RUL E 1 0 . M E M ORANDUM OPI NI ON 1

T his C o urt, wit h the c o nc urre nc e o f all jud ge s p arti cip ati ng i n the c ase , m ay aff i rm , rev erse o r mo d i f y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n w hen a fo rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no pre ceden t i al va l ue. W he n a ca se i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ” , sh a ll no t be pub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d O n B ri ef

A ugus t 4, 200 6 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE, ex rel. , K AR EN LEIGH C HUN N v. DO NN IE LEE COGG INS
Direc t Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Shelb y County No. F 7394 Ge orge E. Blancett , Special Jud ge

No. W2005-02231-C OA-R3-JV - F iled Augu st 15, 2006

T h is a p p e a l i s f

r o m a n o r d e r o f t h e tr i a l c o u r t d e n y i n g A p p e l l a n t ’ s m o t i o n f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e . We a ff ir m. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Juv e nileCo ur t A ffirm e d; and Rem anded
D AVI D R. F ARMER , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, inw h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
Gl e nw oo d P. Roane , Sr ., Me mph is, Te nn e sse e fo r the app e llant, Do nn ie L e e Cog g ins

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter an d J u an G. Villase nor, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee , ex. rel., Kare n L eig h Chunn.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 This matter beg an with the filing of a pe tition t o establish paternityalleg ing the appellant he re in, Do nn ie L e e Cog g ins , to be t he natur a l f a the r o f Z .A .C. a ndKa

re n L e ig h D ic ke y

Chu nn to be the mothe r o f s a id c hil d. Mr . Co g g ins wa s su bs e qu e ntl y or de re d to pay

c hil d s up po rt

. I n the e ns uin g y e ars , vari ou s pet iti on s we re fi le d an d ord e rs e nte re d hold ing Mr . Co g g ins in c on te mpt fo r f a ilu re to p a y c hil d su pp ort. I n Ma rc h 20 05 , a mot ion wa s fi le d to mod if y the su pp ort.-2-

An orde r wa s entere d in the court be low wher ein child support was inc rea s ed to $977 per month. I t is from that order

that Mr. Cog g ins appea ls to thi s Court. Although not stated as such, we perc eive the issue be fore this Court t o be whe ther the c ourt below er red in failing to g rant Mr. Cogg ins a continuanc e. He arg ues in his brief that at the time of the he ari ng wh ic h is the su bje c t of thi s a pp e a l, h e ha d r e qu est ed ce rt a in d oc ume ntatio n f ro m hi s certified public ac countant but had not re ceive d s am e. He contends that he re quested a short e xten sio n o f t ime a nda

re -s e tti ng of

thehe ari ng in or de r to obt a in the re qu e ste d d oc ume ntatio n. Hi s br ie f s tate s th a t th is r e q u e s t w a s “ f o r ma ll y ma d e b e f

o r e th e c o u r t a n d th u s w a s ma de a part of the re c or d o f s a me .” He state s th a t th is r e qu e st f or a c on tin ua nc e wa s den ie d an d re qu e sts thi s Co urt to re v er s e t h e c o u rt b el o w a n d re m an d t h e m at t erfo r f u rt h erh ea ri n g. The role of t his Court is to revie w the re cord f rom the court below to determine whether or no t e rr or ha s b e e n c omm itt e d a ndwh ic h, mor e pr ob ably than n ot, a ff

e c te d th e jud g me nt be low

. Th is Cou rt re vie ws fi nd ing s o f f

a c t by th e tr ia l c ou rt de novo u p o n t h e r e c o r d , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a pr e su mpt ionof

the c or re c tne ss o f the fi nd ing s, un le ss the pr epo nd eranc e of the e vid e nc e is otherwise. T enn. R. A pp. P. 3( d). Our revie w of this matter is hamper ed by the fa ct that the re cord befor e us conta ins ne ither a transcript nor a statement of the evidenc e of the proce eding s below. The rec ord bef

ore us c onsists of what is commonlyref err ed to as the technica l r ecor d. There fore , there is no recor d to support the “fa cts” a sserted by Mr. Cog g ins in his brief.
I n the abse nce of a transcript or st atement of the evidence, this Court presumes that the tria l court’s determination of fac ts is corr ect. Trial courts have broad discretion in decisions reg arding motions for a continuanc e. This Court is not wont to second g uess a trial co u rt ’s d ec i s ion on a motion for a continuanc e unless the r ecor d, revie wed a s a whole, shows a clea r abuse of discre tion or that clea

r prejudicia l e rror has been committed. Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc

. , 952 S.W .2d 413, 415 (Te n n . 1997). These decisions ar e fa ct spec ific and a re vie wed in the c ontext of all the circ umstances e x isting whe n the motion is filed. Nag ar aja n v . Te rry , 151 S.W .3d 166, 172 (Tenn. Ct. Ap p. 2 0 0 3 )

. I n t h e ab s e n c e o f a r e c o r d t o r e v i e w , w e c a n n o ts a y t h a tt h e tr i a l c o u r tab u s e d i ts discretion in denying the motion for continuance

. W e a ff i rm t h e j u d gm en ten t er ed b e l o w a n d re m an dt h e m at t erfo r f u rt h erp ro ce ed i n gs c on sis te nt w iththi s o pin ion . Co sts of thi s app e a l are ta xed to the app e llant, Do nn ie L e e Cog g ins , a n d h i s s u r e t y, f

o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE