# FILED
A pr il 21, 1 999 Cec il Cr ow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN T HE C OU RTOFC RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OFT EN NE SSEE

AT JA CKSON FEB RU A RY1999 SESSI ON

STA TE OFT EN NE SSEE, ) ) C. C. A . N O. 02C 01- 9809- CC -0 0268 Appel lan t, ) ) MA DISON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. WHIT LA FON, SH A UN M ATT HE W D IN WID DI E, ) JUD GE ) Appel lee
. ) (P re tr ial D iv ersi on)
FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: JOHN KNOX WA LKUP CLIFFORD K . McGOW N, JR. Atto rney General & Repo rter 113 North Court Square P.O. Box 26 DO UG LAS D . H IM ES W av er ly , TN 37185 Asst. At torne yGene ral (On App eal) Jo h n Se vierBld g. 425 F ifth Av e., North GEOR GE G OOG E Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Di str ict Pu bli c D efender JER RYWOOD A LL JOSEP H L. PA TT ER SON Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l Ass t. Di str ict Pu bli c D efender 227 W estBal ti more St. SH A U N A . B R OW N Jac ks on, TN 38301 Asst. District Attorne yGene ral (At Trial an d Of Counse l on App eal) P.O. Box 2825 225 Martin Luth er King, Jr., Dr
. Jac ks on, TN 38302

OPIN ION F ILED :______

_________

_____ RE VER SED A NDR EM A ND ED J OH N H. PE AY, Ju d geO r al ar gum ent s wer e he ar d i n Dy er sbur g, T ennesse e. St udent s of t he L ake C ount y , D y er 1 C o u n ty , a n d D y e rs b u rg s c h o o l s y s te m s a tte n d e d a t t h e i n v i ta ti o n o f th i s C o u rt i n a n e ff o rt to e d u c a te t hem abo ut our j udi ci al sy st em . 2 

### O P I N I O N
T he d ef end antw as cha rg ed b yindictm entw ith po ssession w ith inte nt to sell mari jua na, p oss ess ion w it h i ntentto del iv er mar ij uana, and posse ss ion of dr ug par apher nal ia. The S tate deni ed the defendant pr etr ial diversi on, a deci si on w hic h the tr i al c ou rt r ev ers ed aft er a he ar i ng . The St at e no w ap pe al s , ar g ui ng th at th e trial court e rr e d in gra n t in g p re t ri a l d ive rs io n t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . F o ll o win g a re vie w o ft h e re c o rd , we 1 re v erse the t ri al court’ s e ntryof pr etr ial div ersi on and re mand the ca se for furt her proce edin gs.
Acc or din g to the i nci dent re port in thiscase, the defendant’ s car had been re ported i n the pas t t o be involved i n dr ug deal s. One ev e n in g, a p oli ce invest ig ator w atch ed a s the def end ant , accom pan ied by three f riends, drove to a convenien ce store w her e he used a pay

phone. The de fendant the n drov e to an apartment compl ex and p a rke d near

anot her ca r occ upi ed by

two i ndi v idu als
. W hil e the defendant’ s fr ien ds w aited in h is c ar, the def end antclimbed into the back sea t ofthe ot her car. Approx imat ely

one minut e l ater , he re tur ned to hi s c ar , c ar ry ing hi s wall et i n hi s h and. T h e d e f e n d a n t ’s ca r wa s st o p p e d a s h o rtwh il e la t e r. T h e d e f e n d a n tre f u s e d t o gi ve cons ent for a v ehi cl e sear ch, but dur ing a pa tdow n for w eapons , an off ic er di sc ov er ed a smal l bag g ie of mari jua na and tw o pac ks of roll ing papers i n the defendant’ s “ g ro in ar ea,” and t he defendant w as ar re ste d. W hil e s ear chi ng the defendant’ s vehi cl e, officers found another bag g ie of mari jua na “ behi nd th e ra d io c o nsol e ar ea.”The t otal amount of mari jua na s eiz ed to tal ed approx imat ely one ounce . A l ater

st ri p s ear ch of the defendant r ev ea l ed ac r ac k

p i pe i ns i de h i s r ectu m.
On F ebr uary20, 1998, the t ri al court ent er ed an or der , app ar entl yupon the3

defendant’ s req uest , di re cti ng the parti es to “ ex plo re the poss ibi li ty of pr e- tr ial di v ersi on.” The re cord, ho w ev er , doe s n ot c ontai n an appl ic ati on for pr etr ial di v ersi on, a nysu pporti ng mater ial s, or

ev en any

r eferenc e tha t t he defendant file d a formal w ri tten appl ic ati on and supp orting mat erials.

On M ar ch 16, 1 998, the Tennes se e D e p a rt ment of C or re cti on fil ed i ts pr etr ial div ersi on inv est ig ati on report, w hic h reflects thatthe defendant, w ho i s s ing le and has no depe ndents , hasno p ri or adul t ar re stsor

co nv icti ons. Thi s report al so refle ctsthat the d efendant l eft h igh s ch o o l after compl eti ng the ele v enth g ra de bec ause he w as missing too m any school da y s, buthe late r obtain ed his GED and plans to contin ue h is edu cation at a local com mu nity college. App aren tly , the def end ant had tried to enroll in nig ht c las ses , butcould not becau se the c las seshe wanted w er e full
. Acc or din g to the re port, the d efendant hel d var iou s p art- ti me, te mpora ry j obs dur ing su mmer and w hil e he w as in sc hool
. In Febr uary1998, the defendant w as hired for a product ion /as sembl y -ty pe job pay ing $6.5 0 per

hour , buthe resi g ned t hr ee days l ater w hen he obtai n ed wor k a t Low e’sas a for kl ift ope ra tor for $ 10.00 per

hour
. Acc or din g to t he r eport, the d efendant had bee n l iv ing w it h hi s p ar entsunti l re cent ly , w hen he mov ed outand beg an r enti ng an apartment. Al so inc lud ed i n thi s re p ort w as the d efendant’ s s tatementthathe “ has no more involvement w it h mari jua na” and w anted to parti ci pate in the pr etri a l d iversi on pr og ra m beca use he di d notw ant afelony cr imi nal r e cord. The defendant al so sta ted that he s ubmitted t o a dr ug sc re en w hen he w as hired for hisfirst job i n F ebr uary1998 and t hat h e mustpas s adr ug tes t atLow e’s , t oo.

By l etter date d M ar ch 17, 1 998, the di str ict attor ney g ener al deni ed pr etr ial diversi on b ased upo n his rev iewofthe pre trial div ersion investigation repo rt. The district attor ney g ener al g av e the foll ow ing r eason s for deny ing pr etr ial di v ersi on: 1. The defendants [s ic ] c ri me s were n ot t he r esul t of i mpuls e but re q uired c onsi der able e f fort a nd pl anni ng . Stat e v . H oll and, 661 S.W .2d 91 (Te nn. Cri m. App. 198 3).4 2
. T h e d e f e n d a n th a s e xp re s s e d n o re m o rs e f o r h is c o n d u ct . S t a t e v. Nea se, 713 S.W .2d 9 0. 3. T h e d e f endant has a poor w or k h is toryi ndi cat ing a s er iou s l ack of moti v ati on to su cc ess fully co mplet e pr etr ial di v ersi on. 4. No family

or fri ends ar e fort hcomi ng to a id or enc our ag e the def end ant in any pretrial diversion pro gram . W ithou t such encou ra g ement t he defendant canno t hop e t os u c c e s s fu l l y c o mp let e pr etr ial di v ersi on. 5. Posse ssion an d Sal e o f Na rcotics are serious pro blem s in this jur is dicti on and all ow ing the defendant t o parti ci pate in pr etr ial diversi on w oul d g re atl yunder mine law enforc ement effortsat curtai li ng thi s ty pe of cr imi nal acti v ity Stat e v . H oll and. 6. The cr imesi nv olved tr ic keryand decei t i n th a t th e def endant w ent to extr aor din aryl eng ths to hid e c ontraband fr om the pol ic e. 7. There isno indi cat ion that the defendant w oul d hav e s topped his/her c ri m in a l a ct ivi t y b u tf o r t h e in t e rve n t io n o fla w e n f o rc e m e n tSt a t e v. Ma rk ham, 755 S.W . 2d 850. 8. The ev ide nce ind ic atesthatthe defendant ha s s ig nific ant t iesto the d r u g c o m m u n it y in th a t h e w a s a b le to co n ta ctan y [sic ] b u y dru gs wit h o u ta n y a p p a re n td if f ic u lt y. The defendant pe ti ti oned for a w ri t of c erti or ar i, ar g uin g thatthe dis tr ict attor ney g ener al abuse d hi s d is cr eti on.

A c erti or ar i hear ing w as h e ld
. At thi s h ear ing , t he defendant tes ti fied he w as current ly

w orking at 84 Lu m b er and plann ed to atte nd co llege in the f utu re. He understo od th at i f plac ed o n t h e d iversi on prog ra m, he w oul d hav e to abi de by se v er al condi ti ons. H e s tated thatsi nce hisarr est , at w hic h time he w as eig hteen y ears o ld, he has “t ur ned [ hisl ife] c omplet ely around,”has beg un at te n d in g co ll eg e, an d hasnot smo ked m arijuan a. He f urthe r testif ied that he could have passed a drug test tha t v ery day and th a th e h a d p assed a drug test in order to ob tain h is current em ploymen t. He te s ti fi ed h i s fam i l ys up po rte d hi m, a nd h e ac k no w l ed g ed t ha t s ev eral me mb ers o f hi s family had w ri tten letters t o the co urt on hisbehal f. These letters w er e i ntroduce d i nto ev ide n c e a s e x h i b i t s . F o u r o f t h e s e l e t t e rs a r e d a t e d a ft e r t h e d i s t r i cta t t o r n e yg ener al formall ydeni ed pr etr ial di v ersi on, a nd two ar e notdate d.5 On cr o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n , t h e d e fe n d a n tw a s a s k e d i f m a r i j u a n aw as dis cov er ed i n hi s “ g ro in a re a ,” and the d efendant r epl ied i t w as under the w ais tband of hisbox er

underw ear . He a lso t e st if ied thatthe other thr ee i ndi v idu alsw it h hi m that evening w ere ju ve niles an d no ne o fthem w ere sea rched . W hen the assista nt district attorne y g ener al conc lud ed hi s q uest ion ing , t he tr ial co urt j udg e as ked the d efendant w hat k ind of par apher nal ia w as involved i n the off ense. The de fendant r epl ied , “ It w as li ke ro ll ing papers.”The j udg e as ked, “ T h a t’ s th e parapher nal ia? ” and t he defendant re pli ed affirmat iv ely
. The defendant did not menti on the crack pip e tha t w as found dur ing the s tr ip sear ch.

B o t h o ft h e d e f e n d a n t ’s p a re n t s a ls o t e s t if ie d
. Ac c o rd in g t o t h e irt e s t im o n y, the d efendant had become more obedi ent, r espectful, and r espon si ble si nce hisar re st. Hi s mot her

tes ti fied th at be ing ar re ste d s car ed th e defendant and t hat when he was release d f rom jail, he imm edia tely told the m how sorryh e w as and “th at he w ould never, ev er do t hisag ain , and he p ro mis ed notto dis appoi nt us any more, and he has not d one that. ”
The State d id not pr esentany w it ness es. I nst ead, the S tate enter ed i nto ev ide nce a copy of t he dis tr ict attor ney g ener al’ s letter deny ing diversi on, a copy of the inc ide nt r eport, and t he pr etr ial di v ersi on i nv est ig ati on report. The tr ial j udg e as ked the assistan t district atto rne y g ene ral how ma ny cigarettes on e ou nce o fmarijua na would make. The as si sta nt di str ict attor ney g ener al re pli ed he w as not c ertai n, bu t atl eastthr ee o r f o u r, th a t is , e n o u gh f o r eve ryon e in th e de f e n d a n t’ s car th a t even in g. T h e tr ia l ju d ge a lso as ke d th e as sis ta n t d ist ric t a tt o rn e y g e n e ra l th e f o llo wing:

T HE COURT: Num b e r t wo [in the d istrict attorne yg ene ral’s letter] says, “ Def end ant ex presse d no remo rse.” He ex p re ssed rem orse this morni ng ; di d he not? MR . BR OW N: Y es, Y our H onor , butas o f M a rch 17 th w hen he appl ied and w hen t he Ge ner al w ro te t hisl etter he h ad not
.6 T HE COURT: Not the n but now. Now the Def end ant ’s p o o r work h is t o ry, h e sa ys h e h a s ajo b
. Is t h a tt ru e o r d o yo u kn o w? MR . BROW N: Your

Honor , the pres entenc e [s ic ] r eport r eflect s h e does hav e a j ob, r ig ht no whe h as a j ob. THE C OU RT: Al l ri g ht, si r. The Cou rti s g oin g to g ra nt hi m pr etr ial diversi on. The tr ial co urt l ater

ente re d an or der

findi ng th at t he defendant had no pr ior cr imi nal re cord and that “f ro m a ll ofthe facts and c ir cums tanc es itappears t hat t he pet it ion er q ual ifiesfor d iv ersi on.”The order furth er st ates“ that cons ide ri ng the f a cts and circumsta nces o fthis case, a nd th e crit e ri a u t iliz ed b ythe District Attorne yGene ral in deny ing di v ersi on to the peti ti oner , the Dis tr ict Attor ney General
. . . abused hi s d is cr eti on in not p lac ing the peti ti oner i n the di v ersi on prog ra m .” No o th e r findi ng s a ppear i n the re cord.
A def endant isstatut or il yqual ified f or pretr ial div ersi on if he or sh e hasnot pr ev iou sl ybeen g ra nted d iver sion; does not h av e a p ri or mis demeanor

co nv icti on for w hic h confine ment w as serv ed or a pr ior felony co nv icti on w it hin a fiv e- y ear per iod after compl eti ng the se n te n ce of proba ti onaryper iod for t he c onv icti on; a nd i s n ot s eeki ng diversi o n f o r a C las s Aor B fel ony , a sex ual off ense, dr iv ing under the influ ence, or v ehicu lar assault. T.C
. A
. § 4 0-15 -105 (a)(1)(B)( i)(a)- (c) (Supp . 199 8). Statu tory qualif ication , howev er, doe s not pre sum ptively entitle a de f end antto diversi on. Rather, the d is tr ict atto rn e y g ener al poss ess es the d is cr eti on to g ra nt pretr ial di v ersi on to a sta tutor il y

q ual ified defendant. St ate v . Pi nkham, 955 S.W .2 d 956 (Tenn. 1997)
. The defendant bea rsthe bur den of demons tr ati ng su it abi li ty f or pretr ial div ersi on, and to that end , the d e f e n d a n tshou ld f ile a f orma l w ritten ap plication and supp orting docum ent s. Stat e v . H er ro n, 76 7 S. W .2d 151, 156 (Tenn. 1989) ; Stat e v . W ins ett, 882 S.W .2d 8 06, 809- 10 ( Tenn. Cr im. App. 1993)
. In c onsi der ing the defendant’ s a ppl ic ati on for diversi on, the d is tr ict attor ney

g ener al must w eig h the f o ll ow ing r ele v ant c onsi der ati ons: the def end ant ’s ame nab ility to correction ; the circumsta nces o fthe of f ense ; the def end ant ’s7

cr imi nal r ecord; t he defendant’ s s oci al his tory; t h e d efendant’ s p hy si cal and mental condi ti on “ w her e a p pr opr iat e” ; and “ the l ik eli hood t hat p re tr ial di v ersi on w il l serv e the ends of jus ti ce and t he bes t i nter estof both the p ubl icand th e d e f e n d a nt.”Pi nkham, 955 S.W .2d at 959 -60 (quoting State v . Hamm ersley, 650 S.W .2d 352 , 355 (Ten n. 19 83)).

Ifth e d is t ri ct atto rney g ene ral denie s pretrial div ersion, the de nial mu st cl ear ly arti cul ate i n w ri ti ng the factors a nd ev ide nce that w er e cons ide re d and the w eig ht acc or ded t o eac h of the f a ct o rs. Pi nkham, 955 S.W .2d a t 960 ; H er ro n, 76 7 S. W .2d a t 156. “ That a d efendant, o bv iou sl y , bea rsthe bur den of demons tr ati ng su it a b ili ty for diversi on d oes n ot relieve the prose cuto r’s oblig ation t o examine a ll ofthe relevant f acto rs and t o s et forth t he r eq uired f in din g s.”St ate v . C ur ry , ___ S.W .2d _

__ ( Tenn. 1999) (c it ing Pi nkham, 955 S.W .2d a t 960 ). F ail ur e “ to c onsi der and arti cul ate a ll of the re levant fact ors c onst it utes an a buse of dis cr eti on.”C ur ry , ___S.W .2d a t ___ . The Sta te’s respo nse to an ap plication f or pretrial div ersion m ust ref lect tha t the district attor ney general cons ide re d al l of these factors. Cur ry , ___ S.W .2d a t ___ ; s ee H er ro n, 767 S. W .2d a t 156
.

If the dis tr ict attor ney

g ener al deni es diversi on, t he defendant mayse ek re v iew by the tr ial co urt t hr oug h a p eti ti on for w ri t of c e rt iorar i. Se e T.C .A. § 4 0 -1 5 -105( b) (3 )( Supp. 1998)
. In r ev iew ing the dis tr ict attor ney g ener al’ s d eci si on, t he trial court is li mite d to the evidence orig inally consid ered bythe district att orne yg ene ral. W ins ett, 882 S.W .2d a t 810
. “The tr ial co urt may co nducta he ar ing onl yto re sol v e any factual di sput es ra is ed by the pr osec utor

or the defendant c oncer nin g the appl ic ati on, b ut not t o hear addi ti onal ev ide nce that w as not c onsi der ed by the pr osec utor .” C ur ry , ___ S.W .2d at ___(citing Pinkha m, 955 S.W .2d at 960 ).

T he d istrict atto rney general's decision den y ing diversi on is presu mp tiv ely cor re ct, and the t ri al court mus t affirm his or her deci si on absen t abuse of di sc re ti on. SeeW e no t e t hat al t hough t he t r i al cour t st at ed t hat t he d ef endan t t est i f i ed h e was r em or sef ul , t he 2 r ecor d do es no t supp or t t hi s. Rat her , t he r ecor d sho ws t hat t he d ef endan t ’ s m ot her t est i f i ed t he d e f e n d a n t h a d to ld h e r h e w a s r e m o r s e f u l, w h ic h is q u ite a d if f e r e n t t h in g f r o m th e d e f e n d a n t h im s e lf te s tif yin g h e w a s r e m o r s e f u l. 8 Curry , ___S.W .2d at ___ ; Stat e v . Lut ry , 938 S .W .2d 431 , 434 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 96). Before the t ri al court c an c oncl ude t he di str ict attorn e y ge n e ral abuse d hi s o r her dis cr eti on, t he r ecord “ must show an a bsenc e of any

su bst anti al ev ide nce”to suppo rtthe dis tr ict attor ney

g ener al’ s d eni al of div ersi on. Cur ry , ___ S.W .2d a t __

_ . If the t ri al court’ s d eci si on is appeal ed, t he appe ll ate c ourt i s l imi ted t o det er mini ng w hether the tr ial court’ s d eci si on i s supported b ya preponderance of the ev ide nce. C ur ry , ___ S.W .2d at ___ (citing Pinkh am , 955 S.W .2d at 960 ).

Here, the trial court ju d ge i m p rope rly ex ceed ed th e scop e of certiorari re v iew by ente rt ain ing ev ide nce not c onsi der ed by the dis tr ict attor ney g ener al. The tr ial jud g e al low ed th e defendant to ad mit int o ev ide nce letters w ri tten bymembers o f the def end ant ’s fa mily, even tho ugh the se lette rs appe ar to ha v e be en wr itten af ter the district attor ney g ener al deci ded to deny diversi on. The tr ial jud g e als o al low ed th e defendant and hi s p ar ents to tes ti fy r eg ar din g the defendant’ s remorse and the supporti v enessof 2 hisfamil y , butag ain , t he re cord ind ic ates that thi s i nformati on w as not made kn ow n to the district atto rney genera l p rior to h is d ecision. By adm itting im prop er e v iden ce, it app ears that the t ri al jud g e bas ed hi s d eci si on upon new and different ev ide nce. W ins ett, 882 S.W .2d a t 809
.

“B ecaus e the appl ic ant bears the bur den ini ti all y to demonst ra te to t he prose cuto r bot h eligibili ty f or and ent itlem ent to pretrial diversi on, the app lic a n t would certai nly w ant t o prov ide the pr osec utor w it h as compl ete an appl ic ati on asci rc umstan ces w ar ra nt.”W ins ett, 882 S.W .2d at 809-10; see Her ro n, 767 S.W .2d at 156. The in sta nt cas e i ll ust ra tes thi s p oin t v iv idl y . The r ecord c ontai ns no ev ide nce that the d efendant ev er formal ly

appl ied for p re tr ial di v ersion i n w ri ti ng or prov ide d any

su pporti ng9

document s s how ing w hyhe s houl d be g ra nted p re tr ial di v ersi on. Ev en as sumi ng the defendant di d s ubmit suc h infor mati on to the dis tr ict attor ney g ener al, the re cord doesnot ind ic ate the t ri al jud g e c onsi der ed i t i n r ev iew ing the dis tr ict attor ney g ener al’ s d eci si on. Thus, dis re g ar d in g the infor mati on th e tr ial j udg e i mprop er ly co nsi der ed, i .e., the defendant’ s a nd hi s p ar ents ’ te st im o n y and the l etters w ri tten bymembers o f the def end ant ’s fa mily, t h e r e cord con tains n o evidence to supp ort the trial j udge’s deter minat ion that the dis tr ict attor ney g ener al abuse d hisdi sc re ti on i n deny ing di v ersi on.

To the cont ra ry , the ev ide nce pr oper ly admitted at the hear ing -- -t he l etter deny in g dive rsi o n , t h e pre tr ia l d iver sio n in ves ti gat io n rep o rt , a n d the in ci dent re port- -- does not supp ort the conclusio n tha t the district attorne yg ene ra l a b u s e d his discretion in denying d iversi on. Beca use a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce in the record doesnot suppo rtthe tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on, w e r ev erse the o rd er pl aci ng the defendant on pr etr ial diversi on a nd rem and this case to the trial court f or f urthe r proceed ings.

_________

_________

_________

____ JO HN H. PE AY, Ju d ge
CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

______ JO E G . RI L EY, Ju d ge

_________

_________

_________

______ JA ME S C. BE AS L EY, SR. , S p e cia l Ju d ge