Opinion ID: 4027701
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Attorney’s Decision

Text: In this case, the prosecutor denied in writing the defendant‟s application for pretrial diversion. See State v. Richardson, 357 S.W.3d 620, 626 (Tenn. 2012). In doing so, the prosecutor considered the circumstances of the offense; the defendant‟s criminal record, social history, and present condition including mental and physical conditions; the deterrent effect on other criminal activity; the defendant‟s amenability to correction; and whether pretrial diversion would serve the ends of the justice and the best interests of both the public and the defendant. See id. (citing State v. Hammersley, 650 S.W.2d 352, 354-55 (Tenn. 1983)). The prosecutor reviewed all the relevant, substantial evidence, including evidence favorable to the defendant: the defendant‟s positive reputation in the community, lack of criminal history, and numerous character reference letters submitted on his behalf. See State v. Bell, 69 S.W.3d 171, 178 (Tenn. 2002). After weighing each factor, however, the prosecutor concluded that the factors supporting prosecution outweighed the factors supporting diversion. See State v. Pinkham, 955 S.W.2d 956, 960 (Tenn. 1997); see also Bell, 69 S.W.3d at 178. The prosecutor properly considered all relevant factors and did not rely upon irrelevant factors. -9-