### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma rc h 4, 200 8

STA TE OF TENNES SEE v . CAMELIA MO NIQ UE FIE LDS

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty

No. 07-164 Donald H. Allen, Ju dge

No. W2007-01362-C CA-R 3-CD - Filed Jul y 9, 2008

The a ppellant pled g uilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to thef t of proper

ty valued be tween $1 ,0 00 and

$1 0, 00 0. Th e tr ia l court se nte nc e d he r as a Rang e I , stand a rd of fe nd e r to two y e a rs to be ser ved on probation supervised by Communi ty Correc tions. On appeal, t he appellant contends that the trial cour

t errone ously

denied he r re quest for judicial diversion. Upon re view of the rec ord

and the pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uitCo ur t i s A ffirm e d.

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J
., delivere d the opi nion of the cour t, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL and D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J J ., joined.

Gre g ory D. Gookin, J ackson, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Camelia Monique F ields.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attorn ey Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; L a c y

Wilb e r, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; J ames G. Woodall, District Attorney Gene ral; and A lfred L . Earls, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

The a ppellant enter ed a ple a of gu i l t y t o t h eft of property valued ove r $1,000 on April 23, 2007. At th a t h e a r in g , th e a p p e ll a n t a g r e e d th a t b e tw e e n N o v e mb e r 2 6 a n d 2 9
, 2 0 0 6
, s h e took $2,450 in cash a

nd g ift car ds from Tar g et, her emp l o y er , wi thout pay ing f or them. She re quested judicial diversion. At the M ay 21, 2007 sentenc ing hear ing, she testified t hat s he was twenty y ear s old and lived with her mother in J ackson, Tennessee

. She had attended S outh Side High School but did not gr aduate . She succe ssfully completed the Job Corps pr og ram in Bristol, Virg inia, g etting he r Gene r a l E q

u ivalency Diploma (GED) and lea

rning the trade s of painting and ca rpentry . She returne dT he i nd i ct m ent l i st s G i nger B i shop f rom T arget as a wi t ness f o r t he Stat e. T he reco rd sugges t s t hat s he 1

may be t h e l os s pr ev en t i on of f i ce r c al l ed s i mpl y “ M s

. G i n g er ” or “ G i n g er ” i n t h e t es t i mon y a n d j u di ci al di v er s i on

re p o rt.

-2- to J ackson on Septe mber 11, 2006.

The a ppellant testified that she w as fire d from her job at Targ et due to the pr esent off ense. At the time, she h ad given a statement to “Ms. Ging er,” which she r ead into the r ecor d. I n the 1 statement, she e x plained that she ha d t ak en a l ar g e amount of mone y in order to g et an a

partment be c a us e sh e “ wa s g oin g thr ou g h s ome thi ng s w it h [he r] m oth e r a nd fa mil y .” She a

po log ize d to Targ et and state d that she neve r planne d to do something like this ag ain. I n the s t at em en t , she explained that she planned to attend L ane College the following fall and to ge t another job. Af ter

rea ding h er state ment, the appe llant expressed her r emorse f or what she did, apolog ized to Targ et

and the tr ia l c ourt , a

nd e xpla ine d that sh e c ou ld have a vo ide d c omm itt ing the of fe ns e bu t f

a ile d to

“ thi nk tw ic e ” a bo ut h e r a c tio ns

.

The a ppellant testified that af

ter she lost her job at T arg et, she worke d at Subway for a few months. At the tim e of the hear ing, she was looking for a job, was pre g nant, and he r baby was due in October

2007. Although she would have to de lay her pla ns for c olleg e due to he r pre g nancy , she was looking for e mploy

ment throug h the ca

ree r ce nter a

nd was willing to acc ept any ty pe of job. The a ppellant stated that a fter the baby was born, she planned to wor k to suppo rt h er s el f and he r child. She said that her r elationship with her mother, w ho worke d as an e lectric ian, was f ine now. She believed that the home she shar ed with her mother wa s a good environment for her. S he stated that sh e did

no t ha ve no r h a d s he e ve r h a d a dr ugpr ob le m.

On cr oss-examination, the appellant ag ree d that she planne d the theft ove r th e co u rse of

sever al day s. I t took her about one wee k to take the $2,450. She sa id that she g ave some of the
money in the form of g ift car ds to her mother, brother, and friends, who di d not know t hat t hey wer e stolen. She admitted having two traff ic vi olations for driving without car insurance

. She said that sh e wa s h it b y

so me on e wh o le ft the sc e ne of the a c c ide nt, and

sh e dr ov e he r f

ri e nd s w ho we re in the ca r to the hospi tal. She explained a “failure to appea r” on he r re cord, sa

y ing that she had a

rrived

a t c ourt la te on that oc c a sio n. She did no t have a dr ive r’ s li c e ns e , a c a r, or c a r i ns ur a nc e a t th e tim e of the judicial diver sion hearing . She was in t he proc ess of g etting a driver’ s license now that she had obtained he r GED.

I n response to questioning by the trial cour

t, the appellant testified that her mother withdrew he r f ro m hi g h s c ho ol b e c a

us e sh e ha d a lr e a dy

fa ile d th e nin th g ra de tw ic e a nd sh e wa s g oin g to f

a il

a g a in. She wa s in th e Job Co rp s p ro g ra m, w hic h is de sig ne d to te a c h jo b s kil ls, fo r e le ve n mo nth s. Whil e wor

king at Targ et, she took money a tot al of five ti mes, taking it from the c ash re g ister dra wer twice a nd putting it on g ift car ds two to thr ee times. She stole the money over the course of a w eek. She ultimately

used som e of the m oney to repa y her mother

for ba iling her

out of jail. The re st of it “just went ever

y wher e,” inc luding the pur chase of clothes and shoes. She worke d at Targ et for one and one-ha lf to two months be fore she was fired. She was fir ed fr om her subseque nt job at Subway-3-

be c a us e the y did no t un de rs tand

he r a bs e nc e s to a tte nd

c ourt pr oc e e din g s.

The trial c ourt made the judicial diversion re port an e x hibit to t he hea ring . The re port states that the appe llant is single. The aff idavit of co m p l aint to her c harg e states that a n audit repor

t showed the a

ppellant’s ca sh drawe r to be short from Nove mber 26 to De cembe r 2. On De cembe r 2, she wa s called to the Targ et offic e and a sked about the shor tag e on the da

y s she had wor

ked. The

a pp e lla nt a dmi tte d that sh e ha d take n mon e y a nd g if t c a rd s tot a lin g $2 ,4 50 a nd g a ve a st ate men t. Wit h reg ard to the appellant’ s criminal history , the re port relates that she violated the tr uancy law on May 28, 2003. She was c onvicted of dr iving without a dr iver’s lice nse and wi t h n o proof of insurance on May

18, 2004. She pled g uilty to second off

enses of driving unlicensed a

nd without ins ur anc e on

Au g us t 16 , 2 00 4, bu t no jud g me nt wa s ent e re d. I ns te a d, sh e wa s g ive n th ir ty da y s to p r o g r e s s to w a r d a tt a in in g h e r G E D a n d h e r dr iv e r ’ s li c e n s e

. Sh e f a il e d to a p p e a r in court on Se pte mbe r 28
, 20 04

. Th e a pp e lla nt re po rt e d wo rk ing a s a c a sh ie r a t Ta rg e t fo r about on e month befor e beingfired due to the instant offense . She stated that she wor ked at Subway

as a sa ndwich artist for a

bout five months before q u i t t i n g . She also repor ted workingas a c ashier at Popey e’s Chi c ke n f or thr e e mon ths bu t di d n ot g ive the date s o f t his e mpl oy

me nt.

Th e tr ia l c ourt

fo un d th a t a lth ou g h th e Job Cor ps is a g oo d p ro g ra

m, t he tw e nty -y e a r- old

a pp e lla nt h a d n ot don e muc h with he r lif e sin c e c omp le tin g it. She ha d o bta ine d e mpl oy me nt w ith Targ et in N ovember 2006; but within a month, she stole over $2,400 from her employ er on se vera l

occa sions dur ing a wee k. The trial court found that the appellant took g ift car ds in order to c oncea l the the ft . T he a

pp e lla nt u se d s ome of

the s to len mo ney

fo r h e rs e lf

and g a ve so me to f

a mil y

me mbe rs . With re g a rd to he r e mpl oy me nt his tor

y , the tr ia l c ourt fo un d that the a pp e lla nt h a d a lso been f ired fr om a subsequent position at Subway

. I t a ttributed her inability

to maintain employ

ment to h e r fai lu re to lea rn job sk ill s and to b e dis c ipl ine d. I t f

ound that th e a pp e lla nt w a s n ot a c tiv e ly seekingemploy

ment at the pre sent time due to her pr eg nancy . The trial c o u rt also noted that the appellant’ s criminal re cord, involving two incidents of driving without a license, illustrated a

lack of discipline and dire ction in her life.

Th e tr ia l c ou

rt de te rm i n e d

t h a t th e a pp e lla nt’ s o ff e ns e wa s se ri ou s and

no t an is olate d in c ide nt. I t found that the appe llant’s theft had taken m u ch planning and for ethoug ht to accomplish. Ba sed upon these finding s, the trial cour t denied the a

ppellant’s re quest for judicial diver sion. I t sentence d the appellant per her plea ag ree ment to two y ear s as a Rang e I , standard of fende r, in the Tenne ssee Depa rtment of Corre ction. The c ourt suspended a ll jail ti me and plac ed the a ppellant on probation fo r t wo y e ars to b e su

pe rv ise d b y

Com mun ity

Cor re c tio ns . I t or de re d th a t sh e pa y $2 ,4 50 in

r e s t i tu t i o nan d

c o u rtc o s t s a ta

r a t e o f $ 1 5 0 m o n t h l y.

