[DOWNLOAD] "State Tennessee v. John Sutton" by At Nashville Court Of Criminal Appeals Of Tennessee " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State Tennessee v. John Sutton
- Author : At Nashville Court Of Criminal Appeals Of Tennessee
- Release Date : January 18, 1984
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
TATUM, Judge. OPINION This is an appeal pursuant to Rule 9, Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, from the denial of pretrial diversion. The appellant, John H. Sutton, was indicted for unlawfully concealing a stolen automobile valued at over $200 and of violating T.C.A. § 55-5-112, by altering the serial number on the same automobile. The appellant applied to the District Attorney General for diversion of these two cases and the application was denied. The Criminal Court found that the District Attorney General did not abuse his discretion and affirmed the denial of diversion. On this appeal, the appellant states that the District Attorney General abused his discretion and that he is entitled to pretrial diversion pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-15-105. We agree with the trial Judge that the District Attorney did not abuse his discretion and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. The case was assigned for prosecution to Assistant District Attorney Richard Fisher. The appellant states that in an oral statement, General Fisher told him that diversion was being denied because he (General Fisher) did not believe in diversion for car theft cases and that diversion was not appropriate because the appellant was charged with two criminal offenses. General Fisher denied making this statement. On May 4, 1983, the State filed an answer to the petition stating that diversion was denied because of defendant's extensive involvement and participation in the crime of auto theft, as indicated by this investigation and statement from his co-defendant McDougal. On May 13, 1983, the date of the hearing, but prior to the time the hearing was actually had, the State, at the request of the trial Judge, filed a supplemental pleading to the petition, setting out more specifically the State's reason for denying diversion: