FILED

December 21, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

WENDELL LEGGS, )

)

Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9907-CC-00219

)

 vs. ) LAUDERDALE COUNTY

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. 5110

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

This m atter is before the Court upon the state’s m otion, pursuant to Rule

20, Rules of the Court of Crim inal Appeals, to affirm the judgment of the trial court in this

case by order rather than formal opinion. The above-captioned case represents an

appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus. It appears the petitioner is currently serving an effective sentence of fifty years

for several 1986 convictions of aggravated rape and aggravated kidnapping. The

petitioner contends that his sentence has expired because the statute under which he

was sentenced no longer exists and the current law imposes a lesser penalty for the

offenses committed.

Having reviewed the state’s motion in light of the petitioner’s brief and the

record as a whole, we conclude that the motion is well-taken and should be granted. In

dismissing the petition, the trial court found that the petitioner had failed to show upon

the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings upon which the judgment was

rendered that the convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence the

petitioner or that the petitioner’s sentence of imprisonment or other restraint has expired. 

See State v. Archer, 851 S.W .2d 157 (Tenn. 1993). 

Initially, we note that the petitioner failed to include a copy of the judgment

in the record on appeal. T.R.A.P. 24(b). In such a case, the petitioner has waived the

affected issues and this Court, therefore, is precluded from conducting an appropriate
2

review on appeal. See State v. Ballard, 855 S.W .2d 557 (Tenn. 1993). Accordingly, “[i]n

the absence of an adequate record on appeal, this court must presume that the trial

court’s rulings were supported by sufficient evidence.” State v. Oody, 823 S.W.2d 554,

559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). 

Nevertheless, given the record before the Court, we agree with the trial

court’s ruling in this case. Contrary to the petitioner's argument, the Tennessee Criminal

Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, which repealed the statute under which the petitioner

was apparently convicted and sentenced, specifically states that "[t]his act shall not

affect rights and duties matured, penalties that were incurred, or proceedings that were

begun before its effective date." 1989 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 591, § 115. See also State

ex rel. Stewart v. McWherter, 857 S.W.2d 875 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) (holding that the

imposition of lesser sentences under the 1989 Act does not violate constitutional right to

equal protection); State v. Russell, 866 S.W.2d 578 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). Therefore,

since the petitioner is not challenging the appropriateness of his sentence at the time it

was im posed, his present claim mus t fail.

Accordingly, we cannot find any error on the part of the trial court in

dismissing the petition. It is therefore ORDERED that the state’s motion is granted. 

P u r suant t o R u l e 20 of t he R u l es of t he C our t of C r i m i nal A ppeal s , w e af f i r m t he t r i a l

court ’ s di s m i ssal of t he p e t i t i one r ’ s pet i t i on f o r w r i t of hab eas co r pus.

______________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

______________________________

PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

______________________________

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE