# FIL ED M arch 24 , 200 8 Cec il Cr ow son , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk IN T HE C OU RTOF C RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OF T EN NE SSEE

A T JA CK SON JUL Y 1996 SESSI ON

STA TE OF T EN NE SSEE, ) ) C. C. A . N O. 02C 01- 9601- CC -0 0005 Appel lan t, ) ) CA RROLL C OUNTY V S

. ) ) HO N. C. CR EE D MCG IN LE Y, CA RO LY N L. C UR RY , ) JUD GE ) Appel lee

. ) (R ule 9 A ppeal - Pretr ial D iv ersi on)

FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E:
CH A RL ES W. B UR SON DO NA LD E. PA RI SH Atto rn ey Gene ra l & R epor

ter Iv ey , Pa ri sh & J ohns

124 Ea st Par is St. T I M O T H Y

F . B E H AN P.O. Box 229 Ass t. Atto rn ey

Gene ra l Hun ti ng don, TN 38344 4 5 0 Ja m e s Ro b e rt s o n P kwy. Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 ROBERT RA DFORD Di str ic t At tor ney

Gene ra l ELEA NOR CA HILL Ass t. Di str ic t At tor ney

Gene ra l P.O. Box 686 Hun ti ng don, TN 38344

OPIN ION F ILED :______

_________

_____
RE VER SED A ND R EM A ND ED
JO HN H. PE AY, Ju d ge2 O P I N I O N

The defendant w as charg ed in the i ndi ctmentw it h the ft of proper ty v alu ed betw een t en th ousan d dol lars ( $10,000 ) and s ixty thou sand dol lars ( $60,000 ). O n September 21, 1995, she filed an appl ic ati on for pretr ial di v ersi on. The di str ic t at tor ney g eneral deni ed th e appl ic ati on on September 28, 1995. T h e d e f e n d a n t t hen fil ed a peti ti on for a w ri t of ce rt iorar i, seeki ng rev iew of the dis tr ic t at tor ney

g eneral’ s d eci si on to deny her appli cat ion

. After a heari ng , the tri al cour t found that the St ate h ad abus ed i ts dis creti on and order ed th e defendant pla ced on pretr ial div ersi on. In t his appeal pursuant to T.R .A.P . 9, the Stat e contends the tr ial courter re d i n findi ng thatthe Stat e had abuse d it s d is creti on i n deny ing pretr ial div ersi on. W e rev erse the judg ment of the tr ial co urt and
re mand thi s mat ter

for fur ther proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

.

T his case arose f rom the discov ery tha t the def end ant had a ll e ged ly misa ppro priate d app rox ima tely tw ent y -sev en th ousa nd th ree hu ndre d sixty- eight dollars and sev enty -t hr ee cent s ($ 27,368. 73) from the c it y of Mc Kenz ie. The de fendant w or ked
as an as si sta nt c ler k for the ci ty of Mc Kenz ie from 1984 throug h 1995. As an a ss is tant cl er k, she re cei ved i n comi ng mai l w hic h c onsi ste d pr imar il y of pay ments for ta x es and fees, w ro te recei pts for t hose pay ments, and made the co rrespon din g depos it s. H er all eg ed s cheme of embez z lementi nv olv ed th e c ashi ng of personal chec ks throug h the ci ty co ll ect ion draw er . Beca use of her duti es as an as si sta nt cl er k, she w as then abl e to pr ev ent t h e d e posi t of her personal ch eck

to the c it y

ac count

. She c oncea led her mis appropr iat ion s b y

repl aci ng the mis si ng city f unds w it h unrecei pted and unrecorded chec ks w hic h s he rec eiv ed th ro ug h the mai l as an as si sta nt c ler k. This embez z lement of ci ty fund s o cc u rre d ov er

a tw o y ear

per iod from J uly

of 1993 t hroug h J uly

of 1995. Upo n di sc ov er

y of the mi sappropr iat ion s, the defendant c ooperated w it h the i nv est ig ati ng author it ies , g iv ing w ri tten and v er bal st atements i ndi cat ing her i nv olv em e n t in the
sc heme.3 Shor tl y after her ind ic tment, the defendant submi tted a det ail ed appl ic ati on for pretr ial di v ersi on to the dis tr ic t at tor ney general’ s off ic e. The appl ic ati on rev eal ed th at the d efenda n t w as a di v or ced, thi rty -four-y ear-o ld mother of three c hil dr en, a g es nine tee n, th irteen and eight. She w as the custod ial paren t butreceiv ed o nly abo ut ha lf the a mount of the co urt- order ed c hil d s uppor t. In addi ti on, t he defendant had rais ed her nie ce, w ho w as eig hteen at t he ti me of the ap pli cat ion

. The defendant’ s oldes t c hil d and her ni ece had g ra duated from hi g h sch ool and w er e att endi ng co ll eg e. The defendant herse lf had atte nde d college, gradua ting w ith a Bach elor of Scien ce de gree wi th ho nors in 1983. She has many f amil y m embers l iv ing i n M cKen z ie and t hroug hout Tenness ee.

T he d ef end antbegan worki ng as an assista nt clerk for the city o f McKenzie shor tl y after g ra duati ng from c oll eg e. She he ld thatpos it ion unti l she re si g ned foll ow ing the d is cov er

y of her mis appropr iat ion s. She als o s er v ed i n the T e n n ess ee N ati onal Guard f ro m 1983 t o 1990, recei v ing an h onorabl e di sc harg e. After re si g nin g from her employ ment w it h the ci ty i n J uly of 1995, she beg an w or ki ng at T e nness ee M etal Corporat ion, where she m ade f iv e dollars and sixty- f iv e cen ts ($5.6 5) an ho ur. W ith child suppo rtpay ments and her family ’s as si sta nce, the defendant w as bar ely abl e to meet her monthl y obl ig ati ons. Sh e had no s av ing s o r inv est ments of anyki nd and, i n fact, fil ed for bankr uptc y

i n J uly of 1995. She sta ted that she had us ed th e mi sappropr iat ed funds for
ro u t in e li vin g e xp e n s e s fo r h e r fa m il y.

She w as a v er

y ac tive m e m b er

of her ch ur ch and w as inv olv ed i n many local cha rities and co mm unity projects. Includ ed wi th he r d ive rsion app lication were f if tee n lette rs of

supp ort f rom various me mb e rs o f her com mu nity. T he let ters w ere
w ritten by ministers, m em bers of local charities, m em bers of comm unity org anizations, and fri ends w ho had know n her for y e a rs . She offered t o make monthl y rest it uti on pay ments to t he c it y . In ad dit ion , s he agreed to prov ide the approx imat ely one thous and eig ht hu ndr ed dol lars ( $1,800) i n her ci ty pensi on acc ount as an i nit ial l ump su m pay ment4

tow ard her

rest it uti on amount

. The defendant s tated i n her appl ic ati on th at she had no pr ior ar re sts or

co nv ic ti ons of anyki nd. She al so sta ted t hat s he reg re tted her ac ti ons a n d t h e sh a m e t h e y b ro u gh tt o b e a r o n h e rs e lf a n d h e r fa m il y.

In a let ter

dated S e p te m ber

28, 1995, the S tate deni ed th e di v ersi on appl ic ati on. The let ter re count ed the facts sur ro undi ng the all eg ed embez z lementand g av e the foll ow ing reason for d eny ing di v ersi on:

W e hav e c onsi dered th e defendant’ s past his tor y and her co nductfor tw o y ears i n defrau din g the Ci ty of Mc Kenz ie. This w as a c alc ula ted c ri minal sc heme tha t t ook pla nni ng and thoug ht. Itmani fests a c ri minal i ntentfor a l ong per iod of ti me and n ot s omethi ng thathappen ed at[s ic ] onc e. W e c annot bel iev e tha t i t w oul d be in the besti nterest s of the publi c, the defendant and j ust ic e to ov er loo k a cr imi nal sc heme of thi s p ro por

ti on and g ra nt pre- tr ial di v ersi on to the defendant.

The tr ial co urt c onduc ted a hear ing on t he defendant’ s p eti ti on for a w ri t of
cer ti or ar i on Oc tober

11, 1995. The defendant arg ued that her appl ic ati on rev eal ed s he
w as an ex cel len t c andi date for di v ersi on and that the S tate’ s let ter of denial i ndi cat ed th at the d is tr ic t attor ney g eneral had not cons ide re d all of t he re lev ant fact ors i n maki ng the deci si on to deny

di v ersi on. The Stat e, on the other hand, arg ued t hat i t had co nsi der ed the d efendant’ s respec tabl e “ pasthi sto ry ,” but that itw as outw eig hed by the ci rc umstan ces of the off ense ind ic ati ng a s ust ain ed c ri minal sc heme of some mag nit ude. The Stat e arg u e d fu rt h e r t h a ti t s m e n t i o n o f “ t h e b e s ti n t e r e s t s o f t h e p u b l i c , t he defendant and j ust ic e” i mpli ed th at de ter re nce w as a factor i n t h e denial of div ersi on. Af ter hea ring argume nt f rom b oth p a rt ie s , t he trial cou rt fo und thatthe St ate ’s “best intere sts” language in t he let ter of den ial did notintima te th at de terrence w as a facto r in the S tate’ s d eci si on. As a resul t, the o nly reason for the d e n ial o f div ersi on w as the nature and ci rc umstan ces of the o ff ense, sp eci fical ly the sus tai ned cr imi nal sc heme ov er a per iod of

t wo y ears c oupl ed w it h the l arg e amountof money embez z led and theT h e f a c to r s r e le v a n t t o th e p r e tr ia l d iv e r s io n d e c is io n w e r e la id o u t in S ta te v . H a m m e r s le y, 1 65 0 S

. W

. 2d 35 2 (T en n. 19 83 ), an d i n S t ate v. W as hi ng t on , 86 6 S

. W

. 2d 95 0 (T en n. 19 93 ). T he y are al so set f or t h l at er i n t hi s opi ni on. 5 def end ant ’s ef

forts to con ceal he r misapp ropriation s. Furtherm ore, th e trial court question ed whethe r all of the relevant facto rs had be en co nside red by the St ate in
ma king the dec is io n to den y div ersion. Thu s, the trial court conclud ed th at th e district attor ney g eneral had abuse d h is disc re ti on i n deny ing the defendant’ s a ppl ic ati on for pr etr ial di v ersi on.

Pr etr ial di v ersi on i s a rela ti v ely new opti on i n Tennes se e, ha v ing been enact ed by

the General Ass embly i n 1975. The s tatut or y prov is ion s o utl ini ng T e n n e s s e e ’s p re t ri a l d ive rs io n p ro gr a m a re s o m e wh a t a m b ig u o u s a n d , n o tsu rp ri s in gl y, ha v e r es ul te d i n v ar

y i ng j ud i c i al dec i s i on s in the y ea rs si nc e th e i nc ep ti on o f t he p rog r am . Beca use o f

the pe rsistence of

conf usion surround ing pretrial div ersion, w e be liev e it
w oul d be w is e to re v iew the pr inc ipa l aspec ts of the l aw conc er nin g pretr ial di v ersi on, particu larly

judicial rev iew

of the act ion of

the district att orne y

g ene ral.

T he d ef end antbea rs the initial burd en to dem onst rate to the district
a t t o r n e yg e n e ra l b o t h e li gi b il it y fo r a n d e n t it le m e n tt o p re t ri a l d ive rs io n . Se e S t a t e v. Her ro n, 76 7 S.W .2d 151, 156 ( Tenn. 1989 ); Sta te v . W ins ett, 882 S.W .2d 8 06, 8 09- 810 (Tenn. Cri m. App. 1993). Me re statut or y elig ibi li ty under T.C.A . § 40- 15- 105( a) does not, sta ndi ng al one, enti tl e a defendant to pr etr ial di v ersi on. Ins tead, st atuto ry el ig ibi li ty se ts the s tag e for the d is tr ic t at tor ney g eneral to re view the in formati on prov ide d by the defendant on the diver sion appli cat ion or g athered th ro ug h a p re tr ial i nv est ig ati on pursuantto T.C. A. § 40- 15- 104, and t o det er mine if the defendant is enti tl ed to pretr ial div e rs i o n . A c c o rd i n g l y , i tw o u l d b e p r u d e n tfo r a d e fe n d a n tt o s u b mi ta d etai led appl ic ati on w it h par

ti cul ar empha sis o n the factors rele v ant t o the pretr ial di v ersi on deci si on. M or eov er , t he defendant mayal so wish t o su ppl ement t he di v ersi on

1 app lication w ith chara cter lette rs or af f idavits. W e cann ot overemp hasize the im porta nceW e d o n o t e n c o u ra g e c o n c l u s o ry d e n i a l s o f e v e n s u p e rf i c i a l a p p l i c a ti o n s fo r p re tri a l d i v e rs i o n . 2 R at her , i n such a case, we ur ge p r osecut or s t o ba se t hei r deci si ons o n al l of t he r el ev ant i nf or m at i on av ai l abl e t o t hem , whi l e spe ci f i cal l y m ent i oni ng t he d ef i ci ent ar eas o ft he d i v er si on a ppl i cat i on. 6 to t he defendant of a thoroug h appl ic ati on. If the de fendant s ubm its a su per fici al appl ic ati on, h e or she r is ks a c oncl usor y deni al by

the dis tr ic t at tor ney

g eneral and ev en the p oss ibi li ty th a t s uch a c oncl usor y deni al w il l be uphe ld upon j udi ci al re v iew

. Se e, 2 e.g., Sta te v. Baxter, 86 8 S.W .2d 679 , 681 -682 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 93).

