THI RD DI VI SI ON
M C FA DDEN, C. J.

, D OYLE, P. J.

, and HODGES, J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.
P le a s e r e fe r to the S upr e m e C our t of G e or gia Judic ia l
E m e r ge nc y Or de r o f M a r c h 1 4

, 2 0 2 0 for fur the r infor m a tion a t (https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s ).

A pr i l 16, 2020



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A0 58 4 . BRENNER v . THE STATE.

M C F A D D E N , Ch i ef J u d g e.

Aft er a j u r y t ri al

, Bran d o n Lee Bren n er was co nv i ct ed o f d ri v i n g o n a

s u s p en d ed l i cen s e. H e a p p e a l s , arg u i n g th at h e was en t i t l ed t o a m i s t ri al wh en t h e

arres t i n g o ffi cer t es t i fi ed th at Bren ner’ s li cen se h ad been s u s p en d ed t h ree t i m es

. Bu t

i n t he ab s en ce o f a t ran s cri p t s h o wi n g t h e b as i s o f h is o b j ect i o n t o t h is t es ti m o n y

at

t ri al , we m

us t pres um e t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ru l ed co rrect l y . So we affi rm

.

At t h e ju ry t ri al

, th e a r r e s t i n g o ffi cer t es t ifi ed o n d i rect ex am i n at io n t h at h e

p u l l ed o v er Bren n er’ s car i n res p o n se t o a d i s p at ch

. Th e o ffi cer tes t ifi ed t h at h e as k ed

Bren n er fo r hi s d ri v er’ s l i cen s e, b u t Bren ner s ai d i t h ad b een s us p en d ed

. Th e o ffi cer

t es t i fi ed t h at h e ran Bren n er’ s n am e t h ro u g h t h e Geo rg ia Cri m e In fo rm at i o n Cen t er

d at ab as e, wh i ch r e t u r n ed res u l t s i n d i cat i n g th at Bren n er’ s l i cen s e “ had b eens u s p en d ed t hre e t i m es .” At th i s p o i n t

, d efen s e co un s el o b j ect ed an d

, wi t h o ut

s p eci fy in g t h e g ro u n ds fo r t he o b ject i o n , as k ed t o ap p ro ach t h e b en ch “ o n a m o t i o n.”

An o ff-t h e-reco rd b en ch co n feren ce o ccu rred

.

Th e t ran s cri p t n ex t refl ect s t h e as s i s t an t s o l ici t o r co nt in u in g t o q ues t i o n t h e

o ffi cer. Sh e as k ed t he o ffi cer, “ o n wh at d ay was t he l i cen s e s u s pen d ed ,” t h e o ffi cer

res p o n d ed t h at “ t h e r e w e re two fo r Oct ob er 25

, 2 0 1 8

, an d t h ere was a t h i rd fo r

No v em b er 8 o f 20 1 8 .” Defen s e co u ns el s t at ed

, “ Ju d ge, I a g a i n r e n ew m y m o t i o n.”

Th e t ri al co u rt s t at ed t h at t h e m o t i o n was d en i ed , an d t h e t ri al co nt i nu ed

.

Th e j u ry fo un d Bren n er g u i l t y o f d ri v i n g on a s us p en d ed l i cen s e, t h e t ri al co u rt

en t ered a ju d g m en t o f co nv ict i o n o n t h e v erd i ct

, an d Bren n er fi led t h i s ap p eal

.

Bren n er arg u es t h a t t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n fai li n g t o g ran t h is m o t i o n fo r

m i s t ri al aft er t h e arr e s t i ng o ffi cer m en t io n ed t h at Bren ner’ s l i cen s e h ad b een

s u s p en d ed t h ree t i m es . Bren n er h as n o t s ho wn erro r.

Bren n er di d n o t p r e s erv e o n t h e reco rd o r i n t he t ran s cri pt t h e b as i s fo r h i s

o b ject i on t o t h e o ffi cer’ s t es t i m o n y o r t h e t ri al co urt ’ s ru l in g , wh i ch p res u m ab l y

o ccu rred d uri n g t h e o ff-t h e-reco rd b en ch co n feren ce. “ Had [Bren n er] d es i red t h at we

co n si d er th i s o bject i o n , s t ep s s h o u ld hav e b een t ak en t o en s u re t h at t h e co u rt rep o rt er

t o o k d own t he [b en ch ] co n feren ce o r t h e o bject i o n res t at ed i n t o t h e reco rd aft er t h i s

2co n feren ce.” Bl u a i n v. S t at e , 2 4 2 Ga. Ap p

. 1 2 5

, 13 1 (4 ) (5 2 9 SE2 d 1 5 5 ) (2 0 0 0 ).

Al t ern at i v el y , s i n ce “ t h e t ran scri p t

. . . d o es no t fu l ly di s cl o s e wh at tran sp i red at t ri al

,

[Bren n er co u l d h av e h ad ] t h e reco rd co m p l et ed i n t h e t ri al co u rt u n d er t h e p ro v i s i on s

o f OCGA § 5 -6

- 4 1 ( f

)

. ” I vo r y v. S t a te

, 1 9 9 G a. Ap p

. 2 8 3

, 2 8 4 (1 ) (4 0 5 SE2 d 9 0 )

(1 9 9 1) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). Bren n er d i d n o t en s u re t h at t h e b as i s o f h i s

o b ject i on was refl ect ed o n t h e reco rd

. No r d i d h e h av e t he reco r d c o m p l e t ed u n d er

O C G A § 5

- 6 -4 1 (f) t o refl ect wh at o ccu rred at t h e b en ch co n feren ce. So t h e

“ o b ject i o n i s n o t p res erv ed fo r rev i ew, b ec a u s e t h i s [ c] o u rt has n o t hi n g b efo re i t to

rev i ew. In t h e ab s en ce o f ei t h er reco rd or t ran s cri p t

, t h i s [c] o u rt m u st p res u m e t h e

co rrect ne s s o f t h e r u l i n g b y t h e t ri al co u rt

. ” S a wyer v. Ca r d io lo g

y of Ga

. , 2 5 8 Ga.

Ap p

. 7 2 2

, 7 2 3 (2 ) (5 7 5 SE2 d 1 1 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (ci t at i on o m i tt ed ). See al s o Mo s l ey v. S t a t e ,

2 9 8 Ga. 8 4 9

, 8 5 3 ( 2) (c) n.3 (7 8 5 SE2 d 29 7 ) (2 0 1 6 ) ( “ An o ff-t h e-reco rd o b ject i o n

d o es n ot p res erv e an is s u e fo r ap p el l at e rev i ew.”). Cf. W i g g i n s v. S t a t e , 3 3 8 Ga. Ap p.

2 7 3

, 2 80 (4 ) (7 8 7 SE2 d 3 5 7 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (o b ject i o n rai sed an d ru l ed o n i n off-t h e-reco rd

b en ch co n feren ce, b u t lat er p l aced o n t h e reco rd

, wa s s uf f i ci en t l y pres erv ed to ad d res s

t h e m eri t s o n ap p eal ).

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Do yl e, P. J., a n d

Ho d g es , J., co n cu r

.

3