1 The record contains a copy of a letter from the Defendant to the t rial court dat ed M ay 1, 2000, in which the Defendant states his desire to wit hdraw his plea . Accor ding to an order ente red by the tri al court on July 26, 2000, the De fenda nt app arently w ithdrew this prio r requ est. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE Assigned on

Briefs O ctober 1, 2002 STATE OF TENN ESSEE v. KEITH LERAN SO WELLS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County No. F-45319C James K . Clayton, Jr., Judge

No. M2002-00356-CCA-R3-CD - F iled October 22, 2002

The Defend ant, Keit

h Ler anso Wells, was indicted on four co un ts of es pe ci al ly a ggr av at ed ro bb er y, one count of aggravate d robbery, a nd one count of

aggravated assa

ult. The Def

endant pl ed guilt

y to two count s of espe cially aggr avated r obbery ; the rema

ining co unts were held in abeya nce pending resolution of the charges ag ainst the Defendant’s co -defendant s. The Defendant agreed that his sentencing would be delayed until those charges were resolved. Subseque nt to entry of the judgmen ts of conviction against the Defendant, but prior to his sentencing, the Defendant reque sted to withdraw his guilty plea . The trial court denied the Defendant’s reque st and this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed D AV ID H. W ELLES , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in whichJ AMES C URWOOD W ITT , J R . and A LAN E. G LENN , JJ., joined. Guy R. Dotson, Jr ., Murfr

eesboro , Tennes see, for

the appe llant, Ke ith Le ranso Wells. Paul G. Summers , Attorne y General and Repor

ter; Pete r M. Coug

hlan, Ass istant Atto

rney Genera l; and William C. Whitesell, Jr., District Attorney General, for the appellee , State of Tennessee. OPINION Alth ough the record before this Court contains several re ferences to a motion by the Defendant to withdraw his guilty plea, the r ecord does not contain a copy of the motion. 1 It

does, however, contain a transcript of the hearing r elevant to the Defendant’s request, held o n June 21, 2001. During this hearing, the Defendant testified that his conf ession to the police had been coerced andthat he was, in fact, inno ce nt of the crimes to which he had pled guilty . The hearing was not2 As p revio usly note d, the re cord doe s not co ntain a c opy o f the refere nced “M otion .” -2- completedon th at da y, a nd th e t ra ns cr ip t i nd ic at es th at th e a tt or ne ys on behalf of the parties, with the trial court’s agreement, intended to continue the hearing to a future date. Nevertheless, the record contains no tra nscrip t of any additional hea ring. We note that it is the appellant’s duty to prepare an adequate record relevant to the issues on appeal. SeeTenn. R. A

pp. P. 24(b ); State v. Robinson , 73 S.W.3d 136, 154 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). In August 2001 the trial court entered an order deny

ing the Defendant’s request to set aside his guilty plea. This order reference s a hearing date of July 30, 2001, butfurther states that “[t]he Defendant

relied on information set forth in said Motion 2 an d t he State . . . relied on Defendant’s testimony at the time he entered his plea on November 17, 1998.” Thus, it is unclear whether any additional proof was heard on July 30, 2001. The trial court denied the “Motion” on a finding that the Defend ant was “not being truthful now and tha

t he did und

erstand what wasgoing

on at the t ime he entered his plea.” In his brief, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in deny

ing his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as serting

that “the statemen t that he g ave res u lted f

rom the coercion of the police questioning him all da y a nd all night in a room, his age and inexperience in dea ling with the questioning techniques of the police.” The State maintains that the trial court did not er r. Prior to sentencing, a criminal defendant who has pled

guilty may

be allowed to withdraw his plea “upon a showing by the defendant of

any fair and just reason[.]” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(f). Thus, as previ ously

noted by this Court, a defendant “is not entitled to withdraw a plea of guilty as a matter of right.” State v. Turner , 919 S.W.2d 3 46, 355 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Moreover, “[t]he plea will not be set aside . . . merely because the defendant experiences a change of heart.” State v. Davis , 823 S.W.2d 217, 2 20 (Tenn . Crim. App . 1991). “ Whether th

e accus ed should

be permitted to withdraw

a plea of guilty is a question that is addressed to the sound discretion of thetrial court.” Turner , 919 S.W.2d at 355. This Court will not overturn the trial court’s decision absent a clear abuse of that discretion. See id. In this case, the trial court made a specific finding of fact that

the Defe ndant’s t estimony in support of his re quest wa s not cre dible. Thi s Court is in no position to second-guess the trial court’s findi ngs with respect to credibility, pa rticularly whe

n the record before us is incomplete. See State v. Oody , 8 23 S.W.2d 554, 559 (Ten n. Crim. Ap

p. 1991) (

holding t hat a tria l court’sruling i s presumedcorrect in theabsence of an adequate record on appeal). Mor eover, we note that the record does contain a transcript of the Defendant’s hea ring on his plea

of guilt, during which

occurred the following colloquy betwee n the tria l court a nd the Defendant : COURT: Now, why ar

e you enter

ing thes e two ple as of gu ilty this mor ning? DE FE ND AN T: Be ca us e I’ m g ui lt y.-3- COURT: Okay. Ha s anyone forced y ou or coerced you into entering these ple as? DEFENDANT: No, sir. CO UR T: Do you fe el li ke you ’r e e nt er in g t he m f re el y an d v ol un ta ri ly? DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. Additiona

lly, the Defe

ndant ans wered th

e prosec utor as f ollows: STATE: Mr. Well s, dur ing th e tim e that this case ha s been pendi ng, you’ve hadan opportunity to see a videotape where Detective Keisling and you were

talk in g about what happened. You’ve see n that tape; haven’t y ou? DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. STATE: And in t hat tape you make certain statements about what went on that night and about the people that were inv olved in th

is case; didn’t you? DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. STATE: And we re the statements that you ma de on that tape accurate? DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. This testimony supports the trial court’s conclusion that the Defendant was not being truthful with respect to his claim of a coerced conf ession. Becau se the Defendant

has failed to demons trate tha t the tria l court a bused its d

iscretio n in deny ing his motion to withdraw his g uilty plea, we affirm t he judg ment of the

trial cou rt.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WEL

LES, JUDGE