Onc e a d efendant has su bmit ted a n appropr iat e appl ic ati on for di v ersi on, it is the dut y

of the district att orne y

g ene ral to consid er the releva n t f a c t ors caref ully in maki ng a de ci si on. The factors req uired to be c onsi der ed bythe di str ic t at tor ney g eneral in d e c id in g wh e t h e r

o r n o tt o gra n tp re t ri a l d ive rs io n we re se tfo rt h in S t a t e v. Hamme rsl e y , 650 S.W .2d 3 52 ( Tenn. 1983 ), and ag ain i n St ate v . W ashi ng ton, 866 S.W .2d 9 50 ( Tenn. 1993 ). Thes e factors for co nsi derati on, in a ddi ti on to the
c ir c u m s t a n c e s o f

t h e o f f e n s e , in c lu d e t h e d e fe n d a n t ' s cr im in a l r e c o rd , so c ia l h is t o ry, pr esentphy si cal and mental co ndi ti on w her e appropr iat e, amena bil it y to cor re cti on, beh avior since arrest, hom e en v ironm ent , current dru g u s a ge , emo tiona l stability , past employ ment, g eneral re putat ion , mar it al sta b ili ty, famil y respon si bil it y

and atti tude. I n addi ti on, t he di str ic t at tor ney g eneral shoul d consi der the deter re nt effect of puni shment and the likelihoo d tha t pretrial diversi on wi ll serv e th e e n d s o f justice and the be st int er e s t s o f b o t h t h e p u b l i c a n d t h e d e fe n d a n t

. S e e W a s h i n g t o n , 8 6 6 S

. W

. 2 d at 951; Ham me rsley , 650 S.W .2d at 355 . “The prose cuto r must con sider all the evidence w hich ten ds to sho w

thatthe ap plicantis amen able to correction and is not likely to com mit add itiona l cri me s.” W insett , 882 S.W .2d at 810 (emp hasis ad ded ).

W hen t he di str ic t at tor ney g eneral has deci ded t o g ra nt pretr ial di v ersi on, li ttl e c ontrov ersy

has ar is en. Of course, the tr ial cour t must approv e the memorandum of understa ndi ng . See T.C. A. § 40- 15- 105( b) (1 ). Y et it is cl ear thatdi sc re ti on rest s w it h the d is tr ic t at tor ney

g eneral, and the tr ial cour t’ s approv al is mandator y unl ess di v ersi on7

of the c ase is unlawful, the memorandum of unders tandi ng w as obtai ned byfraud, or the district atto rney general acted arbitrarily and capriciou sly

. See T .C.A. § 4 0-15 -105 (b)(2).

W hen, on th e oth er

hand, the dis tr ic t at tor n e y g eneral deci des to de ny pretrial diversion, the decision is subject to som ewhat great er scrutiny. If the di s trict atto rney g ene ral denie s div ersion, he or she must inform the de fend antthrough a forma l,
w ritten r es po ns e to th e ap pl i c at i on . Se e W i ns et t, 88 2 S. W .2 d at 81 0. Thi s respon se shoul d i ncl ude

1. An enu merat ion of all ev ide nce cons ide re d; 2. The r eason for de n ial: that is , an enumerati on of the factors c onsi der ed and how so m e factor (s ) cont ro ll ed th e decision and some ex plan ation of w hy ce rt ain facto rs outw eig hed ot hers; and 3. An i denti ficat ion of any di sput ed i ss ue of fact.
I d

. ( fo o t n o t e o mi t t e d )

. T h a ti s , t h e re s p o n s e m u s tb e m o r e t h a n a n a b s t r a c ts t a t e ment that the p ro secutor ha s c onsi der ed th e rele v ant fact ors. “ He must arti cul ate w hy he bel iev es a defendant in a par ti cul ar ca se does not meetthe tes t. If the [di str ic t] attor ney g eneral bases hi s d eci si on on les s t han the full compl ement of factors . . . he mus t, for the rec ord, stat e w hy

he cons ide rs thatthos e he re li es on outw eig h the othe rs su bmit ted for hi s c onsi derati on.” H er ro n, 76 7 S. W .2d a t 156

.

The defendant may

se ek re v iew

of the d is tr ic t at tor ney

g eneral’ s d eci si on to deny diversi on through a pet ition fo r w rit of certiorari. See T .C.A. § 4 0-15 -105 (b)(3). T he petitio n sho uld includ e the record cont aining the app lication a nd th e prose cuto r’s respo nse. Upon its receipt of the pe tition a nd reco rd, the trial court ma y decide the cau se on th e record or , i f neces sar y , may sc hedul e an ev ide nti ar y hear ing . W ins ett, 882 S.W .2d a t 810

. Upo n a p eti ti on for a w ri t of ce rt iorar i, the duty of the t ri al ju d ge is to
re v iew the act ion of

the dis tr ic t attor ney

general and t o di smi ss the peti ti on unl ess i t finds8

that the d is tr ic t at tor ney g eneral has abuse d hi s o r her di sc re ti on. See T.C .A. § 40 -15-10 5(b)(3). Th e trial judge m ust conf ine his or her rev iew to the ev iden ce w hich
w as cons ide re d by

the dis tr ict a ttor ney

g eneral at t he ti me of cons ide ra ti on of the appl ic ati on. See W ins ett, 882 S.W .2d a t 810

.

Thus, in order

for t he tr ial co urt t o det er mine w hether the dis tr ic t at tor ney g en e r a l a b u s e d h i s o r h e r d i s c r e t i o n , i t mu s t b e a b l e t o d e t e r mi n e w h a t e v i dence w as act ual ly co nsi der ed, t he reason (s ) for deny ing the peti ti on, and any dis puted is sue( s) of fact. W her e, as her e, the re spons e let ter pr epared by the d is tr ic t at tor ney g eneral makes thi s deter minat ion imposs ibl e, the tr ial co urt s houl d s chedu le an ev ide nti ar y hear ing and allow the district attorne y g ene ral to testif

y in order to f il l in t h e g a ps lef t by the letter. On l y i n th i s w ay

c an t he t r i al c ou rt ha v e as s uran ces tha t it is c on s i de r i ng t he s am e ev ide nce cons ide re d by the prosec utor

i n hi s o r her

dec is ion to deny

pretr ial di v ersi on. Only in this w ay can it de term ine w het her the prose cuto r abu sed h is or her discretion in deny ing di v ersi on.

In this case, the tr ial courtdid not hear test imony from t he prosec utor

as to
w hy he d eni ed pretr ial di v ersi on to thi s d efendant. The le tter deny ing pretr ial di v ersi on
w as ina deq uate in thi s re g ard under the re q uirements of ou r cas e law

. Inde ed, t he tr ial court spe cif ically

foun d tha t the language of t he lette r did n ot dem onst rate tha t the district attor ney had cons ide re d al l of the rele v ant fact ors. Ac cord in g ly , t he tr ial co urt made a f inding of

fact th at th e district a t t o rn ey general ha d no t consid ered the relevant f acto rs and had bas ed hi s deci si on enti re ly on the ci rc umstan ces of t he offense, t her eby abus ing his di sc re ti on.

W it h al l due respec t, w e thi nk the tri al cour t er re d i n maki ng thi s fin din g of fact becaus e the record befor e it w as ins uff ic ien t f ro m w hic h to conc lud e w hat fact ors t he dis tr ic t at tor ney

g eneral had c onsi der ed. If, after heari ng testi mony

from t he prosec utor9

the tr ial cour

t deter mines that he deni ed div ersi on w it hout cons ide ri ng al l of the rele v ant factors, a findi ng thatthe prosec utor thereby abuse d his di sc re ti on w oul d be appropr iat e. See S tate v . M ar kham, 755 S.W .2d 850, 853 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1988)

. If, on t he ot her han d, it det ermin es tha t the prosecu tor did prop erly conside r and assig n du e significa nce to all of the relevant facto rs , t h e n i t mustaf f irm the den ial of

div ersion if

the reco rd cont ain s subs tanti al ev ide nce to suppor t the denial

. Stat e v . Car r, 861 S.W .2d 850, 85 6 (Te nn. Cri m. App. 199 3).

For the re asons se t fort h abov e, w e rev erse the tr ial cour t’ s order g ra nti ng div ersi on and re mand thi s mat ter i n order for t he tr ial co urt t o hear t e st imonyfrom t he prosec utor

so as to est abl is h a re cord f ro m w hic h i t may make a det er minat ion of w hether
or not the p ro sec utor

abus ed hi s dis creti on in deny ing pretr ial di v ersi on to thi s d efendant.

JO HN H. PE AY, Ju d ge10

CONCUR:

DAVI D H. W EL L ES , J u d ge

CO RNE L IAA. CL AR K, Sp e cia l Ju d ge