# FILED
March 17, 2000 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPE

ALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JANUARY 2000 SESSI ON

CHAD DOUGLAS POOLE, * No. W1999-01518-CCA-R3-PC

Appellant, * HARDEMAN COUNTY VS. * Hon. John Kerry B lackwood, Judge STATE OF TENNESSEE, * (Post-Convic tion) Appellee. *

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : DAVID H. CRICH TON MICHAEL E. MOORE 111 West Market S

treet Solicitor Gene ral P. O. Box 651 Bolivar, TN 38008 CLINTON J. MOR GAN Counsel for the State 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN

37243 ELIZABETH T. RICE District Att

orney General JAMES WALTER FREELAND, JR. and JERRY W. NORWOOD 302 Market Street Somerville, T N 38068

OPINION FILED: _

______________ AFFIRMED PURS UANT TO RULE 20-2- JOHN EVERETT WIL LIAMS, Judge 

## ORDER

The petitioner, Chad Douglas Poole, appeals from the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s order

denying his peti tion for post-c onviction relief. His petition followed guilty pleas to

especially aggr

avated robbery and other charges not rela

ted to this appeal. For

the especially

aggravated rob bery, he wa s sentenced to 21 years in the Department of Correction as a standard offend er. In this appeal , he challenges

only the especially aggr avated robbery co nviction and pre sents only one ar gument. He argues that hi s guilty plea to the especially

aggravated robbery i s defective as it was entered unknowingly and involuntarily. After careful review, we AFFIRM the trial court’s dismissal of the petition for post-convi ction relief p ursuant to Tenn. Ct. Cri m. R. App. 20.

The ba sis of

the petitioner’ s challenge to hi s plea to especial ly aggravated robbery is that at the ti me of his plea he be lieved t h at his sentence wo uld be 15 years. See e.g. , State v. Mackey , 5 53 S.W.2d 33 7 (Tenn. 1997). H e claims that his counsel advised h im that he would r ecei ve the minimum sentence, 15 years, and absent counsel’s statement he would not have ple d guilty. At the hearing, petitioner

testified to essentially t hat fact; however , counsel testi fied that he did not advise petitioner that he would receiv e 15 y ears but, in fact , stated that the tr ial judge may “hit him”

on the especially aggravated rob bery . The trial court considered the testimony and found that: Counsel never tol d the petitioner that he would receive a 15 year sentence
.
We affirm this finding and the trial court’s ruling. First, from the record before this Court, it appears that the petitioner has neglected to include the relevant guilty plea papers, a transc ript of the guilty plea hearing , and a transcript of the-3- sentencing hearing. These documents are essential to our review and the failure to include them in the record amounts to waiver of the issue. See Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b); State v. Draper , 800 S.W.2d 489 (T enn. Crim. App. 1990); State v. Bennett , 798 S.W.2d 783 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) . Second, the lone i ssue rai s ed in the petitioner’s brief is one hinging solely upon credibility. The trial court as the tri er of fact makes credibility determinations given that i t alone is i n the best position to observe the witnesses. See State v. Odom , 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996). We therefore accord such deter mination substan

tial deference and find no error in this case. The record befor e us, while inc

omplete, does not

conflict with the trial court’s finding.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM t he tri al court’s ord er dismissi ng the petition for post-conviction relief.

__________________________ _______ JOHN EVERETT WI LLIAMS, Judge

CONCUR:

__________________________ ______ DAVID G. HAYES, J udge

__________________________ _______ ALAN E. GLENN, Judg e