IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

March 10, 2015 Session

HORACE E. HOLLIS, JR. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dickson County

No. 2012-CR-846 Robert E. Burch, Judge

No. M2013-01509-CCA-R3-PC – Filed August 18, 2015

The Petitioner, Horace E. Hollis, Jr., appeals the Dickson County Circuit Court’s denial 

of post-conviction relief. The Petitioner was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape of 

a child for which he received an effective sentence of forty years. On appeal, the 

Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition for postconviction relief without considering the transcript from his trial. Because the transcript 

from the post-conviction hearing is not included in the record, we affirm the judgment of 

the post-conviction court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JAMES 

CURWOOD WITT, JR., and ROGER A. PAGE, JJ., joined.

Olin J. Baker, Charlotte, Tennessee, for the Defendant-Appellant, Horace E. Hollis, Jr.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Andrew Craig Coulam, Assistant 

Attorney General; Dan M. Alsobrooks, District Attorney General; and Ray Crouch, Jr., 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

This case stems from the sexual abuse of the Petitioner’s two minor 

granddaughters by marriage. After a jury trial in February 2011, the Petitioner was

convicted of two counts of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. 

See State v. Horace Hollis, No. M2011-01463-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 1867277 (Tenn. 

Crim. App. May 22, 2012). The trial court subsequently merged the aggravated sexual 

battery convictions into the convictions for rape of a child and imposed an effective forty-
-2-

year sentence. A full recitation of the underlying facts can be found in this Court’s 

opinion on direct appeal. See id. at *1-3.

On December 10, 2012, the Petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief alleging numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as well as 

other grounds for relief. Following the appointment of counsel, the Petitioner filed an

amended post-conviction petition. The post-conviction court conducted an evidentiary

hearing on April 23, 2013.

1

 After taking the matter under advisement, the postconviction court entered a written order denying relief on June 25, 2013. Thereafter, the 

Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. 

ANALYSIS

On appeal, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to 

object to hearsay testimony; (2) allowing his trial to proceed into the early morning hours 

of February 5, 2011; and (3) failing to file a motion for speedy trial. In response, the 

State contends that the Petitioner has waived all issues on appeal by failing to include the 

transcript of his post-conviction hearing in the record. We agree with the State.

Here, the post-conviction court issued a thirty-four-page “Memorandum Opinion 

on Petition for Post-Conviction Relief” on May 31, 2013, which considered each of the 

Petitioner’s claims and summarized the evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing. In 

rejecting the Petitioner’s claims for relief, the court concluded that the Petitioner had 

failed to meet his burden in proving his factual allegations by clear and convincing 

evidence. In its June 23, 2013 written order, the post-conviction stated, in pertinent part: 

After considering the grounds set forth in the Petition for PostConviction Relief, testimony of witnesses, and argument of counsel, and 

for the reasons set forth in the record of the Post-Conviction Relief hearing, 

which is specifically made a part of this Order by reference as though 

copied herein in full, the Court is of the opinion that the Petition for PostConviction Relief should be dismissed with prejudice. 

We note that the Petitioner has failed to include the transcript of the postconviction hearing in the appellate record. Consequently, we are unable to evaluate the 

lower court’s reasoning or what transpired at the evidentiary hearing. The appellant has a 

duty to prepare a record that conveys “a fair, accurate and complete account of what 

transpired with respect to those issues that are the bases of appeal.” Tenn. R. App. P. 

24(b). “Where . . . the record is incomplete, and does not contain a transcript of the 

 

1 A transcript of the post-conviction hearing was not included in the record.
-3-

proceedings relevant to an issue presented for review, or portions of the record upon 

which a party relies, this Court is precluded from considering the issue.” State v. 

Roberts, 755 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (citing State v. Groseclose, 615 

S.W.2d 142, 147 (Tenn. 1981); State v. Jones, 623 S.W.2d 129, 131 (Tenn. Crim. App. 

1981)). “In the absence of an adequate record on appeal, we must presume that the trial 

court’s ruling was supported by the evidence.” State v. Bibbs, 806 S.W.2d 786, 790 

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (citing Smith v. State, 584 S.W.2d 811, 812 (Tenn. Crim. App. 

1979); Vermilye v. State, 584 S.W.2d 226, 230 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979)). Here, the 

post-conviction court specifically incorporated its reasoning from the evidentiary hearing 

in its order denying post-conviction relief. Because the Petitioner did not include the 

post-conviction hearing transcript on appeal, the record is insufficient for our review. As 

a result, the Petitioner has waived consideration of his issues on appeal to this Court, and 

we must presume that the post-conviction court properly denied relief.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

_____________________________

CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, JUDGE