# FIL ED No v emb er 8 , 199 6 Cecil W. Crow son A pp ellat e C ou rtC lerk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SH VILLE SEPTEM BER1996 SESSI ON STATE OF TENN ESSEE , * C. C. A. #01C 01- 9510- CC -0 0336

Ap pe l l ee , * W IL LI AM SO N C OU N TY VS . * Ho n . Do n a ld P. Ha rris , J u d ge MI CH AEL G EN TRY , * (J udi ci al Di v ersi on)

Appel lan t. * For Appel lan t: For Appel lee : Er nestW . W il li ams an d Cha rl es W . Bu rs on J. Rus sel l Hel dman Atto rn ey Gene ra l & R epor

ter Atto rn ey s a t Law 320 M ain Street, Sui te 10 1 El iz abeth T. R y an Frankl in, TN 37064 Ass is tant Atto rn ey Gene ra l 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Jo se p h D. B a u gh Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l P.O. Box 937 Frankl in, TN 37065- 0937 Rona ld L. Davis Assistan t District Atto rney General P.O. Box 937 Frankl in, TN 37065- 0937

OPIN ION F ILED :______

_________

______
AFF IR ME D

GARYR . W AD E, J UD GE2 OPIN ION The defendant, Mi chael Gent ry , ent ered a ple a of g uil t t o one countof off ic ial mis condu ct. Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 39 -1 6- 402( a) (5 ). Pu rs uant to a ple a ag re ement, the t ri al cour t i mposed a R ang e I sent ence of tw o y ears a nd g ra nted probati on butdeni ed th e defendant' s req uestfor j udi ci al div ersi on. Tenn. C ode An n. § 40 -35-31 3; Sta te v. D ishm an, 915 S.W .2d 458 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 95). In th is appeal , t he defendant cl aims thatthe tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on by refusing to g ra nt j udi ci al div ersi on; h e al so ins is ts that the d is tr ict attor ney g eneral w as g uil ty

of prosec utor ial v ind icti v eness .

W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. On J uly 11, 1994, the d efendant and Katr ina Greer , bot h of the F ra n k li n P o li c e De p a rt m e n t , we re in d ic t e d o n two co u n t s o f o f f ic ia l m is c o n d u c t , two count s o f sol ic it ing unl awful c ompensat ion , and one countof cons piracy . At t he ti me, th e defendant w as a s erg eant of the W il li amson Cou nty D UI Task

F or ce, a bod y comp rised of

tw o of f icers fro m th e Franklin Po lice Departm entand one each f rom th e Bren tw ood Police, th e Fairv iew Police, an d the W illiamson Count y Sherif f 's Dep artment. The de fendant s uper v is ed al l tas k force act iv it ies . Dur ing C hr is tmas of 199 3, th e de fend antauth oriz ed for himse lf and the ot her of

f icers in the task force hol ida y pay ev en th oug h no w or k w oul d ac tual ly tak e pl ace. A subs eq uent investig ation estab lished th at th e de fend antand Ms. Greer w ere the only tw o task force members w ho had made c lai ms for and recei v ed th e unw ar ra nted hol ida y pay . The defendant w as untr uthful w hen q uest ion ed by hi s l ieu tenantdur ing the ini ti al sta g es of the i nv est ig ati on.

Ini ti all y , t he s tate had offered t o al low the defendant t o pl ead g uil ty to3 one coun t of

of f icial miscond uct, b e granted proba tion, and then , upo n succe ssf ully compl eti ng a tw o- y ear

probati onar

y per iod , hav e hi s record ex pung ed unde r the prov is ion s o f judi ci al div ersi on. That offer , how ev er , w as made c onti ng ent u pon t he codefendant , M s. Greer , ac cept ing the same t er ms. M s. Greer dec li ned. Several mon ths late r, a trial ensue d. During the def end ant 's tes ti mony , t he s tate ag ain offered a ple a ag re ement. As to Ms . G re er , how ev er , t he per iod of probati on w as inc re ased by one y ear

from t he or ig ina l proposa l and, as to the d efendant, t he te rms w ere the sa me ex ceptthatthe jud ic ial di v ersi on offer w as w it hdraw n. Each ac cept ed th e ter ms of the new pl ea ag re ement. At the s entenc ing hear ing , t he s tate oppos ed th e defendant' s req uestfor j udi ci al div ersi on.

The tr ial co urt den ied the appl ic ati on on the b asi s t hat t he defendant had bee n unt ru thful d ur ing the course of the i nv est ig ati on and had present ed w itnesse s "for the p urpo se of creating an imp ression wi th th e jury thathe an d Ms. Greer di d w or k." The tr ial co urt ul ti matel y r ule d tha t bec ause the d efendant hel d a re spons ibl e, pu bli c p osi ti on, h ad v iol ated the t ru st inc ide nt t o the off ic e, an d had been l ess than ca ndi d dur ing the v ar iou s s tag es of the proceed ing s, the req uestfor jud ic ial di v ersi on s houl d be deni ed.

Judi ci al div ersi on i s a uthor iz ed by st atute . It is reser

v ed for "any perso n w ho h as no t previously bee n con v icted o f

a felon y or a Class A misd em ean or." T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -313 (a)(1). It i s av ailable only to th ose w ho ei ther

pl ead g uil ty

or are found g uil ty

of "a mi sdemeano r w hic h i s p uni shabl e by imp risonm entor a Class C , D, or E fe lony." Id. Th e stat ute auth oriz es the trial court to pl ace the d efendant "on probati on upon su ch re asona ble co ndi ti ons as itmay re q uire and for a per iod of ti me not les s t han t he max imum s entenc e for the4 mis demeanor

.. . or .. . t he felony

w it h w hic h he is ch arg ed." Id. In the e v ent t he defendant s ati sfactor il y co mplet es his probati onar y ter m, he is enti tl ed to a dis charg e and dis mis sal . Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 313( a) (2 ). The effect of the dism issal is "to restore [t he d efend ant ] to the statu s he occu pied before such arrest or i ndi ctmentor

i nformati on." Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 313( b) . Stat e v . Ev itts, 915 S.W .2d 4 68 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1995) .

The g ra nt of j udi ci al div ersi on i s w it hin the dis creti on of the tr ial co urt. Onl y an a buse of that d is creti on w ar ra nts a rev ersal . Stat e v . Bo nest el, 871 S.W .2d 163 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1993) . In t his ca se, the deci si on of the tr ial co urt c lea rl y had a rati onal bas is . The defendant, a v eteran pol ic e off ic er i n c harg e of the tas k force, q ual ified as a pu bli c e mploy ee ent ru ste d w it h an impor tant ro le of res ponsi bil ity . The pl an to ac q uire unear ned pay and the e nsui ng co v er up l ast ed for a per iod of w eeks. The defend antand at least o ne o the r person pa rticipate d in the plan. Hi s lac k o f candor

dur ing the inv est ig ati on mi li tates ag ain st the g ra nt of a more l eni ent sent ence. That i s n ot t o s ay , of co urse, thatthe defendant di d notpresenta p e rs u a s ive cl a im . Att h e t im e o f t ri a l, t h e 3 3 -ye a r- o ld d e fe n d a n th a d a n im p re s s ive re cord. Fat her

of three c hil dren, h e had g ra duated from hi g h s chool and had atten ded Au sti n Peay

U niv ersi ty . He spentfour y ears i n the U nit ed St ates M ar ine Corps and w as in the Presiden tial Gua rd Servi ce. He received sev eral awards w hile in the M ar ine s a nd c ur re ntl y se rv es in the Tennes see Ar myN ati onal Guard. He has train ing i n ac ci dent inv est ig ati on, a cc ide nt recons tr uct ion , and se v eral other fiel ds of ex per ti se. W hil e the defendant mayhav e been a w orthy ca ndi date for th e j udi ci al div ersi on prog ra m, thi s c our t mus t defer

to the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt w hic h, after hav ing obs er

v ed th e demeanor

of the d efendant and other w it ness es, found5 re asona ble g ro unds for deni al.

T he claim of

prosecu torial v indictiveness also has no merit. T his defense i s mos t c ommonly address ed w hen t he defendant has been rein dicted o n a more ser iou s c harg e i n retal iat ion for t he ex erci se of a cons ti tuti onal r ig ht. See, e.g ., Bl ack led g e v . Pe rr

y , 417 U .S. 21, 9 4 S. Ct . 209 8 ( 1974) ; U nit ed St ates v . W il son, 639 F.2d 50 0 (9th Cir. 198 1). In United State s v . Mey er, 810 F.2d 12 42 (D.C. Cir. 1987) , c ert. deni ed, 4 85 U .S. 940 ( 1988) , t he te rm w as desc ri bed as foll ow s:

"Prosec utor ial v ind icti v eness " i s a ter m of artw it h a preci se and l imi ted mean ing . The ter m refers to a si tuati on i n w hic h the g ov er nment acts ag ain st a def end antin respon se to th e de fend ant 's prior ex ercise of cons ti tuti onal or

st atuto ry

r ig hts ... . The Supreme C our

t has es tabl is hed tw o w ay s i n w hic h a defendant may

demons trate p ro sec utor ial v ind icti v eness . First, the de fend antmay show "actu al v indictiveness" -- that is , he mayprov e throug h obj ect iv e ev ide nce that a prosec utor

ac ted i n order

to puni sh him for s tandi ng on his legal r ights. Th is show ing i s, of course, e x ceed ingly dif f icult to m ake. Secon d, a de fend antmay in certain circumsta nces rely on a presum ption of v indictiveness: w hen t he facts i ndi cat ed "a re ali sti c l ik eli hood of 'v ind icti v eness [,] '" a presumpt ion w il l ar is e obl ig ing the gov ernm entto com e forw ard w ith objective ev iden ce jus ti fyi ng the prosec utor ial ac ti on. If the g ov er nment produce s s uch ev ide nce, the defendant' s o nly hope is to prov e tha t t he j ust ific ati on i s p re textual and that act ual v indictiveness ha s occurred. But if the governmen t fails to presentsu ch ev ide nce, the presumpt ion st ands and the c our t mus t find that the p ro sec utor ac ted v ind icti v ely . Id. a t 124 5 (em pha sis adde d)(citation s omitt ed).

In t his i nst ance, of course, there w as no rein dictment. An offer of settl ement w hic h had been made by the sta te an d reje cte d by the defense s ev eral mo nth s before w as simp ly no longer on th e tab le. Th e record do es no t esta blish that the s tate, by

refusing to ag re e to jud ic ial di v ersi on atthe lat er date , attempted to further puni sh the d efendant. In fact , ot her i nformati on, p er haps not a v ail abl e w hen6 the first offer

w as made, ha d l ik ely

co me i nto t he hand s o f the s tate by the ti me the new offer w as propose d. Mo re ov er , i n St ate v . Tur ner , 919 S. W .2d 3 46, 3 60 (Te nn. Cri m. App. 199 5), this cou rt held th at th e issue of prosecu torial v indictiveness had bee n w aiv ed w hen t he defendant has know ing ly and v olu ntar il y

ente re d the plea of g uilt. Th at is, of

course, th e v erycase he re. By accep ting the revi sed o f fer, the d efendant g av e up his r ig ht t o c omplai n.

Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

_________

_________

_________

_______ Ga ry R. W a d e , J u d ge CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

___ Paul G. Summers, Judg e

_________

_________

_________

____ L.T. Lafferty , Sp eci al Judg e