# FILED
Au gust 29, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN T HE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPE ALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE JULY SES SION, 1997
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9612-CR-00465 ) Appell ee, ) ) CUM BERLAND COUN TY ) V. ) ) HON. LEON C. BURNS , JR. , JUDGE KE LL Y C OL SO N, ) ) Ap pella nt. ) (PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION - RULE 9)
FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : JA MES D. WHITE , J R. JOHN KNOX WALKUP 101 Green Str eet Attor ney General & Reporter Celi na, TN 38551 PE TE R M . CO UG HL AN Assist ant Attor ney General 425 Fifth Avenue North 2nd Floor , Cordel l Hul l Bui ldi ng Nashvil le, TN 37243 WILL IA M EDWARD GI BSON Dist ri ct Attor ney General DA VI D A . PA TTE RSON Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al 74 E ast S eco nd S treet Crossvi ll e, TN 38555
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

In an indi ctment retur ned by t he Cum be rla nd County grand jury, t he De fend ant, Kell y Colson, was charged wi th t he off ense ofveh icul ar homici de caused by t he reckl ess ki ll ing ofthe v ict im as the proxi mate res ult of c onduct creat ing a substanti al ri sk of death or se ri ous bod il y i njury, i n vi olat ion of Tennessee Code Annotated secti on 39-13- 213(a)( 1) , a Class C felon y. Defendantsubsequent lyfi led an Appl icat ion for Pr e-T rial Dive rsion
. The District Attor ney General decl in ed t o agree t o pr e-t ri al di versi on. Su bse que ntly, Defendantfi led aPetition for W rit of Certiorari to the trial court. After a heari ng, the tr ial courtenter ed an order denyi ng the pet it ion, from which thi s courtgrant ed De fen da nt’s Ap plicatio n for P erm ission to Ap pea l purs uan t to Rule 9, Tennessee Ru les o f App ellate P roce dure . W e affirm the jud gm ent o f the trial c ourt.
The Distri ct Attorn ey de clined to grantpre-t ri al di versi on to Def endant f or thr ee reasons: (1) Since t he off ense c omm it ted by t he Defendantcaused t he dea th to anot her and was a Cl ass C fel on y, t he grant ing ofpre-t ri al di versi on wo uld “dep reca te the det errenteff ect as to t his Def endant and ot hers r egardi ng this seri ous off ense; ” (2) the Def endant had been “char ged and convi cted”of thr ee other

off enses occur ri ng at t he same ti me as the vehi cular hom ic ide, incl uding il legal pos ses sion of a radardetect or, alt erat ion ofa medical cert if icat e, and “no r ecord of du ty sta tus, ” whi ch indi cated t he Defendantwas wil lf ull y and co ns cio us ly vi olat ing t he law atthe t ime of t he off ense; and ( 3) t he Defendanthad five (5) s peeding v iol ati ons occurr ing f rom February16, 1993 t hrough May 29, 1995, four(4) of whi ch were i ssued to Defendant whil e he was operat ing a-3-

commercial vehic le, wh ich d em ons trated th at t he De fen da nt h ad pre viou sly o pera te d a m otor ve hicle o n pu blic roa ds in a m ann er wh ich w as u nsa fe to him se lfand othe r mo torists a nd d id no t have the a bilityor des ire to co nfo rm his behav ior

to t he conf ine s ofthe law
.
The Defendantrel ies upon Sta te v. Hamm ersl ey , 650 S. W .2d 352 ( Tenn. 198 3), and State v. Her ron , 767 S. W .2d 151 ( Tenn. 1989), in sup po rt of h is argument t hat the prosecutor did notconsi derall rel evant fact ors i n making t he decisi on to den y pre-tri a l di versi on. The Defendantalso argues thatthe prosecut orfai led t o stat e why t he fact or s he reli ed upon outwei ghed the remaini ng factors submitt ed for his c onsiderati on. Based upon our revi ew of t he entire record, i ncludi ng the wr itten not ice ofdenial of pre-t ri al di v ersi on, t he pro se cu tor’s test imony atthe heari ng on the Pet it ion forW ri t ofCerti orari , and t he pro se cu tor’s state m ents to th e judg e, we r espectf ull y di sagree wi th t he De fend ant’s ass ertion s.
We do agree that t he first fact or rel ied upon by t he prosecut or, thatpre-t ri al div ersi on sho uld no t be gra nte d in a ca se of ve hic ula r homicide based upon condu ct cre atin g a subst anti al r isk of death or

seri ous bodil y i njury, was inappropri ate. In ess enc e, t he Distri ct Att orney stat ed that he fel t thi s offense inv olv ing the deat h of a person shoul d no t be cons ider ed for pre-t ri al di versi on because it wou ld de prec ate the det errenteff ect t o the Def endant and ot hers who mightbe cha rge d w ith th e sa m e o ffen se . Th e o ffen se tha t De fen da nt is charged with co mm itti ng is an off ense eli gibl e forconsi derat ion ofpre-t ri al di versi on . Tenn
. Code An n. § 40 -15 -10 5(a )(1) (A) . Th ere fore , this reason was notproperto deny p r e-t ri al divers ion. See State v. Hammersley , 650 S .W .2d 35 2, 356 (Ten n. 198 3).-4-

Ho weve r, as observ ed byour court i n State v. Carr , 861 S. W .2d 850, 857 (Tenn. Cr i m. App . 1993 ), “t he factthatone of t he reasons gi ven f or t he denial was inappropri ate, does not for eclose a deter minati on thatsubstant ial evid en ce still rem ains to su ppo rt the p rose cuto r’s de cision .”
The record in t his ca se prov ides s ubstant ial evi dence to s upportthe remaini ng reas ons for the pros ecu tor to d eny De fend ant the a vai labi li ty o f pr etri al di versi on. We find t hat t he tr ial courtproper lyconsi dered t he entire record and a rri ved at th e co rrec t co nc lus ion tha t the pro se cu tor h ad no t ab us ed his disc retion
. The judgment ofthe t ri al court i s aff ir med.

____________________________________ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge
CONCUR:

___________________________________ DAVID H. W ELLES, Judge

___________________________________ JOHN K . BYERS, Senior Judge