### IN THE CO URT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE AT NASHVILL E Ass ig ne d o n B rie fs Apri l 2 9, 2 00 9 a t Kn ox vi ll e

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . ANTHONY CHRI STO PHER BROW N

Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2007-C- 2401 Seth Norm an, Jud ge

No. M2008- 01924-CCA -R3-C D - F iled October 27, 2009

T h e pro se Def

endant, Anthony Christopher Br own, appea ls as of rig ht from his convic t i o n s fo r possession of less than .5 g rams of coca ine, a Class C felony
, and possession of drug para pherna lia,

a Class A misdemeanor, arising from his bench trial in Da v i dson County Criminal Court. He

rec eived an eff

ective sentenc e of three y ear s as a Rang e I
, stand ar d o ff en d er. The Def

endant contends that the evidenc e is insufficient to support his convictions. Foll o wi n g o u r review, we aff irm the judg ments of the trial c ourt.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt ar e Affi rm ed.

D. K E L L Y T H O M A S , J R ., J
., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J O S E P H M. T I P T O N , P.J
., and N O R M A M C G E E O G L E , J ., joined.

Anthony Christopher B rown, Na shville, Tennessee , Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, J r., Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; L eslie E. Price, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Victor S. J ohnson, I I I
, District Attorney Gene ral; and Dan Hamm, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, attorney s for a

ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP INION

The rec ord ref

lects that o n S ep t ember 4, 2007, the Def endant and a codef

endant wer e indicted for one count of possession with the intent to sell or deliver more than 26 g rams of coca ine and possession of drug para pherna lia related to events occur ring in J une 20 0 7

. The Def endant waived a jury trial and, following a bench trial on Marc h 10, 2008, the Def endant was convicted of the l esser offe nse of possession of l ess t han .5 gra m s o f cocaine for resa le and possession of drugpara

pherna lia. The rec ord further ref lects that the Def

endant was repr esente d by appointed counsel throug hout the pretria l and benc h trial stag es of his ca se. 1

On May 15, 2008, prior to sentenc ing, trial counsel filed a motion to withdraw from further repr esentation based upon the Def endant’ s “expressed conte m p t and utter distrust” of counsel as evidenc ed by the Def

endant’ s filing of “seve ral frivolous complaints with the Boa rd of Professional R es p o n s i b i l i t y .” On May 16, 2008, the Def endant filed a pro se motion entitled “Motion for I nef[f]ective Assistanc[e] of Counsel” alleg ing several i nstance s of trial counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e in addition to the Def endant’ s actua l innocenc e of the offe nses. On M ay 2 3
, 2008, following an evidentiar

y heari n g, the trial court g rante d trial counsel’s motion to be relieve d. Subsequently
, on M ay 2 7
, J u n e 2 5
, and J uly 21, 2008, the Def endant filed pro se motions for judgme nts of acquittal alleg ing that there w as insufficie nt evidence to support his convictions.

On J uly 30, 2008, the trial court sentenc ed the Def endant to three y ear s as a Rang e I
, standard offe n der for the possession of coca ine offe nse to be serve d concur rent with his sentenc e for possession of drug para

pherna lia. The judgme nt for the drug para pherna lia conviction ref

lects that the Def endant was sentenc ed to “time serve d” in exchang e for his waiver of appea l of the convictions. The judgme nt for the possession of coca ine conviction also ref lects that the Def

endant

rec eived unsupervised probation in ex ch an ge fo r his waiver of appea l of the convictions. Neve rtheless, on Aug us t 2 6
, 2008, the Def endant filed a notice of appea l. Although there is no motion by the Def

endant presen t in the technica l rec ord, the rec ord contains one final trial court order indicating that the Def endant reque sted counsel for his appea l. Noting that “the Def endant has ag ree d to waive appea l as part of his sentenc ing neg otiations,” the trial court denied the reque st for appointment of appellate counsel. Presumably in light of the Def endant’ s waiver of his rig ht to appea l, the trial court ne ver r uled on the De fenda

nt’s pro se motions for judg ments of ac quittal.

Now befor e this court, the Def endant insists that there is insufficient evidenc e to support his convictions. The State, noting that the rec ord ref lects that the Def

endant waived his rig ht to appea l, argue s that the Def

endant’ s failure to prepa

re the transcr ipts for consideration befor e thi s co u rt hinders our r eview. U nder the se circ umstances, the State argues, this court must presume that the trial court’ s findings w ere corr ect a nd aff irm the judg ments.

ANALYSI S

I t is the duty of the appell an t “to convey a fair, acc urate and complete acc ount of what transpire d with respe ct t o t h o s e issues that are the bases of appea l.” Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b); see State v. Taylor

, 992 S.W .2d 941, 944 (Tenn. 1999). I n the absenc e of an adequa te rec ord, this court is prec luded from considering an issue and must presume that the ruling of the trial court was corr ect.

C o u r t m i n u t e s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e t e c h n i c a l r e c o r d i n d i c a t e t h a t c o u n s e l w a s a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e 1

D e f e n d a n t u p o n h i s a r r a i g n m e n t o n S e p t e m b e r 1 9
, 2 0 0 7

. T h e c o u r t m i n u t e s f r o m t h e b e n c h t r i a l s i m i l a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t

c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t e d t h e D e f e n d a n t a t t h e b e n c h t r i a l

. T h e M a r c h 1 0
, 2 0 0 8 m i n u t e s a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t e d

n o p r o o f a t t r i a l

.
-2-See State v. Ba llard, 855 S.W .2d 557, 561 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Oody
, 823 S.W .2d 554, 559 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 1991). Fur

thermore
, the rec ord clea

rly ref lects that the Def

endant waived his appea l of these convictions in consideration for a favor able sentenc ing dispositi on. Under these circ umstances, we aff

irm the judg ments of the trial c ourt.

CONCL USI ON

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, the judgme nts of the trial cour t are aff irmed.

___________________________________ D. KEL L Y THOMAS, JR ., J UDGE

-3-