Court Opinion

ID: 9524183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:50:30.894954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:05.421626
License: Public Domain

JANICE M. HOLDER, J.,
dissenting.
An abuse of discretion in denying pretrial diversion should be found only when the record shows an absence of any substantial evidence supporting the district attorney general’s decision. State v. Pinkham, 955 S.W.2d 956, 960 (Tenn.1997); State v. Hammersley, 650 S.W.2d 352, 356 (Tenn.1983). When the reasons cited by the district attorney general are sufficient to support the denial of pretrial diversion, I would hold that there is no abuse of discretion in the district attorney general’s failure to make specific reference to every non-statutory, judicially-imposed factor. I continue to adhere to my separate opinion in State v. Curry, 988 S.W.2d 153 (Tenn.1999), and therefore must respectfully dissent.