# FILED
May 1, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON APRIL 1998 SESSION

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9707-CC-00244 Appellee, ) ) vs. ) HARDIN COU NTY No. 7480 ) ) GAYLEN AUBREA

SCOTT ) AFFIRMED- RULE 20 ) Appellant. )

ORDER
The defendant, Gaylen Aubrea Scott, w as convicted by a jur

y of three (3) counts of driving w

ithout a valid driv

er’s license and two (2) counts of violating the vehicle registr

ation law. He was

sentenced to thirty (30) days for each of the driver’s license violations. One (1) of the convictions was ordered to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of sixty (60) days. The sentences were suspended, and the defendant was placed on unsupervised probation. No sentence was imposed for the registration law violations. The defendant contends, inter alia , that the state failed to prove he must be licensed to drive a c ar; that because he was not e ngaged in a commercial activity when stopped, the state was “ ultra vires ” in arresting him; and that his arrest was a ploy by the state to collect money from him in violation of v arious sections of both the United States and Ten nessee Constitutions. The defendant was sentenced on June 4, 1997.He filed a notice of appeal on June 27, 1997. No motion for ne w trial was filed . A defendant wishing to appeal a co nviction after a jury trial should file a wr

itten motion for new trial within thir

ty (30) days of the date the order of sentence was enter ed. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 33 (b). The thirty (30) day provision is jurisdictional, and an untimely motion is a nullity. State v. Martin , 940 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tenn. 1997). The trial2

court, cognizant of the defendant’s intention to p roceed on appeal pro se , specifically explai ned to the defendant that he must file a motion for new trial within thirty (

30) days in order to appeal to this Court. The defendant indic ated that he understood. The defendant filed a notic e of appeal, but not a motion for new trial. When a motion for new trial is not timely made, this Court m ay only consider issues whi ch would result in the dismissal of the charges, s ufficiency of the evidence and sentencing

. State v. Williams , 675 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). This Cour t may also consider plai n errors affecting the substantial rights of the defendant if review is neces

sary to do substantial j ustice. State v. Maynard , 629 S.W.2d 911, 91 3 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981). The defendant has also failed to make appropriate references to the record as required by

Tenn. R. App. P. 27 (g) and R ule 10 (b) of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the i ssues are waived. State v. Turner , 919 S.W.2d 346, 358 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); State v. Killebrew , 760 S.W.2d 228, 233 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). Evidence presented to the ju ry was clearly sufficient to support the convictions. Officers tes tified that defendant was checked on three (3) separate occasions and was unable to produce a driver’s license. On two (2) of those occasions, the vehicle being driven by the defendant had an expired regi stration. After a careful review of the record, we find no erro r committed by the trial court regarding the convictions or sen tencing. It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment of th e trial court is AFFIRMED in accordance with Rule 20 , Rules of the Tennessee Court of Cr iminal Appeals. As it appears the defendant is indigent, costs of appeal are taxed t o the state.

_________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE3

CONCUR:

_________________________ DAVID G. HA

YES, JUDGE

_________________________ WILLIAM M. B

ARKER, JUDG E