### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on

Briefs J uly 9, 2002 

### STATE OF TEN NESSEE v. RONALD DOTSON Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 99-12263 Joseph B. Dailey, Judge

No. W2001-02548-CCA-MR3-CD - F iled October 29, 2002

The defendant appeals his sentence of life imprisonment without parole a s a repeat violent offender because he was no t tried wit

hin 180 days of

arraignment. Because

the defendant did not prove that he suffer ed preju dice fr

om the del ay

in bring ing his case to trial, we affirm the decision of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed
J OHN E VERE TT W IL LI AMS , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which N ORMA M C G EE O GLE and A LAN E. G LENN , JJ., joined.
A C Wharton, J r., Distr

ict Public Defender ; W. Mark War d and Russe

ll White, Ass istant Publi c Defenders, for the appellant, Ronald Dotson. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter; Braden H. Bouc ek, Assistant Attorney Genera l; William L. Gib

bons, District Attorney

General; and Jennifer S. Nichols, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Te nnessee.

OPINION The defenda

nt, Ronald

Dotson, a ppeals hi s sentenc e of life without pa

roleas a repeat violent offender. See

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-120. The defendant contends that he could not be sentenced as a repeat violent of

fender because he was not tried within 180 days of arraignment. We disagree

. I. Facts On October 28, 1999, the d efendant was indicted for the September 2, 1998, ag gravated robbery of the David’s Food Store in Memphis owned by Kim Doan. On Nove mber 4, 1999, the defendant was arraigned. On February 9, 2000, the State served the defendant notice of his status as a repeat offender. The defendant was tried

and found guilty of a

ggravated robber

y by a jury on-2-

June 20-21, 20 01. A sent encing hearing was held on July 20, 2001. After finding the defenda nt to be a repeat violent offend e r, the trial court imposed the only a vailable sentence, life without the possibility of parole. The defendant does not dispute the sufficiency of evidenc e of the charge of ag gravated ro bb er y. At trial, the State introduced the victim’s testimony, a videota pe of the robbery , and th e defendant’s confession. The defenda nt does not allege any

prejudice. II. Analysis The defend ant argu es that he should not have been sentenced as a re peat violent offender because he was n ot tri ed wit hin 1 80 days of his ar raignm ent. T he defe ndant relie s upon the la nguage in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120(i)(1) tha t a repeat violent offender shall be t ried within 18 0 d ays of the arraignment on the indictment pursuant to Rule 10 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The defendant was arr aigned on Novemb er 4, 199 9, and wa s held in custody for one a

nd one-half years be fore being tried on July

20-21, 2001. The defen dant does not argue that he was prejudiced

by t he le ngt h of his custody but arg ues that the language of the statute should be construed, literally, to prohibit sentencing under the Repeat Violen t Offender Act, abs ent compliance with the 180-day rule

. The State argues that the defendant waived h is issue be cause

the record is incomplete. The Statecontends that the defendant did not include proof of the date of his arraignment or a copy of the State’s n otice of

the defe ndant’s s tatus as a

repeat violent of

fender in the technical r

ecord. I t is well established that the appellant has a “duty to prepare a

re co rd wh ic h c on ve ys a fair, accurate and comple te account of what transpired with respect to the issues forming the basis of the appeal

. ” Statev. Ballard , 855 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Tenn. 1993). If the appellate record is inadequate for r eview, this Court must presume that the trial court ruled correctly

. State v. Keen , 996 S.W.2d 842, 84 4 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
We conclude

that t he defe ndant did include adequate proof of the arra ignment date being November

4, 1999. Suc

h proof isf

ound i n the document titled, Order, which both states that the defendant appear ed in open court on arraignment and is signe d by the trial judge and the clerk of the court. The requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120(i)(1997) provide:

A charge as a repe at

violent offender shall be tried within one hundred eighty (180) days of the a

rraignment on the indictment pursuant to Rule 10 of the Rules of Criminal Pr

ocedure unless de lay is cause d by : (A) The defenda nt; (B) An e xamination f

or compe tency ; (C) A co mpete ncy hearin g; (D) An a djudicat ion of inc ompetency f

or trial; (E) A continuance allowed after a cour t’s d etermination of the defendant’s-3- physical incapa

city for a tria

l; or (F) An interlocutory a

ppeal. A continuance may be grant ed to an y pa rt y, including the court, for good cause shown. The defendant, however, does not allege prejudice as a result of any delay. This Court has held that th e 180-day

rule is not an iron clad rule to be construed in favor of the def endant. See State v. Thompson , 36 S.W.3d 102 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). Theref ore, the defenda nt, absent a showing of prejudic e, may

be sente nced as a repeat violent offender even thoug h he was not tried within 180 days of his arr

aignment. III. Conclusion Accordingly , we affirm the decision of the trial court.

____________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILL

IAMS, JUDGE