### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . BASI L MARCEAUX
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Van Bu ren County No. 1787M Larr y B. Stanl ey, Judge

No. M2004- 02739-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Novem ber 17, 2005

The Petitioner, B asil Marc eaux, appea ls the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to s uppress e vidence ag ainst him. The State has filed a motion re questing that the Court a ffirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. W e find the State’ s motion has merit. Acc ording ly , the motion is gra nted and the a ppeal is af

firmed pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D A VI D H. W EL L ES , and J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J J , joined.

Ba sil Marce aux, pro se, Chattanoog a, Te nnessee

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Bre nt C. Cherry , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION On April 12, 2002, the Petitioner wa s cited for dri v i n g seventy -seve n miles per hour in a fifty -five miles pe r hour zone, ope ration of an unr eg istered ve hicle, and f ailure to provide proof of ins ur a nc e . The g rand jur or s of Va n Bu re n Coun ty ind ic te d the Pe tit ion e r f or the se thr e e of

fe ns e s. Th e Pe tit ion e r pr oc e e de d p ro se , a ndhe fi le d a mot ion to s up pr e ss a ll the e vid e nc e fo un d b y the Sta te trooper a s fruit of the poisonous tree based upon a n illega l stop. The Petitioner’s trial was he ld on September 10, 2004, a nd a jury found him g uiltyof all three offe nses.
After the trial, on September

13, 2004, the trial court entere d an orde r stating “It appea ring that the [P etitioner] . . . filed a Motion to Suppress in thi s cau s e, an d i t fu rt h er a ppearing that the [Pet iti on e r] d id n ot a

rg ue his mot ion on the date of his tr ia l, the Cou rt

he re by de nie s th e mot ion to-2-

suppress.” On Novembe r 2, 2004, the Petitioner filed a notice of a

ppeal, a nd, on appea l, he contends that th e mot ion to d ism iss sh ou ld b e g rante d f or re a so ns that are no t di sc e rn able to this Cou rt

.
We c on c lud e that th e Pe tit ioner’s su pp re ssi on iss ue is w a ive d. Th e Pe tit ion e r’ s a pp e llate brie f i s d e fi c ie nt in c itatio n (1 ) to the re c or d a nd (2 ) to pe rt ine nt a uth ority

. Th e Rul e s o f A pp e llate Procedur e re quire that brie fs include “ [a] statem en t o f fa ct s, setting f orth the fa cts rele vant to the issues prese nted for r eview w ith appropriate ref ere nces to the rec ord.” Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)( 6). The majority

of the facts recited in the Petitioner’s stateme nt of fac ts have no c orre sponding c itation to the re co rd. The Rules of Appellate Proc edure also requir e that citations to authority and ref ere nces to the r ecor d be in cluded in the arg ument portion of the brie f. I d. at 27(a )(7) . The Petitioner’s brief

contains only

one citation to authority and none to the r ecor d. Moreove r, the solitary citation employ ed by

the def endant supports a n assertion of law that is leg ally inacc urate

. Th e ru le s of this c ou rt dir e c t wa ive r o f i ssu e s n ot s up po rt e d b y c itatio n to a uth oriti e s o r a pp ro pria te ref ere nces to the r ecor d. See Te nn. R. Ct. C rim. App. 10(b).

Furth er , t h e P etitioner’s issue c halleng es the sea rch w arr ant from the sta ndpoint of, appar ently , the lack of proba ble cause to stop him and to look in t he windows of his c ar. The rec ord does not show that the issue was r aised in ac corda nce w ith the require ments of Rule 12, Tenne ssee Rules of Criminal Procedur e. The trial court should have overrule d the m otion prior to t rial. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(e). We dec line to compound this procedur al def ect by revie wing this iss ue and hold the Petitioner waived a ny rig ht to contest the admissibili ty o f t h i s evidence. See State v. Randolph, 629 S. W . 2d 37, 40 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982) , and S tate v. Hamilton, 628 S.W .2d 742, 744 ( Tenn. Crim. App. 1981) . Further, the Petitioner se eming ly abandone d this issue at trial in that he ha d a tria l on a ll thr e e of his ind ic tme nts , w he re he wa s f ou ndg uil ty

by a jury , b ut h e didno t r a ise this iss ue bef

ore the trial court. He cannot now pr operly contest this issue on appea l.

F ina lly , th e re app e ars no ba sis to s up po rt the Pe ti t i o n e r’ s c on te nti on that th e tr ia l c ou rt sh ou ld have g rante d his motion to suppr ess. The evidenc e shows that the Petitioner was stopped when he was spee ding, his ve hicle wa s not reg istere d , an d h e did not have proof of insuranc e. He has prese nted no evidenc e to sug g est appropr iate g rounds for any evidenc e against him to be suppresse d.

Ac c or din g ly , th e Sta te ’s mot ion is g ranted . T he jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir me d in
a c c or da nc e wi th R ule 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE