### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 13, 200 5
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. KR ISTI D AN CE OAK ES
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Sevier County No. 10656-II Richard R. Vance , Judge

No. E2005-01668-CC A-R10- CD - F iled Janu ary 23, 2006

The d e f e n d a n t, Kr is ti D a n c e O ak e s , s tan d s c h ar g e d in th e Se v ie r Co u n ty Ci r c u it Co u rt with one count of statutoryrape . The district attorne y g ener al denied he r application for pre trial diversion,
an ac tion upheld by the t rial court upon certiorari review of that decision. The defe ndant obtained an interloc utory

appea l from this court via Te nnessee Rule of Appellate Procedur e 10. Following
our re view, we vacate the orde r upholding the denial of pretria l diversion and rema nd the case to the tr ia l c ou rt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 1 0; Judg m e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t i s V ac at e d and R e m ande d.

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opi nion of the c ourt, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and D AVI D G. H AYES , J J ., joined.

B arry H. Va le nti ne , N e wp ort, T e nn e sse e , f or the Ap pe lla nt, Krist i D a nc e Oa ke s. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; J ohn H. B ledsoe, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; and Al Schmutz er, Jr., District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

The fa cts relied upon by

the prosec utor in deny ing the d ef endant’ s application ar e larg ely draw n from the defe ndant’s pretria l statement and her application for pretria l dive rsion. At the time of the off

ense in que stion, the defendant was a ma rried, 3 3 -y ea r- o l d teac her at Sey mour Hig h School, who held a maste rs deg ree in sc hool c urriculum and instruc tion. The victim, a 16-y ear
oldma le stu de nt at Se y mou r H ig h Sch oo l, ha d tak e n the de fe nd a nt’ s biol og y c la ss d uring his te nth g rade term, which w as some time prior to the 2003- 04 school term.

I n J une 2004, during the school vac ation term, t he def endant a nd the victim were employ ed at a n am u s ement par k in Pigeon F org e. A number of public school tea cher s as well as students appar ently

worke d at t he park during the s ummer of 2004, and it was c ommon among the m to ma ke arr ang ements for car -pooling to limit tr ansportation expense. I n this ve in, the defe ndant and-2-

the victim d i s cu s s ed ri d i n g t o get h er , an d t h e d ef en d an to b t ai n ed p er m i s s i o n fr o mt h e v i ct i m ’s mother to allow the victim to commute with the defe ndant.

On J une 22, 2004, pursua nt to this arr ang ement, th e v i ct i m rode to wor k with the defe ndant and waited for the de fendant’s longe r shift to end before be ing ta ken home. The de fe nd a nt’ s st a te me nt d e sc ri be s th e e ns uin g e ve nts :

I wa s il l, h a vin g a

hi gh bl ood p re ssu re sp ike a ndne e din g my medications, so we stoppe d to ge t ga s and something to e at and drink. He wa nte d to lea rn how to dri ve my c ar, wh ic h w a s a

str a ig ht s hif

t, jus t in c a se he mig ht ne e d to drive my c ar if the re wa s e ve r a time when I could not do so due to my occa sional health issues. We then dr ov e o u tt o D o u g l a s L ak e a n d t a l k e d

. [T h e v i c t i m ] l e a n e d a c ro ss and kissed me. He wanted to move t o the bac k to stretch his leg s out and be c omfortable. I t hen moved to the ba ck as w ell. He then leane d over a nd kissed me ag ain. This time, he rea ched and fondled my brea sts. He then took his shirt off and I g ave him a ba ck and hand massag e. He then le aned ba ck and kissed me ag ain then flipped ove r so that he wa s fa c ing me
. He be g a n f on dli ng my

br e a sts a ndmy

bu tt. He then r emoved his shorts and unde rwe ar. He ac t ed as if he was g oin g to p ull my

sh orts d ow n a ndI

tol d h im no. I

fo nd le d h is p e nis
a ndthe n p e rf

orme d o ral sex on him . T his wa s o ur fi rs t a ndon ly
se xua l e nc ou nte r. I

te rribl y re g re t w hat oc c ur

re d a ndre a lize it s ho uld
never have ha ppened. I called [ the vi ctim’s] mother t he nex t morning
a nd apo log ize d fo r wh a t tr a ns pir e d the nig ht before. Sho rt ly there afte r, I

went to [the amusement park] and re signe d. I n addition, I ini tiate d a

vo lun tary re sig natio n fr om S e vie r C ou nty Sc ho ols wi thi n a fe w day s time . . . .

Th e dis tr ic t a tto rn e y

g e ne ra l de nie d th e app lic a tio n f or pr e tr ia l div e rs ion , b a sin g his denial upon (1) the def

endant’ s rol e as an au t h ority fig ure to the vic tim, (2) the disparity in ag es betw ee n the def

endant a nd the victim, and (3) the defe ndant’s occ upation in a “position of confide nce and trust in the community .” F ollowing c ertiora ri revie w, the trial court found that the defe ndant occ upied a position of confidence and trust and that this fac t supported the prose cutor’s denial of pr etrial diver sion.

I n ord er to be elig ible for pr etrial diver sion, a defe ndant must not have bee n pr e vio us ly

g rante d p re tr ia l or

jud ic ia l di ve rs ion ; mu st n ot h a vea prior mis de me a no r c on vic tio n in which the de fenda nt served a sentenc e of confine ment or a prior felony conviction within a five- y ear period a fter c ompleting the sentenc e or probationary period for the prior c onviction; and must not be see king dive rsion for a Class A or B fe lony , certain sexual offenses not involved in this case , driving under the influence , or vehicular assault. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-15-105(B )(i)( a)- (c) (2003). “A pe rson who is statutorily elig ible for pretria l dive rsion is not presumptively entitled to diversion.”-3-

S ta te v. Y ancey , 6 9 S

. W

. 3 d 5 5 3 , 5 5 7 (T en n
. 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g Sta te v . Cu rry , 988 S.W .2d 153, 157 (Tenn. 1999) ).

The de cision whether to gr ant pre trial diversion re sts within t he discret i o n of the district attorney g ener al. See Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 15 -1 05 (b )( 3) (2 00 3) ; State v. Hamm ersley , 650 S.W .2d 352, 355 (Tenn. 1983) . The proc ess of a pply ing f or, ad j udicating , and re viewing pretria l diversion is attended by

formulaic r

ules.

The burde n is upon the defendant, “in the first instance, to provide the pr osecuting attorney with sufficient backg round i nformation and data to enable that office r to make a rea soned decision to g rant or de ny

the re lief soug ht.” State v. He rron , 767 S.W .2d 151, 156 (Tenn. 1989) , overruled in part by S ta te v. Y ancey , 69 S.W .3d 553, 559 (Tenn. 2002) . To ca rry the burde n, an applicant should provide the prosecutor wit h “as complete an application as circumstanc es wa rra nt.” Sta te v . W

ins e tt , 882 S.W .2d 806, 810 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)

. Even thoug h the def

endant ha s t h e b u rd en to demonstrate his or he r elig ibilit y and suitabilit y for pr etrial diver sion, the prosec utor has spec ific oblig ations, espec ially when he or she denies the application. Cur ry , 988 S.W .2d at 157. Our a ppellate c ourts have f

org ed the f

ollowing g uidelines for pr osecutors’ use whe n considering applications for pretria l diversion:
(1 ) T he pr os e c uto r s ho uldfo c us on the de fe nd a nt’ s a me na bil ity to corr ection. Id . at 156. (2) The prosec utor must consider (a) the circ umstances of the offe nse, ( b ) t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c r i m i n a l r e c o r d , ( c ) t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s o c i a l h i s t o r y, (d) the phy sical and me ntal condition of the d efe ndant where appropriate, and ( e) the likelihood that pretrial diver sion wil l serve the ends of justice and the be st interests o f bot h the public and the defe ndant. Id. ; Hamme rsley , 6 50 S.W. 2d a t 35 5; see also State v. W ashington , 866 S.W .2d 950, 951 (Tenn. 1993)

. (3) “ [T] he cir cumstance s of the off ense and the nee d for de terre nce may alone just i fy a denia l of diversion, but only if [(a)] all of the rele vant fa ctors have been c onsidered a s well,” Cur ry , 988 S.W .2d at 158, and (b) only when the circ umstances a re of such over whelming sig nif ic a nce t hat the y

ne c e ssa ri ly ou tw e ig h a ll o the r f

a c tor s, W ashington , 866 S.W .2d at 951. (4) Althoug h this court has af fi rmed the de nial of pre trial diversion wher e the f

ailure to a dmit the crime and/or express remorse reve aled that the def

endant had been less than truthful with the court, se e Sta te v. K aren Sue Kelsey , No. 03C01-9603-CC-00117, slip op. at 7 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knox ville, Oct. 29, 1997), perm. app . denied (Tenn.-4- 1 9 9 8) ; State v. Martha Je an Frasier , No. 01C01-9601-CC-00012, sli p o p. a t 12 -1 3 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. , N a sh vil le , D e c . 1 3, 19 96 ); Sta te
v . Ne as e , 713 S.W .2 d 90, 92 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986) , remorse per se is not a fa ctor in de termining suitabilit y for pr etrial diver sion, see State v. Stoney Gene Golden , No. 88-146-I I I , slip op. at 3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Apr. 12, 1989) , perm. app. de nied (Tenn. 1989), and the failure of t he defenda nt to admit g uilt is not, in and of it s e lf , a p r o p e r b a s is f o r d e n y in g d iv e r sion, see Sta te v . D e wey L. Cla rk , No. 03C01-9706-CR-00227, s lip op. at 7 (Tenn. Crim. App., Kn oxvil le , July

16 , 1 99 8) ; State v. Christie Quick , No. 01C 01- 9510-CC-00323, slip op. at 5-6 (Tenn. Crim. App., Na shville, Feb. 20 , 1 99 7); cf. State v. King , 640 S.W .2d 30, 33 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 82 ) (p re tr ia l div e rs ion c a nn ot be c on dit ion e d up on e ntry of g uil ty plea) , overruled on other grounds by State v. Sutton , 668 S.W .2d 678, 680 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984)

. (5 ) Ade nia l of

the app lic a tio n (a) mu st be in w ri tin g a nd(b ) mus t contain not only

an enume ration of the e vidence the prosecu tor consider ed b u t also a discussion of the we ight g iven to eac h fac tor, State v. Pinkham , 955 S.W. 2d 95 6, 96 0 (T e nn . 199 7) ; se e Cur ry , 988 S.W .2d at 157 (e x plaining import an ce of detailed, w ritten denial); W ins e tt , 8 8 2 S

. W

. 2 d at 8 1 0 , an d o f wh y u n fa v o ra b l e f

ac t o rs o u t we i gh favor able one s, Herron , 767 S.W .2d at 156.
(6 ) “ I n a dd iti on to the fo re g oin g items wh ic h th e pr os e c uto r s ho uld include in a written rec ord, he or she shoul d also identify ‘any fac tual disputes betwee n the evidenc e re lied upon and the pe titioner’s application.’” Pinkham , 9 55 S.W. 2d at 96 0; se e W ins e tt , 882 S.W .2d at 810.

I f the a pplication is denied, the de fenda nt may seek a writ of certiorar

i in the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-15-105( b)(3) (2003). The Code and the appe llate courts have pre scribed the proce dure for the pe titioner to follow:

(1) The compiled rec ord should be attache d to the petition. W ins e tt , 882 S.W .2d at 810.
(2 ) In th e pe tit ion , th e de fe nd a nt s ho uldide nti fy any dis pu te d f

a c ts which the prosec utor has not ide ntified. State v. Lane , 56 S.W .3d 20, 26 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000)

. (3) The defe ndant has the burden of proving that the district attorney abused his or he r discre tion in deny ing dive rsion, S t a t e v. W atkins ,-5- 607 S

. W

. 2 d 486, 488 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) , a proc ess that may entail s howing an abse nce of any substantial evidence in the rec ord to support the prosecutor’s denia l of pretrial diversion, Lane , 56 S.W. 3da t 26 ; see S t ate v. Houston , 900 S.W .2d 712, 714 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Upon receiving a petiti on for certiora ri filed byan ag g rieve d applicant f or pre trial diversion, the trial court must then follow a pr escribed proc edure :

(1) The trial court li mits its consideration to the evidenc e which w as be fo re the pr os e c uto r andto the re a so ns g ive n b y the pr os e cutor

in deny ing dive rsion. S ta t e v
. B ro wn , 700 S.W .2d 568, 570 (Tenn. Cr im. Ap p. 19 85 ); W

ins e tt , 882 S.W .2d at 809. (2) The trial court may

conduct a hearing only to r esolve any fac tual disputes raised by the prosec utor or the defe ndant; the court may not hear additional evidenc e. Cur ry , 988 S.W .2d at 157-58.
(3 ) T he tr ia l c ou rt

mus t a lso a dh e re to the sa me c a se -by -c a se balanc ing pr ocedur e that is imposed upon t h e prose cutor. Herron , 767 S.W .2d at 156. (4) The trial court must state its findings in writing. Id.

I f the trial c ourt dec lines to rever se the prose cutor’s de nial of di v er s i on, the def endant may

seek interlocutory

revie w in this court. See ge ner ally T e n n
. R

. A p p
. P

. 9 , 1 0 ; T e n n
. R

. C r i m
. P

. 3 8

. If revie w is g rante d by

this court, our re view i s confined to determining whether the trial court’s determination is supported by a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e. Cur ry , 988 S.W .2d at 158.

A p p ly in g th er u le s to th eprosec utor’s re view of the pretria l diversion petition, we find departures fr om the presc ribed proc ess. We find no indication in the prosec utor’s re sponse that he
c on sid e re d a ll o f the ma nd a te d fa c tor s, a nd we no te that the de fe nd a nt’ s a pp are ntl y g oo d p ro sp e c ts for r ehabilitation, lack of a criminal recor d, and her excellent social history

support her bid for pretria l diversion. T h ese f actor s were addre ssed, some cog ently , by the authors of

20 letters commending the defe ndant that wer e attache d to the application for pretria l diversion. Although the prosec utor mentions that he re viewed the letters, he did not addr ess the letter s’ positive indications of potential for reha

bilitation and excellence of social history

. The response neither a ddresse s the de fe nd a nt’ s lac k of a crimi na l re c or d n or he r s po ntane ou s a ndvo lun tary c on fe ssi on of

he r c ri me to the victim’s mother and to her employ ers. We suspec t that, without the defendant’s initiative, the offe nse would have g one undete cted.

I t go es without say ing that, with no mention of these seve ral vital fa ctors fa voring diversion, the prose cutor’s r esponse did not re veal his weig hing of the mandate d fac tors and did not-6-

e x p l a i n w h y t h e n e g a t i v e f a c t o r s t h a th e r e l i e d u p o n o u t w e i g h e d t h e p o s i t i v e f a c t o r s
. O b v i o u s l y, the c ir c ums ta nc e s of the of fe ns e we re pa

ramou nt in the pr os e c uto r’ s dec isi on , but his re sp on se fails to articulate that he conside red a ll of the fac tors supporting dive rsion befo re d ec i d i n g that the circ umstances of

the offe nse over whelmed the a g g reg ate positive fa ctors.

I n Sta te v . B e ll , 69 S.W .3d 171 (Tenn. 2002) , our supre me court said,
[W ]e disagr ee wi t h the dissenting vie w that a district attorne y g ener al’s fa ilure to consider all of the re levant fa ctors, including any evidenc e fa vorable to a defenda nt, is of no conseque nce a s long a s the
rea sons stated for de n y i n g diversion ar e supported by the re cord. Such a holding would be contrary to our long -established c ases that require a district attorne y g ener al to focus upon a defe ndant’s
amena bilityto corre ction. Moreove r, i t is the consider ation of all of the re levant fac tors that ensure s that the district attorney g ener al pr op e rl y e xer c ises his or

he r d isc re tio n and

ide nti fi e s su ita

ble candidates for pr etrial diver sion. Thus, failing to do so constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Id. at 178 (c itations omi tted). The Be ll c ou rt fu rthe r c omm e nte d:

Mo re ov e r, in o ur

vi ew, the dis tr ic t a tto rn e y g e ne ra l’ s f

a ilu re to c on sider al l of

the re le va nt f

a c tor s, inc lud ing e vid e nc e fa vo ra ble to the de fe nd a nt, c a nn ot be c ur e d by the tr ia l c ou rt ’s revi ew. B e c a us e the trial court does not have a ppropriate finding s made by the district
a tto rn e y g e ne ra l up on wh ic h to re vie w, a llo wi ng it to “ fi ll i n th e g aps ” would extend de novo revie w over th e dis trict attorney

g ener al’s decision and w ould allow the trial court to substit ute its view over the pretria l diversion decision-making proce ss.
Id. at 179. Turning to the trial court’ s determination, we discern t h at t h ec o u r t g e n e r a ll y f ollowed the proc edure for r eviewing the prosecutor’s denial of pretrial diversion; howeve r, the c ourt did not addre ss the deficiencie s in the prosec utor’s re sponse to the diversion application. Furthermore, the court a ppare ntly reje cted two of the prosec utor’s g rounds for de ny ing dive rsion, that the def endant
was a n authority

fig ure a nd that t h e d i s p ar i t yof ag es betwe en the de fendant and the victim was
e g re g iou s. Th e tr ia l c ou rt

se ttl e d u po n th e de fe nd a nt’ s r ole of c on fi de nc e a nd trus t in the c ommun ity as a ba sis f

or deny ing pretria l dive rsion. As was the case with the prosec utor, the trial court did not
rec ount any

consideration of fac tors supporting dive rsion and did not articulate why the def endant’ s ro le in the c ommun ity , a s a c ir c ums ta nc e of

the of fe ns e , o ve rw he lme d th e se fa c tor s.-7- Ba sed upon this rec ord, we conclude that both the trial court’ s and the prose cutor’s determinations are unsupporte d, and the tria l court’s or d er s h o u ld be vac ated. B eca use the leg al basis for this ruling on appea l is essentially the prosec utor’s failure to follow presc ribed g uidelines and not because the position of confidence and trust circ umstance is per se inapposite, we r emand with instructions for the trial court to order the prosecutor t o withdraw his denia l of diversion and to embark upon a

full consideration of the application as the g uidelines requir e. Se e Be ll , 69 S.W .3d at 179 (stating that when the district attorney g ener al abuse s discretion by denying pr etrial diver sion “without considering and weig hing substantial e vidence favor able to a de fendant, it follows that the decision must be re verse d and the c ase r emande d to the district attorney g ener al for f

urther consider at i o n of all of the r eleva nt fac tors in a manner consistent with [ the Supreme] Court’s decisions”)

.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE