### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te mb er 24, 200 8
BEN BLEV INS v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal from t he Criminal Court for Hawkin s County Nos. 07-CR- 224, 07-CR- 273, 06-CR- 227 & 06-CR -232-235 John F. Du gger, Jr ., Judge

No. E2007-02746-CC A-R3- CD - Filed January 15, 2009

Appellant, B en B levins, pled g uilty to eig ht counts of passing worthless check s , four c ounts of fo rg e ry , a

nd fi ve c ounts o f atte mpt e d mo ne y la un de ri ng . A c c or din g to t he ple a a g re e me nt, Appellant’s e ffe ctive sentenc e was three y ear s, the manner of ser vice to be de termined by

the trial court afte r a se ntencinghear ing. T he trial c ourt denied a lternative se ntencingbased on A ppellant’s p ri o r cr i minal history , inability to pay exis ting r estitution, failure to abide by terms of prior probation, beha

vior of continually

reof fendingand in orde r to deter simil ar behavior

. The trial c ourt order ed the se ntence serve d in incarc eration. Appellant appeals, pro se , arguing that he should have been g rante d some form of a lternative se ntencing

. We de termine that the trial court proper ly denied alternative sentenc ing. A ccor dingly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s A ffirm e d.

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P

. J. and D A V ID H. W EL L ES , J ., joined.

Her b Holcomb, Rog ersville, Te nnessee , at trial, and B en B levins, Pro Se, on appea l, Roge rsville, Tenne ssee.
Robe rt E

. Co o p e r , Jr

. , A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l a

n d Re p o rte r ; R a c h e l W e s t H ar mo n , A s s is ta

n t A ttorney Gene ral; C. Be rkele y

Be ll, District Attorney

Gene ral a

nd Alex P ear son, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION Ap pe lla nt was in dict e d in

Au g us t of

20 07 by the Ha wk ins County

Gr and Jury in a mul ticount indictment and a pr esentment in seve n separ ate c ases f or a t o t al of eight c ounts of passing worthless che cks, four

counts of forg ery , and five counts of money launder ing. I n October of 2007, Appellant pled guilty

to eig ht counts of passing worthless chec ks, four counts of forg ery , and fiveThe r ec or d doe s not c ont ai n a t r ans cr i pt of t he gui l t y pl ea he ar i ng. 1

A p p e llan t’s a tto rn e y sta te d a t t h e h e a rin g th a t t h e to ta l am o u n t o f re stitu tio n e q u a le d $ 1 4 ,1 9 1 .0 4

. 2

-2- counts of attempted money launder ing in exchang e for a tot al effec tive sentenc e of three y ear s. The 1 trial court was schedule d to de termine the manner of service of the sentenc e afte r a s en t encing h ea ri n g.
A tt h e s e n t e n c i n g h e ar i n g , A p p e l l an ta dm i t t e d t h a th e h a d

p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s f

o r f o r g e r y, br e a kin g and

e nte ri ng , la

rc e ny , p os se ssi on

of sto le n p ro pe rt

y , o bta ini ng

pr op e rt y by fa lse pr e te ns e s, and a violation of probation. Appellant claimed he did not reca ll telling the investig ating office r who prepa red the repor

t that he did not have a prior criminal history but a dmitted that th e f o l lowing lang uag e appe ars on the pr e-se ntence repor t, “[a]t the t i m e the questionnaire was obtaine d, [Appell an t ] re p o rted he had no prior a dult recor d.” Appe llant also denied knowle dg e re g arding
arr e st w arr ants that w e re iss ue d b y No rt h Ca ro lin a be c a us e he ha d a

bs c on de d fr om p ro batio n unti l his Tennessee attorney

had told him about them.
Ap pe lla nt a dmi tte d h is guil t and

e xpla ine d th a t he pa sse d a wo rt hle ss che ck on

a bu sin e ss acc ount that was joi ntly owned and operated by him and his parents. Appe llant stated that the che cks totaled $11,700. 2

Three months prior to the hearing , Appellant and his g irlfriend started a restaura nt consulting business. At the hea

ring , Appellant admitted that he did not have a consistent income. Appellant
a lso inf or me d th e tr ia l c ourt

tha t he wa s r e sp on sib le fo r pa ying $5 00 a mon th in c hil d s up po rt fo r h is daug hter a

nd was a lso try ing to support his g irlfriend a nd her c hild.

The trial c ourt listened to the evidenc e and r eviewe d the fa ctors to consider when g ranting or deny ing an al t ernative sentenc e. At the c onclusion of the hea ring , the trial cour

t noted, “[Appellant’s] prior history is a ll offense s that are basica lly the same ty

pe of dishonesty

offe nses of forg ery and worthless chec ks and his conviction [in North Carolina] is false pr etense s. I t’s all crimes involving dishonesty . . . .” The trial cour t fo u n d it noteworthy that even thoug h Appellant wa s making near ly

$70,000 a y ear

he had f ailed to pay the restitution he owed in N orth Carolina. The trial court f

elt that Appellant had the “ability ” to be reha bilitated but found that Appellant would not be able to abide by

the terms of pr obation beca use mea sures less res t ri ct i ve had be en applied
u n s u c c e s s f

u l l y t o Ap p e l l an t

. T h e t r i a l c o u rt t h o u g h t t h e r e w a s a “ p o s s i b i l i t y ” t h a t “ t he int e re st i n society is being protec ted from possible future criminal c o n d u ct ” of Appellant. The tria l court conclude d that full probation would depre ciate the seriousness of the offe nse, par tially beca use of the number a

nd natur e o f Ap p ell ant’s pre vious convictions. L astly , the trial cour t noted that
c on fi ne me nt o f A

pp e lla nt w ou ld b e su ite d to “ pr ov ide an e ff e c tiv e de te rr e nt t o o thers lik e ly to commit sim ilar off

enses” beca

use of the numbe r of c ases i n v o l v i n g “forg erie s and thefts a nd d i s h o n es t y ” i n“t h e C o u rt s

. ” A s a r es u l t , t h e t ri al co u rt d en i edal t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g. Ap pe lla nt f ile d a tim e ly no tic e of a pp e a l.-3- An aly sis On appeal, Appellant argues t hat t he trial court erre d by denying a lternative se ntencing“eve n afte r [Appellant] provided witnesses and proof of an upstandinglifesty le.” The S t at e ar gu es that Ap pe lla nt ha s wa ive d the iss ue fo r fa ilure to co mpl y wi th Te nn e sse e Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls R

ule 10 . F ur the r, the State no te s correct ly th at the r e c or d f a ils to c on ta in t

he tr ans c ri pt f

ro m th e g uil ty plea he aringand that the f ailure to provide an adequate rec ord pre vents this Court from conducting a de novo r eview. F i n al l y , t h e State ar g ues in the alter native that the tria l court prope rly denied al t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g.
“When re viewing sentenc ing issues

. . . the appellate court shall conduct a de novo revie w on the re cord of

such issues. The r eview s h al l b e co nducted with a pr esumption that the deter minations m ad e by

the cour

t from which the a

ppeal is take n are corr ect.” T.C.A. § 40-35-401( d). “H oweve r, the pre sumption of corre ctness which acc ompanies the trial c ourt’s ac tion is conditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the rec ord that t h e t ri al court c onsidered the sentenc ing principles and all rele vant fa cts and c ircumstance s.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . I n conductingour re view, we must co n s i d er t he def endant’ s potential for reha bilitation, t he trial a

nd sentenc ing he aringevidenc e, the pr e-s entenc e re port, the sentenc ing principles, sente ncing alternative arguments, the nature and chara cter of t he offense, the enhanc ing
and mit ig a tin g fa c tor s, and

the de fe n da

nt’ s st a te me nts . T .C. A. §§ 40 -3 5- 10 3( 5) , - 21 0( b) ; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. We are to also rec og nize that the defe ndant bea rs “the bur den of showingthat the sentenc e is improper.” Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.

Th is s tand ard

of re vie w, ho we ve r, is c on dit ion e d u po n th e a

bil ity of thi s Co ur

t to meaning fully

revie w the issues prese nted on appea l. That being said, we are cog nizant of the fac t that Appellant pursue s the prese nt appea l as a pro se litigant. A s such, we are mindful of the fo l l o wi n g:

P ar t ies who dec ide to repr esent themselve s are entitled to fair a nd equal treatment by

the cour ts. W hitaker v. W

hirlpool Corp. , 32 S.W. 3d 22 2, 22 7 ( Te nn . Ct

. Ap p. 20 00 ); Paehler v. Union Planters Nat’l Bank, Inc. , 971 S.W .2d 393, 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). The courts should take into ac count that many pro se litiga

nts have
n o l egal tra ining a

nd littl e fa

miliarity with the judicial sy stem. I r v in v

. City of Cla rk sv ill e , 7 67 S.W. 2d 64 9, 65 2 ( Te nn . Ct . App . 1 98 8) . H ow e ve r, the c ourt s mu st
a lso be min df

ul o f t he bo un da

ry be tw e e n fa ir

ne ss to a pr o s e lit ig ant a

nd un fa ir ne ss t o t h e p r o s e l i t i g an t ’ s a dv e r s ar y

. T h u s , t h e c ou rt s mu st n ot e x c us e pr o s e lit iga nts from complying with the same substantive and proce dural rules that repr es ented parties areexpe cted to observ e
. Ed mu nd so n v . P ra tt , 945 S.W .2d 754, 755 (Tenn. Ct. Ap p. 19 96 ); Kaylor v. Bradley , 912 S.W .2d 728, 733 n.4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

The c ourts g ive pro se litig ants who ar e untra ined in the law a c erta in amount of lee way in draftingtheir plea dings and brief s. W hitaker v. W

hirlpool Corp. , 32 S

. W

. 3 d a t 22 7; Paehler v . Union Planters Nat’l Bank, Inc. , 971 S.W .2d at 397.-4-

Acc ording ly , we mea sure the paper s prepa red by pro se litigants usi ng standards that
are less stringe nt than those applied to pape rs pre pare d by lawy ers. Hu

gh es v . R owe , 44 9 U .S. 5, 9- 10 (1 98 0) ; Ba x te r v . R os e , 523 S.W .2d 930 , 9 3 9 (Tenn. 1975) ; W inc he ste r v . Li ttl e , 996 S.W .2d 818, 824 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

Y oung v. Barrow , 130 S.W .3d 59, 62-63 (Te nn. Ct. App. 2003) (empha sis added). Takingth o s e gu i d el i nes into acc ount, we must first addre ss the content of the rec ord on appea l. Appellant filed a

pro se brief w ith this Court, the contents of whic h, in its entirety , include a “Stateme nt of the Case,” a “Stateme nt of Fa cts,” a “Statement of the I ssue Presente d for Revie w,” an eig ht sentence argument section with no citations to the rec ord or to au t h o rity , and a “C o n cl u s i o n.” The re a

re spe cific r equire ments reg ardingthe re cord on a ppeal a nd the content of briefs to the appellate courts. See ge nerally Tenn. R. App. P. 24-30. F urthermor e, this Court’s rules pr ov ide that ina de qu a te br ie fs may be str ic ke n with the imp os iti on of c os ts t o th e pa

rt y re sp on sib le for the filing of a brief t hat does not comply with the Tennessee Rules of A ppellate Proc edure . Tenn. Ct. Crim . App. R. 10(a)

. Simi larly , the same rule allows this Court to t reat as waive d any issues that “ar e not supported by

argument, citation to aut h o ri t ies, or appr opriate r efe renc es to the re cord.” Tenn C t

. Crim. App. R. 10(b). Appellant’s br ief is def icient in this reg ard. It contains no rea l argument, citation to authorities, or appropr iate refer ence s to the record as require d by Rule 10(b) of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Fur thermore , there is a complete a bsence of the tra

nscript of the guilty

plea he aringin the
rec ord on appe al. This defic iency is, in our view, dispositive of Appellant’s issue. I t is the duty of Appellant to include a

complete r ecor d on appea l. See State v . Troutman , 979 S.W .2d 271 (Tenn. 1998) (holding that failure to include trial t ransc ript on appea l waived c halleng e to sentenc e); Sta te
v . B all ar d , 855 S.W .2d 557 (1993) (holding fa ilure to include tra nscript pre cludes a

ppellate r eview) ; State v. Oody , 823 S.W .2d 554 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (holding tr ial court’s r uling pr esumed
corr ect in abse nce of

an ade quate r ecor d on appea l). Notwithstanding the waive r, the re cord be fore us supports Appellant’s sente nce. T he pre sentenc e re port indicates that Appe llant has a leng thy criminal history . Appellant’s c riminal history beg ins with a convi ct ion in 1996, when he wa s tw e nty -o ne y e ars old

. Ap pe lla nt c le arl y ha s a his tor y of va ri ou s k ind s o f c ri me s invo lvi ngdis ho ne sty as evide nced by

two convictions for utter ing a forg ed instrument, o n e co n viction for obtaining proper ty by false prete nses, one conviction for brea king and enter ing, one conviction for posse ssion of stolen g oods, one convic tion for larc eny , one convic tion fo r forg ery , and one c onviction for passing a wor

thless c heck, all from the State of North Carolina. In addition to this leng thy criminal history , the re cord indicates that Appellant had been placed on supervised proba tion by the State of North Carolina a

nd continued to re offe nd even a fter be ing g iven the opportunity to complete an alternative sentenc e. Appellant has be en g iven at lea st three c hance s on probation by the State of No rt h Ca ro lin a . In o the r w or ds , me a sure s le ss res tr ictiv e have be e n a pp lie d uns uc c e ssf

ull y to Appellant in the past. The se fa ctors alone support the trial cour t sentence

. See T.C.A. 40-35-103. We conclude that the trial court’ s denial of a lternative se ntencingis supported by the re cord.

Conclusion-5-

F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ourt

.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE