T h e d e fen d a n t’s p le a d in g s r e fl e c t t h e sp e lli n g o f his n a m e a s D e w ite W o o d le e . H o w e v e r, the ind ic tm e n t, 1

o rders o f the t ri al co urt , and judgm ent s ref l ect t he spel l i ng as D wi ght W o o d l ee. Fo r purpo ses of t hi s o p i ni o n, we ad here to the sp e lli n g a s listed in the ind ic tm e n t. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT NAS HVILLE D ec em be r 17, 200 8 S es sio n
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. DWIGHT WOOD LEE
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Warre n Coun ty No. F -10399 Larry B. Stanley, Judge

No. M2008- 01301-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jun e 10, 2009

The defenda

nt, Dwig ht Woodlee, appea ls as of right his g uilty plea c onvictions for vanda lism and 1 civil rig hts inti midation, both C lass D fe lonies, for whic h the trial court imposed concur rent four

y e ar s e nte nc e s to be se rv e d o n p rob atio n. He c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in de nyinghis
a pp lic a tio n f

or jud ic ia l di ve rs ion . F oll ow ingour r e vie w, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court is Aff irm ed.

D. KEL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J ., delivere d the opi nion of the c ourt, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

David H. Veile and J ack D. L ower y , L ebanon, T ennesse e, attorne y s for a ppellant, Dwig ht Woodl ee. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Matthew B ry ant Haske ll, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral; L isa Z avag iannis, District At t o rn ey Gene ral; and Ma

rk E. Tribble, A ssistant District Attorney Gene ral, attorney s for a

ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts that the de fe nd ant wa s ind ic te d fo r tw o c ounts of va nd a lis m of

se pa rate statio n- ho us e s o f t

he Co ll in s Ri ver

Vo lunte e r F ir e De pa

rtme nt a nd on e c ount o f c ivi l r ig hts intimi dation, all Class D felonies. The offe nses ar ose fr om the Marc h 2005 late-nig ht shooting of his former pla ce of

employ ment, from which he had bee n ousted rec ently as fire chief

. On May 6, 2008, the def

endant pled guilty

to one count of vandalism and one c ount of civil rig hts inti midation wi th a n a g re e d sente nc e of fo ur y e ars fo r ea c h co un t to be se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y on pr ob a tio n. Al so on May 6, the t rial court took the defendant’s application for judicial diver sion under advise ment and denied diver sion by

written orde r on May

12, 2008.-2-

On appe al the def

endant c ontends that the trial cour t erre d in denying him judicial diver sion by failing to consider and weigh appropriate ly the required factors and by consideringevidenc e that
wa s n o t part of the rec ord. The State a sserts that the trial c ourt’s denia l of judicial diversion wa s a p p r o p r i a t e

. B a s e d

u p o no u r r e v i e w o f th e r e c o r d , ar g u m e n t s o f

c o un s e l , an d

a p p l i c a b l e a u th o r i ty, we c onclude that the r ecor d supports the trial cour t’s denial of judicia l diversion.

A N A LY S IS

Pur su ant t o T e nn e sse e Cod e Anno tate d sec tio n 40- 35 -3 13 (a )( 1) (B ), a de fe nd ant i s e lig ibl e fo r j ud ic ia l di ve rs ion

wh e n c on vi cte d of a Cl a ss C , D or E f e lony and ha s n ot b e e n p re vio us ly
c on vic te d o f a

fe lony or a Cla ss Amis de me ano r. Th e de c isi on to g ra nt jud ic ia l div e rs ion

lie s w ith in the discre tion of the trial cour t and will not be disturbe d on appea l unless it is shown that the trial court a bused its discretion. State v. Parke r, 932 S.W.2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). A denia l of judicial diversion will not be over turned if the rec ord contains any substantial e vidence to support the trial cour

t’s action. I d. When making a deter

mination r eg arding judicial diversion, the trial court must c onsider the following fac tors: (1) the de fenda nt’s amena

bility to corre ction, (2) the c ircumstance s of the off ense, (3) the de fenda

nt’s criminal rec ord, (4) the defe ndant’s social history , (5) the de fenda nt’s mental and phy sical health and (6) the deter rent eff ect of the sentenc ing de cision to both the defenda nt and other simil arly situated defe ndants. State v. L ewis, 978 S.W.2d 558, 566 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). The decision should be base d on whether the gra nt of di version will serve the ends of justice for both the pu bli c and the de fe nd ant. I d. Th e re c or d mus t re fl e c t that th e tr ia l c ourt c on sid e re d a

nd we ig he d a ll these fa ctors in ar

riving at its decision. State v. Electroplating, I n c. , 9 9 0 S .W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). Fur

thermore , “[t] he cour

t must ex plain on the re cord why the defendant doe s not qu a 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 d e te rm inatio n o n o nly so me of the fa c tor s, it must explain why

these fa ctors outweig h the other s

. ” I d. (citing State v. Bone stel, 871 S.W .2d 163, 168 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) ).

At the M ay 6, 2008, g uilty plea submi ssion hear ing, the trial court acce pted the def endant’ s g uilty pleas a nd sentenc ed the defe ndant to the ag ree d sentenc e of c oncurr ent four year sentenc es on pr ob a tio n. F oll ow ing the imp os iti on of se nte nc e , th e tr ia l c ourt a sk e d if the de fe nd ant w ante d “ to say any thing a bout judicial diversion.” The defe ndant arg ued that he had been with the volunteer fire de partment for thirty -seve n y ear s; a fter his ouster as chief , he beg an drinking heavily and wa s drinking on the day

of the off enses. The defe ndant had since completed treatment for alc ohol abuse. I n support of his r equest for judicial diver sion, the defe ndant ar g ued that he w as a life -long resident of the a rea with no prior re cord a

nd that this was an isolated incide nt.

The trial c ourt took the matter under advisement, judgme nts w ere enter ed on May 6, and the trial court de nied diversion six day s later on Ma y 12. In its orde r denying diversion, the trial c ourt fo un d “tr o u

b l e s o m e ” t h a tt h e i n t o xi c a t e d d e f e n d an tw e n t

t o h i s f o r m e r p l a c e o f e mp l o y m e n tw i th a loade d firea

rm in retaliation fo r h i s ouster as f ire c hief. The trial court f ound the def

endant’ s-3-

actions t o b e “e x tremely

rec kless.” Reg ardingthe deter rent e ffe ct of the tria l court’s sente ncing de c isi on , th e c ourt

no te d th a t: this act appe ars to be a

n act of retribution for the lawful vote taken re g ardingthe De fe nd ant a

nd his po sit ion

a t th e fi re ha ll. Any on e wh o e ng a g e s in the c ivi l pr oc e ss of law, wh e the r i t be a

vo te to e le c t a

fi re c hie f o r P re sident of the Un ite d St a te s, should fe el s af

e to vote one’s c onscienc e and pa rticipate in the a dminist ration of g ov er n m en t . There should be a seve re de terre nt to the Defe ndant’s ac tions and others who mig ht desire to make such violent demonstrations in the future

. The trial c ourt found that the use of a w eapon while under the influence of alc ohol was unac cepta ble. I n arr iving at its determination reg ardingthe suitability of judicial diversion, the trial court noted that afte r consider ing the p ri n ci p l es announced in Elec troplating , it found that these conside rations outweig hed the de fenda

nt’s arguments for judicial diver sion and denied judicia l diversion.

I nitially , we note that the trial cour t should not have enter ed the judg ments of conviction on May 6 pe nd ing its c on sid e ratio n o f t he de fe nd ant’ s a

pp lic a tio n f

or jud ic ia l di ve rs ion . Purs ua nt t o T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d s e c t i o n4 0

- 3 5

- 3 1 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) , th e tr i a l c o urt“ m ay defer fur the r p ro c e e dings ag ainst a qualified de fenda nt and place the def

endant on pr obation upon such
rea sonable c onditions as it m ay require without

entering a judgment of guilty and with the conse nt of the qua lified defe ndant.” Ho we v er , it is apparent f rom the re cord that all of the par ties contemplated the considera tion of judicial diversi o n b y t h e trial court following the entry of the defe ndant’s guilty

pleas. We conc lude that there is substantial evidenc e to support the trial cour t’s denial of dive rsion in this case base d upon the circ umstances of the offe nse, the ne ed for

deter renc e, and whe ther judicial diver sion would serve the interests of the public.

CONCL USI ON

We conclude that there is subst antial evidence to support the tria l court’s de nial of judicial diversion. Ther efor e, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

___________________________________ D. KEL L Y THOMAS, JR ., J UDGE