WPCH (jzeCh-x}#`WN g<a6} !BbsӼprn(NזIlA@ >p.ΒF>Wp݋7ۆa/V=м5km.2P5&kA)Zdz ^)`Iv ;]8NT l:Cu3IEHxd(P3@u(qd0.[ 7z.7̌pK%ʊM_bjVkT@GhG:->mba0CKv tSRe#+3u;7K&, r( X 8Rʽ1Zߊ * M%QGm}Ըӊ:Ur#gm#Ɉ; "d(/o wQ }\-1ufۃ㺩˕B##~#W#UN % 0G^  w* 4. B Q mS j Nr 0t YC 0D    0c__ 0cb%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B+0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(U$XEX%&b,L z,*kCorel3|xU (%2x$ U!XEXXX  QXXE       0  . O  x$X-XXXXX-       4  .  _Ironically,exceptfordifferencesinthelengthofthejailterms,this `  isverynearlythesentenceimposedonRespondentShelton.(#$  0    x$X-XXXXX-       2  .  _AppendixinArgersingerv.Hamlin,407U.S.25(1972),at7.   x$X-XXXXX-       5  .  _TheFriedBriefapparentlyassumesthatofthemillionplus `  misdemeanorcasesannuallyendinginprobation,allinvolvedadjudicationsofguilt )  andallinvolvedsuspendedjailsentences.SeeFriedBriefat1921.Itisnotclear   tousthatsuchwasthecase.Manyofthosecountedashavingreceivedprobation  [ mayactuallyhavebeendivertedtoprobationaryprogramswithouthavingbeen  $ adjudicatedguilty.Insuchacase,therewouldnotbeanyconstitutional M  impedimenttoofferingsuchpretrialdiversionstodefendantswhoarenot  providedcounsel.Theredoesnotappeartobeanybasisforestimatinghowmany   ofthosewhoreceiveprobationundercontemporaryapproachesdosowiththe `  assistanceofcourtsuppliedcounselnoristhereabasisforprojectinghowmany )  wouldfallintothatcategorywerethisCourttoholdthatnosuspendedjail   sentencescanbeimposedwithoutaffordingcounsel.Inanyevent,asweargue  [ infra,thestatesarefreetoemploydiversionaryprobationwithoutproviding  $ counsel,iftheyinsistondoingso.   x$X-XXXXX-       1  .  _Incarcerationisobviouslynotbyitselfsufficient,sinceincarceration `  inmanycontextsisnot punishment.SeeBellv.Wolfish,441U.S.520(1979); )  UnitedStatesv.Salerno,481U.S.739(1987).  x$X-XXXXX-       3  .  _Id.at3.(;3$ U!XEXXX  (;3$ U!XEXXX  a d U!X-XXX  _`   F@%No.001214 `  @   ________________________________________  Z  @'InThe T  @SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates N  @  ________________________________________  k @"STATEOFALABAMA, B   <      D Petitioner, < @)v. 6 @#_LEREED_Ԁ_SHELTON_, *    <      D Respondent. $  @  ________________________________________ A  @ OnWritofCertiorari ;  @ToTheSupremeCourtofAlabama 5  @  ________________________________________   @  BRIEFOFAMICUSCURIAENATIONAL    @  ASSOCIATIONOFCRIMINALDEFENSELAWYERS  @ INREPLYTOBRIEFOFAMICUSCURIAE  @ CHARLESFRIEDET.AL.  @  ________________________________________ w STEVENDUKE*0  0LLDAVIDM.PORTER  k LL 127WallStreet0  0LLCoChair,_NACDL_ԀAmicuseLL NewHaven,CT06511  Committee _ (203)4324959    801KStreet,10thFloor Y   <   0  Sacramento,CA95814S LL   < 0  0LL(916)4985700M!LL THOMASF._LIOTTI_*0  _ADRIAAN_Ԁ_LANNI_A# LL 1001FranklinAvenue0  0LL78Mt.AuburnStreet;$!LL Suite3000 < 0<L<L0LLCambridge,MA021385%"LL GardenCity,NY115300  (617)4952485/&#LL (516)7393700 )'$   ӀAttorneysforAmicusCuriae )&  *CounselofRecord +!( January,2002   ,") F8-XXdd8@"TABLEOFCONTENTS `    <      D     Page H  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES<L.DD*ii < ARGUMENT=L.1 0 CONCLUSION=L. 9 $  APPENDIX<L.RR1a    @ TABLEOFAUTHORITIES `    <      D       <      D     Page T  Cases N  _Argersinger_Ԁv._Hamlin_,407U.S.25 B (1971)hh$L. 1,2,3,3(n.2),4,5,8 < Baldwinv.NewYork,399U.S.66(1970)=L.>1 6 Bellv.Wolfish,441U.S.520(1979)6L.:2(n.1) 0 _Blanton_Ԁv.CityofNorthLasVegas,489U.S.538(1989)=L.M2 *  DistrictofColumbiav.Colts,282U.S.63(1930)=L.TTG1 $  Gideonv.Wainwright,372U.S.335(l963)=L.@7   Scottv.Illinois,440U.S.367(1979)1L.<1,2,4,5,8   UnitedStatesv.Salerno,481U.S.739(1987)6L.ssC2(n.1)   UnitedStatesv.Smith,354A.2d510(_D.C.C.A._Ԁ1976)=L.##J8    U.S.CONSTITUTION  SixthAmendment  :L.%2,3       8-XXdXXd8@& ARGUMENT  `  @* I  N   TheSixthandFourteenthAmendmentRighttothe B AssistanceofCounselin allcriminalprosecutionsisnot < limitedtoprosecutionsinwhichatermofimprisonmentis 6 imposedandcarriedoutimmediatelyuponconviction.  0  TheBriefofAmicusCuriaebyInvitationoftheCourtof $  CharlesFried,etal.(hereinafter, FriedBrief)arguesthatthere   isnorighttocounselunlesstheaccusedis actuallyimprisonedat   theconclusionoftheproceedingandthat actualincarceration   isasinequanonofaSixthandFourteenthAmendmentrightto    assistanceofcounsel.FriedBriefat14.Thus,thebriefargues,  ifanysentenceofincarcerationisconditionedonfutureevents,it  isnota lossoflibertywithinthemeaningof_Argersinger_ora   sentencetoatermofimprisonmentwithinthemeaningofScott  becausethesentence doesnotresultinactualincarcerationin  thatproceeding.FriedBriefat16.Thisviewcontradicts  commonunderstandingsandhasperverseimplications.   TheSixthandFourteenthAmendmentrighttoeffective | assistanceofcounselappliesin allcriminalprosecutions. v Whetheritappliesinmisdemeanorcasesdependsonwhetherthe  p prosecutionofthemisdemeanorisa criminalprosecution. !j Morethansixtyyearsago,thisCourtheldthatwhethera "d misdemeanorchargeis criminaldepends,amongotherthings, #^ onthemoraldepravityorgravityoftheoffense.Districtof $X Columbiav.Colts,282U.S.63(1930).TheCourthasalsosaid %R repeatedlythatamajorgaugeofstigmaorseriousnessis the &L penaltyactuallyauthorized.Baldwinv.NewYork,399U.S.66 'F (1970).TheCourtclearlyimplied,in_Argersinger_Ԁv._Hamlin_,407 (@  U.S.25(1972),thatanotherindicatorofseriousnessisthe `  sentenceactuallyimposed.In_Argersinger_,theCourtheldthata Z  jailsentence,ofanyduration,isasufficientgaugeofseriousness T  toelevateamisdemeanorprosecutionto criminalstatus, N  regardlessofotherfactors. #  1      ׀Althoughitsrationalewaslessthan H  lucid,thisCourtreiteratedthatholdinginScottv.Illinois,440 B U.S.367(1979).Seealso,_Blanton_Ԁv.CityofNorthLasVegas, < 489U.S.538(1989). 6  Itwouldbeasharpandmomentousdeparturefromthis 0 traditionalmodeofconstitutionalanalysisfortheCourttoaccept *  theFriedBriefssuggestionthatnoprosecutionis criminalfor $  SixthAmendmentpurposesunlessitresultsinajailsentence   imposedandcarriedoutimmediately.Ajailsentencelikethat   imposedbythetrialcourtbelow,althoughneverexecuted,isstill   anindicationoftheseriousnessoftheoffense;itcolorsand    characterizestheunderlyingconduct,andenhancesthestigma  attachedtotheoffense.Accordingly,theAlabamaSupreme  Courtwascorrectinequatingasuspendedjailsentencewitha   lossoflibertywithinthemeaningof_Argersinger_ora sentence  toatermofimprisonmentwithinthemeaningofScott.   Toholdthatajailsentenceisnotajailsentenceuntiland  unlessthedefendantislockedinajailcell(orperhapsinchains,  onhiswaytojail)entirelyignoresthesymbolicfunctionofajail | sentenceanddisturbs,ifnotuproots,deeptraditionalconceptions v bothofwhatconstitutesa sentenceandofwhatconstitutesa  p  criminalprosecutionundertheConstitution. !j  ThetechnicaldistinctionsuggestedintheFriedBrief "d appearstobeinventedforthiscase.Wereasentencetobecome #^ ajailsentenceonlywhenactuallycarriedout,ajailsentence $X stayedpendingappealwouldnotbeajailsentenceforSixth `  Amendmentpurposes.Itisdifficulttoseewhatmeaningful Z  differencethereisbetweenajailsentencestayed(i.e.,suspended) T  pendingappealandajailsentencesuspendedpendingprobation. N  Ifthereisawaytojustifytreatingaprosecutionleadingtothe H  stayedsentenceasacriminalprosecutionwhiledenyingthat B qualitytoaprosecutionleadingtoasuspendedjailsentence < conditionedonprobation,ithasnotbeencoherentlysuggested. 6  TheFriedBriefismistakenwhenitsaysthat_Argersinger_ 0 isfundamentallydifferentfromthepresentcasebecause *  _Argersinger_Ԁ hadbeensentencedtoatermofincarceration $  directlyuponhisconviction.FriedBrief,at10.Infact,   _Argersinger_,likeRespondent_Shelton_,receivedaconditionaljail   sentence._Argersinger_ssentencewas90daysor$500. #  2      ׀It   wouldnotbecomeanunconditionaljailsentenceinanyarguable    senseuntilandunless_Argersinger_Ԁfailedorrefusedtopaythefine.  _Argersinger_sjailsentencewasalsostayedpendingdispositionof  hisappealandthisCourtsreview.Y #  3      ׀Jailsentencessuspendedon  conditionsofprobationarenotessentiallydifferentfromjail  sentenceslike_Argersinger_sthatarealsoconditionedonfuture  eventssuchastheinabilityorunwillingnesstopayafineoran  unsuccessfulappeal.Todrawthedistinctionsuggestedinthe  FriedBriefwouldcreateadangerofanappellateCatch22 | whereappellatereviewoftherighttocounselcouldbethwarted v bydenyingtrialcounselandthenattachingconditionstothejail  p sentenceimposedafterthe_lawyerless_Ԁconviction.Adefendant !j couldbedeniedmeaningfulreviewofsuchadeprivationof "d counselonthegroundhissentencewasconditionalorprovisional. #^ Then,oncereviewwasdenied,theconditionscouldberemoved $X andhecouldbepackedofftojail.Suppose,forexample,instead `  ofbeingsentencedto90daysor$500,Jon_Argersinger_Ԁhadbeen Z  sentencedto90daysinjailsuspendedduringaprobationary T  periodof30days(oranyotherperiodoftime)andaconditionof N  probationwasthathepaya$500fineor costs. #  4      ׀Accordingto H  Friedsargument,suchasentencewouldbelawfuleventhough B imposedwithoutaffordingcounsel.Furthermore,if_Argersinger_ < failedtopaythefine,hisprobationcouldberevokedandhe 6 couldbesenttojail!TheConstitutionalrightrecognizedin 0 _Argersinger_couldbecircumventedbynothingmorethanthe *  selectionofvirtuallysynonymousverbiage. $   TheConstitutionalrightsinvolvedherecannotbesoflimsy   thattheycanbecircumventedbytheexpedientofdelaying   impositionofasentenceofincarceration.Ifasuspendedjail   sentencecanbeimposedwithoutcounsel,thenthesuspension    revokedandjailimposed,both_Argersinger_andScottare  renderedimpotentandalmostmeaningless.WhatStatethat  wishedtodeny_misdemeanants_Ԁarighttoafairadjudicationwith  assistanceofcounselwouldfailtotakeadvantageofthistwostep  processofcircumvention?Whatcourtthatcaredaboutthe  Constitutionwouldwanttolegitimatesuchshenanigans?What  powerwouldacourthavetoprecludesuchcircumventionifthis  CourtweretoadoptAmicusFriedsargument?Thedistinction | suggestedbyFriedshouldberejectedandtheinvitationtoadopt v theconceptualdistinctionbetweenasentencethatis suspended  p andasentencethatis stayedshouldresolutelyberesisted. !j Enormouscomplicationsandcomplexitieswouldbegeneratedby "d suchthindistinctions,injectingconfusionintoaprocessthatthis #^ Courtsoughttoclarifyin_Argersinger_andScott. $X  %R @) II  `   PracticalConsiderationsDoNotSupporttheClaimthat T  StateMustBeEntitledtoRevokeConditionalJail N  SentencesWhichHaveBeenImposedWithoutAffording H  theRighttoAssistanceofCounsel.  B  AmicusFriedcitesdatasuggestingthatthereweremore 6 than8.7millionmisdemeanorcasesfiledinstatecourtsin1999 0 (FriedBriefat18)andthatinrecentyearsbetween1.4millionto *  1.8millionadultswereonprobationformisdemeanors.Id.at20. $  Healsocitesdatasuggestingthatonlyasmallpercentage,   perhapsafractionofonepercent,of_misdemeanants_Ԁplacedon   probationareeverincarceratedforviolatingprobation.Id.at20   21.Fromthis,hededucesthattorequireappointmentofcounsel    forindigents asaconditionofimposingaprobatedorsuspended  sentenceofincarcerationwouldimposesubstantialcostsonthe  states.Id.at22.Totheextentthissuggeststhatthesearenew  coststhatthestateswerenotalreadybearingwithoutcomplaint  priortotheStatespetitionforcertiorariinthiscase,however,it  hasnosupportinthedata.Nodatahavebeencitedbyanyparty  thatseriouslysuggeststhataffirmingthedecisionbelowwill  disturbthestatusquoorgeneralpracticeanywhere.Thereisno | basisforabeliefthatanyneworadditionalburdensontheStates v financesareatissueinthiscase. #  5      ׀  p  ThedatadonotremotelysupportAmicusimplicit `  argumentthatconsiderationsofcostsupporttheclaimthat the Z  Statesmustbeentitledtorevokeconditionalsentences(Id.at T  18).AlthoughweareinclinedtoagreewithAmicusFriedthat It N  makesnosensetoconclude,asAlabamaargues,thata H  conditionalsentencemaybeimposedbutmaynotbecarriedout B (Id.at4),whetherthestateshouldbepermittedtoimposesham < jailsentencesisadifferentissuefromwhetheritshouldbe 6 permittedbytheConstitutiontoconvictdefendantsofcrimeand 0 sendthemtojailwithouthavingaffordedthemcounselattheir *  trial.Noneofthepartiesorthestateswhohaveappearedhere $  asamicicuriaehaveespousedtheviewadvancedbyAmicus   FriedattheinvitationoftheCourtthatthestatesshouldbe   permittedtorevokeconditionaljailsentencesimposedwithout   counsel.Norhasanyone,otherthanAmicusFried,suggested    thatconsiderationsofexpedience,costoranyother practical  considerationjustifyjailingdefendantswhowereconvicted  withouthavingbeenaffordedcounsel.If,asAmicusFried  suggests,onlyatinyfractionoftheprobationarysentences  imposedinmisdemeanorcasesactuallyendupinincarceration  perhapslessthanafewthousandperyearintheentirecountry  nolegitimate practicalconsiderationscouldwarrantpermitting  thoseincarcerationswithoutassuringtherighttocounsel.Very | possibly,allorvirtuallyallofthose_misdemeanants_Ԁimprisoned v followingprobationrevocationsintherecentpastwereprovided  p counselorsuppliedtheirownatboththeguiltadjudicationstage !j andtheprobationrevocationstage.Ifso,nonewexpenseswill `  begeneratedbyaffirmingthejudgmentbelow.Ifnot,the Z  expenseswillstillbeaninsignificantpricetopayforwhatthis T  Courthassaidare necessities,notluxuriesand essentialtoa N  fairtrial.Gideonv.Wainwright,372U.S.335(1963). H  @||) III  <  Thedecisionbelowdoesnotrequireanystatetoprovide 0 counseltoindigentsaccusedofmisdemeanorsbefore *  imposingprobation,itmerelyprecludesconditionaljail $  sentenceswithoutaffordingcounsel.     AmicusFriedarguesthatprobationcannotbeemployed   incaseswheredefendantsarenotaffordedcounselunlessthe    statesarefreetolinkprobationtoaconditionaljailsentence.  FriedBriefat7,22.Heissupportedinthisbytheilladvised  concessionofRespondent_Shelton_Ԁthat Probationmust,of  course,carrywithittheauthorityofthegrantingcourttorevoke  andincarcerate.Withoutsuchauthorityprobationwouldbe  meaninglessandineffective. RespondentsBrief,at17,quoted  byFried,at7.AsweshowinourAppendixhereto,however,  thisassumptioniserroneous.Thereisaway,currentlyemployed | bymanystates,touseprobationeffectivelywithoutlinkingitto v thethreatofrevocationandincarceration.Underthese  p approaches,ifprobationisunsuccessful,thedefendantissimply !j prosecuted. "d  Atleasttwentythreestatespresentlyhavelegislationin #^ placewhichallowsprobationtobeimposedonminoroffenders $X inlieuofadjudication.Undertheseschemes,ifthedefendant %R violatesprobation,heisnotsentenced,heismerelyreturnedto &L thecriminalprocessfornormaladjudication.Thisaccomplishes 'F therehabilitativefunctionofprobationwithouttheunfairness(and (@  unreliability)ofadjudicatingguiltwithoutassistanceofcounsel. `  Sincesuchprobationistheresultofagreementandisprobably Z  noteven punishment,itcanbeimposedwithouttheexpenseof T  appointingattorneysforeveryindigentdefendantforwhomthe N  programismadeavailable.Itisinallrespectsafairerandmore H  sensiblecompromisethanthatsuggestedbytheFriedBrief. B  Afullerexpositionofexistingstatutorydiversionschemes < isannexedheretoinanappendix.Itisbynomeansclear, 6 however,thatexplicitstatutoryauthorizationisevenrequiredfor 0 theuseofprobationinlieuofadjudication.Prosecutorsarefree *  toworkoutsomeinformalprobationaryschemessuchas $  dismissalssubjecttoreinstatementshouldthedefendantviolate   agreedconditionsofbehavior.SeeUnitedStatesv.Smith,354   A.2d510(_D.C.C.A._Ԁ1976).    Itisclear,therefore,thatallstatesarefreeunderthe    interpretationsof_Argersinger_andScottespousedbyRespondent  andbythecourtbelow,toimposeprobationuponcriminal  defendantsinmisdemeanorcaseswithoutprovidingthemwith  counsel.Deprivingadefendantofthebenefitsofalawyerwhile  determininghisguiltorinnocenceisinnosenseanecessary  conditionofutilizingprobationaryschemes.Thereis,therefore,  neitherasensibleconceptualnoragroundedpracticalor  expedientargumentagainstthedecisionbelow.  |   <      D   @UU%CONCLUSION  T   Fortheforegoingreasons,thedecisionoftheAlabama H  SupremeCourtshouldbeaffirmed. B   <     Respectfullysubmitted, *    <     STEVENDUKE     <     THOMASF._LIOTTI_     <     CounselofRecord      <     DAVIDM.PORTER    <     _ADRIAAN_Ԁ_LANNI_    <     OfCounsel   8-XXdXXd8@  &APPENDIX    8-XXdXXd8  SurveyofPretrialProbationPrograms `     Twentythreestates,butnotAlabama,haveaformof T  pretrialprobationforminoroffenses,generallycalledPretrial N  Intervention( _PTI_)orPretrialDiversion( _PTD_).Thereare H  minorvariationsamongstatesbutthegeneraloutlineofthe B programsisthesamethroughout.Boththeprosecutionand < defensemustagreetothedefendantsenrollmentintheprogram. 6 Thedefendantwaiveshisrighttoaspeedytrialandthe 0 prosecutionagainsthimisdeferredpendinghiscompletionofthe *  program.Thedefendantmustadheretorequirementssimilarto $  termsofprobation(andinfactinsomestatesitiscalled   probation)foraperiodoftime.Ifhecompletestheprogram,the   caseagainsthimisdismissedandhisrecordshowsnoconviction   oradmissionofguilt;ifheviolatesthetermsofprobationor    decidestoleavetheprogram,theprosecutionagainsthimis  resumed.Theseprogramsareoftenlimitedtofirsttimeoffenders,  thosechargedwithminorornonviolentoffenses,ortooffenders  whomthecourtdeemsnotlikelytorepeattheoffenseandwhose  enrollmentina_PTI_Ԁprogramservestheinterestsofjustice.   Sixstates,includingAlabama,havea_PTI_Ԁor_PTD_  programthatappliestoonlyasmallclassofcases,suchasdrug  offensesordomesticviolence.Alabamasprogramislimitedto | drugoffenders. v   I. !j Stateswithgeneral_PTI_Ԁor_PTD_Ԁprograms "d   1.CONNECTICUT: AcceleratedPretrialRehabilitation: $X Conn.Gen.Stat.5456e. %R 2.PENNSYLVANIA: AcceleratedRehabilitationDisposition: &L Pa.R._Crim_.P.310320. 'F 3.MISSISSIPPI: PretrialInterventionProgram(_PTI_):Miss. (@  Code9915101to9915127. `  4.NEWJERSEY: _PTI_:N.J.Stat.2c:4312to2c:4313. Z  5.FLORIDA:Fla.Stat.ch.948.08.Thereisalsoaspecial T  programfordrugoffenders.FRUS.,_Fla.Stat.ch.948.16._Ԁ N  US.,FR, rp6._GEORGIA_: _Pretrial_Ԁ_diversion_Ԁ_program_Ԁ(_PTD_):_Ga_._Code_ H  151880. B 7._OHIO_: _PTD_:_Ohio_ԀRev._Code_Ԁ2935.36. < 8._SOUTH_Ԁ_CAROLINA_: _PTI_:_S.C._Ԁ_Code_Ԁ172210_to_ 6 1722170. 0 9._KANSAS_: _PTD_:_Kan_._Crim_._Proc_._Code_Ԁ222907_to_ *  222911. $  10._KENTUCKY_: _PTD_:_Ky_.R._Crim_.P.8.04.   11._NEBRASKA_: _PTD_:_Neb_.Rev.St.293601_to_Ԁ29   3604.   12._TENNESSEE_: _PTD_:_Tenn_._Code_Ԁ4015105.    13._CALIFORNIA_:_Cal_._Penal_Ԁ_Code_Ԁ1001.19._Also_Ԁ_a_  _separate_Ԁ_pretrial_Ԁ_diversion_Ԁ_drug_Ԁ_court_Ԁ_program_Ԁ_for_Ԁ_drug_Ԁ_offenders_.  _Cal_._Penal_Ԁ_Code_Ԁ1000.5.  14._INDIANA_: _PTD_:_Ind_._Code_Ԁ331417.  15._MASSACHUSETTS_: _PTD_:_Mass_._Gen_._Laws_Ԁ_ch_._276A_  19.  16._MINNESOTA_: _PTD_:_Minn_.St.401.065.  FRUS.,17._MONTANA_: _PTD_:_Mont_._Code_Ԁ4616130. | US.,FR, ~18._UTAH_: _PTD_:_Utah_Ԁ_Code_Ԁ7725_to_Ԁ7729. v 19._NEW_Ԁ_MEXICO_:_N.M._ԀSt.31_Ԅ16A_Ԅ1_to_Ԁ31_Ԅ16A_Ԅ8.  p FRUS.,20._VERMONT_:_Vt_._Stat_._tit_.3,164. !j US.,FR, 21._WYOMING_:_Wyo_.St.713301. "d 22._OREGON_:_Or_.Rev.St.135.881_to_Ԁ135.901. #^ 23._ARIZONA_:_Ariz_.Rev.St.11361_to_Ԁ11365. $X  (@  Ї  _II_ Z  _States_Ԁ_with_Ԁ_PTI_Ԁ_or_Ԁ_PTD_Ԁ_programs_Ԁ_in_Ԁ_only_Ԁ_a_Ԁ_small_Ԁ_class_Ԁ_of_Ԁ_cases_ T    1._ALABAMA_:_Alabama__s_Ԁ_Alcohol_Ԁ_and_Ԁ_Drug_Ԁ_Abuse_Ԁ_Court_ H  _Referral_Ԁ_and_Ԁ_Treatment_Ԁ_Program_Ԁ_permits_Ԁ_drug_Ԁ_offenders_Ԁ_to_Ԁ_enroll_ B _in_Ԁ_treatment_Ԁ_programs_Ԁ_in_Ԁ_lieu_Ԁ_of_Ԁ_prosecution_,_subject_Ԁ_to_Ԁ_the_ < _prosecutor__s_Ԁ_approval_._Ala_._Code_Ԁ12235. 6 2._WISCONSIN_:_Those_Ԁ_charged_Ԁ_with_Ԁ_domestic_Ԁ_abuse_Ԁ_offenses_ 0 _may_Ԁ_enter_Ԁ_into_Ԁ_deferred_Ԁ_prosecution_Ԁ_agreements_Ԁ_prior_Ԁ_to_Ԁ_trial_. *  _Wisc_._Stat_.971.37. $  3._LOUISIANA_:_Louisiana__s_Ԁ_pretrial_Ԁ_diversion_Ԁ_program_Ԁ_is_Ԁ_limited_   _to_Ԁ_those_Ԁ_charged_Ԁ_with_Ԁ_driving_Ԁ_while_Ԁ_intoxicated_.FRUS.,_La_._Rev_._Stat_.US.,FR, ̐   15:578.1.   4._OKLAHOMA_:_Oklahoma__s_Ԁ_Restitution_Ԁ_and_Ԁ_Diversion_    _Program_,_Okla_._Stat_._991f_Ԅ1.1,_applies_Ԁ_only_Ԁ_to_Ԁ_property_Ԁ_crimes_,  _and_Ԁ_the_Ԁ_requirements_Ԁ_of_Ԁ_completing_Ԁ_the_Ԁ_program_Ԁ_are_Ԁ_limited_Ԁ_to_  _payment_Ԁ_of_Ԁ_restitution_Ԁ_rather_Ԁ_than_Ԁ_the_Ԁ_broader_Ԁ_range_Ԁ_of_Ԁ_probation_Ԅ  _like_Ԁ_requirements_Ԁ_used_Ԁ_in_Ԁ_general_Ԁ_PTD_Ԁ_programs_.  5._COLORADO_:_In_Ԁ_Colorado_Ԁ_a_Ԁ_program_Ԁ_is_Ԁ_available_Ԁ_for_Ԁ_those_  _accused_Ԁ_of_Ԁ_child_Ԁ_abuse_Ԁ_or_Ԁ_neglect_._Colo_.Rev._Stat_.193310.  6._ILLINOIS_:_Illinois_Ԁ_law_Ԁ_authorizes_Ԁ_each_Ԁ_judicial_Ԁ_circuit_Ԁ_to_  _establish_Ԁ_a_Ԁ_drug_Ԁ_court_Ԁ_program_Ԁ_which_Ԁ_may_Ԁ_provide_Ԁ_for_Ԁ_pre_Ԅ | _adjudicatory_Ԁ_diversion_Ԁ_agreements_,_whereby_Ԁ_the_Ԁ_prosecution_Ԁ_is_ v _suspended_Ԁ_pending_Ԁ_successful_Ԁ_completion_Ԁ_of_Ԁ_a_Ԁ_drug_Ԁ_treatment_  p _program_,_as_Ԁ_well_Ԁ_as_Ԁ_a_Ԁ_post_Ԅ_adjudicatory_Ԁ_treatment_Ԁ_program_._Ill_. !j _Stat_._ch_.730166/1_to_Ԁ35. "d 7._ARKANSAS_:_Arkansas_Ԁ_law_Ԁ_permits_Ԁ_judicial_Ԁ_districts_Ԁ_to_ #^ _establish_Ԁ_pre_Ԅ_or_Ԁ_post_Ԅ_trial_Ԁ_diversion_Ԁ_programs_Ԁ_for_Ԁ_drug_Ԁ_treatment_. $X _Ark_._Code_Ԁ1698201.