¹ Although the street names are similar, B Mine Road and Big Mine Road are different streets.

² Deputy Boyd testified that, at the time of trial, he worked for “Rogers Group.” He also served as a Tennessee constable and volunteered with the fire department and rescue squad. - 10 - seat and the console. One of the victim’s legs was “across the seat” while the other was “on the door.” After Deputy Boyd reported to Sheriff Shrum that the vehicle was “clear” of any weapons, Sheriff Shrum allowed Deputy King to retrieve the victim. Law enforcement officers moved the victim up the bank of the ditch and onto the road where the deputies began administering CPR. Deputy Boyd had not seen any blood pooling in the car. While administering CPR, Deputy Boyd noticed the victim’s skin was pale and “abnormally” cold. He commented to the other deputies that he thought the victim “had been down for some time.” The CAD report reflected that the Defendant requested Emergency Medical Services at 11:00 p.m. December 23, 2017. Ann King worked for the Grundy County Sheriff’s Department in December 2017.3 On the night of December 23, 2017, she and Deputy Boyd were “getting home” when they heard the Defendant on the police radio reporting that he was “in pursuit.” She and Deputy Boyd drove to the area to assist. They arrived about the time the sheriff and the Defendant “had showed back up where this car was found.” Deputy Boyd cleared the vehicle and then Deputy King retrieved the victim from the car. She surveyed the victim for blood and found none. She described the victim as “cold” and said that the victim’s clothing was askew. Deputy King carried the victim to the roadway. The victim’s lower half became wet due to the water in the ditch. On cross-examination, Deputy King agreed that she and Deputy Boyd “just sort of r[o]de around and help[ed] out the police any time when they need[ed] help.” The Defendant testified that, at the time of trial, he worked at the Grundy County Sheriff’s Office as an evidence custodian. He also served as the fire chief for Monteagle and worked for a company called Mid-South Emergency Equipment selling fire equipment. He recalled the events of December 23, 2017, saying he was at Coalmont Elementary School ensuring the building was secure since it was Christmas break. As he was leaving the school, he saw a dark-colored Ford Mustang driving at a high rate of speed on Highway 56. He estimated the vehicle was driving close to 100 miles per hour. He drove onto Highway 56 and caught up with the Mustang near Roddy Springs Road. He described the Mustang as driving “all over the place.” When he was within twenty yards of the Mustang, he engaged his emergency equipment, but the Mustang continued driving. The cars continued down Highway 56 until they reached Q Switch Road. The Mustang braked abruptly, turned onto Q Switch Road, and stopped. The Defendant pulled over as well, and the Mustang took off again, fishtailing and leaving

³ Deputy King testified that, at the time of trial, she worked as a manager at Silver Bait, a worm farm. She was also “on” the Beersheba Rescue Squad and the Altamont Fire Department. - 11 - black marks on the roadway. As they approached a stop sign, the Mustang again abruptly applied its brakes before accelerating up to the stop sign. Up until this point the Defendant believed this was likely a drunk driver who was hoping to avoid arrest, but with this second abrupt stop, the Defendant became concerned that this “was probably something a little more serious.” The Defendant followed the Mustang as it turned left onto Flat Branch and then as it turned right onto B Mine Road. Knowing that B Mine Road was a dead end, the Defendant assumed the driver, who was later identified as Mr. Bean, was lost. The Mustang pulled off the road into the grass and stopped. The Defendant stopped his vehicle and walked around to the front of his car so he could see into the driver’s window of the Mustang. He drew his firearm and ordered the occupants of the Mustang to show their hands. Mr. Bean spun the Mustang around so that it faced the Defendant. The Defendant pointed his gun at Mr. Bean and ordered him to show his hands. The Defendant stated that Mr. Bean sat a gun on the steering wheel. Upon seeing the gun, the Defendant began firing his service weapon. As the Defendant shot at the Mustang, Mr. Bean drove toward the Defendant who jumped out of the way. As Mr. Bean drove past the Defendant, the Defendant fired at the driver’s side door. Mr. Bean hit the driver’s side of the Defendant’s patrol car and then stopped. The Defendant walked toward the Mustang, and Mr. Bean drove away. The Defendant confirmed that he saw someone in the passenger seat of the Mustang. As the Mustang pulled away from the Defendant, the Defendant could see the emergency lights from the back-up officer driving toward the Mustang, and he could hear a siren. As the Mustang drove away from the Defendant, the Defendant fired into the rear of the Mustang. Mr. Bean did not stop but drove on, hitting the back-up officer, Sergeant Bean’s4 car and then “bounced off and went on down the hill.” The Defendant pursued the Mustang and was unable to locate him initially because he did not see the Mustang’s taillights in the ditch. He and Sergeant Bean set up a perimeter to try to contain the occupants of the Mustang. Law enforcement allowed two homeowners through the perimeter. Several minutes later, dispatch reported that it had received a call that a man had flagged down one of the homeowners allowed through the perimeter to ask for a ride to the hospital. Officers then began searching the area for ditches and eventually found the Mustang in a ditch. Deputy King and Deputy Boyd arrived shortly thereafter and retrieved the victim from the car. The Defendant testified that Mr. Bean never fired his gun.

⁴ Although they share the same surname, it does not appear from the record that there is any relationship between the law enforcement officer, Sergeant Bean, and the driver of the Mustang, Jacky Wayne Bean. - 12 - On cross-examination, the Defendant confirmed that he first saw the passenger when the car spun around and was facing him. He did not recall writing in his police report several days after the event that he saw the passenger at the intersection of Q Switch Road and Flat Branch Road. The Defendant agreed that during the preliminary hearing, he testified that, once he saw the gun, he moved to the passenger’s side of his patrol vehicle before the Mustang started driving again. He agreed that he had testified that he was “six or seven feet from the driver’s side – in the front of [his] vehicle over on the passenger’s side” when the Mustang passed and struck his patrol vehicle. He confirmed that he saw the Mustang hit Sergeant Bean’s car. He agreed that he told the TBI agent that Sergeant Bean had attempted to push the Mustang into the ditch and that Mr. Bean accelerated and made it through the ditch. The State introduced conflicting statements made by the Defendant about why his body camera did not work. Some statements indicated that the battery was dead, and others indicated that the battery was not seated properly. In response, the Defendant stated that he did not know whether it was because the battery was dead or not seated properly. The Defendant did not recall how many times he fired into the back of the Mustang, although in one of his statements to law enforcement, he reported shooting “just once.” He agreed that he fired into the back of the Mustang more than once and that he “misspoke” if he had said once. He agreed that he told the TBI agent that he had fired fifteen times total. After hearing this evidence, the trial court granted the Defendant’s motion for acquittal on the charged offense of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court, however, allowed the State to proceed on the lesser offenses of criminally reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide. The jury initially sent a note to the trial court saying that they did not think they were going to be able to reach a verdict. However, after the trial court gave the jury a “dynamite charge,” the jury convicted the Defendant of the lesser offense of criminally negligent homicide. The Defendant filed a motion seeking judicial diversion. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied judicial diversion and ordered the Defendant to serve three years of probation, with 1,768 hours of community service. It is from this judgment that the Defendant appeals. II. Analysis On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) he was not properly convicted of the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide; (2) the trial court improperly denied judicial diversion; and (3) the amount of community service was excessive. A. Criminally Negligent Homicide - 13 - The Defendant contends that the trial court improperly amended the indictment by dismissing the indicted offense but allowing the jury to consider the lesser-included offenses of the indicted offense. He contends that once the trial court dismissed the indicted offense, no greater offense existed from which a jury could conclude that a lesser-included offense had been committed. The State responds the Defendant was properly convicted of the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide. We agree with the State. The grand jury indicted the Defendant for voluntary manslaughter. Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-211 defines voluntary manslaughter as “the intentional or knowing killing of another in a state of passion produced by adequate provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable person to act in an irrational manner.” Voluntary manslaughter is a Class C felony. At trial, the trial court found that the evidence did not support a conviction on the charged offense but submitted to the jury the applicable lesser- included offenses. The jury convicted the Defendant of the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide. Criminally negligent homicide requires “[c]riminally negligent conduct that results in death.” Criminally negligent homicide is a Class E felony. An indictment or presentment must provide notice of the offense charged, an adequate basis for entry of a proper judgment, and suitable protection against double jeopardy. State v. Byrd, 820 S.W.2d 739, 741 (Tenn. 1991). As a result, a defendant cannot legally be convicted of an offense which is not charged in the indictment or which is not a lesser-included offense embraced in the indictment. State v. Cleveland, 959 S.W.2d 548, 552 (Tenn. 1997). In State v. Burns,5 our supreme court held that trial courts are required to “‘instruct the jury on all lesser-included offenses if the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser offense.’” State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 464 (Tenn. 1999) (quoting State v. Langford, 994 S.W.2d 126, 128 (Tenn. 1999)). As relevant to this appeal, the Burns test provides that an offense is a lesser-included if: (a) all of its statutory elements are included within the statutory elements of the offense charged; or (b) it fails to meet the definition in part (a) only in the respect that it contains a statutory element or elements establishing (1) a different mental state indicating a lesser kind of culpability; . . . Id. at 466-67.

⁵ Burns was codified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-18-110 and then amended in 2009. In the 2009 version, the language of subsection (b) was omitted. The Tennessee Supreme Court, however, in State v. Howard, 504 S.W.3d 260 (Tenn. 2016), determined that the legislature did not abrogate subsection (b). - 14 - In this case, criminally negligent homicide includes a different mental state, “criminal negligence,” indicating a lesser kind of culpability. Because criminally negligent homicide is a lesser-included offense of the indicted offense of voluntary manslaughter, the Defendant was necessarily charged with criminally negligent homicide. The trial court is required to charge all applicable lesser-included offenses and therefore, did not err by doing so. The Defendant is not entitled to relief as to this issue. B. Judicial Diversion The Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his request for judicial diversion. The State responds that the trial court acted within its discretion when it denied the Defendant’s request. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the trial court erred. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of judicial diversion and remand for the trial court to grant judicial diversion. At the Defendant’s sentencing hearing, Ray David Comer testified for the State that he was the victim’s father and that the Defendant’s case was highly publicized in the media. He said that deputies of the Grundy County Sheriff’s Department, specifically Tony Bean and T.J. Bean, had been arrested for federal crimes and that those officers’ cases had been highly publicized like the Defendant’s case. The victim’s death affected her family and caused Mr. Comer and the victim’s brother to become “standoffish.” Mr. Comer explained that his life changed when the victim was killed and that “[a]ny good memories or whatever, good times was before December 23rd. Since then it’s just a blank slate, I guess.” He said he thought he could have handled the victim’s death “a little better” if she had been killed in a car accident but that she had been “murdered.” He said the Defendant had not expressed remorse for killing the victim. Sheriff Shrum testified for the State that the Defendant’s case received “[a] lot of regional coverage” in the media and that he released a media statement after the jury convicted the Defendant. In the statement, Sheriff Shrum expressed disappointment that the Defendant “will not be allowed to protect and serve the place he called home,” whereas “[the victim] is still dead and the man that assisted her will never be brought to justice.” Sheriff Shrum denied that he thought the loss of the Defendant’s job with the sheriff’s department was more important than the victim’s death. He said that based on the evidence at trial, he thought the victim died of a drug overdose, not a gunshot wound. Sheriff Shrum identified a plea agreement showing that in October 2019, Greg Higgins, a former captain for the Grundy County Sheriff’s Department, pled guilty to a federal offense for assaulting a handcuffed arrestee in July 2017. Sheriff Shrum also identified a federal indictment showing that in July 2019, Chief Deputy Tony Bean and his son, T.J. Bean, were indicted for violating the civil rights of an arrestee in December 2017, - 15 - while they were employed by the sheriff’s department. At the time of the Defendant’s sentencing hearing, Tony and T.J. Bean were “on administrative leave with pay.” The Defendant was indicted for criminally negligent homicide in November 2018, which was almost a year after the victim’s death. Prior to the Defendant’s indictment, he remained a sheriff’s deputy, and the Grundy County Sheriff’s Department paid for him to attend “the academy.” The Defendant was “suspended after indictment” pending the outcome of his plea at arraignment. After the Defendant’s arraignment, he became a civil employee of the sheriff’s department. On cross-examination, Sheriff Shrum testified that he would have fired his gun at the Mustang if he had seen “somebody throw a gun over the steering wheel and come toward me.” The trial court asked if Sheriff Shrum would have fired at the Mustang after it passed him, and he answered, “I wasn’t in that situation, you know, Your Honor, but I think based just on the fact that the car come to me I would have returned fire. At some point you understand that there’s a retreat and you stop that.” Sheriff Shrum acknowledged that although the Defendant fired at the Mustang as the Mustang was leaving the scene, Sergeant Bean was on his way to the site. Sheriff Shrum noted that there were “16 houses in that area as well.” On redirect-examination, Sheriff Shrum testified that he would have fired at the Mustang when he saw the gun but that “[i]f the vehicle was passing me, based on what I know in my training I would have had to stop firing.” James Wilson Cowan testified for the Defendant that he met the Defendant at church when the Defendant was nine or ten years old. Mr. Cowan “got to really know” the Defendant as a youth in the church when the Defendant was in junior high school. The Defendant attended Mr. Cowan’s Sunday School class, participated in the church’s youth organization, and was a member of the high school band. The Defendant was respectful, truthful, and “a good kid.” The Defendant was an Eagle Scout and earned a college degree, and he and his father built a house for Mr. Cowan. The Defendant had a “very good reputation” in the community, worked for the rescue squad and the fire department, and was elected to the school board. Mr. Cowan said he had never talked