr.€Pinkham€on€diversion.€€IÏhave€concluded€that€the€interests€ofÏthe€public€substantially€outweighÏthe€interests€of€the€defendant.€ÏSince€Mr.€Pinkham€is€a€highlyÏeducated€person€who€holds€a€lawÏdegree,€Mr.€Pinkham€òòknewóó€that€hisÏconduct€was€unlawful€and€unethical.€ÏUnquestionably,€Mr.€Pinkham€made€aÏdeliberate€choice€to€violate€theÏlaw.€€Having€violated€the€criminalÏlaws€of€the€State€of€Tennessee,€Mr.ÏPinkham€made€an€unconscionableÏdecision€to€engage€in€a€continualÏpattern€of€deception€and€dishonesty.€ÏMr.€Pinkham€deliberately€chose€toÍengage€in€systematic€and€continualÏpattern€of€criminal€activity€.€.€.€.ÏSadly,€Mr.€Pinkhamððs€actionsÏdemonstrate€a€continuation€of€theÏunethical,€unprofessional€andÏillegal€conduct€which€caused€him€toÏlose€his€California€Law€license.ÌÌà8 àà8 àAfter€considering€and€weighing€allÏthe€factors€enumerated€above,€I€mustÏdeny€the€application€for€diversionÏof€Charles€A.€Pinkham,€Jr.€.€.€.ÓÓÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àThe€decision€to€grant€or€deny€pretrial€diversion€is€aÏdiscretionary€one€that€lies€with€the€district€attorney€general.€ÏòòPace€v.€Stateóó,€566€S.W.2d€861,€864€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€districtÏattorney€general€must€consider€all€relevant€factors€in€making€hisÏor€her€decision.€€òòState€v.€Carróó,€861€S.W.2d€850,€855€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€€In€òòHammersleyóó,€we€outlined€these€factors:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àWhen€deciding€whether€to€enter€intoÏa€memorandum€of€understanding€underÏthe€pretrial€diversion€statute€aÏprosecutor€should€focus€on€theÏdefendantððs€amenability€toÏcorrection.€€Any€factors€which€tendÏto€accurately€reflect€whether€aÏparticular€defendant€will€or€willÏnot€become€a€repeat€offender€shouldÏbe€considered.€€Such€factors€must,Íof€course,€be€clearly€articulableÏand€stated€in€the€record€in€orderÏthat€meaningful€appellate€review€mayÏbe€had.€€Among€the€factors€to€beÏconsidered€in€addition€to€theÏcircumstances€of€the€offense€are€theÏdefendantððs€criminal€record,€socialÏhistory,€the€physical€and€mentalÏcondition€of€a€defendant€whereÏappropriate,€and€the€likelihood€thatÏpretrial€diversion€will€serve€theÏends€of€justice€and€the€bestÏinterest€of€both€the€public€and€theÏdefendant.ÌÓÓÌòòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€352,€355€(Tenn.€1983).€€If€theÏdistrict€attorney€general€denies€pretrial€diversion,€that€denialÏmust€be€written€and€œmust€include›€œboth€an›€enumeration€of€theÏevidence€that€was€considered€and€a€discussion€of€the€factorsÏconsidered€and€weight€accorded€each.€€òòState€v.€Winsettóó,€882€S.W.2dÏ806,€810€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€addition,€the€districtÏattorney€general€should€identify€any€factual€disputes€between€theÏevidence€relied€upon€and€the€petitionerððs€application.€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àUpon€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€by€the€districtÏattorney€general,€the€petitioner€may€petition€the€trial€court€forÏa€writ€of€certiorari€and€review€of€the€district€attorney€generalððsÏdecision.€€In€petitioning€the€trial€court€for€review,€theÍpetitioner€should€identify€any€part€of€the€district€attorneyÏgeneralððs€factual€basis€he€or€she€elects€to€contest.€€We€wouldÏexpect€such€contests€to€be€limited€to€matters€that€are€materiallyÏfalse€or€based€on€evidence€obtained€in€violation€of€theÏpetitionerððs€constitutional€rights.€€If€there€be€a€factualÏdispute,€the€trial€court€should€conduct€an€evidentiary€hearing€andÏresolve€the€dispute€before€determining€whether€the€districtÏattorney€general€abused€his€or€her€discretion€in€denying€pretrialÏdiversion.€€òòSee€œid.ó󛀀The€action€of€the€district€attorney€generalÏis€presumptively€correct,€and€it€is€subject€to€review€by€the€trialÏcourt€only€for€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€œòòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€atÏ356;€òòPaceóó,›€566€S.W.2d€œat›€œ870›œ.›€€As€we€stated€in€òòHammersleyóó,€ð ð[œt]he›Ïrecord€must€show€an€absence€of€any€substantial€evidence€to€supportÏthe€refusal€of€the€District€Attorney€General€to€enter€into€aÏmemorandum€of€understanding€before€a€reviewing€court€can€find€anÏabuse€of€discretion.ðð€€òòId.óóÌœÌÌ›Ìà@ àIIIÌÌà àOn€appeal,€we€review€to€determine€whether€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€is€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€ÏòòState€v.€Houstonóó,€900€S.W.2d€712,€715€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àPinkham€principally€contends€that€we€should€require€aÏdistrict€attorney€general€to€include€in€the€record€all€theÏevidence€relied€upon€to€deny€diversion,€specifically€in€this€case,Ïevidence€of€the€circumstances€of€Pinkhamððs€surrender€of€hisÏCalifornia€license€and€the€related€uncharged€offense(s).€€WeÏdiscern,€however,€nothing€in€the€statute€or€in€our€prior€cases€toÏsupport€such€a€requirement.€€Rather,€the€district€attorney€generalÏis€simply€required€to€identify€the€factual€basis€and€rationale€forÏthe€decision€to€deny€pretrial€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€œòòWinsettóó,€882€S.W.2dÏat€810;€òòHammersleyóó,›€650€S.W.2d€at€œ355.›€€Moreover,€a€requirementÏsuch€as€Pinkham€suggests€would€be€unduly€burdensome€and€likelyÏunnecessary.€€For€example,€the€information€about€the€surrender€ofÏthe€California€license€could€well€have€come€from€a€confidentialÏsource.€€Certainly,€the€district€attorney€general€may€elect€toÏinclude€such€information€in€the€record€that€is€transmitted€to€theÏtrial€court.€€Such€information€may€assist€the€trial€court€andÏcould€conceivably€make€an€evidentiary€hearing€unnecessary.€€WeÍdecline,€however,€to€require€this.€€All€that€is€required€is€thatÏthe€information€be€sufficiently€detailed€in€the€denial€letter,€soÏthe€petitioner€can€ascertain€the€existence€of€a€factual€dispute.ÌÌà àBecause€Pinkham€did€not€dispute€the€factual€basis€forÏthe€district€attorney€generalððs€decision,€there€was€no€pressingÏneed€for€the€trial€court€to€hold€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€Rather,Ïthe€trial€court€could€have€considered€the€matter€on€the€record,Ïpresumably€comprised€of€the€indictment,€the€petition,€and€theÏresponse€of€the€district€attorney€general.€€Further,€we€find€thatÏthe€district€attorney€general€properly€considered€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€surrender€of€Pinkhamððs€CaliforniaÏlicense€and€the€uncharged€offense(s)€in€evaluating€PinkhamððsÏapplication€for€pretrial€diversion.€€This€information€is€relevantÏto€and€probative€of€the€petitionerððs€amenability€to€correction,Ïhis€risk€to€re„offend,€and€whether€pretrial€diversion€is€in€theÏbest€interests€of€the€public.€€It€was€certainly€no€more€remoteÏthan€Pinkhamððs€recitation€of€his€youthful€accomplishments€and€noÏless€reliable€than€the€letters€of€support€attached€to€hisÏapplication.ÌÌà àWe€have€carefully€reviewed€the€district€attorneyÏgeneralððs€letter€denying€Pinkham€pretrial€diversion.€€In€it€heÏclearly€identified€the€information€upon€which€he€relied.€ÏMoreover,€he€extensively€discussed€the€factors€he€considered,€theÏweight€accorded€to€each,€and€his€conclusion.€€The€districtÏattorney€generalððs€procedure€fulfilled€the€requirements€ofÏòòHammersleyóó€and€òòWinsettóó.€ÌÌà àIn€our€view,€the€trial€courtððs€decision€upholding€theÏdistrict€attorney€generalððs€rejection€of€Pinkhamððs€application€forÏpretrial€diversion€is€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏin€the€record.€€It€follows€that€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€toÏthe€appellant€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JusticeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌœÌAnderson,›€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€Holder,€œJJ.›