IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs May 20, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DEBRA L. HEATH

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Morgan County

 No. 2013-CR-17 E. Eugene Eblen, Judge

No. E2014-00555-CCA-R3-CD – Filed July 28, 2015

The Defendant-Appellant, Debra L. Heath, has appealed the Morgan County Criminal 

Court’s denial of her motions to suppress evidence obtained during searches of her 

property. The appellate record, however, does not contain a motion for new trial, a

transcript from a motion for new trial hearing, or an order denying a motion for new trial. 

Pursuant to Rule 3(e) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we conclude that 

the issue presented herein has been waived. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in 

accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T.

WOODALL, P.J., and D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., joined.

Harold E. Deaton, Jamestown, Tennessee, for the Defendant-Appellant, Debra L. Heath.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Clarence E. Lutz, Senior Counsel; 

Russell Johnson, District Attorney General; and Frank A. Harvey and Tiffany Smith,

Assistant District Attorneys General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Heath was indicted by the Morgan County Grand Jury for one count of cruelty to 

animals, a Class A misdemeanor, stemming from her failure to properly feed and care for 

her horses. See T.C.A. § 39-14-202. Heath filed three pre-trial motions to suppress, 

alleging that the Morgan County Sheriff’s Department conducted illegal searches of her 

property on July 17, 2012, and July 20, 2012. A suppression hearing was conducted on 

September 23, 2013, although no transcript from this hearing is included in the record,

and the hearing was continued to February 19, 2014. At the conclusion of the February 
-2-

19, 2014 hearing, the trial court orally denied the motion to suppress, although no order 

denying the motion is included in the record on appeal. The same day, Heath was 

convicted as charged, and the jury imposed a $2,000 fine. Pursuant to an agreement 

between the parties, Heath received a suspended sentence of eleven months and twentynine days to be served on unsupervised probation, her fine was waived on the ground of 

indigency, she surrendered the three horses involved in this case, and she was prohibited 

from owning any horses for the length of her sentence. 

Heath’s sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying her 

suppression motions. However, the record on appeal does not contain a motion for new 

trial, a transcript from a motion for new trial hearing, or an order denying a motion for 

new trial. A failure to file a motion for new trial waives all issues for appellate review 

other than the sufficiency of the evidence and sentencing. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e);

State v. Bough, 152 S.W.3d 453, 460 (Tenn. 2004). On July 2, 2015, by order of this 

court, we directed the circuit court clerk to supplement the record with the motion for 

new trial, the transcript of the motion for new trial hearing, the order denying the motion 

for new trial, and/or the minute entry denying the motion for new trial. See Tenn. R. App. 

P. 24(e) (“If necessary, the appellate or trial court may direct that a supplemental record 

be certified and transmitted.”); State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 279 (Tenn. 2012) 

(stating that an order of supplementation may be the proper remedy for any deficiencies 

in the record). This court was subsequently informed that “these documents have never 

been filed.” Therefore, despite our efforts, the record on appeal does not contain a

motion for new trial, a transcript of a hearing on the motion for new trial, or an order 

denying the motion for new trial.

As previously noted, the failure to file a written motion for new trial deprives a

defendant of the right to have a hearing on the motion and the opportunity to argue on 

appeal any issues that should have been presented in the motion for new trial. State v. 

Martin, 940 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tenn.1997)(internal citations omitted). Moreover, 

pursuant to Rule 3(e), “the failure to file a motion for a new trial, the late filing of a 

motion for a new trial, and the failure to include an issue in a motion for a new trial 

results in waiver of all issues which, if found to be meritorious, would result in the 

granting of a new trial.” State v. Keel, 882 S.W.2d 410, 416 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) 

(footnote omitted). The waiver provision of Rule 3(e), however, does not apply when the 

issue, if found to be meritorious, would result in the dismissal of the prosecution against 

the accused. 

The issue presented in this appeal was not properly preserved by a motion for new 

trial; therefore, based on the above authority, it has been waived. See, e.g. State v. 

Moses, 701 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985) (challenge to denial of motion to 

suppress waived because defendant failed to include issue in motion for new trial).
-3-

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of the

Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

_________________________________ 

CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, JUDGE