State of Tennessee v. Paresh J. Patel - Concurring and dissenting

I concur with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the trial court did not err by denying judicial diversion because it properly considered and weighed all the appropriate factors. See State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998); State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). I respectfully disagree, though, with the conclusion that the standard of review announced in State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012), and State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012), is applicable to judicial diversion.