# FILED December 17, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBE R SESSION, 1997
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9612-CC-00525 ) Appellee, ) ) HUMPHREYS CO UNTY ) V. ) ) HON. ROBE RT E. BURCH, J UDGE ROBERT K. BOOHER, ) ) Appe llant. ) (VIOLATION OF RE GISTR ATION L AW)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : ROB ERT K. BO OHE R, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP 104 C apps Hill Attorney General& Reporter Wa verly, TN 37185 JANIS L.TURNER Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordel l Hull Bui lding 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashvill e, TN 37243 DAN M. ALSOBROOKS Distri ct Attorney General GEORGE C. SEXTON Assistant Distri ct Attorney General Humphreys County Courthouse Room 205 Waverly, TN 37185

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE-2- 

# OPINION

The Defen dant, Robert K. Booher, appeals as of right fr om the judgment of the Circ uit Court o f Hum phreys C ounty. Following a jury t rial, the Defendant
was convictedof driv ing without proper vehi cle registrati on and drivi ng without a license, both Class C misdemeanors. In this pro seappeal, Defendant raises many issues which can co llectively b e sum mariz ed as challe n ging the constitution ality of the appl icable motor vehicle statutes and the denialof adequ ate due proces s of law. W e affirm the judgm ents of the trial court.
From the sparse record, it appears that on Nove mbe r 20, 19 95, W averly police officer W .B. Frazie r saw th e Defendant dri ving a vehi cle with out proper registr ation plates. See Tenn . Code Ann. § 5 5-3-102
. Upon stopping t he vehicle, Officer Frazi er discover ed that Defendant

also did not

possess a vali d Tennessee driver’s licen se. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-301.

The jury fou nd the Defenda nt guilty of both offenses . The trial court imposed a suspended sentence of 30 days for each offense and f ined him a total of $100.

The record on ap peal c ontain s no motion for new trialfiled by the Defen dant. Rule 3 (e) of th e Te nnes see R ules o f Appe llate Pro cedu re state s in part: [I]n all cases t ried by a ju ry, no i ssue presented for review

shall b e pred icated upon error in the admission or exclusion of evidence, jury i nstructions granted or refused, misconduct of jurors, parties or

counsel, or

other acti on committed or occurringduring the trial of the case , or o ther g round upon which a new trial is sou ght , un les s th e sa me was s pecific ally-3- stated in a m otion fo r a new trial; otherwise, such issueswill be treated as waived.
This rule do es no t enco mpa ss issu es wh ich, if decid ed favo rably to the accused, would result i n the dismissalof the pros ecution. State v. Keel , 882 S.W.2d 410, 415-16 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Since the relief requested, if granted i n t he instant c ase, would be dismiss al of the prosecution , then the waiver provi sion contained in Rule 3(e)is not appl icable. Thus, the is sues presented by Defendant would normally be considered on the merits.

Howeve r, the Defendant has n ot incl uded the transc ript of the tri al or any pre-tri al hearings a s part of the record o n appe al. It is the app ellant’s duty to “have prepa red a tra nscrip t of suc h part o f the evid ence or proc eedin gs as is
necessa ry to conv ey a fair , accurate and complete account of what tr anspired with respec t to those iss ues tha t a re the bases of appe al.” Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b). Wh en neces sary parts of the record are n ot included on appeal, the co urt must presume that t he trialcourt’s ruling wascorrect. State v. Oody , 823 S.W.2d 554, 559 (T enn. C rim. App
. 1991). Therefore, even if rev iew of the i ssues presented is proper i n the instant case, this Court must defer to

the finding s of the trial court sinc e no tran script is includ ed in the re cord.
Furthermore, Defendantwas als o co nvi cte d at a di ff ere nt t ri al f

or t he s ame type of offen ses a s in the instan t case , but wh ic h occurr ed on a different date. The identical issues pr esented in t he case sub judice were presented in the direct appeal by Defendant f rom the other conviction s, and were resolved by another panel of this Cou rt against D efenda nt. Even if the issues w ere not waived b y failure to fil e a complete record, we would adopt t he reasoning and analysis of-4-

the panel of this Co urt in State v. Robert K. Booher , C.C. A. No. 01C01- 9604- CC00131, Hum phrey s Cou nty (Te nn. C rim. A pp., N ashville , filed Au g. 22, 1 997) in finding that the i ssues presented i n the case sub judice are witho ut merit.
Accordingly , the judg ments of the t rial cour t are aff irmed.

____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ GARY R. WA DE, Judge

___________________________________ J. CURWO OD W ITT, JR., Judge