II. Ana lys is

The a ppellant contends that the trial c o u r t e r r oneously denied he r re quest for judicia l diversion be c a us e it c on sid e re d only the c ir c ums tanc e s of h e r o ff e ns e and did no t w e ig h th e re ma ini ngc ri te ri a for judicial diversion. She maintains that her lac k of any signific ant cr iminal hist ory , her c ompletion of the Job Corps prog ram, her remorse , and her future g oals all weig h in f avor of g ranting her judicia l-4-

diversion. The State a sserts that the trial c ourt properl y d en i ed judicial diversion base d upon the

c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

he a pp e lla nt’ s o ff e ns e . I t argue s th a t a lth ou g h the tr ia l court did no t e xpre ssl y state the weig ht that it was g iving to the va rious fac tors, its analy sis revea ls that i t consi dere d all the fac tors. We ag ree with the State that the trial cour t’s finding s show that it weig hed all the f actor s and did not abuse its discretion in denying judicia l diversion.

A d e fe nd a nt is eli g ibl e fo r jud ic ia l dive rs ion wh e n he or sh e is fo un d g uil ty or ple a ds g uil ty to aCla ss C
, D
, o r E f

e l o n y a n d h a s n o t p r e v i o u s l y b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a f e l o n y o r aCla ss A mis de me ano r. Se e Te nn . Co de Ann. § 4 0- 35 -3 13 (a )( 1) (B ). I t is wi thi n the tr ia l c ourt ’s dis c re tio n to g rant or de ny

judicial diversion. See State v. Parker
, 932 S.W .2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996)

. A s s u c h
, t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s d e c i s i o n w i l l b e o v e r t u r n e d o n l y i f t h e c o u rta

b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n

. Id

. In other wor ds, we will not interfe re w ith the denial of judicial diver sion if the re co rd conta ins any substantial e vidence to support the trial court’ s ref usal to g rant diver sion. I d. Moreove r, we observe that “j u d ic ia l d iv e r s io n is s im il a r in p u r p o s e to p r e tr ia l d iv e r s io n a n d is to b e im p o s e d within the discretion of the trial court subjec t only to the same constraints applicable to prosec utors in apply ing pretria l dive rsion under [Tennessee Code Annotated section] 40- 15-105.” State v. An d er s o n , 857 S.W .2d 571, 572 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992)

.

I n deter mining whether to g rant a defe ndant judicial diversion, the trial c ourt must consider all of the following fac tors: (1) the defe ndant’s amenability to corre ction, (2) the c ircumstance s of the offe nse, (3 ) t h e def

endant’ s criminal re cord, ( 4) the de fenda nt’s social history , (5) the status of the de fe nd ant’ s p hy sic a l and me nta l he a lth , a

nd (6 ) t he de te rr e nc e va lue to the de fe nd a nt an d o the rs

. Sta te v. L e wi s, 97 8 S. W.2 d 5 58 , 5 66 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). Ad dit ion a lly , th e tr ia l c ourt sh ou ld

c on sid e r w he the r j ud ic ia l di ve rs ion se rv e s the e nd s of jus tic e –th a t is wh e the r i t su pp or ts t he int e re sts of the public a s well as those of the defe ndant. I d. The re cord must re fl ec t t hat the trial c ourt has taken a ll of the factors i nto considera tion. State v. Electroplating, I nc., 990 S.W .2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). As a c onsequenc e, “w e may no t re v i s i t the issue if the re cord c ontains any

su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g t he tr ia l c ourt ’s de c isi on .” I d. F ur the rm or e , “ [t]he c ourt

mus t e xpla in

on the reco rd why the de fe nd a nt d oe s n ot q ua lif y un de r i ts a

na ly sis , a nd if the c ourt ha s b a se d it s deter mination on only

some of the f

actor s, it must explain why these fa cto rs o u t weigh the other s.” I d.

The trial court’s finding s at the sentenc ing hear ing de monstrate that it denied the a ppellant’s
reque st for j udicial di version primarily beca use she committed the offense by taking money and g ift

car ds on five occ asions over se vera l day s. The trial c ourt commende d the appe llant on completing the J ob Corps prog ram and secur ing employ ment at Targ et shortly

there afte r. Howe ver, the trial court found that her

discharg e from her subsequent job at S ubway
, her criminal history of driving without a license , and her

questionable e ffor

ts in see king employ

ment at the time of the hea ring reve aled that the appe llant lacked dir ection and disc ipline.

The nature a

nd circ umstances of an off ense a lone may

support a denia l of judicial diversion. Sta te v. Ky

te , 8 74 S.W. 2d

63 1, 63 4 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ). I nd e e d, the c omm iss ion of an o ff e ns e in separate ac tions over a pe riod of time indicates a sustained intent to violate the law on the part of-5-

the appe llant. State v. Danielle L . Walker, No. E2000- 00578-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 301156, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, Mar. 29, 2001) (affirming the trial cour t’s denial of judicia l diversion beca use the a ppellant ca shier had stolen over $3,000 from employ er in twenty -nine oc casions over about three wee ks). We ag ree with the trial court that the repe titious nature of the pre sent offe nse, indicating the appe llant’s sustained intent to violate the law, weig hs heavily ag ainst the g ranting of judicial diversion.

Additionally , we obse rve that the appellant a bused a position of private trust by stealing from he r e mpl oy e r. Se e State v. Gr iss om, 95 6 S. W.2 d 5 14 , 5 18 & n. 5 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); se e a lso Walker, No. E2000- 00578-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 301156, at *4, State v. Kavious L . Newsom, No. 0 2 C 0 1 -9 8 0 6 -CR-00166, 1999 WL 588155, at *5 (Te nn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Aug . 6, 1999). Acc ording ly , “other

potential empl o y er s [have] a clear interest in knowing ” about the a ppellant’s
prese nt conviction. State v. Patricia Bohnenstiehl, No. 03C01-9801-CC-00035, 1999 WL 39501, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knox ville, J an. 28, 1999 ). T h i s s h o ws that the pubic’s inter est is better

serve d by denying the appellant judicial diver sion.

The trial court made finding s with reg ard to the other fa ctors in addition to the circ umstances of the of fe ns e . I t c on sid e re d h e r c ri min a l hi sto ry of dr ivi ng wi th ou t a li cense o n tw o o c c a sio ns to

reve al a lac k of di scipline and direction in the appellant’s life. This lack of discipline and direc tion also neg atively

implicates her amenability to corre ction. Wit h reg ard to he r social history , the trial
court c ommended her

completion of the Job C orp s p ro gra m and her obtaining a

position at Targ et shortly there afte r. The tri al court’s findings that the a ppellant had not “r eally

tried to improve her life” but, instead, be g an stea ling from her employ er shor tly afte r these two a ccomplishments reve al that it fo un d th e c ir c ums tanc e s o f t he of fe ns e to o utw e ig h he r p os iti ve so c ia l hi sto ry . With r e g a rd to the appellant’ s phy sical health, the tria l court consider ed the a ppellant’s pre g nancy

and its impact on her a bility to maintain future e mploy ment. Finally
, the trial court considere d the deter renc e value of judicial diversion when it found the appellant’ s offe nse–s t ea l i n g t housands of dollars f rom one’s employ er–to be a ser ious one and not the ty pe of of fense for whic h it normally g rante d judicial diversion.

We also note t hat the trial c ourt’s statement that it did not believe that the a ppellant was seekingemploy

ment despite her testimony that she was looking for a job indicates that the trial c ourt questioned her

cre dibilit y . Additionally , following its sentencing of the a ppellant, t h e t rial cour

t stated that it found her explanation that she was fired from Subway beca use she had to c ome to court h ar d t o b el i ev e. T h i s al s o i n d i ca t es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt fo u n d t h e ap p el l an t ’s cr ed i b i l i t y t o b e l ac k i n g. The c redibility

of the a ppellant’s testi mony is a matter for the tr ial court to dec ide. State v. Fr eddy Allen Perry , No. M2000-00013 -C C A-R3-CD, 2001 WL1028816, at *3 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Na sh vil le
, Se pt. 7, 20 01 ). Th e a pp e lla nt’ s la c k of c re dib ili ty we ig hs a g a ins t he r a me na bil ity to

c or re c tio n. Sta te v. Cha

rl e s Smi th, No . 0 2C0 1- 98 05 -C R- 00 12 8, 19 99 WL48 70 29
, a t * 3 ( T e nn

. C r im. Ap p. a t Jac ks on , July

12 , 1 99 9) (a

tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ingof

un tr uth fu lne ss i s a lon e e no ug h to up ho ld the de nia l of

jud ic ia l di ve rs ion ); se e a lso An de rs on , 8 57 S.W. 2d a t 57 4 (a de fe nd a nt’ s la c k o f s inc e ri ty ref lects neg atively

on his potential for re habilitation).-6-

We hold that the trial court conside red a ll of the appropr iate fa ctors and simply found that the circ umstances of

the offe nse outweig hed the a ppellant’s positive points. T h e record c ontains

su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e to s up po rt the tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ing s. Ac c or din g ly , th e tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its discretion in denying judicia l diversion.

III. Conclusi on

Ba sed upon the re cord a

nd the par ties’ brief s, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEE OGL E, J UDGE