### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs December 4, 2001 Sess ion STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEFFERY BOWERS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Fayette C ounty No. 5029 Jon Kerry Blackwood, Judge

No. W2001-01374-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 8, 2002

The Defendant, Jeffery Bowers, wa s convicted of speeding in the Circuit Court of Fayette County. He now appe als to this Co urt alleg ing th at his conviction should be reversed due to a conflict of interest in the Some

rville City

Court. We

affirm t he judgme

nt of the tr

ial cour t. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed
D AVID H. W ELLES , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which G ARY R. W ADE , P.J. and D AVID G. H AYES , J., joined. Jeffery Bowers, Somerville, Tennessee, Pro Se. Paul G. Summers , Attorne y Gener al and Re

porter; J . Ross D yer , Assistan t Attorne y Gener al; Elizabe th Rice, District Attorney General; and Thomas M. Minor, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Te nnessee. OPINION The Defendant was apparently convicted of speeding in the City Court of Somerville, Tennessee. He appa

rently un success fully app ealed hi s convicti on to the Cir cuit Court

of Fayett e County, Tenness ee. The

record in this case is sparse. There is neither a transcript of an evidentiary hearing nor a statement of evidence. See Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b),(c). The technical rec ord contains a copy of a Somerville, Tennessee citation charging the Defendant with speeding: driving seventyseven miles per hour in a sixty-five mile per hour zone. Other than the citation and the notices of appeal, the only ot

her docu ment in the

technic al reco

rd is th e “Final O

rder” o f the Circ

uit Court. That order f inds that th

e appea l from the City Court f

or the City

of Somerville, Ten

nessee i s not well taken, and further finds the Defendant guilty of spee ding.
It is the duty of the appellant to prepare a recor d that conveys a fair, accura te, and c omplete account of what transpired in the trial co urt w ith respect to the issues that form the basis for the appeal. See

Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b); State v. Miller , 737 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).-2-

When the rec ord is inc omplete a nd does no t contain

informat ion rele vant to a

particu lar issue , this Court may not make a ruling and must presume the correctness of the trial court’s ruling. See State v. Gibson , 973 S.W.2d 231, 244 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Appellate courts may only review what is in the record and not what might have been or should have been included. See Dearbo rne v. Sta te , 575 S.W.2d 259 , 264 (Te nn. 1978) . Attachm

ents to ap pell at e briefs, which are not a part of the record, do not constitute evidence to be reviewed by this Court. See State v. Matthews , 805 S.W.2d 776, 783-84 (T enn. Crim. App. 1990 ); Wilson v. St ate , 724 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986); Best v. Stat

e , 708 S.W.2d 421, 423 (Te nn. Crim. A pp. 1985) ; See State v. Melson , 638 S.W.2d 342, 351 (Tenn. 1982).
The Defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed because the City Judge for the City of Somerv

ille, who i nitially f

ound him to b e guilty of

speeding , is also the city attorney for the city of Somerville. The Defendant argues that due to this conflic t of inter est, the ju dge could

not have presided over the Defenda nt’s case impartially.
While we understand the Defendant’s conce rns t hat he was dealt with unfairly, we do not have an adeq

uate re cord bef

ore us tha t would all ow a mea

ningful a ppella te revie w. See Tenn. R. App. P. 24 (b). When no evidence is preserved in the record for our re view, we are precluded from considering the issues raised. See State v. Ballard , 855 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Tenn. 1993). As we have stated, when the record is inadequate, this Court must presume that the trial judge ruled correctly. This presumpt

ion is par ticularl y importan

t in a cas e like the one before us because the trial judge was in a position

to hear ev

idence o f the unde

rlying fa cts and th e allege d conflic t of inter est and make its ruling based upon the evidence introduced. The Circuit Court found the Defe ndant’s a ppeal to be without merit, and, without an adequate record, we c annot disturb that ruling. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE