### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A SS IG N E D O N BR IE FS T O W E ST E RN S E CT IO N O N MA RC H 30, 200 7
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . SCOTTY H ENRY PACE, JR.

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Davidson County Nos. 04D-326 & 04D-327 M uriel Robins on, Jud ge

Nos. M2004-02156- COA-R3- CV & M 2004-02157-COA- R3-CV - F iled on Ju ly 30, 2007

The a ppellant’s for

mer g irlfriend obta ined an or der of protec tion ag ainst the appe llant in J une of 2003. I n Aug ust of 2003, the former girlfrie nd filed wa rra nts alleg ing two se parate violations of the order of protec tion by

the appe llant. The g ener al sessions court fo u n d the appe llant guilty of criminal conte mpt for both violations a nd sentenc ed the appellant to te n day s in ja il for ea ch off ense. Th e a pp e lla nt a pp eal ed to the c ir c uit

c ourt , w hic h h e ld a

he ari ngand

a ff ir me d th e c on vic tio ns

. Be cause the appellant has failed to include in the appe llate re cord the J une 2003 orde r of pr otection which he w as found to have violated, we a ffirm.

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

A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., and H O LLY M. K I RBY , J ., joined. Paula Og le B lair, Na shville, TN, for Appe llant

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Pa me la Ha y de n- Woo d, Se ni or C ou ns e l, Nashville, TN, f

or Appe lleeR ule 1 0 o f t he R ules o f

t he C o urt o f

A p p ea l s o f

T en ne ssee p ro vid es: 1

T h i s Cou r t , wi t h t h e co n c u r r e n c e of al l j u dg e s pa r t i c i pa t i n g i n t h e ca s e , ma y a f f i r m,
revers e o r mo d i f

y t he act io n s o f th e t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a f or m a l o p i n i o n w o u l d h a v e n o p r e c e d e n t i a l v a l u e

. W h e n a c a s e i s d e c i ded by

m e m o ra n d u m o p inio n it s h a ll b e d e sig n a te d “ M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ” , sha ll not be publ i s hed, and s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on f or a ny r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed

c a se

. -2-

MEMORAN DUM OP IN ION 1

I. F ACT S AND P R OC EDU R A L H I S T ORY This is a consolidated appe al of two c onvictions for cr im inal contempt for violations of a pr ote c tiv e or de r. Sta cy Hi ll obt a ine d a n o rd e r o f p ro te c tio n a g a ins t he r f or me r b oy fr ie nd , Sc ott

y He nry Pace, Jr.(“A

ppellant”) , on J une 3, 2003, fr om the Gene ral Sessions Court for Davidson County , T e nn e sse e . In A ugus t of 20 03 , Ms. Hil l f ile d tw o w arr ants fo r c ri min a l c on te mpt a g a ins t Appellant, alleg ing two se parate violations of the protec tive order

. One wa rra nt filed by

Ms. Hill, G.S. 140 8 9 6 , al l eg ed that Mr. Pac e violated the or der of pr ote c tio n o n A ugus t 15 , 2 00 3, thr ou g h a c tio ns de sc ri be d b y Ms. Hi ll a s f

oll ow s: The Responde nt indirectly contac ted the victim on 08/15/03 at Meg aTan (a business the victim freque nts). The Responde nt told “Z ack” [,] an employ ee at Me ga- T an to tell the victim “he loved he r and w as sorry that the whole thing happened.” The Respondent told “Z ack” not to tell the victim t hat he lef t the messag e.
Another w arr an t , G.S. 140897, was base d upon Ms. Hill’s alleg ations that on Aug ust 17, Appellant had c ome to a Na shville tanning sa lon, “Meg a Ta n,” wher e both she and Appe llant were appar ently

fre quent customers, w hile Ms. Hill and her daug hter we re pr esent. Ms. Hill ag ain swore by oath that the following events took plac e:

Th e R es p ondent came to Meg a-Ta n (a pla ce the victim freque nts). He c o n ta c te d th e v ic ti m’ s d a u g h te r ( w h o w a s in th e lo b b y ). The daug hter be came frig htened and went to the victim. The Responde nt then went to the pa

rking lot and contac ted Meg a-Ta n and asked how long the victim was g oing to be at the business. The victim then lef t the business. The Respondent was in the parking lot ( by the victim’s
c ar) . H e ho nk e d a s sh e wa s le a vin gthe pa rk inglot

.

On Octobe r 14, 2003, Mr. Pac e wa s found g uilty of cr iminal contempt by the Gene ral Sessions Court for two viol at i o n s o f an order for pr otection. Mr. Pace appea led to the Davidson-3-

County Circuit Court. The Honora ble Muriel Robinson conduc ted a bench tr ial in circuit cour t on September 2, 2004, at which the only two witness es we re Ms. Hill and Meg a Ta n employ ee Z ach Turner

. At the beg inning of the hea ring , counsel for

Mr. Pace acknow ledg ed that he ha d been unde r an orde r of pr otection during the time period in question. Ms. Hi l l t es t i fi ed that she ha d been at Meg a Ta n on Aug ust 17, in a tanning room, while her daug hter ha d been sitt ing in the l oung e. S he claimed that he r daug hter ha d come into the tanning room, “obviously upset and shakingand sca red

. . . cry ing, telling [ her] how S cotty had come in and talked to her .” Ms. Hill testified that she then g ather ed her

things a nd left th e b u i l d i n g wi th her da ug hter. She c laimed that when she and her daug hter we re r

unning to their

vehicle, she saw Mr. Pace sitti ng in his truck in the Meg a Ta n parking lot, an d that Mr. Pace honked his horn. Ms. Hill also briefly testified re g ardinganother alleg ed incident occ urring two day s ear lier in which Mr. Tur ner, the Meg a Ta

n employ ee, de livered a messag e to her

reg ardinga phone c onversation he had with Appellant.

Whe n Mr. Turn e r too k the sta nd , he te sti fi e d tha t Mr. Pa c e ha d en te re d M e g a Ta n o n A ug us t 17 , a nd that Mr. Tu rner a dv ise d M r. Pa c e to l e a ve un til Ms. Hi ll a nd he r d a ug hte r l e ft

in approximately

five or te n m i n u t es

. M r. Turne r testified that Mr. Pac e brie fly spoke to Ms. Hill’s daug hter on his way

back out to the pa

rking lot, “asking about his litt le g irl.” Mr. Turner testified t h at M s

. Hi l l ’s d au gh t er “s ee m edfi n e” af

t er t h i s o cc u rr ed , an d

t h at s h e c o n t i n u edre ad i n g a mag azine. Reg ardingthe phone c onversation that he had with Mr. Pace on Aug ust 15, Mr. Turner
re sp on de d to qu e sti on inga s f oll ow s: Q. All rig ht. And I want to ask y ou also about a phone call. Did y ou r e c e i v e a p h o n e c a l l f

r o m M r

. P a c e ar o u n d

t h a tt i m e ? A. Yes. Q. An d w hat di d h e say

in t hat ph on e c a ll? A. Th e be st I

re me mbe r is just that, y ou kn ow , sor ry a bo ut al l of this

. And I mean, you know, he still loved her. Q. And who wa s he re fer ring to? A. Stacy [Hil l]

. Q. Sorry about all of this and that he still loved her? A. Yea h.

. . . Q. What di d y ou

do a s a re su lt o f t

hat? A. I just tol d Stacy

about it. Q. Yo u to ld M s. Hi ll a

bo ut i t? A. Yea h. Q. Di d M r. Pa c e te ll you to s ay any thi ngor no t to say any

thi ngto Ms. Hi ll? A. No, ma’ am. Not to the best of my rec ollection.

Af te r h e ari ngte sti mony , th e tr ia l c ourt ann ounc e d it s r

uli nga s f oll ow s:-4- CO UR T: Al l r ig ht. Th e re are tw o ch arg e s of vio la tio n o f t his order of protec tion. This is what [ t] his Court finds based on the testimony , excluding the witness [Ms. Hill’s ten-y ear -o l d daug hter] that was not ruled c ompetent to testify

. The Court’s finding s are there was a valid order of protec tion that was issued. Mr. Pace was awa re of that order of protec tion. The proof shows that Mr. Pac e has v i o l at ed that orde r of pr otection by g oing to this tanning bed. This proof shows to this Court that she was at the tanningsalon. Her

car was visible. He w ent there . He talke d to the child, knowing he wa s under a n order of protec tion. He
e ng a g e d in

c on ve rs a tio n w ithhe r be fo re le a vin g

. Th is co ns tit ute s a violatio n o f th is o r d e r o f p r o te c ti o n , h im b e in g o n th e p r e mi s e s and talking to the child. There fore , [t ]he Court rules that the g uilty pleas
and the se nte nc ingfr om t

he Ge ne ra l Se ssi on s Co ur t is c or re c t. So if y ou will take him into custody . Twenty day s. MS. B L AI R [Ap pe lla

nt’ s a tto rn e y ]: Di d y our H on or fi nd him g uil ty on the oth e r o ne a s w e ll? COURT: Guilty

on the other one

. The trial court enter ed judgme nt f inding Mr. Pace guilty

of conte mpt for both violations of the order of protec tion and aff

irmed the judg ment of g ener al sessions imposing a te n-day sentenc e in jail for
eac h offe nse. Mr. Pac e filed a timely notice of a

ppeal of both convictions to this C ourt.

II. I SS U E P R ESENTED

T h e s o le is s u e p r e s e n te d f o r r e v ie w b y th is Co u rt o n a p p e a l is whe ther the e vidence pr e se nte d at tr ia l in

c ir c uit c ourt wa s su ff ic ie nt t o s us ta in the con vi ctio ns fo r c ri min a l c on te mpt

. Be cause Appellant has not include d a copy of t he order of protec tion from J une 3, 2003, in the rec ord filed on appe al, we a ffirm.

III
. D I S CUS S I ON

Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 6- 3- 60 6( a ) ( Sup p. 20 01 ) p ro vid e s in re le va nt p art : A protec t i o n o rd er g rante d under this par t to protect the pe titioner from domestic a

buse may include, bu t is no t li mi te d to : (1 ) D ir e ctin g the re sp on de nt t o r e fr a in f ro m c omm itt ingdo me sti c abuse or threatening to commit domestic abuse ag ainst the petitioner
or the pe tit ion e r’ s mi no r c hil dr e n; (2) Prohibiting t h e respondent from tele phoning, c ontacting , or o t h e r w i s e c o m m u n i c a t i n g w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n e r , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y; (3) Prohibi ting the responde nt from st alking the petit ioner, as defined in § 39-17-315 . . . .-5-

(e mph a sis a dd e d) . Wh e n a pe rs on is a rr e ste d f or vio la tin g an o rd e r o f p ro te c tio n, the c ourt sh a ll conduct a hear ing to de termine whe ther to hold that person in co n t em p t o f court. Cable v. Cle mm ons , 3 6 S. W.3 d 3 9, 42 (T e nn . 2 00 1) ; see also Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36- 3-611, -612 ( Supp. 2001). “Upon violation of the order of protec tion or a court-or dere d consent ag ree ment, the cour t
may ho ld t he de fe nd ant i n c ivi l or c ri min a l con te mpt and punis h the de fe nd ant i n a c c or da nc e wi th the law.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 3-610(a ) (Supp. 2001).

Violation of a c ourt’s lawf ul ord ers is contemptuous conduct, and per sons who do so may be found guilty

of cr iminal contempt and, in the abse nce of a specific statute, may be imprisoned for ten day s and fined $50 or both. T h i g p en v. Th igpen , 874 S.W .2d 51, 53 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).

“ [C]ri min a l c on te mpt s a

re ‘i nte nd e d to pr e se rv e the po we r a nd vin dic ate the dig nit

y and a uth or ity of the law , and the c ourt as an o rga n of society .’” Do ev . Bd . o f P ro f’ l Re sp ons ibi lit y of the Supre me Cour

t of Te nn. , 1 0 4 S

. W

. 3 d

4 6 5 , 4 7 4 (T en n

. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Bla c k v . Bl ount , 938 S.W .2d 39 4, 39 8 (T e nn

. 19 96 ))

. “ Pun ish me nt fo r c ri min a l c on te mpt is bo th punit ive and un c on dit ion a l in nature and ser

ves to adjudicate ‘a

n issue betwee n the public and the ac cused.’ ” Id. (q u o t i n g Black , 938 S.W .2d at 398)). I

n the t ri al o f a cr iminal contempt case , g uilt of the acc used must be established by

proof be y ond a re asonable doubt. Black , 9 3 8 S

. W

. 2 d at 398. A g uilty verdic t
remove s the presumption of innoce nce, a nd it is replace d with a pres u m p tion of g uilt. Id. at 399; see also Thigpen , 874 S.W .2d at 53 (“ Persons convicte d of cr iminal contempt lose their p r e s u mption of innoce nce . . . a

nd bear the burde n of over coming their pre sumption of guilt on appea l.”).

When the sufficie ncy

of the c onvicting e vidence is raised as an is sue on appe al, this Court must review the rec ord to de termine if the pr oof adduc ed at tria l supports the findings of the trier of fac t of g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt. Black , 938 S.W .2d at 399 (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e )). We do not rewe igh the proof, and the defe ndant has the burden of illust rating to this Court w hy the evidenc e is insufficient to support the ver dict. Id. We will not di sturb a ver dict of g uilt for lack of sufficie nt evidence unless the fa cts containe d in the rec ord and a ny infere nces which may

be dra wn from the f

acts a re insuff icient, as a

matter of la

w, fo r a ra t i onal trier of

fac t to find the defe ndant g uilty bey ond a re asonable doubt. Id. (c i t i n g Sta te e x r e l. A nde rso n v

. D aug he rty , 137 Tenn. 125, 12 7, 19 1 S. W. 9 74 , 9 74 (T e nn . 1 91 7) ; Sta te v . Cre as y , 885 S.W .2d 829, 831 (Te n n

. C ri m

. App. 1994)).

I n th is c a se , App e lla

nt co nte nd s in his bri e f that the State ha d to pro ve be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t th a t he vio la te d th e or de r o f p ro te c tio n b y te le phoning , c on ta c tin g , o r o the rw ise
c omm un ic a tin g wi th t

he pe tit ion e r, dir e c tly

or ind ir e c tly . H ow e ve r, Mr. P ace ha s n ot i nc lud e d in t h e ap p el l at e r ec o rda c o p y o f t h e o rd er

o f p ro t ec t i o nen t er edi nJ u n e 2 0 0 3

. T h er ef o re , al t h o u gh Appellant cor

rec tly cites Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-606( a)( 2) for one condition that may be imposed in a pr ote c tiv e or de r, we are un a ble to r e vie w t

he a c tua l sc op e of the pr ote c tiv e or de r at iss ue . Ru le 24 of the Te nnessee Rules of Appellate Proc edure allocate s the primary responsibility

of pre paring the transc ript or statement of the evidenc e t o M r. P ace as the a ppellant. See, e .g. , Troglen v. Troglen , No. E2004-00912-COA-R3-CV, 2005 Tenn. App. L EXI S 255, at *17 (Te nn. Ct. App. Apr. 28 , 2 00 5) . A dd iti on a lly , th e a pp e lla nt h a s th e pr ima

ry burd e n o f s e e ingthat a

pr op e r r e c or d is prepa red on a ppeal a nd filed in this Court. Id. (c iti ngTe nn . R. Ap p. P. 2 4; McDonald v. Onoh , 772-6-

S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)) . I n the abse nce of an ade quate r ecor d on appea l, this C ourt will presume that the tria l court’s ruling s were supported by sufficie nt evidence

. Ham rick’s, Inc.
v . She phe rd , 115 S.W .3d 468, 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). There fore , we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial court.

IV. C ONCL US I ON

For the fore g oing rea sons, w e aff irm the judgme nt of the trial court. Cos t s ar e assessed
a g a i n s tA p p e l l an t , S c o t t y H e n r y P a c e , J r

. , an 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 nm ay i s s u e i f n e c e s s a r y.

___________________________________ AL AN E. HI GHERS, J UDGE