with the Defendant about the facts of this case. However, Mr. Cowan and the Defendant communicated via text messages, and Mr. Cowan tried “to give him some encouragement.” On cross- examination, Mr. Cowan testified that he did not attend the Defendant’s trial but that he probably read about the facts of the case in the newspaper. Beverly Holmes testified that she and the Defendant were married for nine years and that they divorced in 2009. They had one son, who was sixteen years old at the time of sentencing. Ms. Holmes said that she had been a school teacher for twenty-two years and that she was able to attend only one day of the Defendant’s trial. Ms. Holmes and the Defendant met when they were in the eighth grade, started dating when they were seventeen years old, and attended college together. She said that although they divorced, they were “good co-parents” and “just really good friends still.” Ms. Holmes described the - 16 - Defendant as “a hard worker” and said that he was “an involved father when he can be.” The Defendant also had a younger son and was “a really great father to his little one.” Ms. Holmes said that the Defendant was an honest person and that he was current on his child support payments. She stated that the Defendant changed after the shooting and that “I feel that it’s taken a toll on him, because he’s so remorseful about it. He hates that a life was taken.” The Defendant “seemed more withdrawn” and “[n]ot as outgoing” after the shooting. On cross-examination, the State asked Ms. Holmes if she ever told anyone that the Defendant was a “liar” or “dishonest.” At first, Ms. Holmes said no. However, she later acknowledged making those statements and explained, “In some form or fashion we’ve all lied.” The Defendant gave an allocution in which he apologized to the victim’s family for “taking” the victim’s life and said he never intended to kill anyone. The Defendant stated that he had sole custody of his three-year-old son and that “[i]f I’ve ever had a regret in my life, it’s making that decision to pursue that Mustang that night.” He stated that he should have discontinued the pursuit, blocked the road, and waited for additional officers to arrive. The Defendant said he was responsible for “the changes” in the victim’s family, in his own family, and in Grundy County and that he was “truly sorry.” The State introduced the Defendant’s presentence report into evidence. According to the report, the Defendant was forty-three years old and lived with his girlfriend and young son from a previous relationship. The Defendant stated in the report that after he graduated from high school, he attended Middle Tennessee State University and earned a Bachelor of Science degree. The Defendant also stated in the report that his parents provided him with a “stable, disciplined and loving home” and that his relationship with his family was “close and strong.” He said that he had a “good” relationship with his ex- wife and that she attended every day of his trial. The Defendant described his mental and physical health as “excellent” but said that he suffered from diabetes, that he had to have stents implanted in his heart due to complications from two heart attacks, and that he had been prescribed several medications. The Defendant said that he first consumed alcohol in 1992 and that he consumed one beer “occasionally.” At the time of the presentence report, the Defendant had been employed by Mid-South Emergency Equipment since 2018. Prior to working for Mid-South, he worked as a salesman for Motorola from March 2012 to March 2014, as a salesman for Safe Industries from March 2014 to April 2018, as a firefighter for Monteagle Voluntary Fire Department from 2016 to 2020, and as a deputy for the Grundy County Sheriff’s Department from 2016 to 2020. The report did not show any criminal history for the Defendant. The Defendant’s Strong-R assessment classified his overall risk to reoffend as low. The assessment concluded that he had high needs relevant to “Aggression” and specified - 17 - that the Defendant “has displayed threatening, aggressive or violent behaviors in the community during his lifetime,” that he “has injured someone with a weapon at some point in his/her lifetime,” and that his “threatening, aggressive or violent behaviors have been motivated by conflict or stress.” The assessment concluded that the Defendant had low needs relevant to “Friends,” “Attitudes/Behaviors,” “Mental Health,” “Alcohol/Drug Use,” “Residential,” “Family,” “Employment,” and “Education.” The State argued that the Defendant’s amenability to correction weighed against granting judicial diversion because the Defendant maintained until sentencing that he was not responsible for the victim’s death, which showed he lacked remorse, and because “his story evolved and changed,” which reflected poorly on his credibility. The State also argued that the circumstances of the offense weighed against granting judicial diversion because the Defendant was not in danger when he fired into the driver’s window of the Mustang and because he continued to fire his gun into the back of the car after it passed him. The State acknowledged that the Defendant’s social history weighed in favor of granting judicial diversion but asserted that his physical and mental health did not. The State noted that the Defendant had suffered two heart attacks and opined that because he described his mental health as “excellent” in the presentence report, the victim’s death had not affected him. The State also asserted that general deterrence did not support granting judicial diversion because “the sheriff’s department thinks it’s a sad day if you can’t shoot somebody in [the] back to fight the war on drugs.” The State then referred to the federal cases involving Greg Higgins, Tony Bean, and T.J. Bean and stated, “That is a culture that, apparently, is permeating -- was happening in this community and it screams for deterrence, and denial of a judicial diversion.” Finally, the State argued that judicial diversion would not serve the interest of the public as well as the Defendant because “it’s necessary for the public to know that you can’t go around beating up people who are in custody, you can’t go around shooting people in the back.” Defense counsel contended that the trial court should grant judicial diversion, arguing that the trial court should not punish the Defendant for Sheriff Shrum’s thoughts about this case and because the Defendant did not have anything to do with the federal cases. Defense counsel noted that the Defendant was an Eagle Scout, did not have a criminal record, never tried to deceive the court, and expressed remorse. Defense counsel argued that although the victim’s death was a “tragic loss,” the Defendant “was facing a serious credible threat to the safety of this community” and to himself when he shot into the Mustang. The trial court stated that it was not going to “condone something that was a bad mistake and was a mistake that a jury of this county found to be criminal” and that granting diversion in this case “would ultimately be no offense whatsoever.” The trial court denied judicial diversion based on two factors: the deterrence value to the Defendant and others and whether judicial diversion would serve the interests of the public as well as the - 18 - defendant. The trial court found that deterrence to the Defendant and to the law enforcement community was needed because although Jacky Bean should not have fled from the Defendant, “nobody should use a gun for the purpose of stopping someone at all costs,” particularly when an innocent person could be shot. The trial court further stated that “the issue of killing someone in the process of making an arrest is not a good thing” and that “I think our society now realizes that.” The trial court stated that the circumstances, the role of law enforcement in our communities, and “current events” related to killing someone in the process of an arrest supported a finding that granting judicial diversion would not serve the interests of the public. The trial court stated that it did not think the Defendant “would do it again, because he realizes what happens when you don’t think or when you act out of anger.” The trial court also stated that the Defendant “might be qualified” for judicial diversion based on the other factors but that either the factor for deterrence or the factor for whether judicial diversion would serve the interests of the public as well as the Defendant justified denying diversion in this case. The trial court stated that “machoism” may have played a role in the Defendant’s decision to chase the Mustang and that the Defendant “should never have been alone in a vehicle with full authority to shoot somebody” when he was not a fully trained officer. Accordingly, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for judicial diversion. “Judicial diversion” is a reference to the provision in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313(a) (2019) for a trial court’s deferring proceedings in a criminal case. See T.C.A. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(A). Although judicial diversion is not a sentence, pursuant to such diversion, the trial court places the defendant on probation “without entering a judgment of guilty.” Id. To be eligible or “qualified” for judicial diversion, the defendant must plead guilty to, or be found guilty of, an offense that is not “a sexual offense or a Class A or Class B felony,” and the defendant must not have previously been convicted of a felony or a Class A misdemeanor. T.C.A. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(B)(i)(b), (c). Diversion requires the consent of the qualified defendant. T.C.A. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(A). “[A] ‘qualified’ defendant is not necessarily entitled to diversion. Whether to grant judicial diversion is left to the discretionary authority of the trial courts.” State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 326 (Tenn. 2014). Once a defendant is deemed eligible for judicial diversion, the trial court must consider several factors when deciding whether to grant judicial diversion: (1) the defendant’s amenability to correction; (2) the circumstances of the offense; (3) the defendant’s criminal record; (4) the defendant’s social history; (5) the defendant’s physical and mental health; (6) the deterrence value to the defendant and others; and (7) whether judicial diversion will serve the interests of the public as well as the defendant. State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (citing State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); 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- - 19 - 10 (Tenn. 2000). The trial court may consider the following additional factors: “‘[the defendant’s] attitude, behavior since arrest, prior record, home environment, current drug usage, emotional stability, past employment, general reputation, marital stability, family responsibility and attitude of law enforcement.’” State v. Washington, 866 S.W.2d 950, 951 (Tenn. 1993) (quoting State v. Markham, 755 S.W.2d 850, 852-53 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988) (citations omitted)). A trial court must weigh all of the required factors in determining whether to grant judicial diversion. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d at 229 (citing Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d at 168). Additionally, “a trial court should not deny judicial diversion without explaining both the specific reasons supporting the denial and why those factors applicable to the denial of diversion outweigh other factors for consideration.” Id. (citing Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d at 168). Generally, “[s]entences imposed by the trial court within the appropriate statutory range are to be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)). Although judicial diversion is not a sentence, our supreme court determined that the standard of review expressed in State v. Bise applies to “appellate review for a trial court’s sentencing decision to either grant or deny judicial diversion.” King, 432 S.W.3d at 325. Importantly, however, the court emphasized that the adoption of the Bise standard of review “did not abrogate the requirements set forth in Parker and Electroplating, which are essential considerations for judicial diversion.” King, 432 S.W.3d at 326. The trial court need not provide a recitation of all the applicable “factors when justifying its decision on the record in order to obtain the presumption of reasonableness,” but “the record should reflect that the trial court considered the Parker and Electroplating factors in rendering its decision and that it identified the specific factors applicable to the case before it.” King, 432 S.W.3d at 327. When the trial court considers each of the factors enumerated in Parker and weighs them against each other, placing its findings in the record, as required by Electroplating, Inc., we “apply a presumption of reasonableness,” per Bise, and will “uphold the grant or denial so long as there is any substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision.” Id. When “the trial court fails to consider and weigh the applicable common law factors, the presumption of reasonableness does not apply and the abuse of discretion standard . . . is not appropriate.” Id. Instead, “the appellate courts may either conduct a de novo review or, if more appropriate under the circumstances, remand the issue for reconsideration. The determination as to whether the appellate court should conduct a de novo review or remand for reconsideration is within the discretion of the reviewing court.” Id. at 328. - 20 - Turning to the instant case, we conclude that the record does not sufficiently reflect that the trial court considered all of the applicable factors. The trial court never mentioned Parker or Electroplating and did not refer to the seven factors outlined by Electroplating that the court was required to consider. The trial court did not address the Defendant’s social history, his physical or mental health, or his lack of a criminal record. The trial court also did not mention certain social factors, such as the Defendant’s graduating from high school and college, his being an Eagle Scout, and his history of employment, which were worthy of consideration. Therefore, we will review the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion de novo. Because the parties do not dispute that the Defendant qualifies as a candidate for judicial diversion, we turn to the Parker and Electroplating factors. First, the Defendant expressed remorse for the victim’s death and said he should have stopped the pursuit, blocked the road, and waited for backup officers to arrive. Therefore, in our view, the Defendant’s amenability to correction weighs in favor of granting judicial diversion. As to the circumstances of the offense, the proof at trial showed that on the night of the crime, Jacky Bean used methamphetamine, drove a vehicle, was weaving “all over the road,” and fled from the Defendant when the Defendant tried to stop him for speeding. The only reasons Mr. Bean gave at trial for initially refusing to stop for the Defendant was that he did not have a driver’s license and did not want to go to jail. The proof at trial further showed that Mr. Bean possessed a gun when he made the U-turn at the end of B Mine Road. Mr. Bean brandished the gun at the Defendant, and the Defendant fired at the Mustang, striking the windshield. Instead of stopping for the Defendant, Mr. Bean ducked down and sped toward him. The Defendant fired at the Mustang again, striking the driver’s window as the Mustang passed him. At that point, Mr. Bean could have stopped the Mustang, and neither he nor the victim would have been injured. Instead, he struck the Defendant’s patrol car and sped away toward Deputy Bean. We note that the duration of this incident, from the time the Defendant first encountered the Mustang until he fired the final shots into the vehicle, was just five minutes. The duration of the incident on B Mine Road was much less than five minutes. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the Defendant fired into the back of the Mustang as Jacky Bean tried to leave the scene and that Sheriff Shrum testified the Defendant should not have fired into the rear of the car. Moreover, the jury concluded that the victim died as a result of being shot by the Defendant, not from the amount of methamphetamine in her system. The trial court stated that it was not going to condone the Defendant’s “bad mistake” by granting judicial diversion. However, the Defendant’s firing into the Mustang and striking the victim are already incorporated into the elements of criminally negligent homicide. See T.C.A. § 39-13-212(a); State v. Chyanne Elizabeth Gobble, No. E2014- 01596-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 12978645, at *10 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 12, 2015). The - 21 - trial court also stated that granting judicial diversion “would ultimately be no offense whatsoever.” As this court has explained, though, When a defendant is granted judicial diversion, he or she is placed on probation and must comply with all the conditions of probation, including supervision by a probation officer. Only when the defendant successfully completes probation will the charges be dismissed and the defendant can seek to have his or her record expunged. T.C.A. § 40-35-313(a)(2). If the defendant violates the terms of probation, the trial court can “enter an adjudication of guilt and proceed as otherwise provided.” Id. Judicial diversion is not a lack of consequences for one’s actions, but a one-time opportunity for certain defendants to avoid a permanent criminal record. Anyone who squanders that opportunity by violating the conditions of probation will be held accountable. Id. In our view, the circumstances of the offense weigh in favor of the Defendant. As to the Defendant’s social history and physical and mental health, the Defendant is divorced but is a good father to his teenage son and younger son and is current on his child support payments. He also has sole custody of his young son. The Defendant is an Eagle Scout; graduated from high school; earned a four-year college degree; was elected to the school board; served as a volunteer fireman; does not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol; and has maintained employment, even after his arrest in this case. He has a cordial relationship with his ex-wife, and he reported that he has a strong and close relationship with his family. Despite his medical issues, the Defendant described his physical and mental health as excellent. Therefore, the Defendant’s social history and physical and mental health weigh in favor of granting judicial diversion. As to the deterrence value to the Defendant and others, the trial court said it did not think the Defendant would repeat his actions. The trial court also said that “nobody should use a gun for the purpose of stopping someone at all costs.” In our view, though, the facts of this case are unique in that Jacky Bean consumed an illegal substance, got behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, fled from a police officer who tried to make a legitimate traffic stop of a car traveling almost one hundred miles per hour, brandished a firearm at the officer, drove erratically, and struck the officer’s patrol car as he fled from the officer. As to the final factor, the trial court found that it weighed against judicial diversion because “current events related to killing someone in the process of an arrest supported a finding that a grant of judicial diversion would not serve the interests of the public.” The trial court did not elaborate on what it meant by “current events.” As this court has quoted from our supreme court, - 22 - Judicial knowledge upon which a decision may be based is not the personal knowledge of the judge, but the cognizance of certain facts the judge becomes aware of by virtue of the legal procedures in which he plays a neutral role. No judge is at liberty to take into account personal knowledge which he possesses when deciding upon an issue submitted by the parties. In other words, “[i]t matters not what is known to the judge personally if it is not known to him in his official capacity.” State v. Kalandra Lacy, No. W2016-00837-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 1969764, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 12, 2017) (quoting Vaughn v. Shelby Williams of Tenn., Inc., 813 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Tenn. 1991) (citations omitted)). There is no evidence in the record to support the trial court’s conclusion that current events related to the death of an arrestee supports denying judicial diversion in this case. See id. The trial court also seemed to rely on its conclusion that the Defendant “should never have been alone in a vehicle with full authority to shoot somebody” when he was not a fully trained officer. However, Sheriff Shrum testified at trial that the Defendant had thirteen years of law enforcement experience prior to his employment with the Grundy County Sherriff’s Department and that the Defendant was not required to be POST certified as a part-time officer. Sheriff Shrum also testified that the Defendant was “put with a supervisor” when he began working for the sheriff’s department but that he completed eighty hours of in-service training, which meant POST no longer required that he be supervised. Therefore, the record does not support the trial court’s statement. In sum, we conclude that factors (6) and (7) do not weigh against granting judicial diversion. Taking all of the factors into consideration, we conclude that the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion and grant the Defendant’s request. We conclude that the Defendant may be placed on judicial diversion for the same period and under the same conditions as were previously imposed regarding the sentence of probation. Accordingly, we will proceed to examine the Defendant’s claim concerning his community service hours. C. Community Service The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive number of hours of community service. He asserts that 1,768 hours interferes with his employment. The State responds that the trial court properly imposed community service in this case. We agree with the State. Again, we note that “[j]udicial diversion” is a reference to the provision in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313(a) for a trial court’s deferring proceedings in a criminal case. See T.C.A. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(A). Although judicial diversion is not a sentence, pursuant to such diversion, the trial court places the defendant on probation “without entering a judgment of guilty.” Id. The Sentencing Act provides that “the trial - 23 - court has great latitude in formulating punishment, including the imposition of conditions on probation.” State v. Burdin, 924 S.W.2d 82, 85 (Tenn. 1996). The primary purpose of probation sentence, however, “is rehabilitation of the defendant,” id. at 86, and the conditions of probation must be suited to this purpose. “Once the trial judge determines that probation is justified under the circumstances, the conditions imposed must be reasonable and realistic and must not be so stringent as to be harsh, oppressive or palpably unjust.” Stiller v. State, 516 S.W.2d 617, 620 (Tenn. 1974). The Act does not grant to the trial court “unfettered authority” to impose any condition on the defendant’s probation but limits the court’s discretion to “the bounds of traditional notions of rehabilitation.” Burdin, 924 S.W.2d at 87; see also State v. Mathes, 114 S.W.3d 915, 918 (Tenn. 2003) (disapproving a probation condition that did “not serve either the goal of rehabilitation or the goal of deterrence); State v. Robinson, 139 S.W.3d 661, 666 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). That being said, however, the burden of demonstrating the impropriety of a probation condition rests with the defendant. Burdin, 924 S.W.2d at 84. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court acknowledged that it was imposing an “unusually high amount of community service.” The trial court continued, explaining, I’ve talked with some folks about this, how [the Defendant] could do some community service that would be of benefit, hopefully to him, but also to the community. So I’m going to require him in the first two years of his probation to work for Blue Monarch, which is a residential recovery unit, on their campus from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. every Monday and Tuesday for two years. He is to follow the direction of the president or her designee. But these are young women that have suffered a lot and maybe something that you observe can be helpful to them. The trial court noted that this arrangement would allow the Defendant to maintain other employment while benefitting young women in their community. The trial court initially considered having the Defendant perform community service on the weekends but staffing issues at Blue Monarch prevented such an arrangement. By assigning the Defendant to serve at this particular facility that serves young women, the trial court hoped “some good will come out of this whole situation.” The trial court stated its intention that this condition would also serve as a “statement” to other officers in Grundy County about their duty and service to the community, noting “the idiocy of it all is, I mean, you had his license number, you could have gotten him. . . . [I]f he left you’re going to get him, didn’t have to stop him.” The trial court imposed a total of 1,768 hours of community service based upon the schedule arranged with Blue Monarch. The trial court imposed a special condition of probation requiring the Defendant to work every Monday and Tuesday at Blue Monarch Women’s Rehabilitation Center for the first two years of his three-year probation sentence. Tennessee Code Annotated section - 24 - 40-35-303(d) permits trial courts to impose conditions of probation that are “reasonably related to the purpose of the offender’s sentence and not unduly restrictive of the offender’s liberty, or incompatible with the offender’s freedom of conscience[.]” Mathes, 114 S.W.3d at 918, see also T.C.A. § 40-35-303(d)(9). The Defendant was convicted of negligently shooting and killing a twenty-year-old woman in the course of stopping a driver for a traffic violation. The trial court imposed a three-year probation sentence, allowing the Defendant to remain in the community rather than incarceration. The trial court, however, balanced the alternative sentence with a significant community service requirement aimed at the Defendant serving young women in the community. In our view, the special condition imposed complies with the language of Mathes and with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-303(d)(9). It also complies with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35- 303(d)(3), which allows a trial court to order a defendant, without compensation, to perform service to the community. The Defendant complains that the imposition of 1,768 hours of community service conflicts with his ability to work. There is nothing in the record, however, that indicates how the condition impairs his ability to work. As noted previously, it is the Defendant’s burden to demonstrate the impropriety of a probation condition. Burdin, 924 S.W.2d at 84. Without any evidence about the Defendant’s employment schedule, we cannot conclude that the sentence interferes with his employment. The Defendant is not entitled to relief. III. Conclusion After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we conclude that the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion and grant the Defendant’s request. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed in all other respects. ____________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE - 25 -