### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE N ove m be r 28, 200 6 S es sio n

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. PA TTYGRISSOM

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Warre n Coun ty No. M- 8669 Larry B. Stanley, Jr., Judge

No. M2006- 00147-CCA -R3-C D - F iled April 11, 2007

Th e a pp e lla nt, Patty Gr iss om, wa s c onvic te d o f m isd e me ano r p os se ssi on of dr ugpa ra ph e rn a lia in violation of Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 39-17-425, a nd she wa s sentence d to eleven months and twenty -nine day s, with forty -five day s to be served in confinement. She appe aled, a rguing that she wa s improperly

sentenc ed and that trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive. We conc lude that the re cord

on a pp e a l is ins uf

fi c ie nt f or our r e vie w, and , th e re fo re , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and D. KEL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J J ., joined.

Patty Grissom, McMinnville, Tennessee , Pro Se.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; B re nt C. Che rr y , As sis tant Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l; Dale Potter, D istrict Attorney Gene ral; and Thomas Miner, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
OP IN ION

As for r eleva

nt documents and re cords, the rec ord on appea l contains the judg ment showing the a pp e lla nt’ s c onvic tio n a

nd se nte nc e ; th e no tic e of

a pp e a l; a nd an o rd e r o f t

he tr ial cou rt

in response to the appellant’ s motion to supplement the rec ord on appea l, the motion being f iled afte r the no tic e of

a pp e a l. T hat or de r n ote s th at “ [a] tr a ns c ri pt o f the te sti mony at th e tr ia l of thi s c a us e
wo u l d b e ap p ro p ri at e f

o r i n cl u s i o n i n th e re co rd o n ap p ea l

. Ho we v er , [ th e ap p el l an t ] d i d n o tarra n ge for a Court Reporter to take the testimony in this cause and no rec ord of said testimony is available.” Additionally , the orde r notes that “[i]t is the [appellant’s] obl iga tion to provide a statemen t o f t he

e vid e nc e and

up on fi lin gof sa id s tate me nt of e vid e nc e , the Court sh a ll a c t up on it i n a c c or da

nc e wi th the provisions of Tenne ssee Rules of Appellate Procedur e 24(e) .” The rec ord does not re veal that the appe llant took any

action in this reg ard f

ollowing the e ntry

of this order.T he ap p el l ant f i l ed a m o t i o n in t hi s co urt seeki ng to supp l em ent the reco rd o n a p p eal w i t h a tr anscri p t o r a 1

st at em ent of t he evi d ence. T hi s co urt grant ed th e a p p e llan t t wo ext ensi o ns o f t i m e i n whi ch t o f

i l e t he t rans cri p t or a

s t at eme n t of

t h e ev i den ce

. As t h i s c ou r t n ot ed i n i t s or der of A u g u s t 23, 2006, t h e appe l l an t f ai l ed t o s u bmi t a t r an s cr i pt

o r a sta te m e n t o f t h e e v id e n c e to the trial c o u rt w ithin the ti m e gr a n te d b y this c o u rt.

-2- I t is not cle ar what issues the appellant seeks to ha ve this court conside r. The c laims raised in the motion for a n ew t ri al wer e “[t]he verdict of the [j]ury is contrar

y to the weig ht and preponde ranc e of the evidenc e” and “to the law in the State of Tenne ssee” an dt h e “ s en t ence imposed by

the Court is contrar

y to the law in the State of Te nnessee .” The issu es s et o u t i n the appellant’ s brief a

re that the jurors wer e pre

judiced ag ainst her be cause of “c omments” made a bout her pr ior rec ord; there was a lack of “proof as t o whether the purse in que stion was the [appellant’s]”; and “the compet[e]ncy

of [the appellant’s] counsel.” The appe llant also asserts in her brief that “[ t ] h e S t at em en to f E v i d en ce n ee d s t o b e i n cl u d edd u e t o th e T C A 4 0 -3 5 -4 0 1 ( 2 ), ” n o tcl ai m i n g, howeve r, that such a

document wa s filed. 1

Th e State ’s re sp on se to t he va ry ingc la ims ma de by

the a pp e lla nt i s that th e re c or d is insufficient for this court to consider her appeal. The State corr ectly notes that Tenne ssee Rule of Appellate Proc edure 24(b) plac es the re sponsibili ty on the appe llant to prepar e a co mplete and

acc urate rec ord, and, if this i s not done, the appe llate cour t assumes that the ruling s of the trial c ourt

were s up p o rt ed by

sufficie nt evidence . State v. Oody , 823 S.W .2d 554, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 91 ). As fo r t

he fa c t th at a

c ourt re po rt e r d id n ot atte nd

the a pp e lla nt’ s tri al, the State c or

re c tly notes that the combined e ffe ct of Te nnessee Code Annotated se ctions 40-14-307(a ), 40-14- 301(3),

and 39 -1 1- 11 0 is that a re po rt e r’ s pr e se nc e is no t re qu ir e d unle ss a de fe nd ant i s in dig e nt. Se e State v. Nail, 963 S.W.2d 761, 764 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). As we ha ve stated , no statement of the

e vid e nc e a s a

uth or ize d by Te nn e sse e Rul e of Ap pe llate Pr oc e dure 24 (c ) wa s pr e pa re d, a lth ou g h, in its order, the tria l court advised of this procedur e as pr eviously descr ibed.

Thus, in a nutshell, the rec ord on appe al shows that the appe llant was convic ted, but, in the absenc e of a

transcr ipt of the trial or a

statement of the e vidence , this court cannot c onsider the issues which she attempts to raise on appe al. Acc ording ly
, t h e j u d gm en t of the trial cour t is affirmed. Howeve r, we conclude that, since the c laims of ineffe ctive assist ance of counsel wer e raised for the first time in this court and neither pr esente d to nor ruled upon by the trial cour

t, the appellant is not barr ed fr om filing a

subsequent post-convic tion claim in this reg ard. See Bobby Allen J oy

ner v. State, No. 03C01-9807-CR-00260, 1999 WL 318832, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, May 19, 1999).

___________________________________ NORMA McGEE OGL E, J UDGE