# FILED
March 26, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT KNOXVILLE JANUA RY 1998 SESSION

DAVID W. FELT

S, )

) Appellant, ) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9708-CR-00333

) v. ) Morgan County ) CHARLES JONES, Warden, ) and STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Hon. E. Eugene Eblen, Judge ) Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPEL LEE: DAVID W. FELTS JOHN KNOX WALKUP Pro Se Attorney General & Repor ter M.C.R.C.F. P.O. Box 2000 TIMOTHY F. BEHAN Wartburg, TN 37887-2000 Assistant Attorney Gener al 450 James Robertson Parkwa y Nashville, TN 37243-0493 CH AR LE S E . H AWK Dist. Attorney General FRANK HARVEY Asst. Dist. Attorney General P.O. Box 703 Kingston, TN 37763

OPINION FILED: _____________
AFFIRMED CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE2 OPINION The petitioner, David W. Felts, appeals the Morgan County Cr iminal Court's summary denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Ac cording to his petition, Felts is presently serving a 23-year incarcerative sentence following his guilty pleas to the crimes of aggr avated sexual battery

and rape of a child. H e allegeshe is ent itle d to issuance of the writ o f habeas corpus because the indictmentsagainst him fail to allege a culpable mens rea . He also claims the low er court should have appointed counsel and conducted a he aring prior to ruling on his petition . We a ffirm t he judgme nt of the court bel ow.

The p etitio ner has failed to include the r elevant indictments in the record on appeal. As the appellant , h e has the duty to ensure that the record on appeal contains all of the evidence relevant to those issues which are the bases of appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b); State v. Bane s , 8 74 S.W.2d 73, 82 (Tenn . Crim. App. 1993); State v. Deborah Gladish , No. 02C01-9404- CC-00070 (Tenn. Crim

. App., Jackson, November 21, 1995) , perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1 996). In t he absence of such a record, the affected issues are w aived. State v. Oody , 823 S.W.2d 554, 559 (Tenn. Crim

. App. 1991). “In the absence of an adequate record
on appeal, this court must presume that the trial court’s ruli ngs were supported by sufficient evidence.” Oody , 823 S.W.2d at 559.

Also, we have no basis for d etermining that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition with out appointm ent of counse l and a hearing. The Habeas Corpus Act require s the cour t to review t he petition a nd dismiss it and refuse to issue the writ unless it i ndicates the petitioner's c onviction may be voi d. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-21-101, -109 (1980). If the writ is refused based on the failure of the petition toraise a cognizable claim for relief, any need for a hearing is obviously pretermitted because there is no justiciable issue before the court. See State ex rel. Byrd v. Bomar , 214 Tenn. 476, 381 S.W.2d 280 (1963). Mor eov er, there is no requirement

in the Habeas C orpus Act that a petitioner be afforded appointed3

counsel or the opportunity to amend the petiti on. See generallyTenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-21-101 to-130 (1980 and Supp. 1996). Thus, the trial court did not err simply because it did not allow a hear ing, appointment

of counsel and an opportunity for amendment of the petition.

In sum, we find no error in the proceedings below. Th e trial court's dismissal of Felts's habeas corpus petition is affirmed.

____ _____________

__________

_ CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE
CONCUR:

______________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE

_______________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE