State of Tennessee v. Harold L. Cassell - Dissenting

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion insofar as it places the defendant on judicial diversion. As set forth in the majority opinion, a trial court is obliged to consider a multitude of factors in determining whether to grant a request for judicial diversion. See State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332, 343-44 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d 163, 168 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2000). A trial court is further required to state on the record the weighing process it uses in balancing all of the factors and the calculus relied upon in reaching the ultimate conclusion. See State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). When the trial court follows this procedure and provides a comprehensive record of its decision-making process, then this Court should affirm the trial court’s ruling so long as there is any substantial evidence to support it. See Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d at 344. However, it is only when the trial court satisfies its obligations in reviewing a request for judicial diversion that this Court is given the opportunity for meaningful appellate review.