### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on

Briefs M arch 12, 2002
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN WESLEY JOHNSON Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Gibson County No. 15681 L. T. Lafferty, Senior Judge

No. W2001-02473-CCA-MR3-CD - Filed June 11, 2002

The appellant, John Wesley Johnson, was indicted by the Gibson County Grand Jury for one count of desecr ation of a venera ted objec t, to wit: a p lace of burial, a class A misdemeano r. He was convicted by a

jury , sentenc ed to eleven months and twen ty- nine day s in the county jail, placedon probation, and ordered

to pay restitution in the amount of $2,574. The a ppellant, proceeding pro se, filed an

untimely notice of appeal. This court, upon motion of the appellant, waived timely f iling of th e a pp ea l; ac co rd in gl y, the appeal is properly before this court. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues: (1) “w[h]ether the trial court reviewed the re cord”; (2) “w[h]ether the (State) conspira [cy ] used their

position to w ithhold fa

cts in ord er to receive a

conviction”; (3) “w[h]ether the public officers used the c ourt to re ach thei r gold” ; and (4) “w[h]ethe r the tria l court e rred in it s review of the records and facts of law as to this case.” Upon rev iew of the record and the pa

rties’ briefs, we affi

rm the judg

ment of the

trial cou rt. Tenn. R. App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right ; Judgment

of the Cir

cuit Cour

t is Affir med.
N ORMA M C G EE O GLE , J., delivered the opinion of the court, i n which G ARY R. W ADE , P.J., and A LAN E. G LENN , J., joined.
Joh n Wesley Johnson, Trenton, Tennessee, Pro Se (on appea l), and Scott G. Kirk, Jac kson , Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, John We sley Johnson.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gener al and Re porter; J ohn H. Bled soe, Assis tant Attor ney Gene ral; William L. Gibbons and Ter rell G. G raves, D istrict At

torneys G eneral Pro Tem, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION
I. Factua

l Background The record before this court is quite convoluted and confusing . The appellant was convicted on April 3, 2001, of desecration of a venerated object. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-311 (1997). From the

mostly nonsensical record, we are able to discern that the conviction resulted from-2-

a dispute regarding the owner ship of cemetery property loca

ted in Gibs o n County. The appellant now raises se

veral iss ues reg arding

improper action by state off icials, w hich act ion he cla ims led to his conviction. In support of his claim, the appella nt alleges that, in 1882, after the capture of Humbolt, Tennessee, by Union force s, General Nathan Bedford F orrest robbed a

payroll train. The appellant further allege s that go ld from the train wa s t hen bur ied on property now owned by the appella nt. Finally, the appe

llant seemingly c ontends that the local District A ttorney Genera l, local judges, and other

officia ls have conspired to acquire the gold by securing the appellant’s conviction or, more specifically , by “withhold[ing] and suppress[ing] favorable evidence” in this case. II. Analysis Without cons idering

whether there is m erit to the appella nt’s issu es, we are compelle d to instruct that, “[w]hen a party see ks appe llate review there is a duty to pre pare a record which co nv eys a fair, accura

te and compl ete acc ount of wh at transp ired with respect to the issues forming the basis of

the appeal.” State v. Ballard , 855 S.W.2d 557, 560 ( Tenn. 199 3). Fur thermore , the duty to provide a complete appellate record is upon the appealing party

. State v. Oody , 823 S.W.2d 554, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). Appellate courts are precluded fr om considering an issue raised on appeal when the record submitted on appeal is incomplete, i.e., when portions of the rec ord relevant to the issue are absent from the record. State v. Ro

berts , 755 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988); see also Ballard , 855 S.W.2d at 561 (“Absent the necessary relevant material in the record an appellate court

cannot c onsider t

he merits of an issu e.”); Tenn . R. Ap p. P. 24(b) . As a

resu lt, “[ i]n the absence

of an ade quate re cord on a

ppeal, th is court mu st presume

that the tr

ial cour t’ s rulin gs were supported by

sufficient evidence.” Oody , 823 S.W.2d at 559.
The appellant in the instant case has failed to include either a transcript or a statement of the evidence of the proceeding s below. Based upon the record befor e us, we are u nable to determine ev en the m ost basic facts su rroundin g the ap

pellant’ s offens e. Ther

efore, we must conclude that the a ppellant has faile d to prope

rly preser ve the iss ues for a

ppeal.
III. Conclusion Accordingly , the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEE OGLE, JUDGE