### THE COURT OF CRI MI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove mb er 10, 200 9
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. G. MIKE HOLD EN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forMadison Cou nty

No. 08-355 Donald H. Allen, Ju dge

No. W2009-00456-C CA-R 3-CD - Filed Dece mber 10, 2009

The de fenda

nt, G. Mike Holden, wa s convicted b y a Madison County jury of one c ount of sale of beer to a minor, a Class A misdemeanor. He wa s subsequently sentenc ed to a ter

m of eleve n months
and tw e nty -n ine da

y s, to be su sp e nd e d fo llo wi ng se rv ic e of on e hund re d tw e nty da

y s in the c ounty jail. On appea l, the defe ndant ra ises the sing le issue of sufficie ncy of the evidenc e. Howe ver, the defe ndant has failed to inc lude in the appellate rec ord a transcr ipt of the evidenc e fr om his trial. The de fe nd ant h a s su

bmi tte d a state me nt o f t

he e vid e nc e , p ur su ant t o T e nn e sse e Rul e of Ap pe llate Procedur e 24(c )-( d). Howe ver, it wa s not tim ely filed pursua

nt to the rules. B ec ause the issue
su bmi tte d is no t me ri tor iou s a s a matt e r o f l aw, we c on c lud e that it is n ot i n th e int e re st o f j us tic e to waive the timeliness requireme nt. As such, the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cir cuit Court Af firme d

J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which R OBER T W. W EDEMEYER a ndJ. C. M C L IN , JJ., joined.

Geor ge M. Googe, District Public Defe nder, a nd Gre gory D. Gookin, Assistant Public Defe nder, f or the appe llant, G. Mike Holden.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr ., At torne y G e ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Cla re nc e E. Lu tz , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y G e ne ra l; James G. ( Jerry) Wooda ll, District Attorney Gen er al; and Shaun A. Brown, A ssistant District Attorney Ge nera l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

Proc edural History

An a ff ida vit of c omp la int

wa s f ile d b y Of fi c e r Ja c kie B e nto n, wh ic h s tate d a s f oll ow s:
On 4-28-07 at [ approximately ] 2035 [hours] a confide ntial sour ce unde r the a g e of 21 purcha sed a six pack of B ud L ight be er f rom the L ittle Ge nera l BP locate d at 299-2-

N Hig hway

45 West. [ I nvestig ator] Wi ser obse rved the transac tion. The c lerk who conducte d the transa ction was identified a s [t he def endant].

The de fenda

nt was subseque ntly

indicted by

a Madison County g rand jury for one count of
sa le of be e r t o a min or . F oll ow inga

jur y tr ia l, h e wa s c on vic te d a s c ha rg e d. He wa s su

bs e qu e ntl y sentenc ed to eleve n month s an d t we nty -nine da y s, to be suspended f

ollowing the se rvice of one hundred twe nty

day s in c onfinement. Following the denial of his motion for ne w trial, the de fenda nt filed the instant timely

appea l on Febr

uary 27, 2009. On April 9, 2009, the defe ndant filed a motion to pre pare a tra nscript at the State’ s expense. Whil e no dis po sit ion

of thi s mo tio n is c on ta ine d in the re c or d be fo re us , the de fe nd ant a sse rt s in h is brief that the t rial court denied the motion based upon its finding that the de fenda nt had suffic ient
resour ces to pa

y for the tr anscr ipt. Pursuant to Tennesse e Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 24( c), the defe ndant has submitted a stateme nt of evidenc e. Howe ver, he acknow ledg es that this statement was
no t f ile d w ith in the sixty -d ay

tim e lim it f

oll ow ingthe fi lin g of

the no tic e of

a pp e a l. N on e the le ss, he asks this court to wa ive the re quirement in the intere st of justice.

Th e state me nt o f e vid e nc e , a s su bmi tte d b y

the de fe nd ant, is a s f

oll ow s: State’s Proof

J ackson- Madison County Metro Nar cotics conduc ted a se ries of pur chase s of beer from ar ea c onvenienc e stores utilizi ng a conf idential informant. The confide ntial informant, B lake L amber t, was ninetee n y ear s old on Apri l 24, 2007, when he purcha sed a six-pack of be er f rom [the defenda

nt] , wh o wa s employ ed as a cle rk at the L ittle Gene ral store. L amber t produce d his mil itary

identification whe n [t he def endant] reque sted proof of ag e. L amber

t then exit ed the L ittle Gener al and g ave the beer

to law enf

orce ment, which retained the six -pac k as evide nce. L amber t
wore an audio/video r ecor ding device during the transac tion, a nd the re cordingwas enter ed into evidenc e ag ainst [t he def endant].

I nvestig ators Jackie B enton and Christopher Wiser testifie d t h at L amber t eng ag ed in the controlled pur chase s under their close super

vision. Both investigators confirme d that L amber

t was unde r the a g e of twe nty -one w hen he pur chase d beer from [the defe ndant]. DefenseProof

D u r in g h is te s ti mo n y , [th e d e f e n d an t] f r e e ly a dmi tt e d th a t h e h a d s o ld a s ixpack of beer to B lake L amber

t. [ The de fenda

nt] acknow ledg ed che cking L amber t’s identification, but stated that he had made a simple mathematical err or in ca lculating L amber t’s ag e. [The def

endant] stated that h e wa s trained to a sk for identification-3-

fr om a nyon e wh o p ur c ha se d a lc oh ol, and de nie d th a t he wo uld

have int e nti on a lly sold beer to a

minor.

Ana lys is On appe al, the def

endant r aises the si n gl e i s s ue of suf ficienc y of the e vidence . He
a c kn ow le dg e s th a t a lmo st “ e ve ry fa c t at tr ial wa s unc on tr ov e rt e d, save [the de fe nd ant’ s] in te nt i n committing the off

ense.” He r elies upon his asser tion that he committed a mathematica l error and “implores this Court to look bey ond the sale to his lack of intent.”

I n consideringthe issue of suff iciency of the e vidence , we a

pply the rul e that where the sufficie ncy

of the evidenc e is c halleng ed, the rele vant question for the revie wing court is “whe ther, afte r viewingthe evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the [S tate], anyra tio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld have f ound the essential e lements of the c rime beyond a re asonable doubt.” J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U. S. 30 7, 31 9, 99 S. Ct . 2 78 1, 27 89 (1 97 9) ; se e als o Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( e ). Mo re ov e r, the State is entitled to the stronge st le g itimate view of the e vidence and all re asonable infere nces w hich may be dra wn there from. Sta te v . H

arris , 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992) . All questions involvi ng the
cre dibilit y

of witnesses, the w eight an d v al u e t o be g iven the evide nce, a nd all fac tual issues are resolved by

the trier of

fac t. State v. Pappas , 7 54 S.W. 2d 62 0, 62 3 (T e nn . Crim . App . 198 7) . T his court will not rew eig h or re evaluate the evide nce pr esente d. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)

. “A guilty

verdic t by

the jury , approve d by

the trial judg e, ac cre dits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in f avor of the theory of the State.” State v. Grac e , 49 3 S. W.2 d 47 4, 47 6 (T e nn

. 19 73 ). A j ur y c on vic tio n r e mov e s th e pr e sumpt ion of inn oc e nc e wi th which a defe ndant i s initially cloake d and replace s it with one of g uilt so that, on appea l, a convicte d defe ndant has the bur den of de monstrating that the ev i d ence is insufficient. Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). These rules are applicable to f indings of guilt predicate d upon direc t evidenc e, circ umstantial e vidence , or a combination of both. Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

.
I nitially , we must addre ss the S tate’s contention that aff irmance is require d based upon the defe ndant’s fa ilure to include a transcr ipt or any timely filed statement of

the evidenc e. The re is no dispute that an appe llant bear s the burden of providing this c ourt with a n adequate re cord to a llow resolution of the issue ra ised on appea l. Tenn. R. App. P

. 24. Fur ther, the absenc e of a tra

nscript of the proce eding s rele vant to the issues raised by an appe llant prec ludes revie w by this court. Sta te
v . B all ar d , 855 S.W. 2d 55 7, 56 0- 61 (T e nn . Crim . App . 1 99 3) . T he de fe nd ant a c kn ow le dg e s in thi s case that no transcr ipt of the trial proc eeding s, which ar e ne ce s s ar y fo r o u r re view, is part of the
rec ord.

H o w e v e r , o u r

r u l e s p r o v i d e t h a t , i f

n o t r an s c r i p ti s a v a i l a

b l e , ana p p e l l an t m u s ts u

p p l y a statement of the e vidence within six ty day s of filing his n o t i ce of appe al or c ertify that no such statement will be filed within fiftee n day s of t he noti ce of appe al. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(c )-( d). In the-4-

absenc e of e ither appr oved method f o r p re s en t i ng to this court the fac ts considere d at trial, the defe ndant fa ils to overcome the pr es u m p t i o n that the trial cour t’s ruling s were supported by sufficie nt evidence

. State v. Oody , 823 S.W .2d 554, 559 (Te n n

. C ri m

. Ap p. 1991). While the defe ndant acknow ledg es that his state ment of the evidenc e in this case w as not timely filed, he a sks this court to waive the time limit in the interest of justice in orde r to consider his issue.
As noted, the de fenda

nt wa s co n v icted of se lling bee r to a minor. The statute states that “[a]ny licensee or other pe rson who sells, furnishes, disposes of, g ives, or ca uses to be sold, furnished, disposed of

, or g iven, any alcoholic bevera g e to any person under t wenty -one ( 21) y ear s of ag e commits a Class A misdemeanor .” T.C.A. § 57-4- 203 (b )( 1 )( B) (2006). A r eadingof the statut e ind ic a te s th a t the off e ns e is d e fi ne d w ith ou t r e fe re nc e to a me nta l st a te . Wh e n a

statut e criminalizes behavior w ithout refer ence to mens rea , the g ener al state of mind, while re levant, is not
re qu ir e d a s lo nga s th e statut e g ive s pr op e r no tic e that the be havio r d e sc ri be d th e re in w ou ld g ive ri se to c riminal prosec ution. See, e .g. , State v. Turner , 953 S.W .2d 213, 215 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (l e g isl a tur e ’s statut or

y de fi nit ion

of the of fe ns e of dr ivi ng un de r t

he inf lue nc e wi tho ut r e fe re nc e to a culpa ble mental state “ plainly

dispenses with the mental e lement”)

. The de fenda

nt’s entire a

rg ument cente rs ar ound his mental state at the tim e of the offe nse, which as stated supra, is not a require d element of the offe nse. He acknow ledg es expressly that he did, in fact, sell bee r t o a person less than t wenty -one y ear s of age

. As such, his argument is without merit and, e ven if fa ctually true, would not entit le him to relief. Ac cording ly , we c annot conc lude that the i ntere st of j ustice m andate s acc eptanc e of the l ate- filed st atement of the evidenc e as it does nothing to adva

nce a ny leg al ar g ument. Thus, we c onclude that on the re co rd b ef o re us, the de fe nd ant has adduc e d n oth ingwh ic h w ou ld o ve rc ome the pr e sumpt ion of his g uil t. R e g ard le ss, even if cons id e r e d

u p o nth e me r it s , th e d e f

e n d an t’ s ar g u me n t w o u ld f a il

. T h e te s ti mo n y

th a t t he d e f e n d an tw a s m i s t a k e ni n h i s b e l i e f t h a tL a mb e rtw a s t w e n t y- o n e ye ar s o l d w a s p u tb e f

o r e t h e j u r y, and a c redibility

deter mination was made. It is not t he provinc e of this cour t to rewe i gh such deter minations. Pappas , 754 S.W .2d at 623. Acc ording ly , the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, the judgme nt of conviction for sale of beer to a minor is affirme d.



### ___________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J UDGE