# FILED
December 21, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE AT JA CKSON WENDELL LEGGS, ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A.NO. 02C01-9907-CC-00219 ) vs. ) LA UDERDAL E COUNTY ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. 5110 ) Respond ent. )
O R D E R

This m atter is b efore the Co urt upo n the st ate’s m otion, p ursua nt to Ru le 20, Ru les of th e Cou rt of Crim inal App eals, to affirm the judg men t of the tr ial court in this case by ord er rather

than formal opi nion. The abo ve-capti oned case repre sents an appeal fro m the trialcourt’s dismissal of

the peti tioner’ s petiti on for wri t of habeas corpus. It appea rs the petitioner is currently serving an ef fective sentenc e of fifty years for several

1986 convict ions of aggr avated rape and aggravated kidnappi ng. The petiti oner contends t hat his sentence has expir ed because the statute under which he was sentenced no l onger exi sts and the current law i mposes a lesser penalty for the offenses committed.

Having rev iewed the state’s motio n in li ght of the p etiti oner’s brief and th e record as a wh ole, we conclud e that the mo tion is well-taken and sh ould be granted. In dismissing t he petit ion, the trialcourt found that the p etiti oner had fai led to show up on the face of t he judgment or t he record of the proceedi ngs upon which t he judgment was rendered t hat the conv ictingcourt was wi thout ju risdic tion or authorit

y to sentence the petitioner or that the petitioner’s sen tence of im prisonme nt or other restraint has exp ired. See State v. Ar

cher , 851 S.W .2d 157 (Tenn . 1993).

Initi ally , we note th at the pet itione r fail ed to incl ude a copy of the judgment in the r ecord on appeal . T.R.A.P. 24(b). I n such a case, t he petit ioner has waived the affected issue s and this Court, there fore, is precluded from conducting an appropriate

### 2

review on appe al. See State v. Ballard , 855 S.W .2d 557 (Tenn . 1993). According ly, “[i]n the absence of an adequate reco rd on appeal , this court must presume tha t the trial court’s rulings were su pported by sufficient evide nce.” State v. Oody , 823 S.W.2d 554, 559 (Tenn. C rim. App. 199 1).

Neverthel ess, given the recor d before the

Court, we agr

ee with th e trial court’s rulin g in thi s case. Contr ary to the peti tioner' s argument, the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Refo rm Act of 1989, whi ch repealed the statute under which the peti tioner was apparentl y convi cted and senten ced, specif icall y state s that "[ t]his ac t shallnot affect rights and d uties mature d, penalties that were inc urred, or proceeding s that were begun befo re its effective date." 1989 Tenn. Pub . Acts ch. 591, § 1 15. See also State ex rel. Stewart v. McWherter , 857 S.W.2d 875 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1992) (holdi ng that th e imposition of less er sentences under the 1989 Act does no t violate constitutional right to equal protection); State v. Russ ell , 866 S.W.2d 578 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1991). Therefore, since the pet itioner is not cha llenging the app ropriate ness of his s enten ce at th e time it was im pose d, his pr esen t claim mus t fail.

Acco rdingly, w e cann ot find a ny error o n the pa rt of the trial cour t in dismissing the petition. It is therefore ORD ERED tha t the state’s mo tion is granted. P u r suant t o R u l e 20 of

t he R u l es of

t he C ourt

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 rw r i t of hab eas co r pus.

_______________________ _______ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

_______________________ _______ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

_______________________ _______ JOE G. R ILEY , JUDGE